Seriously. The last 20 years have seen British political life descend into the level of parody. Are we going to find out in another 20 years that the entire political class starting with Tony Blair was infected with some disease that ate their brains?
Except that they must need brains to line their own pockets with taxpayer's cash!
The GUI was a freaking nightmare. They implemented their own string class. How stupid is that? Well, they didn't just implement a string class, but they implemented a directory string class, a filename string class, a "volume" string class, a "volume info" string class, and about a dozen other string classes, most of which don't actually have any useful functionality, and just require all kinds of casting operators.
Sounds like the GUI came from a completly different project. Possibly even on a different platform from any TC uses.
Presumably their products are now free of unsaturated organic compounds:) Though they'll be in real trouble if someone pulls the same trick with Sigma.
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
What if the required by law, either in general or on a case by case basis, includes "claim it never happened"?
From what I have gathered, he didn't even speak to them. He simply expected them to come up to him and lust after his cock or something. It is really bizarre. He had no social skills *at all*,
Possibly because that's how things looked to him. Any skil set (including "social skills") can look like magic to someone who does not posess it. Quite a bit of social interaction, including sexual, is "non-verbal". (Sexual encounters which involve little even no verbal communication certainly do happen.) People with good non-verbal communication skills are often less conciously aware of non-verbal communication than those who are poor at non-verbal communication. With the former even assuming that all communication is verbal.
which seems to have been the result of him being awkward around the time high school started and him retreating into video games, mainly WoW.
More likely this was a reaction to his lack of social skills. Whilst the lack of a non verbal communication channel, in text based chat, is often considered a handicap this dosn't tend to be the case people who have difficulty with non verbal communication. Especially if their non verbal illiteracy means they are effectivly sending out "noise". Being verbally literate but non verbally illiterate appears to be especially confusing to the verbally and non verbally literate majority. In Western cultures, possibly others, whilst verbal communication is typically taught to both children and adults non verbal communication typically isn't.
The NSA isnt WATCHING, they are RECORDING and STORING for later use. Its a very different game.
They may well be watching. Just not WHO and WHY they claim to need the ability to do so. Which has often been the case throughout history. Any form of mass snooping appears to be far more often used against any kind of political dissent than homicidal mainiacs. It's not like he was anything like Mr Swartz...
Yes. In different words, there was "scientific consensus" on them. Remember that next time people throw that phrase around to convince you of the correctness of some idea.
There are some people who just won't get that "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Sometimes in general other times in quite spoecific cases.
And this is why it takes so long to overturn false scientific consensus. Scientific "conspiracies" aren't conspiracies of evil masterminds, they are merely mobbing using peer reviews and grant committees.
Often they arn't even any kind of "conspiracy" at all. More of a belief of "everyone knows X to be the case" with some logical fallacies (and egos) to prop things up.
Mental illness can range from the equivalent of a physical illness of a cold, or a bigger infection, or a life-long treatable condition like diabetes, or it can be severe like aggressive brain cancer.
Also a physical illness which affects the CNS might well be called a "mental illness" especially if a diagnosis isn't obvious.
One of the big problems is that anti-psychotic drugs have severe, and sometimes fatal, side effects. (Many of them cause severe weight gain, often enough to lead to diabetes.)
The idea that weight gain causes (T2) diabetes has two obvious flaws. The first is that there are plenty of obese non diabetics. The second is that at least 20% of people diagnosed T2 are "slim". This being a case of "correlation does not imply causation". Also diet is going to be a factor here. Someone frequently in hospital or just exposed to "medical professionals" might be more likely to eat the kind of low fat/high glucose diet pushed as "healthy" for the last 30 odd years.
It's actually difficult or impossible to find out whether a drug causes, say, fatal heart attacks, if they didn't show up with 1% frequency in 500 patients in 6 months in the original FDA approval trials.
It's unlikely that such trials would show any chornic side effects at all.
Doesn't castor beans also grow pretty much everywhere? As far as I know, it is even better than switchgrass.
They are also highly toxic. Which is a problem so long as vegetable (seed) oils are also used in food. How do you ensure that oil intended for fuel usage dosn't end up in food? If it's remotely possible to pass off "diesel fuel" as "cooking oil" someone will try to do so. Just as currently criminals put processed industrial cleaning fluid into vodka bottles.
and switchgrass does grow EVERYWHERE. But it doesn't have the hemp/cannabis/pot lobby behind it so we won't use that, either. Don't delude yourself that you somehow know the one true secret to energy. There are better alternatives to corn like hemp, but there are better alternatives to hemp like switchgrass.
Hemp has plenty of possible uses other then just producing ethanol. AFAIK you can't make rope or paper from switchgrass, nor does it produce useful alkaloids or oil rich seeds.
It grows nearly anywhere and produces both bio-diesel in the form of hemp seed oil (No expensive processing needed, just squeeze and filter from the seeds) and alcohol from fermenting plant biomass.
Probably why one of the names for the plant is "weed".
It's retarded how much the world is crippled because the lies about cannabis are still everywhere.
There's a frequently made claim that the Du Pont Chemical Company wanted hemp made illegal to be able to sell nylon rope. What makes hemp an attractive crop is that many parts of the plant can be used.
Brazil makes its ethanol from sugar cane, which is actually just about the best crop you can use for making ethanol. It grows fast and has high sugar content, which can easily be converted into ethanol. Unfortunately, sugar cane is rather picky about where it grows, and only a few tropical and semi-tropical environments support it.
The major reason behind the US annexation of Hawaii was sugar from sugar cane...
The U.S. makes most of its ethanol from corn. IIRC, corn is down around #12 for best crop to use to make ethanol, so low that many question if its even cost-effective (costs more to make than you can sell the ethanol for) or carbon-effective (production uses more energy than the ethanol contains). Why does the U.S. use such a poor crop for ethanol production? Because during the Great Depression, the U.S. suffered food shortages. In response, the U.S. began subsidizing food production to insure there's always an oversupply (this is why we pay farmers not to grow crops - so their fields are available for immediate use should a disaster like the Dust Bowl befall a signification fraction of our arable land). Most of those food subsides are for corn, which means we always have an oversupply of corn. Most of it gets used as feed for cattle. Some of it gets shipped overseas as foreign aid. And some clever chemists figured out a way to convert it into high fructose corn syrup as a substitute for sucrose.
Possibly HFCS is a byproduct of corn ethanol production. Since yeast does not produce amylase you'd first need to turn maize into corn syrup for it to be usable for fermentation. This step is effectivly the same as animal starch digestion. With some grains it's possible to use the plant's own beta amylase to produce maltose, this isn't the case with maize (or rice). Yeast can directly either the mostly sucrose extracted from sugar cane or the glucose, fructose and sucrose mix of fruit juices. HFCS also only makes sense with the traiff and subsidy structure present in the US anyway.
Then during the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s, someone got the bright idea of turning that excess corn into ethanol. It's a great idea because otherwise that corn would've rotted in grain silos, feeding rats and mice. You've already paid for its production so it's a sunk cost - the fact that corn isn't an ideal ethanol crop doesn't matter because by this point it's basically free. You're going to lose the money you spent growing the corn anyway, so might as well put it to good use. So in the context of things to do with excess corn, converting it to ethanol is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the Corn lobby then got its hands on it. Now we're growing corn for the sole purpose of converting it into ethanol. The economics which make corn ethanol work for excess corn completely break down when you're growing corn just to convert it into ethanol. Now the cost to grow the corn is no longer a sunk cost; it's a real cost which needs to be added into the price of the ethanol.
This is often the case with "bio-fuels". Made from a surplus or waste product they are cost effective. If crops are being specifically grown they start being expensive. Either directly or by displacing other crops.
This is the scam. Ethanol as a fuel is fine. Corn ethanol is a scam. Eliminate the corn ethanol subsidies and the corn ethanol industry implodes because it's uneconomical and uncompetitive with other crops. I hear sugar beets mentioned frequently as a better ethanol crop which will grow readily in the U.S. (they actually produce more sugar than sugar cane, just grow slower).
The actual problem here probably has more to do with a system of tariffs and subsidies which dates back at least as far as the late 19th century. A political rather than agricultural problem.
So, how much fossil fuel is used to grow & harvest the corn? And then there's the whole "distill it" part. Not sure how much energy is used to distill corn liquor as opposed to gasoline....
Quite a few "green" ideas turn out to have a higher "carbon footprint" compared with simply using "fossil fuels".
For example: the dual fuel engines that can burn gasoline or methane, where because of the design compromises for the two fuel convenience, neither fuel operates at optimal function.
You'd also need two separate fuel tanks in such a vehicle. Since there is no way liquid and compressed gas can go in a single tank. Alcohols can be mixed with liquid hydrocarbons in the same tank.
It's also true that sometimes, I've found the users of a product who are interested enough in it to frequent forums in the first place will know MORE about it than the staff at the company who sells it!
Makes sense if the people selling/supporting it rarely actually use it. Whereas with OSS developers often are users.
Which often makes telephones the most expensive form of communication. (Even if the call isn't being charged for.)
Of course, since your time is involved, you should be paid. The only problem I have is customers that expect that they should have access to your time for free.
I've encountered quite a few companies who expect access to their customers time for free. Including insisting on phoning instead of either replying to emails or updating a web forum/ticketing system.
The problem is they are taking it WAY to far. I expect to be able to get a PERSON on the phone when it comes to technical problems or warranty issues. Too often im forced to fill out forms and am directed to the forums instead of a CS rep. No amount of tech will change the fact that they will ALWAYS need people in Customer Service.
The phone is only any good if you can easily use it to contact someone who can deal with your issue. IME filling out a web form is a far better alternative to navigating complex call gate systems, being put on hold, transfered and quite possibly never speaking to someone who can actually do anything. Which can easily end up being a very time consuming and frustrating experience. Even thouigh searching a forum can be also time cosuming at least you have some control over the procedings. Putting a support line "on hold" tends to result in having to start from scratch.
Try following Google support forms. Very often you have a serious problem like all your Google sites determinedly dumping you onto the wrong language and will simply find months of customer discussions of "it's still not fixed". It's even funnier when it turns out that there is a work around but it's in a different thread started some time after the first but with completely unassociated keywords and an explanation which, while correct is clearly incomprehensible to most of their customers.
This is the point at which you need good moderation. To ensure that people finding the first thread are directed to the second.
The really nasty part of this, and you'll see this on any "community forum" for any product of any complexity, is the amount of BS and crap information being repeated as gospel, without correction or clarification from the vendor. One guy who has a flukey problem posts a sketchy "solution," other people extrapolate from it, n00bz try to apply it to completely unrelated issues and fail, they complain about not getting "support," whine when the board veterans and few people who DO know something don't immediately reply to their vague posts, the n00bz leave, the veterans fall away, and "community support" rapidly becomes "no support."
You can also see the vague (and possibly incomplete) "solution" being cut and pasted several times to a thread without any attempt to clarify or expand on it. As well as cases where the "solution" actually applies to a vaguely similar issue.
I've seen this occur over and over in situations where "community support" isn't accompanied by skilled, consistent moderation AND intercession by the paid support techs and the developers
Moderation is also needed to deal with trolls and spammers. Even with "paid support techs" these may be far removed from the actual developers. Where as with OSS "community support" there are often few "middlemen" involved.
That and the fact that governments actually do not like the idea of having people transferring money to each other through a system like Paypal, where they do not have the same control they have when payments are made by traditional means. Especially in my country where the government would prefer that the citizens would be prohibited from buying overseas.
If you qualify this as "buying certain things overseas" that covers the vast majority of governments. Also transnational businesses also tend to want to prevent "customer globalization". Probably they do lots of lobbying of various governments towards this end.
A person allowing their picture to be taken in an intimate setting (naked) can given consent for private use only without giving consent to copyright, most couples view these sorts of pictures to have a private purpose, threfore it is easy to assume that the consent is private use only.
Copyright isn't the only issue here anyway. Laws protecting privacy, including data protection (a legal concept which barely exists in the USA), can also apply here. Concepts such as data not being held longer than necessary could equally well apply to personal relationships as business relationships.
One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.
The other obvious issue here is that not all roads are "public ground" in the first place. A private road which is also "public right of way" would be functionally identical to a "public road" to any normal road user, but not to a "private surveyer".
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. The last 20 years have seen British political life descend into the level of parody. Are we going to find out in another 20 years that the entire political class starting with Tony Blair was infected with some disease that ate their brains?
Except that they must need brains to line their own pockets with taxpayer's cash!
I assumed that the terrorist called CD would be Celine Dione, but I guess Caleb is equally likely.
How about Cameron, David? That would explain the need for it to be secret.
A lot of GNU tools haven't been updated in around two decades yet no one feels like they need to be rewritten.
If it ain't broke don't try to "fix" it.
I was shocked to find out the other day that the cron most Linux distributions use was last updated in 1993.
How have the requirments of cron changed in lthe last 20, even 40, years?
The GUI was a freaking nightmare. They implemented their own string class. How stupid is that? Well, they didn't just implement a string class, but they implemented a directory string class, a filename string class, a "volume" string class, a "volume info" string class, and about a dozen other string classes, most of which don't actually have any useful functionality, and just require all kinds of casting operators.
Sounds like the GUI came from a completly different project. Possibly even on a different platform from any TC uses.
Presumably their products are now free of unsaturated organic compounds :)
Though they'll be in real trouble if someone pulls the same trick with Sigma.
Not voluntarily unless required by law? Why do companies release statements like this? It just makes them seem more guilty. Better not to say anything.
What if the required by law, either in general or on a case by case basis, includes "claim it never happened"?
From what I have gathered, he didn't even speak to them. He simply expected them to come up to him and lust after his cock or something. It is really bizarre. He had no social skills *at all*,
Possibly because that's how things looked to him. Any skil set (including "social skills") can look like magic to someone who does not posess it. Quite a bit of social interaction, including sexual, is "non-verbal". (Sexual encounters which involve little even no verbal communication certainly do happen.) People with good non-verbal communication skills are often less conciously aware of non-verbal communication than those who are poor at non-verbal communication. With the former even assuming that all communication is verbal.
which seems to have been the result of him being awkward around the time high school started and him retreating into video games, mainly WoW.
More likely this was a reaction to his lack of social skills. Whilst the lack of a non verbal communication channel, in text based chat, is often considered a handicap this dosn't tend to be the case people who have difficulty with non verbal communication. Especially if their non verbal illiteracy means they are effectivly sending out "noise".
Being verbally literate but non verbally illiterate appears to be especially confusing to the verbally and non verbally literate majority.
In Western cultures, possibly others, whilst verbal communication is typically taught to both children and adults non verbal communication typically isn't.
The NSA isnt WATCHING, they are RECORDING and STORING for later use. Its a very different game.
They may well be watching. Just not WHO and WHY they claim to need the ability to do so.
Which has often been the case throughout history. Any form of mass snooping appears to be far more often used against any kind of political dissent than homicidal mainiacs. It's not like he was anything like Mr Swartz...
Yes. In different words, there was "scientific consensus" on them. Remember that next time people throw that phrase around to convince you of the correctness of some idea.
There are some people who just won't get that "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Sometimes in general other times in quite spoecific cases.
And this is why it takes so long to overturn false scientific consensus. Scientific "conspiracies" aren't conspiracies of evil masterminds, they are merely mobbing using peer reviews and grant committees.
Often they arn't even any kind of "conspiracy" at all. More of a belief of "everyone knows X to be the case" with some logical fallacies (and egos) to prop things up.
Mental illness can range from the equivalent of a physical illness of a cold, or a bigger infection, or a life-long treatable condition like diabetes, or it can be severe like aggressive brain cancer.
Also a physical illness which affects the CNS might well be called a "mental illness" especially if a diagnosis isn't obvious.
One of the big problems is that anti-psychotic drugs have severe, and sometimes fatal, side effects. (Many of them cause severe weight gain, often enough to lead to diabetes.)
The idea that weight gain causes (T2) diabetes has two obvious flaws. The first is that there are plenty of obese non diabetics. The second is that at least 20% of people diagnosed T2 are "slim". This being a case of "correlation does not imply causation".
Also diet is going to be a factor here. Someone frequently in hospital or just exposed to "medical professionals" might be more likely to eat the kind of low fat/high glucose diet pushed as "healthy" for the last 30 odd years.
It's actually difficult or impossible to find out whether a drug causes, say, fatal heart attacks, if they didn't show up with 1% frequency in 500 patients in 6 months in the original FDA approval trials.
It's unlikely that such trials would show any chornic side effects at all.
Doesn't castor beans also grow pretty much everywhere? As far as I know, it is even better than switchgrass.
They are also highly toxic. Which is a problem so long as vegetable (seed) oils are also used in food. How do you ensure that oil intended for fuel usage dosn't end up in food? If it's remotely possible to pass off "diesel fuel" as "cooking oil" someone will try to do so. Just as currently criminals put processed industrial cleaning fluid into vodka bottles.
and switchgrass does grow EVERYWHERE. But it doesn't have the hemp/cannabis/pot lobby behind it so we won't use that, either. Don't delude yourself that you somehow know the one true secret to energy. There are better alternatives to corn like hemp, but there are better alternatives to hemp like switchgrass.
Hemp has plenty of possible uses other then just producing ethanol. AFAIK you can't make rope or paper from switchgrass, nor does it produce useful alkaloids or oil rich seeds.
It grows nearly anywhere and produces both bio-diesel in the form of hemp seed oil (No expensive processing needed, just squeeze and filter from the seeds) and alcohol from fermenting plant biomass.
Probably why one of the names for the plant is "weed".
It's retarded how much the world is crippled because the lies about cannabis are still everywhere.
There's a frequently made claim that the Du Pont Chemical Company wanted hemp made illegal to be able to sell nylon rope. What makes hemp an attractive crop is that many parts of the plant can be used.
Brazil makes its ethanol from sugar cane, which is actually just about the best crop you can use for making ethanol. It grows fast and has high sugar content, which can easily be converted into ethanol. Unfortunately, sugar cane is rather picky about where it grows, and only a few tropical and semi-tropical environments support it.
The major reason behind the US annexation of Hawaii was sugar from sugar cane...
The U.S. makes most of its ethanol from corn. IIRC, corn is down around #12 for best crop to use to make ethanol, so low that many question if its even cost-effective (costs more to make than you can sell the ethanol for) or carbon-effective (production uses more energy than the ethanol contains). Why does the U.S. use such a poor crop for ethanol production? Because during the Great Depression, the U.S. suffered food shortages. In response, the U.S. began subsidizing food production to insure there's always an oversupply (this is why we pay farmers not to grow crops - so their fields are available for immediate use should a disaster like the Dust Bowl befall a signification fraction of our arable land). Most of those food subsides are for corn, which means we always have an oversupply of corn. Most of it gets used as feed for cattle. Some of it gets shipped overseas as foreign aid. And some clever chemists figured out a way to convert it into high fructose corn syrup as a substitute for sucrose.
Possibly HFCS is a byproduct of corn ethanol production. Since yeast does not produce amylase you'd first need to turn maize into corn syrup for it to be usable for fermentation. This step is effectivly the same as animal starch digestion. With some grains it's possible to use the plant's own beta amylase to produce maltose, this isn't the case with maize (or rice). Yeast can directly either the mostly sucrose extracted from sugar cane or the glucose, fructose and sucrose mix of fruit juices. HFCS also only makes sense with the traiff and subsidy structure present in the US anyway.
Then during the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s, someone got the bright idea of turning that excess corn into ethanol. It's a great idea because otherwise that corn would've rotted in grain silos, feeding rats and mice. You've already paid for its production so it's a sunk cost - the fact that corn isn't an ideal ethanol crop doesn't matter because by this point it's basically free. You're going to lose the money you spent growing the corn anyway, so might as well put it to good use. So in the context of things to do with excess corn, converting it to ethanol is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the Corn lobby then got its hands on it. Now we're growing corn for the sole purpose of converting it into ethanol. The economics which make corn ethanol work for excess corn completely break down when you're growing corn just to convert it into ethanol. Now the cost to grow the corn is no longer a sunk cost; it's a real cost which needs to be added into the price of the ethanol.
This is often the case with "bio-fuels". Made from a surplus or waste product they are cost effective. If crops are being specifically grown they start being expensive. Either directly or by displacing other crops.
This is the scam. Ethanol as a fuel is fine. Corn ethanol is a scam. Eliminate the corn ethanol subsidies and the corn ethanol industry implodes because it's uneconomical and uncompetitive with other crops. I hear sugar beets mentioned frequently as a better ethanol crop which will grow readily in the U.S. (they actually produce more sugar than sugar cane, just grow slower).
The actual problem here probably has more to do with a system of tariffs and subsidies which dates back at least as far as the late 19th century. A political rather than agricultural problem.
So, how much fossil fuel is used to grow & harvest the corn? And then there's the whole "distill it" part. Not sure how much energy is used to distill corn liquor as opposed to gasoline....
Quite a few "green" ideas turn out to have a higher "carbon footprint" compared with simply using "fossil fuels".
For example: the dual fuel engines that can burn gasoline or methane, where because of the design compromises for the two fuel convenience, neither fuel operates at optimal function.
You'd also need two separate fuel tanks in such a vehicle. Since there is no way liquid and compressed gas can go in a single tank. Alcohols can be mixed with liquid hydrocarbons in the same tank.
It's also true that sometimes, I've found the users of a product who are interested enough in it to frequent forums in the first place will know MORE about it than the staff at the company who sells it!
Makes sense if the people selling/supporting it rarely actually use it. Whereas with OSS developers often are users.
The customer's time is valuable too.
Which often makes telephones the most expensive form of communication. (Even if the call isn't being charged for.)
Of course, since your time is involved, you should be paid. The only problem I have is customers that expect that they should have access to your time for free.
I've encountered quite a few companies who expect access to their customers time for free. Including insisting on phoning instead of either replying to emails or updating a web forum/ticketing system.
The problem is they are taking it WAY to far. I expect to be able to get a PERSON on the phone when it comes to technical problems or warranty issues. Too often im forced to fill out forms and am directed to the forums instead of a CS rep. No amount of tech will change the fact that they will ALWAYS need people in Customer Service.
The phone is only any good if you can easily use it to contact someone who can deal with your issue. IME filling out a web form is a far better alternative to navigating complex call gate systems, being put on hold, transfered and quite possibly never speaking to someone who can actually do anything. Which can easily end up being a very time consuming and frustrating experience. Even thouigh searching a forum can be also time cosuming at least you have some control over the procedings. Putting a support line "on hold" tends to result in having to start from scratch.
Try following Google support forms. Very often you have a serious problem like all your Google sites determinedly dumping you onto the wrong language and will simply find months of customer discussions of "it's still not fixed". It's even funnier when it turns out that there is a work around but it's in a different thread started some time after the first but with completely unassociated keywords and an explanation which, while correct is clearly incomprehensible to most of their customers.
This is the point at which you need good moderation. To ensure that people finding the first thread are directed to the second.
The really nasty part of this, and you'll see this on any "community forum" for any product of any complexity, is the amount of BS and crap information being repeated as gospel, without correction or clarification from the vendor. One guy who has a flukey problem posts a sketchy "solution," other people extrapolate from it, n00bz try to apply it to completely unrelated issues and fail, they complain about not getting "support," whine when the board veterans and few people who DO know something don't immediately reply to their vague posts, the n00bz leave, the veterans fall away, and "community support" rapidly becomes "no support."
You can also see the vague (and possibly incomplete) "solution" being cut and pasted several times to a thread without any attempt to clarify or expand on it. As well as cases where the "solution" actually applies to a vaguely similar issue.
I've seen this occur over and over in situations where "community support" isn't accompanied by skilled, consistent moderation AND intercession by the paid support techs and the developers
Moderation is also needed to deal with trolls and spammers. Even with "paid support techs" these may be far removed from the actual developers. Where as with OSS "community support" there are often few "middlemen" involved.
That and the fact that governments actually do not like the idea of having people transferring money to each other through a system like Paypal, where they do not have the same control they have when payments are made by traditional means. Especially in my country where the government would prefer that the citizens would be prohibited from buying overseas.
If you qualify this as "buying certain things overseas" that covers the vast majority of governments. Also transnational businesses also tend to want to prevent "customer globalization". Probably they do lots of lobbying of various governments towards this end.
A person allowing their picture to be taken in an intimate setting (naked) can given consent for private use only without giving consent to copyright, most couples view these sorts of pictures to have a private purpose, threfore it is easy to assume that the consent is private use only.
Copyright isn't the only issue here anyway. Laws protecting privacy, including data protection (a legal concept which barely exists in the USA), can also apply here. Concepts such as data not being held longer than necessary could equally well apply to personal relationships as business relationships.
One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.
The other obvious issue here is that not all roads are "public ground" in the first place. A private road which is also "public right of way" would be functionally identical to a "public road" to any normal road user, but not to a "private surveyer".