Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.
I bought a Toyota Highlander Hybrid last year. And while I enjoy being smug about the environment, I'm in it for the money, and so far, it's paying off. I have a spouse and two small children that need to be shuttled around to daycare and pre-school. We live in San Francisco. This city driving is ridiculous for traditional gasoline cars. We traded in a nice compact for the Highlander. The compact got great highway miles, around 32 MPG, but most of the miles were city stop-and-go. The compact car got around 21 MPG over a long period of time in our mix of driving. The Highlander gets a little over 30. Yes, really. Not Prius-great, but SUV-great.
I consider that I paid approximately $5,000 more for the hybrid version. But I just got $2,600 from the government for having bought the vehicle before 10/1/2006. Now I've paid only $2,400 more. I'm guessing that the non-hybrid Highlander would get about 17-18 MPG in our mix of driving. So a difference of 12 MPG. Gas in San Francisco is $3/gal, 800 gallons. Thus after just 36,000 miles I'm ahead.
I'm much more smug about my wallet than the environment (which is how it should be).
We've covered this already. The sites (hers and mine) explicitly exclude certain activities. One is not required to physically protect something in order to be protected legally.
1. Is her site HTML 4? 2. Is HTML 4 a de-jure standard? Even a de-facto one (include percentages if you think so) 3. This describes creation of such a file, not adherence. 4. This still does not exclude other types of access limitations.
Who says websites are "expected to be public places"? I surely don't. And in any case, this woman's, and others' websites are clearly marked in the language of the website, what the terms of use are. Any explicit statement trumps any supposed assumption...
Since you agree, there is nothing wrong -- we'll just all follow the laws. Nothing to complain about... Nothing to complain about when someone is taken to court for violating them...
You don't understand, because you don't understand...
I, in fact, understand how the net works, and I also understand that the net does not obviate the requirement to adhere to contractual (and other) law. Click-through agreements are LEGAL. English text messages warning against trespass are LEGAL. This is the way the world works, and complaining is pointless.
Why is my website presumed public? I have not given out any public notice, not provided any public information, direction, etc. And indeed it explicitly states it is not for public consumption.
Don't be such an ass... If you don't want to participate in a discussion with someone you disagree with, then shut up. Don't try to get the last word in in such an asinine way... [Or you could just wait for more of the idiotic moderators who mark my otherwise-unmoderated posts as "overrated" in an attempt to silence my slashdot heresy...]
My private house is on a publicly accessible street.
My private web server is connected to the publicly accessible internet.
Many people have gone to jail with the argument that since my door was unlocked, it's not theft.
Many people have gone to jail with the argument that since my website was not properly protected, it's not illegal to break in, steal things, etc...
No, billboards are by their nature intended to be seen by as many people as possible, in the general public. In fact they are intentionally made to be unavoidable. You have to intentionally seek out a website. Nobody is shoving websites in front of your eyes (except possibly for that msn.com website M$ tries to foist on everybody using their browser). I have a website that is accessible on the net, but i haven't give you, or any service, company, non-profit, etc. the directions to, the content contained therein, etc. It is a private website solely for the purposes of showing content to the friends and family I explicitly direct to it.
Are the humans running archive.org aware that many (most) sites contain copy-protected content? Scroll to the bottom of this very page you're reading, for example.
Scale is legally irrelevant. Sorry, but this is the legal truth.
I'm not suggesting anybody write a perfect natural language processor. That would be ridiculous. I'm suggesting that English-language websites containing English-language terms of service are enforceable on the human that run the copyright-violating crawlers. If this makes their business models untenable, so be it. This is not my, or that crazy lady's problem...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about your favourite foods, but oak chippings is way down on my list...
Any your damned pets!
I consider that I paid approximately $5,000 more for the hybrid version. But I just got $2,600 from the government for having bought the vehicle before 10/1/2006. Now I've paid only $2,400 more. I'm guessing that the non-hybrid Highlander would get about 17-18 MPG in our mix of driving. So a difference of 12 MPG. Gas in San Francisco is $3/gal, 800 gallons. Thus after just 36,000 miles I'm ahead.
I'm much more smug about my wallet than the environment (which is how it should be).
If you sneak a peek at me in the men's room, are my private parts no longer private?
Why? I'm not required to put bars on my windows to keep the burglars out.
"Sorry, sir, but since your windows weren't barred, no crime was committed."
Since it's a convention, not standard, and even less of a regulation, there is no expectation of adherence. And in fact, it's widely ignored...
We've covered this already. The sites (hers and mine) explicitly exclude certain activities. One is not required to physically protect something in order to be protected legally.
I am talking about existing, written law.
You still don't get it... *Any* explicit notice trumps any assumed expectation. Period.
And your selective editing proved *nothing*...
1. Is her site HTML 4?
2. Is HTML 4 a de-jure standard? Even a de-facto one (include percentages if you think so)
3. This describes creation of such a file, not adherence.
4. This still does not exclude other types of access limitations.
Common law is not universal, nor does is trump explicit acts.
I'm not the one who is hiding behind a meta-argument, nor did I initiate it, anonymous coward....
Nice job of selective editing -- my explicit notice trumps your "expectation".
Who says websites are "expected to be public places"? I surely don't. And in any case, this woman's, and others' websites are clearly marked in the language of the website, what the terms of use are. Any explicit statement trumps any supposed assumption...
Since you agree, there is nothing wrong -- we'll just all follow the laws. Nothing to complain about... Nothing to complain about when someone is taken to court for violating them...
Better solution: adhere to all laws, even when inconvenient for robots.
You don't understand, because you don't understand...
I, in fact, understand how the net works, and I also understand that the net does not obviate the requirement to adhere to contractual (and other) law. Click-through agreements are LEGAL. English text messages warning against trespass are LEGAL. This is the way the world works, and complaining is pointless.
WRONG!
The robots.txt is NOT a standard nor is it anything close to universally accepted.
Why is my website presumed public? I have not given out any public notice, not provided any public information, direction, etc. And indeed it explicitly states it is not for public consumption.
And my robot does indeed exist, you could check out http://www.secrets-of-public-closets.com/ but that's not a public website...
Yes, there is a rule against it -- it's called "unlawful entry."
Don't like getting sued by website operators when you violate their terms of service? Stay out of their websites!
Don't be such an ass... If you don't want to participate in a discussion with someone you disagree with, then shut up. Don't try to get the last word in in such an asinine way... [Or you could just wait for more of the idiotic moderators who mark my otherwise-unmoderated posts as "overrated" in an attempt to silence my slashdot heresy...]
My private house is on a publicly accessible street.
My private web server is connected to the publicly accessible internet.
Many people have gone to jail with the argument that since my door was unlocked, it's not theft.
Many people have gone to jail with the argument that since my website was not properly protected, it's not illegal to break in, steal things, etc...
Exactly! Or how about, "But officer--my car can't read those signs!"
No, billboards are by their nature intended to be seen by as many people as possible, in the general public. In fact they are intentionally made to be unavoidable. You have to intentionally seek out a website. Nobody is shoving websites in front of your eyes (except possibly for that msn.com website M$ tries to foist on everybody using their browser). I have a website that is accessible on the net, but i haven't give you, or any service, company, non-profit, etc. the directions to, the content contained therein, etc. It is a private website solely for the purposes of showing content to the friends and family I explicitly direct to it.
Are the humans running archive.org aware that many (most) sites contain copy-protected content? Scroll to the bottom of this very page you're reading, for example.
Scale is legally irrelevant. Sorry, but this is the legal truth.
I'm not suggesting anybody write a perfect natural language processor. That would be ridiculous. I'm suggesting that English-language websites containing English-language terms of service are enforceable on the human that run the copyright-violating crawlers. If this makes their business models untenable, so be it. This is not my, or that crazy lady's problem...
Sure I can. I just neglect to read anything.