Correct. I just appeared in a hospital. So when a newborn baby's mother carries the baby home from a hospital, how does she know which land they are allowed to cross to get home?
Public roads are marked. Sidewalks are public. Follow the public roads until she gets to her private driveway.
You assert that my world view (entry allowed by default) is nonsense. I assert that your world view (entry forbidden by default) is nonsense. How can either of us know who is right, other than by discussing this?
Without personal property rights, you really can't have any of your other rights. If you want to live in a free society, you must include personal property rights. If you want to live in a socialist or communist society, you're free to do so. But this is the US, and it was founded as a free society.
Well, if you belive Tesla Motors it would cost "a few dollars" to fully charge their car for 300 miles. People could switch out incandecent lights for CFs and save probably more than it would take to charge their car. The benefit to electric cars is that as we find more advanced or clears ways to gather energy, the cars don't need to ever change, except perhaps to use their electricty more efficently. Electric cars also are cheaper to maintain, meaning we can all spend money on other things, and which would also reduce the costs to transport other things.
All in all, the electric car is the way to go; we don't need to do anything special to transport electricity, it's already in every home, and we won't have a situtation like we do today were cars throw out a lot of pollution, and the only way to fix it is to ask everyone to toss away their old car.
True, but your bring your own bags are by far the most difficult for cashiers / baggers to load up, thus increasing the amount of time everyone is there. About the only thing worse are the jackasses that would ask for paper IN plastic. Ugh.
Well, to be fair, almost every bit of plastic I use (like those bags) gets recycled.
And while trees may renew faster than oil, they are much more important than oil. They help create the oxygen we need to live. People lived a long time without oil however. Also, deforstation helps along desertification, which also has an effect on climate.
Google? Responsive? You've never had to deal with them, have you? Do you really think they'd admit that they got a request and ignore it? Especially now that they are being sued? That would kill them instantly in court.
As far as the number of shared driveways go; I lived in PA most of my life, I have yet to find a shared driveway NOT marked as private. As I said, they were marked for 911 reasons, you really think they just "forgot" to put the marking on some of the roads? Please.
Well, most/.ers would perfer that technology discussions defer to our expertise, I think it's only fair to do the same for a lawyer. Reading and understanding the law is kinda their whole job, you know?
Not so -- there is quite a bit of photographic evidence that shows a lack of signage. Is it conclusive? No, but it's enough to make assumptions on a Slashdot comment board.
Not nearly conclusive enough.
I don't think you should be assuming that.
Hmm, what is it that/.ers say, something like government should defer to experts in the field when making technology laws...
The lawyer is an expert in law. My assumption is much more solidly grounded than the assumption that there are no signs. Other posters have even pointed out there are signs that cannot be read. Those very well could be the signs you're looking for.
The problem is you're focusing SOLEY on the picture. All the other details in the profile do seem to match her. Given all of that put together, I think she does have a case here. You assume that someone that looks very similar to hear, down to her height, weight, eye color, etc. also lives near here. I haven't really seen that yet, and anyone who I've paid more than a passing glance at is easily distingishable from other people I have seen.
It's interesting that FF hasn't said "no, that ad is real and belongs to this person at this address." The fact that they haven't asserted anything like that is pretty telling.
First, how do you know they sued before demanding that the photos were removed? You know all of their conversations? Second, your assumption is pretty silly. PA has a lot of shared driveways like that, for whatever reason it is far from uncommon. Given that the private road likely doesn't lead anywhere except to a few houses, and given that it's NOT paved, even though the main road is, I think the safer assumption is that it's a private shared driveway.
Really? You've driven in that road? You're sure the sign wasn't missed in one of the photos? You think their lawyer is dumb enough to include a trespass charge when he the reading of said law is very clear, even to a layman like me?
The pictures don't give you a complete view of the entire length of road. So unless you have actually been in that area, I think it's safe to assume the land is marked. Also, I would hope that their lawyer actually knows trespass law, and the only way Google could be guilty of trespass under PA law is if the property was posted.
Oh, and there's a very simple way without going all the way up the driveway and executing a 3-point turn. It's call "reverse" and all cars are capable of it.
Recreation use of someone else's private property? And now you claim that people are allowing logging on their private property?
I think you should explain a bit more; you seem to be way out in left field. How does my data posting his property as "no trespassing" lead to his property being logged?
Again, you're assuming the property is not posted, or that the road wasn't marked as private. Unless you've been on the road, I don't think you should be assuming that. I'm sure the lawyer knows the trespass laws, and wouldn't have included it unless that law was violated.
So it would be the one right above Simple Trespass.
One last thing; the fact that such driveways are marked PRIVATE means its posted. Otherwise, there's no point in marking any road as private, is there?
The difference is that the public road is open to the public, a shared driveway is still private land. It may be that the deeds of the varing properties agree to share the driveway. But that doesn't make it public, it means there's more than one owning party.
Also, I highly doubt the county maintains the shared driveway; again, that would fall to the owners.
I think you should re-read the article. It does in fact state she didn't create the profile. I've seen people that look alike initially, but if you get more than a glance, you can tell the differences. The liklihood of someone that looks very similar to you, and has the same weight, height, hair color, body build and face, in the same zip code, is remote.
It may also be the photo is actually "Doris," but that wouldn't give and ex the right to create a profile for her.
Finally, your discussion on celeberties is irrelevent; they already have different standards applied to them because they are famous. They are already "in the public eye." Doris is not.
Well a photo is a copyrightable thing. Also, photo releases exist to cover a picture SOMEONE ELSE took of you. If you took the picture, there's merely a license agreement. A photo release is something different; IIRC, you can't use someone else's likeness for commerical purposes, even if you took their picture. Given that a photo is something that can be copywritten, I would say its use falls under IP.
Hmm, well then the law is stupid. If I'm just looking for a roommate and not a landlord myself, I think I should be able to live with whoever I choose. I can understand restrictions on landlords or those making home loans available, but when just looking for a roommate? Seems to be overstepping. And the law says you can't advertise; so it sounds like you can still discriminate, you just can't put it into print. Unless I'm reading wrong.
It looked to me like there were spots, especially near where the private road forks into individual driveways. Also, I believe all cars have a "reverse" setting, enabling the use to drive the vehicle in the opposite direction it normally would.
Also, I didn't see anywhere in the PA statutes that say it's ok to trespass if you're just turning your car around...
Right.. but the plantiff in this case isn't a model, so I think her argument that they used her likeness (looks & demo information) to their commericial advantage invokes IP issues.
I'm sure that's not what the law intended; it was aimed at landlords and banks, not at someone looking for someone else to share living expenses. Unless you can show the law was specifically crafted to do just that.
Finally, if it was meant to do what you suggest, it's an unjust law, and as good citizens we should wholly ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. I just appeared in a hospital. So when a newborn baby's mother carries the baby home from a hospital, how does she know which land they are allowed to cross to get home?
Public roads are marked. Sidewalks are public. Follow the public roads until she gets to her private driveway.
You assert that my world view (entry allowed by default) is nonsense. I assert that your world view (entry forbidden by default) is nonsense. How can either of us know who is right, other than by discussing this?
Without personal property rights, you really can't have any of your other rights. If you want to live in a free society, you must include personal property rights. If you want to live in a socialist or communist society, you're free to do so. But this is the US, and it was founded as a free society.
You're suprised that somewhat at walmart doesn't know how plastics are made? I'm suprised they can tie their own shoes...
Well, if you belive Tesla Motors it would cost "a few dollars" to fully charge their car for 300 miles. People could switch out incandecent lights for CFs and save probably more than it would take to charge their car. The benefit to electric cars is that as we find more advanced or clears ways to gather energy, the cars don't need to ever change, except perhaps to use their electricty more efficently. Electric cars also are cheaper to maintain, meaning we can all spend money on other things, and which would also reduce the costs to transport other things.
All in all, the electric car is the way to go; we don't need to do anything special to transport electricity, it's already in every home, and we won't have a situtation like we do today were cars throw out a lot of pollution, and the only way to fix it is to ask everyone to toss away their old car.
True, but your bring your own bags are by far the most difficult for cashiers / baggers to load up, thus increasing the amount of time everyone is there. About the only thing worse are the jackasses that would ask for paper IN plastic. Ugh.
Well, to be fair, almost every bit of plastic I use (like those bags) gets recycled.
And while trees may renew faster than oil, they are much more important than oil. They help create the oxygen we need to live. People lived a long time without oil however. Also, deforstation helps along desertification, which also has an effect on climate.
Google? Responsive? You've never had to deal with them, have you? Do you really think they'd admit that they got a request and ignore it? Especially now that they are being sued? That would kill them instantly in court.
As far as the number of shared driveways go; I lived in PA most of my life, I have yet to find a shared driveway NOT marked as private. As I said, they were marked for 911 reasons, you really think they just "forgot" to put the marking on some of the roads? Please.
Well, most /.ers would perfer that technology discussions defer to our expertise, I think it's only fair to do the same for a lawyer. Reading and understanding the law is kinda their whole job, you know?
You don't just appear in the middle of nowhere. Stop with the the nonsense already.
Not so -- there is quite a bit of photographic evidence that shows a lack of signage. Is it conclusive? No, but it's enough to make assumptions on a Slashdot comment board.
/.ers say, something like government should defer to experts in the field when making technology laws...
Not nearly conclusive enough.
I don't think you should be assuming that.
Hmm, what is it that
The lawyer is an expert in law. My assumption is much more solidly grounded than the assumption that there are no signs. Other posters have even pointed out there are signs that cannot be read. Those very well could be the signs you're looking for.
The problem is you're focusing SOLEY on the picture. All the other details in the profile do seem to match her. Given all of that put together, I think she does have a case here. You assume that someone that looks very similar to hear, down to her height, weight, eye color, etc. also lives near here. I haven't really seen that yet, and anyone who I've paid more than a passing glance at is easily distingishable from other people I have seen.
It's interesting that FF hasn't said "no, that ad is real and belongs to this person at this address." The fact that they haven't asserted anything like that is pretty telling.
Well, the whole point is that roommates.com is matching ROOMMATES, not matching landlords and tenents. So I don't see why the law should allow it.
As for the confusion aspect, it's very simple. If you're a landlord, you can't discriminate. If you're sharing rent and expenses, you can.
First, how do you know they sued before demanding that the photos were removed? You know all of their conversations? Second, your assumption is pretty silly. PA has a lot of shared driveways like that, for whatever reason it is far from uncommon. Given that the private road likely doesn't lead anywhere except to a few houses, and given that it's NOT paved, even though the main road is, I think the safer assumption is that it's a private shared driveway.
Really? You've driven in that road? You're sure the sign wasn't missed in one of the photos? You think their lawyer is dumb enough to include a trespass charge when he the reading of said law is very clear, even to a layman like me?
The pictures don't give you a complete view of the entire length of road. So unless you have actually been in that area, I think it's safe to assume the land is marked. Also, I would hope that their lawyer actually knows trespass law, and the only way Google could be guilty of trespass under PA law is if the property was posted.
Oh, and there's a very simple way without going all the way up the driveway and executing a 3-point turn. It's call "reverse" and all cars are capable of it.
Recreation use of someone else's private property? And now you claim that people are allowing logging on their private property?
I think you should explain a bit more; you seem to be way out in left field. How does my data posting his property as "no trespassing" lead to his property being logged?
Again, you're assuming the property is not posted, or that the road wasn't marked as private. Unless you've been on the road, I don't think you should be assuming that. I'm sure the lawyer knows the trespass laws, and wouldn't have included it unless that law was violated.
So it would be the one right above Simple Trespass.
You assume it's private, unless some designation marks it otherwise. Look for a sign posting, on a map, etc.
One last thing; the fact that such driveways are marked PRIVATE means its posted. Otherwise, there's no point in marking any road as private, is there?
The difference is that the public road is open to the public, a shared driveway is still private land. It may be that the deeds of the varing properties agree to share the driveway. But that doesn't make it public, it means there's more than one owning party.
Also, I highly doubt the county maintains the shared driveway; again, that would fall to the owners.
I think you should re-read the article. It does in fact state she didn't create the profile. I've seen people that look alike initially, but if you get more than a glance, you can tell the differences. The liklihood of someone that looks very similar to you, and has the same weight, height, hair color, body build and face, in the same zip code, is remote.
It may also be the photo is actually "Doris," but that wouldn't give and ex the right to create a profile for her.
Finally, your discussion on celeberties is irrelevent; they already have different standards applied to them because they are famous. They are already "in the public eye." Doris is not.
Well a photo is a copyrightable thing. Also, photo releases exist to cover a picture SOMEONE ELSE took of you. If you took the picture, there's merely a license agreement. A photo release is something different; IIRC, you can't use someone else's likeness for commerical purposes, even if you took their picture. Given that a photo is something that can be copywritten, I would say its use falls under IP.
Hmm, well then the law is stupid. If I'm just looking for a roommate and not a landlord myself, I think I should be able to live with whoever I choose. I can understand restrictions on landlords or those making home loans available, but when just looking for a roommate? Seems to be overstepping. And the law says you can't advertise; so it sounds like you can still discriminate, you just can't put it into print. Unless I'm reading wrong.
It looked to me like there were spots, especially near where the private road forks into individual driveways. Also, I believe all cars have a "reverse" setting, enabling the use to drive the vehicle in the opposite direction it normally would.
Also, I didn't see anywhere in the PA statutes that say it's ok to trespass if you're just turning your car around...
Right.. but the plantiff in this case isn't a model, so I think her argument that they used her likeness (looks & demo information) to their commericial advantage invokes IP issues.
I'm sure that's not what the law intended; it was aimed at landlords and banks, not at someone looking for someone else to share living expenses. Unless you can show the law was specifically crafted to do just that.
Finally, if it was meant to do what you suggest, it's an unjust law, and as good citizens we should wholly ignore it.