Um, did you see how long the driveway actually was? There was no need to go ALL the way up to the garage doors. The harm was going up the driveway and taking pictures from private property. Oh, and doesn't/. always like to tote that once not the internet, you can never call something back? So no, simply asking they be taken down isn't enough.
1: it is assumed that a driveway can be reasonably used at will to turn a vehicle around.
Please, cite PA state law which provides for this.
2: tresspassing is not automatic. In most states even when properly posted, you can still go onto private land and go up to the front door. Even salesman can ring bells at homes posted no soliciting in SC. The onyl poewr you have is to ask them to leave. It only becomes tresspassing if they refuse to or if they return later. Neither of these conditions happened.
In PA, posting IS legally binding. If it's maked as no trepsasing, you CANNOT enter the property without permission.
3: the proerty itself was not marked, posted, fenced with a gate, not in any other way abvious that is was private. I can't see in any of the pictures the van took where their so called private road sign exists, let alone complies with their state's laws concerning use of proper singage (including regionally accepted or universal images to assist those who can't read).
Not in any of the pictures which we've seen. Unless you've actually been on that road, I would drop this argument.
4: all they had to do was ask for the images to be removed.
Google may not have had a right to be on the property; that has nothing to do with pictures being taken. Also, I prefer people get my permission to photograph me or my property in advance if they are going to use it in a commerical application.
5: the engineer in the vehicle has no control over the images being taken, not can he catalog or document them. This is ON PURPOSE to prevent tampering with the image feeds, and to keep the image recorder in sync with GPS information.
That's not an excuse to trepass or take pictures on private property without permission.
As an aside, I prefer trespass not even require posting; unless you KNOW you have permission to be on a piece of property, you shouldn't be on it. You shouldn't be able to root around my car anymore than you should be able to root around on my property.
Because mutliple properties have a portion of the driveway that is shared, and a name was given for 911 purposes. That doesn't make it a public road though. Its still just a shared driveway.
You're not from New England are you? It sounds to me like the details were specific enough that people in her community DID think it was her. It also sounds like the photo, while not her, is pretty damn close. Given the photo, and the fact that the demo details DO match, I can see her point.
Sites should not be allowed to allow others to create profiles for them. It is damaging. Further, it sounds like FF took that fake profile and used it as advertising. Have you ever seen those adverts, they list the profile name and show the photo? So they were directly profiting from a fake profile, which may have been created to harm the woman.
Remember, NE is small, and it's easy to run into people there.
Well, if they are paid, and they are not members, wouldn't you say there's a case for false advertising? Especially if they give the name of the profile, which they do, IIRC.
So any company can come along, splatter your likeness all over, make a ton of money, and not give you a dime? Why exactly is that ok? You can argue that their campaign would not have been as successful if they used someone else, and you could very well be right.
I disagree with your view on the Roommates.com. They aren't a lender or directly involved in you finding a place to live. If I choose to take on a roommate, why should HAVE to consider on that is gay, if that would make me uncomfortable? Why should I have to consider a woman if that would make me uncomfortable?
Roommates.com isn't offering you housing; its a networking site, no different than putting an ad for a roommate in the paper. Are you saying that a single woman can't rule out living with a man when searching for a roommate? What about if that woman doesn't want to live with a lesbian? Yes, the latter might be from an unreasonable fear, but I don't see why someone should be forced into an uncomfortable situtation.
Oh, so you say privledge elevation is easy under WinXP, so I guess it must be trust right?
Blocking attachments just adds hasle and does nothing to solve the problem. And you did try to pull this crap off as a solution, stop trying to revise your position. You suggested something stupid and got called on it. Get over it already.
If it's a corporate environment, why not just have the users running as a local non-admin account? Seems that would make more sense.. and I've emailed binaries more in a corp. environment more than I have as a home user.
I've had blinds; nothing lets the light in like having them all the way open. Even the sheer window curtains we have block less light than blinds would. Since I don't think I need to worry about hurricanes, the curtains are fine.
I think VT's law is more reasonable; anything you put in place indicates your wish for privacy. People shouldn't have to do anything extraordinary (such as build a house undergroud, as another poster suggested) for other's to respect one's privacy.
Whoa there. It really varies on where you live. I believe in VT, mearly having shades or window coverings at all is enough, and even if they are open people aren't allowed to go up and look in.
What your asserting is pretty unreasonable; people would have to live without sunlight to get privacy. I don't think that's reasonable to ask of people.
Your own post contradicts itself; if it's a private road, then no, other people can't use the road "as necessary." I would say unless there's a specific reason for law enforcement to be on your property, they are trespassing. As for emergency vechicles, you call them to your house, so they are presumed to be allowed on the property.
A private road is a private road, and given that its NOT a public road, the public (i.e., google) doesn't have a right to be on it.
Where did I say "serious about recording?" There are home users that won't want the extra noise that onboard chips seem to introduce that an addon card doesn't. It's foolish to think those that are doing amature audio are going to spend $200 on an external unit, when a good enough $40 internal card can be bought that's still a step above the crap that passes for onboard.
$100 MBs aren't found in most machines that people buy. Also, while the onboard card claims the same SNR, onboard chips suffer from added noise due to poor shielding of some kind. Power supplies, mice, and a host of other devices for some reason seem to interfer with these chips quite easily.
As far as your guess on numbers go, I think you're way off. I'm not claiming everyone is trying to do professional audio, but there is something in between a pure listener and a professional audio mixer that a lot of people fall into.
You're an idiot. No one said anything about compiling code, but you're stupid if you thing normal people don't email exes or even msis to people they know. What your mom does is irrelevent.
No. I mean advancing the state of the art in the field of computing. That includes all the software and hardware subsets, many of which have been retarded by MS's actions.
Proof? You've said this a lot now, yet have not backed it up with anything.
What does that have to do with it? You can follow all the rules of any private organization you want, but that doesn't make your actions any more legal if you also happen to be violating antitrust law.
Can you name the law they are violating by getting a standard approved?
If ISO certified that ostrich are geese, would that make it so? Standards exist with or without ISO. ISO used to be a body to help create and certify standards, and in this case they failed.
Ugh, what utter nonsense. Maybe you should read up on defacto standards and actual standards, and see why the former isn't a desirable thing to have.
Maybe you should be more informed. MS lost such a case against the state of California in 2003 and had to pay 1.1 billion. They settled with the state of Minnesota in 2004. They settled with Novell (over abuses disadvantaging WordPerfect) for 536 million, also in 2004. I could go one, but those were three of the highest profile cases that included MS Office as one of the abuses.
You mean the CA case that was thrown out in 2004? Which is the same as that of Minnesota? Both of which have nothing to do with a monopoly on MS Office, but instead complain that Windows was overpriced? And again, the Novell case has nothing to do with an abusing their Office monopoly. See, not every product they produce is instantly a monopoly.
You seem to have some wrongheaded ideas about antitrust abuse. It doesn't matter how one gains a monopoly. Antitrust law is about preventing leveraging that monopoly into other markets and bundling is only one way. MS abused their monopolies by including support for.doc in Windows by default, strong-arming OEMs into bundling trial copies of Word, by using nonpublic APIs to make Word run faster and with more memory that WordPerfect and even refusing to reveal what those APIs were when developers from Corel tried to get MS to reveal them so they could get the same advantages in WordPerfect. All of those actions were pretty clearly illegal, and MS has settled numerous cases, for large sums of money as a result.
No, you clearly don't understand antitrust issues. There's no support for.doc built into Windows. Your other allegations are pretty old, and date back to Win95. And in none of those cases was an OFFICE monopoly (which has not even been found to be a monpoly yet) abused, it was the OS monopoy.
The problem is, some people don't want it, and would rather use something else, including freeware. MS, however, has taken actions which introduce artificial problems with those competitors. Secret file formats and formats that cannot be implemented by others such that documents can be assured to not "break" when opened in another program are one way MS has done this. Another, was refusing to take part in the creation of a document standards and waiting until all the competing companies had put a lot of work into ODF before creating their own, different standard for the same purpose. Both of those are abuse of their monopoly position to make it hard for people to use something else or switch from their product.
Really? People have the entire MS office suite and didn't want it? I know I could be a version if I wanted. Sometimes Works was installed free.. but so were other programs, which were non MS. As for file formats, they are allowed to use whatever format they like, just like competitors are.
Until you can show me that MS was ruled to have a monopoly on Office suites, I suggest you stop claiming monopoly abuses. I also fail to see why MS (or anyone else) shouldn't come up with a standard. There are lots of standards which do basically the same thing, but the implementations are differen
Or, you could just let free people exercise their freedom, instead of trying to control people by implementing a police state. Really, what harm is it if speeding doesn't cause more accidents to let people go faster?
Oh, pollution you mentioned. Well we could cut down on that too by saying your TV can only be a certain size, you can only own one computer, you can only buy so much food. But then again you're heading to a police state.
If that's what you want, that's fine, but you should know they already exist. Perhaps you'd be happier in China?
Because normal people can't setup a webserver to send a program to their home or someone else? Yours is an overblown solution to a problem, and is prett arrogant. "I can't see why this would ever be valid, so it must not be valid!" Ugh.
Are you sure you understand copyright? You buy a book, you don't need a seperate license to read it. That's what you got by paying for the book. Software is no different, and when you buy a creative product you're buying hardware AND software.
Now, he doesn't have a right to distribute the software, but he probably has a right to distribute changes to it. If i tell my friends to read a book, and come up with a different ending, I'm allowed to tell them about it. I wouldn't be allowed to sell the book with one chapter replaced or anything.
What he should have done is release a program that changes a few bytes in the original file, not release a modified file. But your notion that you need a seperate license to use something you bought is obsurd, and I can modify the software all I like in the privacy of my home.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, did you see how long the driveway actually was? There was no need to go ALL the way up to the garage doors. The harm was going up the driveway and taking pictures from private property. Oh, and doesn't /. always like to tote that once not the internet, you can never call something back? So no, simply asking they be taken down isn't enough.
1: it is assumed that a driveway can be reasonably used at will to turn a vehicle around.
Please, cite PA state law which provides for this.
2: tresspassing is not automatic. In most states even when properly posted, you can still go onto private land and go up to the front door. Even salesman can ring bells at homes posted no soliciting in SC. The onyl poewr you have is to ask them to leave. It only becomes tresspassing if they refuse to or if they return later. Neither of these conditions happened.
http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/18.Cp.35.html
In PA, posting IS legally binding. If it's maked as no trepsasing, you CANNOT enter the property without permission.
3: the proerty itself was not marked, posted, fenced with a gate, not in any other way abvious that is was private. I can't see in any of the pictures the van took where their so called private road sign exists, let alone complies with their state's laws concerning use of proper singage (including regionally accepted or universal images to assist those who can't read).
Not in any of the pictures which we've seen. Unless you've actually been on that road, I would drop this argument.
4: all they had to do was ask for the images to be removed.
Google may not have had a right to be on the property; that has nothing to do with pictures being taken. Also, I prefer people get my permission to photograph me or my property in advance if they are going to use it in a commerical application.
5: the engineer in the vehicle has no control over the images being taken, not can he catalog or document them. This is ON PURPOSE to prevent tampering with the image feeds, and to keep the image recorder in sync with GPS information.
That's not an excuse to trepass or take pictures on private property without permission.
As an aside, I prefer trespass not even require posting; unless you KNOW you have permission to be on a piece of property, you shouldn't be on it. You shouldn't be able to root around my car anymore than you should be able to root around on my property.
Because mutliple properties have a portion of the driveway that is shared, and a name was given for 911 purposes. That doesn't make it a public road though. Its still just a shared driveway.
Ya, I'll buy that. They "obviously" couldn't have turned around any earlier, and HAD to go ALL the way up to the driveway doors. Ya, ok.
Well, I guess we all aren't in well enough to do neighborhoods were a road leads right to my front door / garage.
You're not from New England are you? It sounds to me like the details were specific enough that people in her community DID think it was her. It also sounds like the photo, while not her, is pretty damn close. Given the photo, and the fact that the demo details DO match, I can see her point.
Sites should not be allowed to allow others to create profiles for them. It is damaging. Further, it sounds like FF took that fake profile and used it as advertising. Have you ever seen those adverts, they list the profile name and show the photo? So they were directly profiting from a fake profile, which may have been created to harm the woman.
Remember, NE is small, and it's easy to run into people there.
Well, if they are paid, and they are not members, wouldn't you say there's a case for false advertising? Especially if they give the name of the profile, which they do, IIRC.
So any company can come along, splatter your likeness all over, make a ton of money, and not give you a dime? Why exactly is that ok? You can argue that their campaign would not have been as successful if they used someone else, and you could very well be right.
I disagree with your view on the Roommates.com. They aren't a lender or directly involved in you finding a place to live. If I choose to take on a roommate, why should HAVE to consider on that is gay, if that would make me uncomfortable? Why should I have to consider a woman if that would make me uncomfortable?
Roommates.com isn't offering you housing; its a networking site, no different than putting an ad for a roommate in the paper. Are you saying that a single woman can't rule out living with a man when searching for a roommate? What about if that woman doesn't want to live with a lesbian? Yes, the latter might be from an unreasonable fear, but I don't see why someone should be forced into an uncomfortable situtation.
Oh, so you say privledge elevation is easy under WinXP, so I guess it must be trust right?
Blocking attachments just adds hasle and does nothing to solve the problem. And you did try to pull this crap off as a solution, stop trying to revise your position. You suggested something stupid and got called on it. Get over it already.
Narrowed your focus now I see.
If it's a corporate environment, why not just have the users running as a local non-admin account? Seems that would make more sense.. and I've emailed binaries more in a corp. environment more than I have as a home user.
I saw BloodRayne.. I didn't think it was that bad. It was at most ok, but I've seen far, far worse movies than that.
I've had blinds; nothing lets the light in like having them all the way open. Even the sheer window curtains we have block less light than blinds would. Since I don't think I need to worry about hurricanes, the curtains are fine.
I think VT's law is more reasonable; anything you put in place indicates your wish for privacy. People shouldn't have to do anything extraordinary (such as build a house undergroud, as another poster suggested) for other's to respect one's privacy.
So does running an attached exe. So no, it effectively does nothing.
At least I'm smart enough to realize that if that caught on, we're back at square one, and your "solution" does nothing.
Whoa there. It really varies on where you live. I believe in VT, mearly having shades or window coverings at all is enough, and even if they are open people aren't allowed to go up and look in.
What your asserting is pretty unreasonable; people would have to live without sunlight to get privacy. I don't think that's reasonable to ask of people.
Do you find it ironic that google says anything in public view is fair game, but they block out the part of the picture on top of their vehicle?
Your own post contradicts itself; if it's a private road, then no, other people can't use the road "as necessary." I would say unless there's a specific reason for law enforcement to be on your property, they are trespassing. As for emergency vechicles, you call them to your house, so they are presumed to be allowed on the property.
A private road is a private road, and given that its NOT a public road, the public (i.e., google) doesn't have a right to be on it.
Where did I say "serious about recording?" There are home users that won't want the extra noise that onboard chips seem to introduce that an addon card doesn't. It's foolish to think those that are doing amature audio are going to spend $200 on an external unit, when a good enough $40 internal card can be bought that's still a step above the crap that passes for onboard.
$100 MBs aren't found in most machines that people buy. Also, while the onboard card claims the same SNR, onboard chips suffer from added noise due to poor shielding of some kind. Power supplies, mice, and a host of other devices for some reason seem to interfer with these chips quite easily.
As far as your guess on numbers go, I think you're way off. I'm not claiming everyone is trying to do professional audio, but there is something in between a pure listener and a professional audio mixer that a lot of people fall into.
You're an idiot. No one said anything about compiling code, but you're stupid if you thing normal people don't email exes or even msis to people they know. What your mom does is irrelevent.
No. I mean advancing the state of the art in the field of computing. That includes all the software and hardware subsets, many of which have been retarded by MS's actions.
.doc in Windows by default, strong-arming OEMs into bundling trial copies of Word, by using nonpublic APIs to make Word run faster and with more memory that WordPerfect and even refusing to reveal what those APIs were when developers from Corel tried to get MS to reveal them so they could get the same advantages in WordPerfect. All of those actions were pretty clearly illegal, and MS has settled numerous cases, for large sums of money as a result.
.doc built into Windows. Your other allegations are pretty old, and date back to Win95. And in none of those cases was an OFFICE monopoly (which has not even been found to be a monpoly yet) abused, it was the OS monopoy.
Proof? You've said this a lot now, yet have not backed it up with anything.
What does that have to do with it? You can follow all the rules of any private organization you want, but that doesn't make your actions any more legal if you also happen to be violating antitrust law.
Can you name the law they are violating by getting a standard approved?
If ISO certified that ostrich are geese, would that make it so? Standards exist with or without ISO. ISO used to be a body to help create and certify standards, and in this case they failed.
Ugh, what utter nonsense. Maybe you should read up on defacto standards and actual standards, and see why the former isn't a desirable thing to have.
Maybe you should be more informed. MS lost such a case against the state of California in 2003 and had to pay 1.1 billion. They settled with the state of Minnesota in 2004. They settled with Novell (over abuses disadvantaging WordPerfect) for 536 million, also in 2004. I could go one, but those were three of the highest profile cases that included MS Office as one of the abuses.
You mean the CA case that was thrown out in 2004? Which is the same as that of Minnesota? Both of which have nothing to do with a monopoly on MS Office, but instead complain that Windows was overpriced? And again, the Novell case has nothing to do with an abusing their Office monopoly. See, not every product they produce is instantly a monopoly.
You seem to have some wrongheaded ideas about antitrust abuse. It doesn't matter how one gains a monopoly. Antitrust law is about preventing leveraging that monopoly into other markets and bundling is only one way. MS abused their monopolies by including support for
No, you clearly don't understand antitrust issues. There's no support for
The problem is, some people don't want it, and would rather use something else, including freeware. MS, however, has taken actions which introduce artificial problems with those competitors. Secret file formats and formats that cannot be implemented by others such that documents can be assured to not "break" when opened in another program are one way MS has done this. Another, was refusing to take part in the creation of a document standards and waiting until all the competing companies had put a lot of work into ODF before creating their own, different standard for the same purpose. Both of those are abuse of their monopoly position to make it hard for people to use something else or switch from their product.
Really? People have the entire MS office suite and didn't want it? I know I could be a version if I wanted. Sometimes Works was installed free.. but so were other programs, which were non MS. As for file formats, they are allowed to use whatever format they like, just like competitors are.
Until you can show me that MS was ruled to have a monopoly on Office suites, I suggest you stop claiming monopoly abuses. I also fail to see why MS (or anyone else) shouldn't come up with a standard. There are lots of standards which do basically the same thing, but the implementations are differen
Or, you could just let free people exercise their freedom, instead of trying to control people by implementing a police state. Really, what harm is it if speeding doesn't cause more accidents to let people go faster?
Oh, pollution you mentioned. Well we could cut down on that too by saying your TV can only be a certain size, you can only own one computer, you can only buy so much food. But then again you're heading to a police state.
If that's what you want, that's fine, but you should know they already exist. Perhaps you'd be happier in China?
Because normal people can't setup a webserver to send a program to their home or someone else? Yours is an overblown solution to a problem, and is prett arrogant. " I can't see why this would ever be valid, so it must not be valid!" Ugh.
Are you sure you understand copyright? You buy a book, you don't need a seperate license to read it. That's what you got by paying for the book. Software is no different, and when you buy a creative product you're buying hardware AND software.
Now, he doesn't have a right to distribute the software, but he probably has a right to distribute changes to it. If i tell my friends to read a book, and come up with a different ending, I'm allowed to tell them about it. I wouldn't be allowed to sell the book with one chapter replaced or anything.
What he should have done is release a program that changes a few bytes in the original file, not release a modified file. But your notion that you need a seperate license to use something you bought is obsurd, and I can modify the software all I like in the privacy of my home.