To expand upon this, I feel like the large corporations who fucked up copyright have ruined it for the rest of the creators who just want to make a living. People no longer view the copyright issue as a moral one, and a pure legal one. Its not the large corps that are going to suffer. Its the hobby game developers, independent photographers, small bands, and other people that copyright was made to promote.
Au contraire, I think. As most of us around here know, the reasoning enshrined in the US Constitution for copyright is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's not a moral issue. There's no discussion of the moral rights of an author, or intellectual property, or the ownership of one's ideas or the creations of one's mind.
No, from what I can see, copyright was established for a very practical purpose. It wasn't a moral issue. If anything, people are making it into one nowadays - it's all talk about rights and ownership and fairness.
But the real reason is it just doesn't make business sense. If you're paying $1000+ for Adobe apps, you can afford a $99 Windows license. People buy expensive macs all the time to work with Adobe apps, so why should they pay any attention to the folks with a free OS ?
Good point. I use two niche industry software packages, one running about $10k, the other $20k. The actual computer hardware we use to run it is a pretty negligible cost.
Personally, though, cost has not been a deciding factor in my OS choice. I use XP x64, OS X 10.4, and Linux, and I didn't pay a cent for any of them (Windows through the university, OS X through work, and Linux was an ISO). I use the OS that lets me do what I want in the fastest and easiest way. Sometimes that's XP, often it's the command line in Linux, sometimes it's OS X.
If you did you would not get your panties in such a not over a private, free market company providing an and to end computing solution.
Free markets thrive on competition. Tying, in some cases, can be an anti-competitive behavior. I'm not talking about Apple here, but just generally speaking, a "free market" does not mean that anyone can sell whatever they want however they want. There's a reason we have antitrust law.
Nor it seems does it prevent *you* from violating the spirit of the market by limiting business models used by private companies which in no way effect your fundamental rights.
While this might be the case with Apple products, when it comes to things like cell phone service providers, the business model a provider chooses should come under public scrutiny. That provider has been issued a license to use a public good (radio spectrum), and they are not free to simply do whatever they please with it. The same goes for services that have been subsidized by public money, or have been given right of way, etc.
If you wish to say that Adobe does not feel the demand is great enough to bother creating the market, than say so. Don't try to insinuate that Adobe hates open systems or that they are in bed with MS.
Do any of us know Adobe's reasons for not making Linux versions of their applications? As you just said, demand does not create a market. Just because they have not made Linux versions does not mean that there is not enough demand - "enough" demand does not magically force someone to come up with supply. For all I know, it very well could be that there is some other reason they are not supplying Linux versions.
Thing is, in a normal procurement process, elected officials are not involved. It might be a legislator who passes a bill to switch to an e-voting system, or a governor or county executive who mandates the switch, but when it comes to purchasing things, it's done through a purchasing office.
If the office doesn't know exactly what they're looking for, they'll have requests for proposals; once they do figure out what they want, they'll solicit bids. The lowest qualified bidder who agrees to meet the terms specified is awarded the contract. The terms of the contract, the bid tabulations, and the awardee are all public information, too.
So again, maybe the issue is that purchasing departments just aren't being specific enough in what they want. Granted, maybe they just look at whatever models Diebold and Company X have for sale and go with those, and maybe Diebold and other companies aren't keen on developing a whole new machine to suit buyer specifications, but if enough state, local, and municipal governments banded together with requirements for open, auditable machines, I'd think there would be sufficient demand so that some company would step up and make a bid.
Here's my question. Presumably, those voting machines have to go through a procurement process just like any other government purchase (typically the cutoff is $25k for competitive bids, I believe). Now, if enough governments (state and local) specified in their invitations for bids that they wanted auditable, open-source, etc. machines, you'd think that some manufacturer would step up to the plate. After all, who else is buying the damn things other than the government?
Ok, it does but so can XP, problem is nobody in their right mind will install either product's 64bit flavor.
I've installed and used both Vista 64-bit and XP Pro 64-bit. The Vista experience was a year ago, when I first got it through the university, and it was dismal. I don't know how much was due to it being Vista and how much to it being 64-bit, but I don't ever want to go there again.
My experience with XP Pro has been quite the opposite. I first thought about switching to it a few years ago, but the drivers for some of my hardware weren't there (a PCI parallel port, actually). But for the past year, I've been running it without issue.
Installing a 64bit Linux just means a few glitches, almost all of which are long since solved problems... Microsoft on the other hand..... XP was only formally released in 64 bit at the very end of it's run so there are gaps in driver coverage that won't ever be filled.
Yeah, I don't expect manufacturers to be putting much effort into developing drivers for XP 64-bit. However, if you have mainstream hardware, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. I found a generic driver for my parallel PCI card, as well as another for my USB wifi device. Sorting out bluetooth was a pain, but eventually got it straight.
Things that didn't work: a couple of old PCI video cards that I thought about throwing in for the hell of it.
On the other hand, I've never been able to successfully install a 64-bit Linux distro on my machine. It's like my machine is cursed or something. Either installer just won't launch, or I'll get kernel panics halfway through. I've given up after several attempts. I get enough of a Linux fix from my KnoppMyth box:-)
Mine finds ways to fuck up surfing the web. It's not entirely his fault--an astonishing number of websites that appeal to right wing, fundamentalist Christian, stock tip-hunting hypochondriacs only "work" with Internet Explorer.
Wow, and I thought I had it bad. With my dad it's just the pigeon fanciers and the train-spotting club sites. Good luck with that!
If it's something like English or French, then it will take you months (or years) to learn to read, or else you get the "Owe that eye mite bee that be" phenomenon.
French spelling might not look very phonetic, but it is actually far more so than English is. Once you learn the common vowel combinations, which might take a few days at most, you can pretty much sound out French words without any trouble. On the other hand, trying to spell words that you hear can be very difficult.
I thought I might see what Wikipedia had to say about this, and here it is:
French spelling, like English spelling, tends to preserve obsolete pronunciation rules. This is mainly due to extreme phonetic changes since the Old French period, without a corresponding change in spelling. Moreover, some conscious changes were made to restore Latin orthography... As a result, it is difficult to predict the spelling on the basis of the sound alone... On the other hand, a given spelling will almost always lead to a predictable sound... In particular, a given vowel combination or diacritic predictably leads to one phoneme.
I'll vouch for the accuracy of those statements, too, since I've studied the history of the French language.
That's why I like the Bank of America ATM card - it not only stores language prefs, but also preferences for 'Quick Cash' which knows which account to take from and how much to take out. It also stores receipt preferences. It's pretty fun to go to an ATM and hit 4 numbers for your PIN, then one other button. It even gives you your card while it 'counts' the money so the whole thing is refreshingly quick.
FYI, that's not the card, it's BoA's database. The card is just an unintelligent magstripe used as an identifier. The data on it doesn't change based on the settings you choose.
Harassment and emotional abuse can be performed in person or over the Internet, and I've got to imagine that charges for wanton malicious actions against a minor will have much stiffer penalties than a simple ToS violation.
From what I understand, the whole reason the government is charging the woman for violating the TOS is because they can't get her on other charges. The amicus brief appears to agree:
There are state and federal statutes that regulate harassing and otherwise
harmful speech, carefully identifying speech that falls outside of First Amendment
protection. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. Â 223(a)(1)(C); R.S.Mo. 565.090 (former). Neither
of those statutes appears to criminalize the communications from "Josh Evans" to
Miss Meier here.
That's not to say that the prosecutor is taking the right approach, but apparently it's not as simple as just charging her with harassment or verbal abuse or something.
The annual fee is $100. You only pay 128 the first year.
If you really went to the Clear website...you wouldve read that.
Oh, really? Once again, from the Clear website:
How much does it cost to become a Clear member?
Clear is available for $100 plus a $28 TSA vetting fee, for a total of $128 per year. Lock in these prices by purchasing a two-year membership for $256 or a three-year membership for $384.
You will also provide a credit card number, but you will not be charged the annual fee of $128 until you are approved for membership.
It's not. The problem here is that tethering on their cell phone data plan is against AT&T's TOS. They went you to have a separate laptop plan.
Is this laptop plan then exempt from the rule about no P2P (read - "bandwidth intensive") applications? Because there is nothing in their letter to the FCC to suggest that. The letter only speaks of "mobile wireless broadband", which would seem to include tethering. Besides, they are arguing that the problem is a network capacity issue, which means that tethered laptops would have to be an issue, too.
1. Profanity on AT&T's network will be fined at $0.99 per incident
While you were joking, there was a time when you could be fined for swearing on the telephone. In one case the fine was actually $5 (and this was back in 1902, so that was pretty hefty).
but this isn't about internet access for the home computer - it's about wireless internet access for a cell network. Sure, when our cell phones are much more advanced and p2p applications make sense I'll think they need to rethink their stance, but for now, it's pretty reasonable. imho.
Except that it's not just about cell phones. It's "mobile broadband", which means your laptop, too.
Furthermore, I specifically recall a TV that is running now (I forget for which provider) that makes a big deal out of the "jail cell" of wireless access points, and advertises their mobile broadband service as a way to escape it. It's being advertised as an alternative to normal Internet access.
It is unreasonable to expect to be allowed to. Why? Because of the impact on the other users. Because it isn't what the network is designed to support.
Well, if it's not designed to support Internet access, perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. From the ATT page describing "DataConnect":
With DataConnect for your laptop - you can send and receive email, browse the Internet, and access your corporate intranet while on the go by connecting your laptop to the Internet over the AT&T wireless network.
The common understanding of being connected to the Internet is being able to use pretty much any application you wish. If all they are selling is a web-browsing and e-mail service, they should call it that.
Now, Sprint isn't ATT, but according to Wikipedia, EVDO is a 3G service. Have a look at what their page says:
Mobile users can access:
E-mail with large attachments
Corporate Intranet and Internet
Digital Imaging
Location-based applications
Video/audio streaming
Rich Messaging
Bandwidth intensive applications for sales and customer service
So, according to Sprint, their 3G network is in fact designed to support applications like Hulu and Skype Video. Thus, it is not unreasonble to be expect to be allowed to use such services on a 3G network.
This doesn't necessarily mean that ATT isn't within their rights to disallow such services, but again, I have to wonder - when does an Internet connection stop being an Internet connection, and start being something else?
And you were doing this from a cell phone, or a cell-tethered computer?
No, I wasn't. In fact, I wouldn't think of purchasing one of those plans unless I were sure I could use it for whatever I wanted, and unless the price came down a bit. But why is it unreasonable to think that someone on a cell-tethered computer might want to use Skype Video or visit Hulu? One of my relatives travels frequently, and his cell-tethered computer is his only form of Internet access when he's not at home, which can often be for weeks at a time.
Before the discussion wanders off topic, it's important to note that this is not about copyright violation, something that's not mentioned anywhere in the letter. But, to quote from the letter:
Todayâ(TM)s P2P file sharing applications are inappropriate for AT&Tâ(TM)s mobile
wireless broadband network, which is optimized to efficiently support high data rates for multiple
users that send and receive intermittent or âoeburstyâ traffic generated by activities such as
browsing the Internet and sending email. Because P2P file sharing applications typically engage
in continuous (rather than bursty) transmissions at high data rates, a small number of users of P2P
file sharing applications served by a particular cell site could severely degrade the service quality
enjoyed by all customers served by that site.
So really, the issue isn't even P2P - the issue is "continuous transmissions at high data rates."
Now, the other day I spent about 2.5 hours on a Skype video call, and a few days before that I downloaded an ISO over HTTP (Mythbuntu). Will activities like those eventually be labeled a breach of service, because of their nature as "continuous transmissions at high data rates"? What about visiting Hulu? I think those are all pretty legitimate questions.
On this topic, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Maryland, an student employee working for the security department was fired for zooming a surveillance camera on a dormitory window. The story was that he was trying to watch a game on the TV inside the room. The school then installed software to blur windows to the camera operators, though I'm not sure how well that software works...
They could probably only win a trespassing case if the private road was fenced or gated off and the Google driver opened the gate to get in without permission. Simply sticking up a Private Property sign is not enough. I'm not saying Google was right in driving on their road but there's no way they could be charged with trespassing in this case.
Probably depends on what state they're in. I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand English, in Maryland they definitely could be charged with trespassing, and sticking up signs in fact is enough. And so you know I'm not just making stuff up, here's the link to the law, as well as the text:
(a) Prohibited.- A person may not enter or trespass on property that is posted conspicuously against trespass by: (1) signs placed where they reasonably may be seen; or (2) paint marks...
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
What about other countries, for example India with 23 official Languages and more than 1200 languages spoken around the rural countryside, not to mention a couple of hundred million non-readers as well.
None of the issues you raise apply to Google. Also, to deal with non-English or non-official language speakers, or illiterate people, you could simply use a picture (I don't know, maybe something like this, which took all of three seconds to find on... Google.) As for blind people, I feel like you're probably not going to have many of them wandering around taking photos on private property, but I could be wrong.
Without even talking about Google Earth photographing topless people from Satellites in their backyard, what about ultralight planes covering the property?
Or drones, should Google be allowed to use drones to make pictures?
If not, why? Other companies use air photography too.
The question is about Street View, which is taken using trucks, not aircraft.
I don't like being watched either, but they kind of have a point.
Not really. They say that there's no such thing as complete privacy because of satellite photograpy. Fine, that may be true, but how does that justify doing away with what privacy is left, and how does it naturally apply to taking photographs with trucks on private property? It doesn't. It's a pretty stupid argument, if you ask me.
Actually, now that I think about it, it would be the other way around. With the US economy tanking, the price in US dollars of the laptop would be going up, not down.
Slashdot Mirror
To expand upon this, I feel like the large corporations who fucked up copyright have ruined it for the rest of the creators who just want to make a living. People no longer view the copyright issue as a moral one, and a pure legal one. Its not the large corps that are going to suffer. Its the hobby game developers, independent photographers, small bands, and other people that copyright was made to promote.
Au contraire, I think. As most of us around here know, the reasoning enshrined in the US Constitution for copyright is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's not a moral issue. There's no discussion of the moral rights of an author, or intellectual property, or the ownership of one's ideas or the creations of one's mind.
No, from what I can see, copyright was established for a very practical purpose. It wasn't a moral issue. If anything, people are making it into one nowadays - it's all talk about rights and ownership and fairness.
But the real reason is it just doesn't make business sense. If you're paying $1000+ for Adobe apps, you can afford a $99 Windows license. People buy expensive macs all the time to work with Adobe apps, so why should they pay any attention to the folks with a free OS ?
Good point. I use two niche industry software packages, one running about $10k, the other $20k. The actual computer hardware we use to run it is a pretty negligible cost.
Personally, though, cost has not been a deciding factor in my OS choice. I use XP x64, OS X 10.4, and Linux, and I didn't pay a cent for any of them (Windows through the university, OS X through work, and Linux was an ISO). I use the OS that lets me do what I want in the fastest and easiest way. Sometimes that's XP, often it's the command line in Linux, sometimes it's OS X.
If you did you would not get your panties in such a not over a private, free market company providing an and to end computing solution.
Free markets thrive on competition. Tying, in some cases, can be an anti-competitive behavior. I'm not talking about Apple here, but just generally speaking, a "free market" does not mean that anyone can sell whatever they want however they want. There's a reason we have antitrust law.
Nor it seems does it prevent *you* from violating the spirit of the market by limiting business models used by private companies which in no way effect your fundamental rights.
While this might be the case with Apple products, when it comes to things like cell phone service providers, the business model a provider chooses should come under public scrutiny. That provider has been issued a license to use a public good (radio spectrum), and they are not free to simply do whatever they please with it. The same goes for services that have been subsidized by public money, or have been given right of way, etc.
If you wish to say that Adobe does not feel the demand is great enough to bother creating the market, than say so. Don't try to insinuate that Adobe hates open systems or that they are in bed with MS.
Do any of us know Adobe's reasons for not making Linux versions of their applications? As you just said, demand does not create a market. Just because they have not made Linux versions does not mean that there is not enough demand - "enough" demand does not magically force someone to come up with supply. For all I know, it very well could be that there is some other reason they are not supplying Linux versions.
Thing is, in a normal procurement process, elected officials are not involved. It might be a legislator who passes a bill to switch to an e-voting system, or a governor or county executive who mandates the switch, but when it comes to purchasing things, it's done through a purchasing office.
If the office doesn't know exactly what they're looking for, they'll have requests for proposals; once they do figure out what they want, they'll solicit bids. The lowest qualified bidder who agrees to meet the terms specified is awarded the contract. The terms of the contract, the bid tabulations, and the awardee are all public information, too.
So again, maybe the issue is that purchasing departments just aren't being specific enough in what they want. Granted, maybe they just look at whatever models Diebold and Company X have for sale and go with those, and maybe Diebold and other companies aren't keen on developing a whole new machine to suit buyer specifications, but if enough state, local, and municipal governments banded together with requirements for open, auditable machines, I'd think there would be sufficient demand so that some company would step up and make a bid.
Here's my question. Presumably, those voting machines have to go through a procurement process just like any other government purchase (typically the cutoff is $25k for competitive bids, I believe). Now, if enough governments (state and local) specified in their invitations for bids that they wanted auditable, open-source, etc. machines, you'd think that some manufacturer would step up to the plate. After all, who else is buying the damn things other than the government?
Ok, it does but so can XP, problem is nobody in their right mind will install either product's 64bit flavor.
I've installed and used both Vista 64-bit and XP Pro 64-bit. The Vista experience was a year ago, when I first got it through the university, and it was dismal. I don't know how much was due to it being Vista and how much to it being 64-bit, but I don't ever want to go there again.
My experience with XP Pro has been quite the opposite. I first thought about switching to it a few years ago, but the drivers for some of my hardware weren't there (a PCI parallel port, actually). But for the past year, I've been running it without issue.
Installing a 64bit Linux just means a few glitches, almost all of which are long since solved problems... Microsoft on the other hand..... XP was only formally released in 64 bit at the very end of it's run so there are gaps in driver coverage that won't ever be filled.
Yeah, I don't expect manufacturers to be putting much effort into developing drivers for XP 64-bit. However, if you have mainstream hardware, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. I found a generic driver for my parallel PCI card, as well as another for my USB wifi device. Sorting out bluetooth was a pain, but eventually got it straight.
Things that didn't work: a couple of old PCI video cards that I thought about throwing in for the hell of it.
On the other hand, I've never been able to successfully install a 64-bit Linux distro on my machine. It's like my machine is cursed or something. Either installer just won't launch, or I'll get kernel panics halfway through. I've given up after several attempts. I get enough of a Linux fix from my KnoppMyth box :-)
Mine finds ways to fuck up surfing the web. It's not entirely his fault--an astonishing number of websites that appeal to right wing, fundamentalist Christian, stock tip-hunting hypochondriacs only "work" with Internet Explorer.
Wow, and I thought I had it bad. With my dad it's just the pigeon fanciers and the train-spotting club sites. Good luck with that!
If it's something like English or French, then it will take you months (or years) to learn to read, or else you get the "Owe that eye mite bee that be" phenomenon.
French spelling might not look very phonetic, but it is actually far more so than English is. Once you learn the common vowel combinations, which might take a few days at most, you can pretty much sound out French words without any trouble. On the other hand, trying to spell words that you hear can be very difficult.
I thought I might see what Wikipedia had to say about this, and here it is:
French spelling, like English spelling, tends to preserve obsolete pronunciation rules. This is mainly due to extreme phonetic changes since the Old French period, without a corresponding change in spelling. Moreover, some conscious changes were made to restore Latin orthography... As a result, it is difficult to predict the spelling on the basis of the sound alone... On the other hand, a given spelling will almost always lead to a predictable sound... In particular, a given vowel combination or diacritic predictably leads to one phoneme.
I'll vouch for the accuracy of those statements, too, since I've studied the history of the French language.
That's why I like the Bank of America ATM card - it not only stores language prefs, but also preferences for 'Quick Cash' which knows which account to take from and how much to take out. It also stores receipt preferences. It's pretty fun to go to an ATM and hit 4 numbers for your PIN, then one other button. It even gives you your card while it 'counts' the money so the whole thing is refreshingly quick.
FYI, that's not the card, it's BoA's database. The card is just an unintelligent magstripe used as an identifier. The data on it doesn't change based on the settings you choose.
Harassment and emotional abuse can be performed in person or over the Internet, and I've got to imagine that charges for wanton malicious actions against a minor will have much stiffer penalties than a simple ToS violation.
From what I understand, the whole reason the government is charging the woman for violating the TOS is because they can't get her on other charges. The amicus brief appears to agree:
There are state and federal statutes that regulate harassing and otherwise harmful speech, carefully identifying speech that falls outside of First Amendment protection. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. Â 223(a)(1)(C); R.S.Mo. 565.090 (former). Neither of those statutes appears to criminalize the communications from "Josh Evans" to Miss Meier here.
That's not to say that the prosecutor is taking the right approach, but apparently it's not as simple as just charging her with harassment or verbal abuse or something.
The annual fee is $100. You only pay 128 the first year. If you really went to the Clear website...you wouldve read that.
Oh, really? Once again, from the Clear website:
How much does it cost to become a Clear member?
Clear is available for $100 plus a $28 TSA vetting fee, for a total of $128 per year. Lock in these prices by purchasing a two-year membership for $256 or a three-year membership for $384.
You will also provide a credit card number, but you will not be charged the annual fee of $128 until you are approved for membership.
Looks like $128 to me.
From the "Clear" link: "Clear's first year price is $128."
I'd say that's a bargain to have your identity stolen!
Steve, if you're reading this, congratulations!
Seriously, though, if that guy is any indication of the amount of effort the rest of the team put into their robot, UMD definitely earned this.
It's not. The problem here is that tethering on their cell phone data plan is against AT&T's TOS. They went you to have a separate laptop plan.
Is this laptop plan then exempt from the rule about no P2P (read - "bandwidth intensive") applications? Because there is nothing in their letter to the FCC to suggest that. The letter only speaks of "mobile wireless broadband", which would seem to include tethering. Besides, they are arguing that the problem is a network capacity issue, which means that tethered laptops would have to be an issue, too.
1. Profanity on AT&T's network will be fined at $0.99 per incident
While you were joking, there was a time when you could be fined for swearing on the telephone. In one case the fine was actually $5 (and this was back in 1902, so that was pretty hefty).
but this isn't about internet access for the home computer - it's about wireless internet access for a cell network. Sure, when our cell phones are much more advanced and p2p applications make sense I'll think they need to rethink their stance, but for now, it's pretty reasonable. imho.
Except that it's not just about cell phones. It's "mobile broadband", which means your laptop, too.
Furthermore, I specifically recall a TV that is running now (I forget for which provider) that makes a big deal out of the "jail cell" of wireless access points, and advertises their mobile broadband service as a way to escape it. It's being advertised as an alternative to normal Internet access.
It is unreasonable to expect to be allowed to. Why? Because of the impact on the other users. Because it isn't what the network is designed to support.
Well, if it's not designed to support Internet access, perhaps they shouldn't advertise it as such. From the ATT page describing "DataConnect":
With DataConnect for your laptop - you can send and receive email, browse the Internet, and access your corporate intranet while on the go by connecting your laptop to the Internet over the AT&T wireless network.
The common understanding of being connected to the Internet is being able to use pretty much any application you wish. If all they are selling is a web-browsing and e-mail service, they should call it that.
Now, Sprint isn't ATT, but according to Wikipedia, EVDO is a 3G service. Have a look at what their page says:
Mobile users can access:
E-mail with large attachments
Corporate Intranet and Internet
Digital Imaging
Location-based applications
Video/audio streaming
Rich Messaging
Bandwidth intensive applications for sales and customer service
So, according to Sprint, their 3G network is in fact designed to support applications like Hulu and Skype Video. Thus, it is not unreasonble to be expect to be allowed to use such services on a 3G network.
This doesn't necessarily mean that ATT isn't within their rights to disallow such services, but again, I have to wonder - when does an Internet connection stop being an Internet connection, and start being something else?
And you were doing this from a cell phone, or a cell-tethered computer?
No, I wasn't. In fact, I wouldn't think of purchasing one of those plans unless I were sure I could use it for whatever I wanted, and unless the price came down a bit. But why is it unreasonable to think that someone on a cell-tethered computer might want to use Skype Video or visit Hulu? One of my relatives travels frequently, and his cell-tethered computer is his only form of Internet access when he's not at home, which can often be for weeks at a time.
Before the discussion wanders off topic, it's important to note that this is not about copyright violation, something that's not mentioned anywhere in the letter. But, to quote from the letter:
Todayâ(TM)s P2P file sharing applications are inappropriate for AT&Tâ(TM)s mobile wireless broadband network, which is optimized to efficiently support high data rates for multiple users that send and receive intermittent or âoeburstyâ traffic generated by activities such as browsing the Internet and sending email. Because P2P file sharing applications typically engage in continuous (rather than bursty) transmissions at high data rates, a small number of users of P2P file sharing applications served by a particular cell site could severely degrade the service quality enjoyed by all customers served by that site.
So really, the issue isn't even P2P - the issue is "continuous transmissions at high data rates."
Now, the other day I spent about 2.5 hours on a Skype video call, and a few days before that I downloaded an ISO over HTTP (Mythbuntu). Will activities like those eventually be labeled a breach of service, because of their nature as "continuous transmissions at high data rates"? What about visiting Hulu? I think those are all pretty legitimate questions.
On this topic, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Maryland, an student employee working for the security department was fired for zooming a surveillance camera on a dormitory window. The story was that he was trying to watch a game on the TV inside the room. The school then installed software to blur windows to the camera operators, though I'm not sure how well that software works...
They could probably only win a trespassing case if the private road was fenced or gated off and the Google driver opened the gate to get in without permission. Simply sticking up a Private Property sign is not enough. I'm not saying Google was right in driving on their road but there's no way they could be charged with trespassing in this case.
Probably depends on what state they're in. I'm not a lawyer, but if I understand English, in Maryland they definitely could be charged with trespassing, and sticking up signs in fact is enough. And so you know I'm not just making stuff up, here's the link to the law, as well as the text:
(a) Prohibited.- A person may not enter or trespass on property that is posted conspicuously against trespass by: (1) signs placed where they reasonably may be seen; or (2) paint marks...
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
What about Spanish-only speaking citizens?
What about analphabets, blind people?
What about other countries, for example India with 23 official Languages and more than 1200 languages spoken around the rural countryside, not to mention a couple of hundred million non-readers as well.
None of the issues you raise apply to Google. Also, to deal with non-English or non-official language speakers, or illiterate people, you could simply use a picture (I don't know, maybe something like this, which took all of three seconds to find on... Google.) As for blind people, I feel like you're probably not going to have many of them wandering around taking photos on private property, but I could be wrong.
Without even talking about Google Earth photographing topless people from Satellites in their backyard, what about ultralight planes covering the property?
Or drones, should Google be allowed to use drones to make pictures?
If not, why? Other companies use air photography too.
The question is about Street View, which is taken using trucks, not aircraft.
I don't like being watched either, but they kind of have a point.
Not really. They say that there's no such thing as complete privacy because of satellite photograpy. Fine, that may be true, but how does that justify doing away with what privacy is left, and how does it naturally apply to taking photographs with trucks on private property? It doesn't. It's a pretty stupid argument, if you ask me.
I thought the same thing. Sisyphean makes is sound like he just can't win. Of course, that might be accurate.
Actually, now that I think about it, it would be the other way around. With the US economy tanking, the price in US dollars of the laptop would be going up, not down.