HN user
Lifehacker. Developer of software. Folder of spacetime.
In the news right now: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2015/10/01/slander_a...
"creator of app for collecting unsolicited feedback can't handle unsolicited feedback" etc.
Some nice spoonfuls if irony, right there.
So what happens when these spiders start reinforcing their exoskeletons with the ingested nanomaterial? Angry, eight-legged predators in ultratough kevlar, shooting indestructible web, that's what :)
I would guess that "handmade" in this context doesn't mean "no machines were involved", but rather "produced on a small scale and without processing the product in a factory".
Still, however you look at this rule, there are a lot of gray areas, and policing those must be challenging. I'd also guess that with an IPO on the horizon, the Etsy shareholders probably favor high volumes on their website, rather than kicking out shops that peddle non-handmade merch. A pity, that, because It's sorta the opposite of what Etsy was supposed to be.
Nice. We now agree that even though the owner of some property does not want to share, there are indeed circumstances where the owner must do so anyway.
Which leaves us with discussing what reasonable circumstance is.
You'd argue that fencing off a five mile long beautiful beach so that nobody else can enjoy this land is reasonable. I'd argue to the contrary, and it seems judge Barbara Mallach, at least, is with me on that one.
For the same reason that ownership of a car equals the right to restrict who gets to drive the car: that's what ownership means.
To go along with your car example, there are relationships which trump ownership. In the US, if a uniformed police officer approaches you and requests the use of your car in order to prevent a serious crime, you must comply. The cop's dire need to access your vehicle trumps the ownership of your car. Sure, you still own your car, but somebody else needs it a lot more right now.
Same thing in Norway regarding land ownership. Sure, you own it, but public access to that land may in some cases trump ownership.
Why should ownership of land be equal to the right to restrict access to said land?
Where I come from (Norway) a land owner needs a good reason to deny the public access to the land. Such a reason might be that the land is very small and surrounding a house (typically a garden), or there are crops planted or animals grazing on the land (typically a farm).
A land owner can't just put up a fence, but is free to develop the land (within county restrictions) or sell it and pocket the money.
Yeah, too bad for introvert billionaires, but hey, most people aren't and that's democracy for ya.
Sweet! The number of places I want to visit just increased!
Well, the socks are paird when you take them off, so it makes sense to keep entropy at bay rather than fighting the same dreary battles over and over. Use these http://deseng.ryerson.ca/xiki/Learning/Main:Sock_clips or some equivalent, I'm sure there are plenty of options :-)