By now you probably know that Craigslist sucks as a way to sell stuff.
Uh, no it doesn't. I never got a single spam, and I've sold about 10 things (mostly electronic) over the last year. Not one of hte people flaked on me or tried to haggle once I met them. Yeah, they haggled before (on the phone or via email), but once I met them, everyone was nice and kept to the agreed upon price.
More than that. Rents for apartments have doubled in the last year in Oakland, says my friend who owns a lot of diverse properties in the East Bay, so you know it's much worse in SF.
My 2008 Toyota Highlander has had like 3-4 recalls that I had to go into the dealer for. The last of which was software. And, I'm not counting the one where I pulled in for a service and the dude said "whoa, your tires are falling apart" and I got 5 brand new tires. I had 15k miles on the originals.
This is the wrong fight. Protester vs. Googler is a distraction. There are other, root causes of the problem that make the protesters angry, and doing this might relieve some frustration for them, but it does no good, and arguably does harm to their cause and gets us no closer to real solutions.
Back in the 70's, Berkeley, a close neighbor, decided that rent control was the answer. It turns out that it helped, but it had too many unintended consequences (people living in $200 nice apartments for decades when they made really good money, thus completely defeating the purpose of rent control).
So, rent control didn't work, at least not in the way it was done in Berkeley. Did it work in SF? Doesn't seem to have. NYC? I hear nightmare stores of their issues.
It's the dialog of the greater problems we need to have, not these stupid little fights.
Buchwald based his decision on the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War, and required that the United States recognize Mexican land grants as long as the owner filed a claim. The original owner of the coastal property filed such a claim. The U.S. government challenged his land patent, but the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed his ownership in 1859 -- 14 years before the California Constitution was first drafted.
I can't make head nor tail of this.[1]
EDIT: OK, this[2] is clearer:
The judge's ruling skirts the fundamental conflict between the rights of private property owners and the rights of Californians to access the shoreline. Instead, Buchwald rooted his decision in the land's history during the mid-19th century. Since there was no public easement attached to the property at the time the United States acquired California from Mexico, the judge reasoned, the question of whether the California Constitution now guarantees access to the beach is immaterial.
The original owner of the property was Jose Maria Alviso, who received a provisional land grant from the Mexican government in the late 1830s. He later transferred the property to his brother, Jose Antonio Alviso, whose rights to the property were upheld under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which settled the Mexican-American War. The U.S. government challenged Alviso's land patent, but the Supreme Court confirmed Alviso's ownership in 1859.
Because the backlight is still on for a while. If they wanted, when they turn off the backlight, they could leave the page you were reading visible. They choose to show an "off" image, though.
I'm surprised to find not one defense of Mark like there was in the original thread a few weeks ago, when the trial started. At that time, there were a bunch of people with very specific arguments why it wasn't insider trading. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember reading and I found them interesting.