Repost: City Sues Man for Canceling Trash Service

City Sues Man for Canceling Trash Service

SAN CARLOS – A man who claims to have reduced his waste to nearly nothing out of concern for the environment now faces a lawsuit from San Carlos for cancelling his garbage-collection service.

The lawsuit, filed by San Carlos Deputy City Attorney Linda Noeske in San Mateo Superior Court on Jan. 22, seeks a permanent injunction forcing House to maintain garbage service. City officials are also seeking to recoup from House the costs of the lawsuit.

I think this is a misunderstanding – the city thinks he’s using a different service, which is against their contract with the garbage collection company, while he maintains that he just doesn’t make that much trash.

I, personally, think that in this time and age, unless he lives in a very special area that has farmer’s markets, etc. that it’s impossible to not create trash. A couple on Discovery TV tried it and got it down to minimal, but they couldn’t quite manage it.

The ideal solution to this is to have the cost based on the amount of trash someone creates – and heavy fees for those who create more trash than Pigpen. We only have one world, after all. How? Cameras with passive recording, on which the collectors could make digital marks to point out the large amounts of trash. I’m sure that with today’s technology and facial recognition, they can make trash recognition – trash cans only come in a few different shapes after all.

But companies are lazy, and won’t do it because the income potential could be risky and as we’re all becoming more aware, people would end up paying less over time. Won’t happen, but it should.

On a side note, this is the first and only post I’ve ever had a complaint about “theft” of “paid services”. Most sites like having links and mentionings.  So… I’ve cut out the middle man from the content of this post, because I realized I was sending hits to a [enter your favourite insult here].

Clue: ads are blocked more and more, didn’t you notice that? Get out of the 90’s.

Posted in repost. 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “Repost: City Sues Man for Canceling Trash Service”

  1. Craig M. Says:

    Hi Amanda

    Normal blog etiquette is to refer to a post, and link to it, or, alternatively, to quote a couple of paragraphs, then link to the original for the rest. You’ve just taken the whole post, and put it on your site. That’s theft (our posts are paid for). Please rectify immediately.

    Thanks in advance.

    Craig M.

    Your posts are paid for? Really? Well, as I didn’t see any ads (which may or may not be there, I don’t allow my computer to show them), I’ll make the conclusion that you were paid to put this on your site. Thanks for openly stating your bias.
    Hint: I’m a smartass, not a corperation defending it’s bottom line. You won’t get any hits from my site if I can help it, from this time forward.

  2. Craig M. Says:

    Thanks for rectifying.

    I don’t steal posts from other sites, and don’t expect others to do so from us. You’ll find few in the blogosphere who will condone your actions.

    It is not a ‘corporation defending its bottom line’ – it’s pure politeness, and allowing people to benefit from their labours, rather than you benefiting from other people’s labours.

    I’m sure, if I wanted to make one of your posts known to our readership, you’d far prefer I make mention of it or quote from it and then link to it for the remainder, than just outright steal it.

    Quite the contrary – I firmly believe in the open source / free software / gnu / copyleft / creative commons /etc movements, and if you had found one of my posts interesting enough, all I generally hope for is a link back to the original so if people want to ask me a question, they can. If I wanted to control my thoughts and where they go, I wouldn’t put them on the internet. You can’t steal what is openly given away.

    It’s called intellectual copyright, and is no different from mass photocopying printed books or magazines and distributing. We have a copyright notice on our site. Thanks for respecting it.

    This is a moot point as “your” content is gone, and I will not be returning to your site.

  3. Craig Mackintosh Says:

    Where applicable, I also fully appreciate the creative commons approach. Unfortunately if we allowed people to take our material and freely circulate it, we’d never accomplish our ambition of growing our site and making it a powerful tool for change.

    So, I appreciate you have changed the post, although am a little perplexed as to why you’d never return to our site. If you put a full BBC article up on your site, and BBC asked you to do what I’ve done (use part of it, then link to the rest of the story for the remainder), then I can’t imagine you’d get grumpy with them.

    There are different kinds of sites on the net, for different purposes. What we produce costs, so in order to be sustainable we need to share our efforts in a way that maximises our ability to continue our work.

    Again, I don’t understand why you’re miffed about this, it’s normal blog etiquette. But, whatever. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: