Panera Bread, Heavy, but light on WiFi

Panera bread locations that have Wifi (not all do), while free, still might come with a price - two prices, in fact:
1: privacy/security - you can forget about it, they track every website you go to and
2: site blocking; one in particular I found rather odd is the blocking of livevideo.com - as they are one of the few from the "ustream/sitckam/blogtv" crowd that actually has an always-defaulted-on Family "Friendly" button!
The problem I find here is that Panera isn't actually checking these blocked sites for contraband, other than perhaps for keywords; such as "twogirlsonecup!". Well, we all know that 99% of those sites are reaction videos and (thanlfully, yet how would I know) not the "real McCoy" - or is it MacCoy? How Dare You, Panera? You need to lighten up or you may find your free access go the way of the dodo.

And, btw, they also block Anonymizer.com - go figure.

Public Access? Net Neutrality? Can anybody say "throttling"?

Who owns Purehost.com ?

We think it might now be CrystalHost or CrystalHosting.com

Companies owned by Crystalhost

"...does not maintain backup copies of Customer Web sites..." was the common googled phrase

from:

www.stylishwebs.com
www.bizland.com
www.powweb.com
www.freeportway.com
www.cwwnetserve.net
dotamerica.com
www.entryhost.com
www.netwayweb.net
www.usanethosting.com
www.onechoicehosting.com
www.ellisgs.com/hosting
www.accountsupport.com
www.comprotex.com
www.videospark.com
www.dysontech.com
www.fatcow-inc.com
www.hostdeal.com
https://www.travishosting.com (note the 's')
www.flvhosting.com
www.officenetcom.com
www.loovar.co.uk
www.dakotahost.net
oppenheimerhosting.com
www.mainstreamtech.co.uk
www.piyaga.com
www.2flv.com
www.hostyoursite.com
www.internetempower.com
www.readyhosting.com
https://stylishsecurity.com
www.hypermart.net
www.fatcow.com
www.bluedomino.com
www.ehost.com
www.freeyellow.com
www.fatpipeshosting.com
nwrks.com
forum.powweb.com
www.dotcanada.com
www.flvhost.com



So now you ask, "Who cares, and why are they all in one list?". The Answer: Because their Backup & Restore policies are IDENTICAL - which is fine, but unless they are violating copyright laws through rampant plagiarizing - unlikely - then they are (and in fact are) all one corporate umbrella. But the policy?

Answer:

"
Backup / Restore

1. WhomeverIsInTheAboveList.com does not maintain backup copies of Customer Web sites or e-mail.
2. WhomeverIsInTheAboveList.com cannot guarantee that the contents of a Web site will never be deleted or corrupted, or that a backup of a Web site will always be available.
3. We ALWAYS recommend that Customers copy all content of a Web site to a local computer and strongly suggest that Customers make an additional copy (on tape, CD, multiple floppies, another desktop, or elsewhere) to ensure the availability of the files."

Identical, as in all other parts of any one of these companies' agreements. Also identical is engineering, Level 1 2 and 3 Tier support personnel and companies - all shifts. 1st shift is outsourced to India (what a surprise), 2nd shift is outsourced to a company in California, and 3rd shift happens to be handled by Purehost.com itself - for all of these companies - the corporate alliances have changed a bit from whence cam PureHost via SprintHost via DellHost (remember that nightmare?)

Go, you Lesbians, GO!

Lesbians Rule !

http://digg.com/tech_news/LiveJournal_deletes_hundreds_of_illegal_rape_survivor_LGBTQ_communities "Responding to a query from a pedophilia-watchdog group, LiveJournal deleted all journals containing "illegal" key-words in the journal or community interests. Rape-survivor and incest-survivor groups, BSDM groups, and Lolita (the book) literary groups disappeared, along with hundreds of personal journals. Users are (predictably) outraged." from digg.com Wow. I wonder how long it will take LJ to kill my LJ account? Tags: digg, fun, gay, lebsians, morons, oops Current Location: My Lesbian Bed Chamber Current Mood: annoyed Current Music: L7

Cops vs. Real Life

Just something you need to see.

talk-show-hosts-in-hiding-after-police-threat

Ana Rincon is an idiot.

Her info on how to handle copyright violators is laughable if it weren't so scary and if it weren't for the fact that every body does this when confronted with SOME ONE ELSE'S Copyrights being violated!

Stupid. You do not - and according to the Act CAN NOT - take ALLEGED Copyright violators to court UNTIL you have at least followed the grievance procedures set out BY THE ACT. The Act supersedes any and all other sanctions IMAGINED yet still printed, publicised, adhered to by Colleges, High Schools, Libraries, companies, etc, all blindly thinking they know Copyright Law. The Copyright Act is not huge and nor hard to read. The DMCA bullshit, however, is complicated and is hard to read, but what of it?

The ONLY course of action for you to take when you feel violated is to report the violation to the PEOPLE THAT CAN AND WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT LEGALLY! That would be the US Copyright Office for ALLEGED Copyright infringement. Your College has NO BUSINESS accusing anyone nor imagining anyone of violating copyright law - how can they? No college employee nor student anywhere in the US can legally enforce ANY violation of the Act. Enforcement of the Act is the sole territory of the US Treasury Department. A college employee certainly can not enforce any ALLEGATIONS of same. And yet most schools print in their Policy Manuals words to that detrimental effect. I can not wait to get into the court system over Person A accusing Person B (me, in this case) of violating Person C's copyright, I live for this shit.

If you see a customer copying something at Kinko's, say of a picture taken by a photographer that you know Personally, and you some how, some way, find out that this customer does NOT have the Copyright Holder's permission to copy that picture, is there anything that you can do on behalf of your photographer friend?

Well, yes, there is something we can do to help the friend - one thing, and one thing only: You can call him on the phone and ask him to get his ass down quick to the Local Kinko's, because , "Dude, someone is copying one of your photographs from one of your published books! You better get down here and kick this guy's ass! I talked with a Kinko's employee about it and they said they only refuse to copy the works themselves, unless THE CUSTOMER gives a copy of signed permission form FROM the original Copyright Holder".

And that, my friends, is all that anyone can and is allowed to do under the Copyright Act. In this case, since I am not the copyright holder, I can not accuse nor report this Kinko's customer to anyone except the original copyright holder - period. I cannot complain to the Office of Copyright, the cops, the Kinko's store managers, no one except the original copyright holder. And if the original copyright holder does not care (about this one-time infringement) then I still can not do anything more. That is all.

Look it up: In your State, there are a list of crimes that can be reported and to whom they can be reported. Unfortunately there is no list of alleged crimes that CAN NOT be reported.

The Kinko's case is brought in here because Kinko's the company was once involved in a Copyright infringement case, that ultimately put ALL copy stores and libraries with copy machines "On Notice". The settlement specific to Kinko's was that they must FOREVER and ALWAYS (this now includes FedEx's ownership interest in Kinko's) must refuse all customer requests to make copies of customer's work unless the Kinko's Mange or employee attempting to do the work is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the CUSTOMER owns or holds ALL copyright to all the work that the customer wishes the Kinko's employee to copy.

ANY and ALL COPYRIGHT infringement can only be PROVED, DISPROVED and SETTLED first with the Office of Copyright, and if not there, then appealed to a COURT of actual LAW. Why do we not know this in America?

How hard is that, really?