One wonders if the $500 suckers have learned from the folly of their impatience? Apple's tricks on people's perceptions of value could return to bite them in the ass. I can easily see lots of people (me included) never purchasing an new apple product until they slash (\ ha! ha! the pun...) the prices by about 30% about a month or so after the launch.
It is a little archaic to apply metaphors such as "house left open" e.t.c to this instance since the item in question is ubiquitous. Although not legally established, setting SSID's or securing one's wireless network should be deemed as establishing proof of ownership. I'm persuaded by the argument where two unsecured wireless networks occupy the same space, one is free [e.g cafe] and the other is a private unsecured network. Without any access control, a "reasonable person" (read non-tech-savvy or your grandmother) would not be aware of the alleged trespass offense if they connect to the latter. Ignorance is not an admissible defense, but any punitive measures should be mitigated by the fact that the 'culprit' was unaware of their culpability.
Slashdot Mirror
One wonders if the $500 suckers have learned from the folly of their impatience? Apple's tricks on people's perceptions of value could return to bite them in the ass. I can easily see lots of people (me included) never purchasing an new apple product until they slash (\ ha! ha! the pun...) the prices by about 30% about a month or so after the launch.
Steve Jobs will never sacrifice aesthetic design even for functionality. Em, period.
It is a little archaic to apply metaphors such as "house left open" e.t.c to this instance since the item in question is ubiquitous. Although not legally established, setting SSID's or securing one's wireless network should be deemed as establishing proof of ownership. I'm persuaded by the argument where two unsecured wireless networks occupy the same space, one is free [e.g cafe] and the other is a private unsecured network. Without any access control, a "reasonable person" (read non-tech-savvy or your grandmother) would not be aware of the alleged trespass offense if they connect to the latter. Ignorance is not an admissible defense, but any punitive measures should be mitigated by the fact that the 'culprit' was unaware of their culpability.