Don't want to sound like flamebait, but it seems to me like lots of OSS projects just copy things that others (Apple, even MS) invented.
Actually Apple's Expose always struck me as being a direct ripoff of the Zoom Desktop which was a university project from the early 90s... and it was free software written for X11.
Rather than say "Linux rips off Apple" or "OSS rips off Microsoft" why can't we just agree that everybody rips off everybody else. None of the big three (Linux, MacOS, Windows) can claim that they are 100% original with no external influences.
You are right now using a data link to slashdot.org...
You know, it was a stupid point when the Anon Coward said it three days ago, so I left it alone because I assumed everybody else had the half-cluon required to spot the flaw. But now you not only plagiarise the idea from the Anon Coward, you repeat the same stupidity that he said. Apparently I need to spell this out with crayons.
The entire problem with the wireless access point is that the owner is typically unaware that he's advertising the access point to his neighbours. If you honestly think that Slashdot was accidentally created, accidentally hosted, accidentally sold to OSDL, and Rob/Taco have no fucking idea that half a million subscribers view it daily, then you're a retarded idiot.
If you can't spot the difference between Slashdot and an unsecured 802.11 access point then I advise you shut the fuck up.
Re:Hm..i think this is a wonderfull step for linux
on
DVD Authoring In Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And for open source in general, if we can provide good open source solutions to things that until now cost alot of money, it is one of the strongest ways of supporting open source,
I disagree. I think that's one of the quickest ways of destroying open source.
Open source is not about giving things away for free that otherwise would cost a lot of money. That's a recipe for a dead business and a lot of unemployed programmers. Open source is about empowering the user, empowering the third party developers, and leveraging the collaborative efforts of millions of programmers to achieve a common goal.
If we start focussing purely on the monetary savings we lose sight of the actual benefits of open source; collaboration, community, sharing, empowerment, specialisation, customisation. All of those benefits aren't possible with closed-source software no matter what the cost.
I'm glad to see this on Linux, the problem is that it still needs a good GUI before it'll get used by many people for DVD authoring
Myself included. I'm not afraid of the command line (it's still my preferred file manager) but I don't see myself using dvdauthor to whip up some photos. But that's not the point. Command line programs like dvdauthor are great for scripting. If you're generating 1000s of photos from an automated system and you need to spit out DVDs so the user can watch them in comfort then dvdauthor is perfect. You can write a perl script in a day or two that does all the work.
It's exactly the same reason why imagemagick is so popular. If I'm touching up a photo or two, I use gimp. If I'm automating the backend of a web farm generating 1000s of photos with watermarks, I use imagemagick. After reading this article, I now know I can offer DVD functionality in future products I deliver. I didn't know that before. I'm enlightened and educated.
I think it's rather silly to use this article as the platform for another "Linux will never take off until we make GUIs" rant. The article nicely describes a rather good command line tool. Nobody was suggesting this as an alternative to iMovie or any of the professional DVD editting suites. It's a tool. It has its uses. It has its limitations. Lets leave it at that.
Just a thought... how hard would it be to make an operating system that only executed signed code?
Trivial. You could modify the Linux ELF loader to do this right now.
The problem is in proving that the signed code is not flawed. For example, the Xbox was compromised despite only executing signed code because Goldeneye had an overflow bug. Also you might remember the ActiveX signing was ridiculed when somebody managed to get Microsoft's signature on a program that simply rebooted your machine.
And there are always bugs in the design of the program, not just the implementation. For example, any program that has a scripting language with RW access to data is a potential security hole. Or something more stupid like an e-mail client that trusted any attachments it received. The e-mail program might be signed but if the payload is dangerous (and isn't an executable) then you are still screwed.
Also you need to prove that the OS itself does not have any vulnerabilities.
It's not so simple as "we're secure because we only execute signed code".
I do think that for a few CDs that $70 is overpriced.
Gee, I don't. It's like a dozen CDs and manuals in a box that makes a concrete block look small. I think they lose money on the media kit: there's no way they can be making and distributing them for a mere $70.
And the problem of low end systems being overpriced still stands.
They're competitive with namebrands like IBM. You can get a white-box for half the price, but I'm firmly of the opinion that you get what you pay for with hardware.
Oh, and we can now dynamically create soft partitions? God, LVM had this for years. Just try increasing a partition size under Solaris8 (or 9) with Disksuite, without switching to single user mode.
Partitions are typically called slices under Solaris, so I think they're referring to resource partitioning (similar concept to domains in E10k terminology but in software, not hardware).
Love is clearly not "only a biochemical reaction"; it may be founded in such, or manifest itself as such, but love, like all emotion, is also a quality of consciousness.
Actually, I prefer magic tricks when I know how they're done. Because then I watch for the illusion and I'm even more impressed when the practioneer's skill still fools my eyes.
Love is clearly not "only a biochemical reaction"; it may be founded in such, or manifest itself as such, but love, like all emotion, is also a quality of consciousness.
Some people believe that consciousness is only a biochemical reaction.
Word from the wise; "clearly not" is a giveaway that an opinion is about to follow.
For what it's worth, I find it interesting that folks always assume this is a racial (specifically, about black slaves) issue. Slavery has been around for millenia, as anything from a way to pay off a debt (fairly rare, and different from indentured servants) to the penalty for losing a battle in war.
Interestingly enough, it wasn't until your comment that I realised anybody was talking about racial slavery (specifically, black slaves). I suppose that's the benefit of not being educated in an American environment. I assumed the LA County official was simply outraged at the concept of slavery, not the racial implications of American slavery.
"Stuff" doesn't make you happy, it just accretes around you. It's crap, you shouldn't bother buying it in the first place, but since you have, get rid of it when you're done with it.
You think you might need it next week, or next month, or maybe next year? You may think it's worth something... Believe me, it isn't and you won't. It's just shit that'll just clutter up your life.
To a certain extent I agree with you. There's something weird about people who refuse to throw away 10 year old computers that they never turn on. Or keep boxes full of broken crap because it might be something to "fix" one rainy day.
But at the same time, there's nothing weird about having "stuff". Should we all live in empty rooms with no ornaments and no decorations. Nothing but our work clothes hanging in the closet? Or perhaps not even hanging because coathangers are just more "stuff".
Because contrary to the hippy mantra; "stuff" does make you happy. But only to a certain point. When I was living in my bare house with no furniture... it kinda sucked. I used cardboard boxes for a table and a plastic chair to sit on until I could afford furniture. Now I have some decent furniture and I'm happier because of it.
But would having 10 sofas make me happy? Of course not. Tracy Chapman sings about "mountains of things" not making her happy. It's true. A whole mountain of things isn't going to make your life better. But living like a hermit isn't the answer. You need to strike the right balance.
The important lesson is to know where to draw the line. A box of 5.25" floppy disks: chuck it. A box of 3/4" galvanised screws: organise them!
The arent in the unix business by any mesure and i cant remember one single product that even touches unix coming from MS.
Windows Services For Unix. I have briefly played with it. It includes an NFS server, NIS integration, a bunch of GNU tools, ActivePerl (a version of Perl ported to NT) and some stuff from Mortice-Kern (now that brings back memories). I suspect the NFS and NIS stuff is what required a SYSV license.
It's actually a non-shallow attempt by Microsoft to offer UNIX services on Windows. I wasn't impressed with SFU as much as I'm impressed by CYGWIN - I think CYGWIN is a much better product even ignoring the fact that CYGWIN is free - but I was impressed that Microsoft seems to have made an honest effort with SFU.
I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. You most certainly DO need to be "fit" to be an "athlete." That's what the definition of "Athlete" is.
athlete (noun): a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina
Sorry, definitions are more fluid than that. Let's take another look at the dictionary. Looks like you've chosen the second definition from Webster's. The first definition is.
1. (Antiq.) One who contended for a prize in the public games
of ancient Greece or Rome.
Ok, looks like that one doesn't apply. So let's look at the third definition.
3. One fitted for, or skilled in, intellectual contests; as,
athletes of debate.
Oooo, wait a second, an athlete of debate. My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anybody on the debating team being a pinnacle of strength, agility or stamina. What about the fourth definition of athlete.
n : a person trained to compete in sports
Ok, so this ties in nicely with your rant about various sports not actually being sports... including motorsports! Seeing as you like to argue from the dictionary (not my preferred style, but when in Rome).
sport [n] 5. Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing,
racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked.
[1913 Webster]
Yes, I've gone straight for the fifth definition. Turnabout is fair play. You'll notice it says racing! It even says fishing is a sport. Perhaps your definition of sport is too narrow because your beloved dictionary disagrees with you.
You'll also notice that when they have the opening ceremony for the Olympics, they call all the competitors "Olympic Athletes". This includes the unhealthy non-muscular competitors.
So, can you sue someone for trespassing for seeing a sign "open house - come in anytime" in front of your property, and entering your yard and knocking on your door, assuming that you forgot about the sign and inadvertently left it outside? Broadcasting such a signal does constitute an electronic "sign" that the network is open and available.
And I say it doesn't. The access point is saying "hey, I'm an access point, and my name is xxxxxxxxx". It's not saying "and my owner wants you to use me to surf the Internet for free". You claim it's a "sign". You say it's an open invitation. I'm calling your bluff. I'm saying it's a statement of existence. You are the one who interprets that as an open invitation to use it. The access point only broadcasts that the access is possible, not that it is permitted. You are inventing this "permission" concept based purely on your say-so.
Should network owner be responsible for what they broadcast to public from their property? 100%, unless they get hacked by malicious attacker, or similar cuircumstance. They don't know is a good excuse (after the fact), but default responsibility is theirs with regard to their broadcast signal.
There was never any disagreement about their responsibility. The disagreement started when somebody (you?) claimed that their ignorance absolves the freeloader of any guilt for using somebody elses equipment without permission.
If somebody were doing something more than checking email, doing some web surfing, and were really imposing a bandwidth burden, I'd reconsider. But bandwidth isn't metered, I don't pay by the byte, and nobody else with residential service in the US does either. So it's not analogous to taking my electricity or charging pay-per-view to my TV. It's more like using my phone line for local calls when I'm not using it.
We don't all live in the US. My area (capital city of Australia) doesn't have ADSL. Doesn't have cable. Doesn't have anything better than ISDN, but that's $300 per month plus bandwidth charges. I'm not paying that so I'm sticking with 28.8k (can't even get 56k where I live). Many dialup Internet accounts charge by the byte (thankfully not mine). So it can be a big deal. Not everybody is blessed with unlimited high speed Internet access.
And we pay 25c for every local call.
Now I know enough about networks to keep my systems secure but this argument isn't about me. I'm not stressing out over it. I don't even have wireless. This argument is about the hypothetical idiot who didn't secure his network and it's about the self-confessed criminals who use that idiot's link without his permission. The criminals are trying to justify their crime by saying "he didn't secure it" and "it's not like he pays for it". Doesn't matter. It's still illegal.
All very clever and it sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
Thank you. I do try.
However perhaps he should examing exactly how those new-fangled high-speed hardware boards work.
Yeah, maybe I should do that. Perhaps I should start with dri.sourceforge.net.
Maybe examine how geometry is sent to them nowadays. Take a look at how those fragment/pixel shaders are stored and sent to the card.
Though perhaps you might like to first explain to me what transform engines and pixel shaders have to do with Xlib?
You might also check why disk interfaces are going serial, and even the main bus may go serial someday.
Yeah, maybe I should do that. Giggle. Main bus going serial! Let's see... napkin... pen... 800Mhz front side bus... 6400 megabytes per second... in serial.... it would only have to clock at 53.6GHz!
Well, my point was - does broadcasting an open wireless network constitute an offer to use that for internet access?
No.
As I said, you can list numerous cases when that's exactly the case, such as in airports, and various commercial or residential neighborhoods.
The airport explicitly states that a wireless connection is available for the use of waiting passengers. Your neighbour made no such explicit statement that anybody can use his link.
I don't quite see this analogy, however. I think a closer analogy would be, if you posted a sign saying "house for sale - open house - come in anytime", and then sued everyone for trespassing when they entered your yard and knocked on your door, would that be right?
I think your analogy sucks. The naive wireless user hasn't put up a sign. He has left his access point insecured. That's more like leaving your door wide open in clear view of the street. That still doesn't constitute an invitation to enter the house, and it certainly doesn't say "come on in and help yourself to the good silver".
But what I am saying is that if you are billed per minute/byte to use your Internet connection, you shouldn't be broadcasting an open invitation publically for everyone to use that service.
And my point is that his mistake does not forfeit his rights. You can't use his link simply because he doesn't know enough to secure his access point.
Otherwise, it's a TWO WAY, but a reasonable process - owner broadcasts availability of the service to any member of public passing by
The owner broadcasts an open access point. You further use that service to access his Internet link. Your analogy falls flat; you have not just helped yourself to his access point, you have also helped yourself to his Internet link.
If you braodcast a signal, what you are doing is giving it away. Now, if you don't want to give they stuff you are sending all over the neighbor hood, then secure it.
Sniffing his broadcasts isn't a problem. As you say, he's giving it away. It's when you send wireless packets into his home to inititate data transfers on his link that you cross the line. You are now controlling his equipment without his permission.
Now, if it clearly indicates that only authorized user can be on it, and asks for a login and password,
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that equipment without a login/password is for public use. It's still his equipment. You have no right to use it, even if it isn't secured.
Since my neighbor broadcasts his SSID and doesn't use WEP, can I assume that I have his permission to use it?
No, you can assume no such thing.
Not only is the door to his network unlocked, it's got a big flashing sign for any 802.11b card to read that says - "Come On In! surf some pr0n on my connection!".
Except it says no such thing. There's no "free pr0n here" flag in the 802.11 specs.
Skate Boarders and BMXers still depend on actual physical talents and overall physical health outside of hand-eye coordination.
Yes, but professional atheletes are not necessarily fit.
I know it's asking for karma burn, but "professional" gamers aren't worth shit in the end. They aren't special. Actual ATHLETES are.
Darts. Bowls. Archery. Billiards. Skeet Shooting.
Not only are they spectator sports, they get international coverage. Some of them are even Olympic events. You do not need to be fit to be an athelete. Hand-eye coordination is good enough.
If it was billed on per-use and per byte transmitted, then it should not have been public.
Should. Could. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal to use somebody elses data link without their permission.
If you leave your front door unlocked - by accident or otherwise - it doesn't grant permission to any passerby to steal your stuff. Yes, you were stupid for leaving your door unlocked. Yes, your insurance might be voided. NO, it doesn't mean you forfeit your property rights.
Same for the wireless connection. They might be pretty dumb for not securing it. Their ISP probably won't refund their money. But the person who stole the bandwidth is NOT vindicated.
if you put your 50" plasma TV in your driveway facing outside and turn it on, when neighbors start watching it from across the street, they are not stealing anything - since you've made your signal available to public in such manner.
TCP/IP is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Not a one-way transmission. The 50" TV emits light; it doesn't receive it. The person using your wireless LAN without permission is sending and receiving data. They are also initiating packet transfers that might involve a cost to you. That's very different from passively watching a television. Your analogy falls very short.
Now if your neighbour used their infra-red remote to control the 50" TV, and we lived in a universe where certain channels were charged by the minute, and your neighbour decided to change channels to the boxing match, thus racking up a $250 charge to your television bill... then we'd have a workable analogy. And I think you'd find the small-claims court would rule against the greedy neighbour.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Apple's Expose always struck me as being a direct ripoff of the Zoom Desktop which was a university project from the early 90s... and it was free software written for X11.
Rather than say "Linux rips off Apple" or "OSS rips off Microsoft" why can't we just agree that everybody rips off everybody else. None of the big three (Linux, MacOS, Windows) can claim that they are 100% original with no external influences.
You know, it was a stupid point when the Anon Coward said it three days ago, so I left it alone because I assumed everybody else had the half-cluon required to spot the flaw. But now you not only plagiarise the idea from the Anon Coward, you repeat the same stupidity that he said. Apparently I need to spell this out with crayons.
The entire problem with the wireless access point is that the owner is typically unaware that he's advertising the access point to his neighbours. If you honestly think that Slashdot was accidentally created, accidentally hosted, accidentally sold to OSDL, and Rob/Taco have no fucking idea that half a million subscribers view it daily, then you're a retarded idiot.
If you can't spot the difference between Slashdot and an unsecured 802.11 access point then I advise you shut the fuck up.
I disagree. I think that's one of the quickest ways of destroying open source.
Open source is not about giving things away for free that otherwise would cost a lot of money. That's a recipe for a dead business and a lot of unemployed programmers. Open source is about empowering the user, empowering the third party developers, and leveraging the collaborative efforts of millions of programmers to achieve a common goal.
If we start focussing purely on the monetary savings we lose sight of the actual benefits of open source; collaboration, community, sharing, empowerment, specialisation, customisation. All of those benefits aren't possible with closed-source software no matter what the cost.
Myself included. I'm not afraid of the command line (it's still my preferred file manager) but I don't see myself using dvdauthor to whip up some photos. But that's not the point. Command line programs like dvdauthor are great for scripting. If you're generating 1000s of photos from an automated system and you need to spit out DVDs so the user can watch them in comfort then dvdauthor is perfect. You can write a perl script in a day or two that does all the work.
It's exactly the same reason why imagemagick is so popular. If I'm touching up a photo or two, I use gimp. If I'm automating the backend of a web farm generating 1000s of photos with watermarks, I use imagemagick. After reading this article, I now know I can offer DVD functionality in future products I deliver. I didn't know that before. I'm enlightened and educated.
I think it's rather silly to use this article as the platform for another "Linux will never take off until we make GUIs" rant. The article nicely describes a rather good command line tool. Nobody was suggesting this as an alternative to iMovie or any of the professional DVD editting suites. It's a tool. It has its uses. It has its limitations. Lets leave it at that.
Enough! I'm sick to death of everybody picking on Keanu Reeves.
Trivial. You could modify the Linux ELF loader to do this right now.
The problem is in proving that the signed code is not flawed. For example, the Xbox was compromised despite only executing signed code because Goldeneye had an overflow bug. Also you might remember the ActiveX signing was ridiculed when somebody managed to get Microsoft's signature on a program that simply rebooted your machine.
And there are always bugs in the design of the program, not just the implementation. For example, any program that has a scripting language with RW access to data is a potential security hole. Or something more stupid like an e-mail client that trusted any attachments it received. The e-mail program might be signed but if the payload is dangerous (and isn't an executable) then you are still screwed.
Also you need to prove that the OS itself does not have any vulnerabilities.
It's not so simple as "we're secure because we only execute signed code".
Gee, I don't. It's like a dozen CDs and manuals in a box that makes a concrete block look small. I think they lose money on the media kit: there's no way they can be making and distributing them for a mere $70.
They're competitive with namebrands like IBM. You can get a white-box for half the price, but I'm firmly of the opinion that you get what you pay for with hardware.
Partitions are typically called slices under Solaris, so I think they're referring to resource partitioning (similar concept to domains in E10k terminology but in software, not hardware).
Actually, I prefer magic tricks when I know how they're done. Because then I watch for the illusion and I'm even more impressed when the practioneer's skill still fools my eyes.
Some people believe that consciousness is only a biochemical reaction.
Word from the wise; "clearly not" is a giveaway that an opinion is about to follow.
Interestingly enough, it wasn't until your comment that I realised anybody was talking about racial slavery (specifically, black slaves). I suppose that's the benefit of not being educated in an American environment. I assumed the LA County official was simply outraged at the concept of slavery, not the racial implications of American slavery.
Because it rhymes.
To a certain extent I agree with you. There's something weird about people who refuse to throw away 10 year old computers that they never turn on. Or keep boxes full of broken crap because it might be something to "fix" one rainy day.
But at the same time, there's nothing weird about having "stuff". Should we all live in empty rooms with no ornaments and no decorations. Nothing but our work clothes hanging in the closet? Or perhaps not even hanging because coathangers are just more "stuff".
Because contrary to the hippy mantra; "stuff" does make you happy. But only to a certain point. When I was living in my bare house with no furniture... it kinda sucked. I used cardboard boxes for a table and a plastic chair to sit on until I could afford furniture. Now I have some decent furniture and I'm happier because of it.
But would having 10 sofas make me happy? Of course not. Tracy Chapman sings about "mountains of things" not making her happy. It's true. A whole mountain of things isn't going to make your life better. But living like a hermit isn't the answer. You need to strike the right balance.
The important lesson is to know where to draw the line. A box of 5.25" floppy disks: chuck it. A box of 3/4" galvanised screws: organise them!
Windows Services For Unix. I have briefly played with it. It includes an NFS server, NIS integration, a bunch of GNU tools, ActivePerl (a version of Perl ported to NT) and some stuff from Mortice-Kern (now that brings back memories). I suspect the NFS and NIS stuff is what required a SYSV license.
It's actually a non-shallow attempt by Microsoft to offer UNIX services on Windows. I wasn't impressed with SFU as much as I'm impressed by CYGWIN - I think CYGWIN is a much better product even ignoring the fact that CYGWIN is free - but I was impressed that Microsoft seems to have made an honest effort with SFU.
Sorry, definitions are more fluid than that. Let's take another look at the dictionary. Looks like you've chosen the second definition from Webster's. The first definition is.
Ok, looks like that one doesn't apply. So let's look at the third definition.
Oooo, wait a second, an athlete of debate. My memory isn't what it used to be but I don't recall anybody on the debating team being a pinnacle of strength, agility or stamina. What about the fourth definition of athlete.
Ok, so this ties in nicely with your rant about various sports not actually being sports... including motorsports! Seeing as you like to argue from the dictionary (not my preferred style, but when in Rome).
Yes, I've gone straight for the fifth definition. Turnabout is fair play. You'll notice it says racing! It even says fishing is a sport. Perhaps your definition of sport is too narrow because your beloved dictionary disagrees with you.
You'll also notice that when they have the opening ceremony for the Olympics, they call all the competitors "Olympic Athletes". This includes the unhealthy non-muscular competitors.
So with all due respect, I think you're wrong.
And I say it doesn't. The access point is saying "hey, I'm an access point, and my name is xxxxxxxxx". It's not saying "and my owner wants you to use me to surf the Internet for free". You claim it's a "sign". You say it's an open invitation. I'm calling your bluff. I'm saying it's a statement of existence. You are the one who interprets that as an open invitation to use it. The access point only broadcasts that the access is possible, not that it is permitted. You are inventing this "permission" concept based purely on your say-so.
There was never any disagreement about their responsibility. The disagreement started when somebody (you?) claimed that their ignorance absolves the freeloader of any guilt for using somebody elses equipment without permission.
We don't all live in the US. My area (capital city of Australia) doesn't have ADSL. Doesn't have cable. Doesn't have anything better than ISDN, but that's $300 per month plus bandwidth charges. I'm not paying that so I'm sticking with 28.8k (can't even get 56k where I live). Many dialup Internet accounts charge by the byte (thankfully not mine). So it can be a big deal. Not everybody is blessed with unlimited high speed Internet access.
And we pay 25c for every local call.
Now I know enough about networks to keep my systems secure but this argument isn't about me. I'm not stressing out over it. I don't even have wireless. This argument is about the hypothetical idiot who didn't secure his network and it's about the self-confessed criminals who use that idiot's link without his permission. The criminals are trying to justify their crime by saying "he didn't secure it" and "it's not like he pays for it". Doesn't matter. It's still illegal.
Thank you. I do try.
Yeah, maybe I should do that. Perhaps I should start with dri.sourceforge.net.
Though perhaps you might like to first explain to me what transform engines and pixel shaders have to do with Xlib?
Yeah, maybe I should do that. Giggle. Main bus going serial! Let's see... napkin... pen... 800Mhz front side bus... 6400 megabytes per second... in serial.... it would only have to clock at 53.6GHz!
Yes.
No.
The airport explicitly states that a wireless connection is available for the use of waiting passengers. Your neighbour made no such explicit statement that anybody can use his link.
I think your analogy sucks. The naive wireless user hasn't put up a sign. He has left his access point insecured. That's more like leaving your door wide open in clear view of the street. That still doesn't constitute an invitation to enter the house, and it certainly doesn't say "come on in and help yourself to the good silver".
And my point is that his mistake does not forfeit his rights. You can't use his link simply because he doesn't know enough to secure his access point.
The owner broadcasts an open access point. You further use that service to access his Internet link. Your analogy falls flat; you have not just helped yourself to his access point, you have also helped yourself to his Internet link.
Sniffing his broadcasts isn't a problem. As you say, he's giving it away. It's when you send wireless packets into his home to inititate data transfers on his link that you cross the line. You are now controlling his equipment without his permission.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that equipment without a login/password is for public use. It's still his equipment. You have no right to use it, even if it isn't secured.
No, you can assume no such thing.
Except it says no such thing. There's no "free pr0n here" flag in the 802.11 specs.
I think you don't know the meaning of the word "metaphor".
Yes. They don't have permission to use your stuff just because you didn't secure it properly.
Or do you pubescents think you can loot a house when it's left unlocked. Don't be foolish.
Yes, but professional atheletes are not necessarily fit.
Darts. Bowls. Archery. Billiards. Skeet Shooting.
Not only are they spectator sports, they get international coverage. Some of them are even Olympic events. You do not need to be fit to be an athelete. Hand-eye coordination is good enough.
Professional gaming is not an oxymoron.
Should. Could. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal to use somebody elses data link without their permission.
If you leave your front door unlocked - by accident or otherwise - it doesn't grant permission to any passerby to steal your stuff. Yes, you were stupid for leaving your door unlocked. Yes, your insurance might be voided. NO, it doesn't mean you forfeit your property rights.
Same for the wireless connection. They might be pretty dumb for not securing it. Their ISP probably won't refund their money. But the person who stole the bandwidth is NOT vindicated.
TCP/IP is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Not a one-way transmission. The 50" TV emits light; it doesn't receive it. The person using your wireless LAN without permission is sending and receiving data. They are also initiating packet transfers that might involve a cost to you. That's very different from passively watching a television. Your analogy falls very short.
Now if your neighbour used their infra-red remote to control the 50" TV, and we lived in a universe where certain channels were charged by the minute, and your neighbour decided to change channels to the boxing match, thus racking up a $250 charge to your television bill... then we'd have a workable analogy. And I think you'd find the small-claims court would rule against the greedy neighbour.