If thats true then leaving your wireless network open also means your inviting people to use it and thus users of your network can't be charged with hacking.
And you shouldn't be charged with hacking, just like you aren't charged with grand theft auto if you take an ulocked car that had keys in the ignition.
A user of a file sharing program may not have the intend to share his files.
That is not how peer to peer software works, for the most part. The onus is on the user to not share things they don't want to share, anything that's shared is shared to the whole world, government agents included.
I agree with the content of your second paragraph.
The state doesn't need a warrant or exigent circumstances to enter your home or place of business if you invite them in, which is what you do when you offer files on p2p networks.
Why would the crypto bits change if I intercept the packet mid-stream, copy it, send the original packet along to its destination, and decrypt the copy to peek at its juicy internals?
Photons are not non-existant, simply because they are harder to catch does not mean one cannot cannot interact with them.
If stealing something is a literal impossibility then the said entity is imaginary.
Again, it's impossible to steal light, so by your defintion it is imaginary. Only you say it exists. Make up your mind.
Ideas dont exist in the literal sense.
Explain what you mean please. Someone had the idea for the website/., they created it, we can interact with it, therefore it exists in the literal sense. However, it can't be stolen, therefor it doesn't exist according to your prior definition.
In the military the POTUS is your ultimate commanding officer, criticising your superior officer in public is insubordination. Things in the military are not the same as things in civilian life. This is very much different than the incindent in the linked article.
I wasn't trying to ask for the literal difference...
That said, I prefer the idea of defaulting things like this to something sane and asking you on login if you want to opt-in versus putting more options in the installation process.
...Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.'
How is this different than the suggestion in the summary to default to no and ask the first time you log in?
-I had unprotected sex, I should go get a clothes hanger stuck in me in some back alley, and die of an infection if it doesn't work
No, you should go pay for your own abortion, or put the kid up for adoption.
-I had kids I can't support, they should be forced to live a life of squalor and misery for my mistake
No, you should put them up for adoption, or have your friends and family help you out, or figure out how to support your kids.
-I'm an addict, I should continue to spiral downwards until I die in the streets
I'm kind of with you on this one, I'm fine with paying for rehab for those who can't pay for it themselves, at least until it becomes clear that it's not helping and they're just going in and out of it, at which point it's probably better for them and society that they die as quickly as possible.
-I made shitty choices and now I'm poor, I should be forced to turn to crime to avoid starvation
Or you could just figure out how to get out of the situation you put yourself in, using any of a myriad of available options.
-I have a $25,000/year job but can't afford my mortgage, the government should watch the entire economy go down in flames rather than help me out
The economy isn't going to go down in flames if you can't pay your mortgage.
-I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investment, the government should stand aside while others suffer horribly for my actions. Meanwhile I'll retire in luxury, since I've already collected millions in bonuses
If what the bank[er] did was legal then, yes you get to go retire in luxury while hopefully the loopholes that allowed you to do something so catastrophically stupid are closed.
There are left/right-wingers, moderates, and centrists.
left wing + left moderate + centrist + right moderate + right wing = pentachotomy.
And if you really want to take what the GP said to the extreme:
left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + right wing = heptachotomy.
So while you're correct that there's nothing in what he said between moderate and extreme, there are definitely more than three things to choose from. In reality it's probably more like this:
left wing + moderate left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + moderate right wing + right wing
As a citizen of the USA I have the right to travel across the country freely. In a car, on foot, on a bus, etc. The government places no restrictions upon that travel when I am a passenger. As a passenger, or on foot, I and kill thousands of people at one time. Still the government places no restrictions on me.
The only time restrictions are placed on me is when I board a plane.
I would argue that the passenger of a plane offers no more threat than a guy walking down a street in manhattan, both can kill thousands at once. If that is so then why placemore restrictions on the passenger of the plane?
There is a big difference between driving a car and riding in one. Repeat offender drunk drivers can still be passengers in cars. Now do you understand what he was saying?
If you come onto my property you abide by my rules. If I allow you to put a sign in my front yard you better be damned sure that I get some say in what is on the sign.
Slashdot Mirror
If thats true then leaving your wireless network open also means your inviting people to use it and thus users of your network can't be charged with hacking.
And you shouldn't be charged with hacking, just like you aren't charged with grand theft auto if you take an ulocked car that had keys in the ignition.
A user of a file sharing program may not have the intend to share his files.
That is not how peer to peer software works, for the most part. The onus is on the user to not share things they don't want to share, anything that's shared is shared to the whole world, government agents included.
I agree with the content of your second paragraph.
The state doesn't need a warrant or exigent circumstances to enter your home or place of business if you invite them in, which is what you do when you offer files on p2p networks.
Ah! Thanks for the explanation.
Why would the crypto bits change if I intercept the packet mid-stream, copy it, send the original packet along to its destination, and decrypt the copy to peek at its juicy internals?
The extra line came from one of his previous posts, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4348777&cid=45156679
It's impossible to steal light, yet light exists.
Photons are not non-existant, simply because they are harder to catch does not mean one cannot cannot interact with them.
If stealing something is a literal impossibility then the said entity is imaginary.
Again, it's impossible to steal light, so by your defintion it is imaginary. Only you say it exists. Make up your mind.
Ideas dont exist in the literal sense.
Explain what you mean please. Someone had the idea for the website /., they created it, we can interact with it, therefore it exists in the literal sense. However, it can't be stolen, therefor it doesn't exist according to your prior definition.
It's impossible to steal light, yet light exists.
It's impossible to steal gravity, yet gravity exists.
It's impossible to steal the idea in this comment, yet the idea exists.
Just because something can't be stolen doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So intangible would be a better word than imaginary when talking about intellectual property, using your definition of imaginary.
In the military the POTUS is your ultimate commanding officer, criticising your superior officer in public is insubordination. Things in the military are not the same as things in civilian life. This is very much different than the incindent in the linked article.
Bastards are fatherless children of either sex.
Replacing 40g of HFCS with 40g of sugar significantly changes the taste. Mountain Dew Throwback tasts way better.
I wasn't trying to ask for the literal difference...
That said, I prefer the idea of defaulting things like this to something sane and asking you on login if you want to opt-in versus putting more options in the installation process.
...Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.'
How is this different than the suggestion in the summary to default to no and ask the first time you log in?
Why would I want to warn my enemies of my intentions?
-I had unprotected sex, I should go get a clothes hanger stuck in me in some back alley, and die of an infection if it doesn't work
No, you should go pay for your own abortion, or put the kid up for adoption.
-I had kids I can't support, they should be forced to live a life of squalor and misery for my mistake
No, you should put them up for adoption, or have your friends and family help you out, or figure out how to support your kids.
-I'm an addict, I should continue to spiral downwards until I die in the streets
I'm kind of with you on this one, I'm fine with paying for rehab for those who can't pay for it themselves, at least until it becomes clear that it's not helping and they're just going in and out of it, at which point it's probably better for them and society that they die as quickly as possible.
-I made shitty choices and now I'm poor, I should be forced to turn to crime to avoid starvation
Or you could just figure out how to get out of the situation you put yourself in, using any of a myriad of available options.
-I have a $25,000/year job but can't afford my mortgage, the government should watch the entire economy go down in flames rather than help me out
The economy isn't going to go down in flames if you can't pay your mortgage.
-I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investment, the government should stand aside while others suffer horribly for my actions. Meanwhile I'll retire in luxury, since I've already collected millions in bonuses
If what the bank[er] did was legal then, yes you get to go retire in luxury while hopefully the loopholes that allowed you to do something so catastrophically stupid are closed.
)
Stupid content filter won't just let me close the damned parenthesis.
I find children's programming to be offensive.
I just checked the size of my iPhone versus my hand, the photo has the right ratio.
I feel sorry for your girlfriend/wife.
Reading comprehension is your friend here.
There are left/right-wingers, moderates, and centrists.
left wing + left moderate + centrist + right moderate + right wing = pentachotomy.
And if you really want to take what the GP said to the extreme:
left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + right wing = heptachotomy.
So while you're correct that there's nothing in what he said between moderate and extreme, there are definitely more than three things to choose from. In reality it's probably more like this:
left wing + moderate left wing + left moderate + left centrist + centrist + right centrist + right moderate + moderate right wing + right wing
As a citizen of the USA I have the right to travel across the country freely. In a car, on foot, on a bus, etc. The government places no restrictions upon that travel when I am a passenger. As a passenger, or on foot, I and kill thousands of people at one time. Still the government places no restrictions on me.
The only time restrictions are placed on me is when I board a plane.
I would argue that the passenger of a plane offers no more threat than a guy walking down a street in manhattan, both can kill thousands at once. If that is so then why placemore restrictions on the passenger of the plane?
Damned phone wasn't logged in.
There is a big difference between driving a car and riding in one. Repeat offender drunk drivers can still be passengers in cars. Now do you understand what he was saying?
If you come onto my property you abide by my rules. If I allow you to put a sign in my front yard you better be damned sure that I get some say in what is on the sign.
Same goes for corporations.
- Earmarks are bad, except in my district!
- Government spending can't create jobs, except in my district!
This was not trollish.
Remember the Republican mottos, kids:
This was.
Using facts and truth does not make you not a troll if you do so in a trollish way.