"No, I say when you create a tool SPECIFICALLY designed to copy a SPECIFIC piece of copyrighted data, that does nothing ELSE - then THAT is a matter of copyright. Reducto et Absurdium is a fallacy, don't do it."
Whoever told you that?
first it's "Reductio ad absurdum" not "Reductio et absurdum".
Second it's a perfectly valid test.
third it doesn't matter how specific. The user has to go away and download my code, go away and download your library and put yours where mine can access it. They have every choice and every freedom not to. They create the composite themselves.
"There is no instruction - in fact the vast majority of the "includes" happen long before the program accepts input - the user in fact has no means to PREVENT doing so without editing the code itself or forfeiting the program as a whole. You've made that instruction fundamental to it's operation - while being completely irrelevent from the user's point of view to it's purpose."
The user is free to not start the program. The user is free to not download my code. The user id free to not download your code. It's extremely relevant.
In the real world the user is putting together necessary elements. In your little dream-world they're being carried along by the winds of fate.
"So by YOUR twisted logic a static link is copyright infringement but a dynamic link is not ?"
If the user doesn't need to download any of your code, if what they get from me is independent and already a composite or mine and yours then I'd certainly be distributing something which was half yours and half mine.
If on the other hand they have to download your code separately and what they get from me contains not a single scrap of anything belonging to you then no copyright has been broken.
it's easy.
Why wouldn't library developers get any protection from my model? Any developer who wanted to both use the library and sell working code would have to negotiate for the right to distribute the required sections of the library along with their code.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.
of course the developers could always sell their code and tell users to go away and buy their own copy of the library but I can't see them getting great sales but if they did they'd only improve the sales of the library.
I sometimes wonder when I hear about spies being deported... why?
A spy you know about is a hundred times more valuable than a deported spy or a replacement spy.
Once you know about a spy not only can you avoid them getting important data, they can be fed carefully flawed data.
Tweek a few numbers subtly in a secret algorithm for controlling a reactor before giving it to the spy and wait for the meltdown. Report troops moving west rather than east and watch as your enemy deploys in the exact wrong place. etc etc etc
oh the real shit's gonna hit the fan when the Japanese perfect sex-bots and shortly thereafter someone produces a line designed to cater for paedophiles. then there'll be some real witch hunts and crusades.
Have a read of "The leaky establishment" it's got some entertaining musings on the subject.
essentially anything secret can be used as blackmail fodder. In fact there should be no set list of things which forbid security clearance since anything on the list automatically adds a risk.
lets say... drinking Russian vodka was considered grounds to loose security clearance tomorrow. Some foreign agent gets a photo of you with a bottle... well now they have blackmail material.
Anything that is forbidden/taboo/illegal/embarrassing is blackmail fodder. Even if it was made legal it would still be socially unacceptable and almost as good for blackmail.
there are arguments to be made but that's a weak one.
"Let's start at the beginning using a compiled language as a base first. When you call a function in your program from my library, you have to tell the compiler how to link it. If you choose static linking it will ACTUALLY copy the binary function OUT of my library and into your program - if you copied and pasted the source of my function into your program and didn't link - the resulting binary would actually be identical. That's COPYING to create a derivative work."
absolutely agreed. No problem here.
"But you shout - most libraries are dynamically linked so it's obviously not copied. YES IT IS. It just doesn't copy it when you compile, it puts an instruction there that tells the CPU to copy it in memory when the program runs. This copying may happen on the customer's machine but it's your code that does it and you are responsible for it because it is not within the customer's control of the software (okay things like LD_PRELOAD can mess with it but in the normal sphere of things - the copy is going to happen and it's your fault). The reason we do this is for EFFICIENCY of disk space, so many programs can copy into memory from the SAME SOURCE. It does NOT change ANYTHING legally."
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that anyone who creates a file copy tool, any tool which reads your code into memory, anything which causes anything which you own copyright on to be read/written that it infringes?
By that twisted logic microsoft would be liable for copyright infringement unless they get prior written permission to allow their code "copy" or in the case of linux the coders of "cp" would be equally liably. That.Is.Absurd.
It happens at the users end, it it is not distributed as such. it is an absolutely crystal clear case of copyright not being an issue.
"Yes it does. Scripts can't just magically run on the CPU. The interpreter DOES A JOB - specifically it translates every line of the code in your script into a line of binary and tells the CPU to execute it (it's a bit more complex than that because it does things to speed it up like doing whole blocks at a time but the essence is correct) - when the interpreter finds your "include" it actually copies the file you included into memory at that point inserting it into your file - by your instruction, once more - the stuff is copied. Moreso - now it's not copied as binary bits but as source code."
By the instruction of the user who has freely chosen to use a tool to create a composite work on their machine which they do not distribute.
You're giving a technical and utterly misleading answer to an easy and clear question.
"if not a single line of copyrighted material is distributed has any copyright been broken?" no.
see? easy.
End of difficult bullshit.
linking a library != copying code != purview of copyright law != derivative work.
Excuse me but that still seems absurd. If I create a tool that operates on something that does not make my tool a part of or derivative of what it's designed to work on. A hammer is not a derivative of the nails.
By that standard a program designed to patch an exe would be a derivative of that exe.
I know some people desperately want the GPL to be as infectious as possible to further some dream of everything being turned into GPL code in an information version of the grey goo scenario but either that's just wishful thinking or the millions of people out there with proprietary code have completely and utterly failed to assert their right to claim ownership of every patcher, memory hack or reader.
right so you're saying that if I create a php app "foo.php" with function "bar()" and you then write another php app which starts with "include foo.php" and within which it calls bar() then yours in a derivative work?
You distribute your app and tell users to drop it in the same directory as mine.
Despite the fact that you distribute not a single byte of my code and despite the fact that foo.php could be replaced with any other php file of the same name as long as it contained a function "bar()" and it would work just as well?
In other news if I create a program which, if placed in the same directory as an ebook, will display the first sentence,all the worlds authors get to sue me for infringing their copyrights?
from my reading of it if you didn't distribute any of the code you're calling then you'd be good, if it was interpreted whatever you distributed would not have to be a composite of your code and anything GPL. As such the library/program/function/api you're calling could be changed underneath with no change to your program as long as input and output remained the same.
of course there's as many ways to read it as there are people to argue over it.
The way some people talk about it you'd swear that if you write something which extends a GPL application, say some files you can paste into the application folders then that would force you to go GPL, even if you don't distribute any GPL code. If you listen to some people you'd swear that anything that interacts significantly with GPL'ed apps would be covered even if you don't distribute those apps.
From the arguments here you'd swear that anything that makes a call to the API of anything GPL would have to be GPL even if you didn't distribute a single line of GPL'ed code.
reading this topic I see endless argument about what constitutes a derivative work, some arguments based simply on what copyright law can cover and others assuming that whatever someone wants the GPL to be is true.
citation: http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/166.abstract found "antioxidant supplements were found to have no preventive effect on cancer" in fact.... "the use of antioxidant supplements significantly increased the risk of bladder cancer "
"Nobody ever actually SAID it was the alcohol that was healthy numbnuts. " lots of people do. it's a common myth. that you should drink a glass of wine ever day, that it's good for your heart. etc etc. with the exception of the social stuff it's pretty much bunk. an apple a day is the far more likely option.
Alcohol is both a muscle relaxant and a mental relaxant. Moderate use relieves stress and frankly the side effects are far less severe than any of the prescription meds you can get for the same job. Relieving average daily stress levels by itself probably does more good than alcohol can do bad.
muscle relaxant? sure. mental relaxant? simply interacting with other people socially is what's good for that. Drinking alone does little or nothing to relieve mental stress.
You still haven't proven that they were. When scientists from reputable institutions publish research in reputable journals it gets peer reviewed. If that research is skewed then they get blasted and their reputations (which in science IS your entire career) gets blown to hell. They have to be as unbiased as technology allows them to be - no matter who paid for the research grant. That isn't to say that some scientists aren't bought off and that some don't get away with it - scientists are only human so if this was one study - I'd take it with a grain of salt. But all the numerous confirmatory studies that have been done have ALL come to the SAME conclusion, all these independent researchers including the ones who set out to prove it false because they were raised in alcoholic home (of COURSE some of them exist and nobody is completely bias free) have repeatedly found the same results.
No they have not ALL come to the SAME conclusion. It's a myth. An attractive myth. There's countless studies which show homeopathy to work yet there's even more higher quality ones which show it's useless. Guess which ones get more attention in the tabloids. Guess which ones the homoeopaths talk about.
are you familiar with the concept of a systematic review or a meta-analysis?
I probably drink slightly more than you- I do more cold deserts with alcohol in them. I take the view that any health risks are trivial enough.
most studies fail to exclude people who don't drink because they cannot drink due to ill health or medication. those that account for this bias the advantages of alcohol disappear.
"You are excluding the fourth group: people who never drank, and started drinking at age 40 in moderate amounts."
no, they'd be under drinkers.
Yes your liver is fine for screening out moderate amounts of toxins but that doesn't make them good for you. In reasonable quantities it probably won't do you any significant harm but it's not going to make you any healthier.
I'm not a teetotaller I have no beef with beer. I just recognise marketing campaigns when I see them.
Be wary of anything you want to believe. People love to hear that sure alcohol is good for them....so lets go down to the pub and put away a few pints, it's an attractive idea.
what happens when that same person accidentally stabs himself in the eye with a screwdriver?
or jumps off a bridge? no doubt his relaives would sue the company which built the bridge and his shoe manufacturer(since he walked to the bridge) anyway.
"people might hurt themselves through stupidity" is an endless argument which could be applied to everything in the universe and every freedom or right.
"I do not have any idea how anyone could expect to review all of the code associated with any medical device." People manage it for many entire operating systems.
he's not saying GPL.
You can opensource code without giving everyone and his dog the right to steal it for their own hardware.
I don't know about you but if I had a piece of hardware which my life depended on I'd want to be able to inspect the design and code for faults. My right to stay alive trumps their desire to hide messy code.
by that standard any win32 executable would be a derivative work of windows.
the other company may have been distributing wordpress as well with their code packaged with it - I don't know. there also seems to be some claims that code was copy-pasted which would make it fairly open and shut but if that were not the case how could they be restricted under the GPL?
If you don't distribute the GPL'd code and your code merely potentially interacts with some GPL code how can it apply? it doesn't matter how deeply my code interacts with another program, whether it external API's, internal functions or just rams in and screws around with the stack while it's running, unless I distribute whatever code it's screwing with along with my code they're separate.
copyright, not just the GPL shouldn't even get a look-in because I'm not distributing anyone elses work.
could someone post a list of the most cancerous licences so I can avoid ever using them in anything ever?
I like open source but the GPL is sounding more and more dangerous. when even it's advocates can't seem to agree on what exactly it covers I'd be worried.
If I want to publish something under some other licence OS or not I'd prefer not to end up bound forever to the GPL because my code made a call to some API.
not to put too fine a point on it but most of those studies are bullshit funded by beer companies. The simplest mistake most make is a selection bias.
They separate people into drinkers and non drinkers and look at their health and wow, the drinkers turn out to be more healthy. thus leads on all that bullshit about a glass of wine/half a glass/a glass and a half etc etc a day being good for you.
if you separate people into 3 groups, drinkers, non-drinkers and non-drinkers who used to drink but now can't because their liver is fucked.... then the picture looks a lot different.
But even then there's a selection bias since those who've already died in their 40's from liver failure aren't being included.
I have no problem with drinking, I drink alcohol. it's your choice. but don't delude yourself that it's good for you.
there's no need to know what wep or wpa means, all they need to know is what "secured" and "unsecured" means. it's not just the routers, their PC will be bugging them as well.
The terminally dense might not realise but those same people might also be too dim to work out that their walkie talkie conversations are not private(is their expectation of privacy any less valid). Since they apparently can't read they might also be unable to work out that postcards are readable by all and as such would have an expectation of privacy in that case as well.
"Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings."
Intent is meaningless once we pass the point where is is reasonable.
Not reading instructions you are given- unreasonable. Not reading the other instructions you see on screen- unreasonable. Changing things you don't understand away from the defaults- unreasonable.
people can have completely unreasonable expectations of privacy and be simply wrong.
With very few exceptions they've freely chosen to change from the recommended settings as on pretty much every router out there. This isn't some situation where anyone has to bend over backwards to avoid something being made public. this is where people either through laziness,foolishness or just to be nice to their neighbours have freely opted in. Have changed the setup to allow anyone.
"(if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?"
they didn't freely choose to set up machines specifically designed to transmit data over IR to everyone within 100 metres and freely choose the option from a dropdown. Or do I need written permission from the station owner before I use my am radio now? my neighbour might be using a low powered transmitter for his houses internal intercom system and through ignorance might believe it to be private.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, I say when you create a tool SPECIFICALLY designed to copy a SPECIFIC piece of copyrighted data, that does nothing ELSE - then THAT is a matter of copyright. Reducto et Absurdium is a fallacy, don't do it."
Whoever told you that?
first it's "Reductio ad absurdum" not "Reductio et absurdum".
Second it's a perfectly valid test.
third it doesn't matter how specific.
The user has to go away and download my code, go away and download your library and put yours where mine can access it.
They have every choice and every freedom not to.
They create the composite themselves.
"There is no instruction - in fact the vast majority of the "includes" happen long before the program accepts input - the user in fact has no means to PREVENT doing so without editing the code itself or forfeiting the program as a whole. You've made that instruction fundamental to it's operation - while being completely irrelevent from the user's point of view to it's purpose."
The user is free to not start the program.
The user is free to not download my code.
The user id free to not download your code.
It's extremely relevant.
In the real world the user is putting together necessary elements.
In your little dream-world they're being carried along by the winds of fate.
"So by YOUR twisted logic a static link is copyright infringement but a dynamic link is not ?"
If the user doesn't need to download any of your code, if what they get from me is independent and already a composite or mine and yours then I'd certainly be distributing something which was half yours and half mine.
If on the other hand they have to download your code separately and what they get from me contains not a single scrap of anything belonging to you then no copyright has been broken.
it's easy.
Why wouldn't library developers get any protection from my model?
Any developer who wanted to both use the library and sell working code would have to negotiate for the right to distribute the required sections of the library along with their code.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.
of course the developers could always sell their code and tell users to go away and buy their own copy of the library but I can't see them getting great sales but if they did they'd only improve the sales of the library.
I sometimes wonder when I hear about spies being deported... why?
A spy you know about is a hundred times more valuable than a deported spy or a replacement spy.
Once you know about a spy not only can you avoid them getting important data, they can be fed carefully flawed data.
Tweek a few numbers subtly in a secret algorithm for controlling a reactor before giving it to the spy and wait for the meltdown.
Report troops moving west rather than east and watch as your enemy deploys in the exact wrong place.
etc
etc
etc
oh the real shit's gonna hit the fan when the Japanese perfect sex-bots and shortly thereafter someone produces a line designed to cater for paedophiles.
then there'll be some real witch hunts and crusades.
Have a read of "The leaky establishment" it's got some entertaining musings on the subject.
essentially anything secret can be used as blackmail fodder.
In fact there should be no set list of things which forbid security clearance since anything on the list automatically adds a risk.
lets say ... drinking Russian vodka was considered grounds to loose security clearance tomorrow.
Some foreign agent gets a photo of you with a bottle... well now they have blackmail material.
etc
Unless they actually abused children that is.
Anything that is forbidden/taboo/illegal/embarrassing is blackmail fodder.
Even if it was made legal it would still be socially unacceptable and almost as good for blackmail.
there are arguments to be made but that's a weak one.
"Let's start at the beginning using a compiled language as a base first. When you call a function in your program from my library, you have to tell the compiler how to link it. If you choose static linking it will ACTUALLY copy the binary function OUT of my library and into your program - if you copied and pasted the source of my function into your program and didn't link - the resulting binary would actually be identical.
That's COPYING to create a derivative work."
absolutely agreed.
No problem here.
"But you shout - most libraries are dynamically linked so it's obviously not copied. YES IT IS. It just doesn't copy it when you compile, it puts an instruction there that tells the CPU to copy it in memory when the program runs. This copying may happen on the customer's machine but it's your code that does it and you are responsible for it because it is not within the customer's control of the software (okay things like LD_PRELOAD can mess with it but in the normal sphere of things - the copy is going to happen and it's your fault). The reason we do this is for EFFICIENCY of disk space, so many programs can copy into memory from the SAME SOURCE. It does NOT change ANYTHING legally."
So let me get this straight, you're claiming that anyone who creates a file copy tool, any tool which reads your code into memory, anything which causes anything which you own copyright on to be read/written that it infringes?
By that twisted logic microsoft would be liable for copyright infringement unless they get prior written permission to allow their code "copy" or in the case of linux the coders of "cp" would be equally liably.
That.Is.Absurd.
It happens at the users end, it it is not distributed as such.
it is an absolutely crystal clear case of copyright not being an issue.
"Yes it does. Scripts can't just magically run on the CPU. The interpreter DOES A JOB - specifically it translates every line of the code in your script into a line of binary and tells the CPU to execute it (it's a bit more complex than that because it does things to speed it up like doing whole blocks at a time but the essence is correct) - when the interpreter finds your "include" it actually copies the file you included into memory at that point inserting it into your file - by your instruction, once more - the stuff is copied. Moreso - now it's not copied as binary bits but as source code."
By the instruction of the user who has freely chosen to use a tool to create a composite work on their machine which they do not distribute.
You're giving a technical and utterly misleading answer to an easy and clear question.
"if not a single line of copyrighted material is distributed has any copyright been broken?"
no.
see?
easy.
End of difficult bullshit.
linking a library != copying code != purview of copyright law != derivative work.
Excuse me but that still seems absurd.
If I create a tool that operates on something that does not make my tool a part of or derivative of what it's designed to work on.
A hammer is not a derivative of the nails.
By that standard a program designed to patch an exe would be a derivative of that exe.
I know some people desperately want the GPL to be as infectious as possible to further some dream of everything being turned into GPL code in an information version of the grey goo scenario but either that's just wishful thinking or the millions of people out there with proprietary code have completely and utterly failed to assert their right to claim ownership of every patcher, memory hack or reader.
right so you're saying that if I create a php app "foo.php" with function "bar()" and you then write another php app which starts with "include foo.php" and within which it calls bar() then yours in a derivative work?
You distribute your app and tell users to drop it in the same directory as mine.
Despite the fact that you distribute not a single byte of my code and despite the fact that foo.php could be replaced with any other php file of the same name as long as it contained a function "bar()" and it would work just as well?
In other news if I create a program which, if placed in the same directory as an ebook, will display the first sentence,all the worlds authors get to sue me for infringing their copyrights?
excuse me but that's absurd.
from my reading of it if you didn't distribute any of the code you're calling then you'd be good, if it was interpreted whatever you distributed would not have to be a composite of your code and anything GPL.
As such the library/program/function/api you're calling could be changed underneath with no change to your program as long as input and output remained the same.
of course there's as many ways to read it as there are people to argue over it.
I'm talking about simply using anything GPL.
The way some people talk about it you'd swear that if you write something which extends a GPL application, say some files you can paste into the application folders then that would force you to go GPL, even if you don't distribute any GPL code.
If you listen to some people you'd swear that anything that interacts significantly with GPL'ed apps would be covered even if you don't distribute those apps.
From the arguments here you'd swear that anything that makes a call to the API of anything GPL would have to be GPL even if you didn't distribute a single line of GPL'ed code.
reading this topic I see endless argument about what constitutes a derivative work, some arguments based simply on what copyright law can cover and others assuming that whatever someone wants the GPL to be is true.
which of my links do not.
please illustrate.
For even more buzzkill try giving this abstract a read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478320
Personally I'm not that bothered, bellow a certain threshold I'll accept health problems.
Everything is bad for you sooner or later.
I just don't like the claims that it's actually good for your health since they're mostly bunk.
"antioxidants "
actually that ones a myth too.
Right now all the health food shops love them and in that at least they're only a few decades behind actual medical science.
http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/epistemological-indulgences/
citation:
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/1/166.abstract
found
"antioxidant supplements were found to have no preventive effect on cancer"
in fact....
"the use of antioxidant supplements significantly increased the risk of bladder cancer "
"Nobody ever actually SAID it was the alcohol that was healthy numbnuts. "
lots of people do.
it's a common myth.
that you should drink a glass of wine ever day, that it's good for your heart. etc etc.
with the exception of the social stuff it's pretty much bunk.
an apple a day is the far more likely option.
Alcohol is both a muscle relaxant and a mental relaxant. Moderate use relieves stress and frankly the side effects are far less severe than any of the prescription meds you can get for the same job. Relieving average daily stress levels by itself probably does more good than alcohol can do bad.
muscle relaxant? sure.
mental relaxant? simply interacting with other people socially is what's good for that.
Drinking alone does little or nothing to relieve mental stress.
You still haven't proven that they were. When scientists from reputable institutions publish research in reputable journals it gets peer reviewed. If that research is skewed then they get blasted and their reputations (which in science IS your entire career) gets blown to hell. They have to be as unbiased as technology allows them to be - no matter who paid for the research grant. That isn't to say that some scientists aren't bought off and that some don't get away with it - scientists are only human so if this was one study - I'd take it with a grain of salt. But all the numerous confirmatory studies that have been done have ALL come to the SAME conclusion, all these independent researchers including the ones who set out to prove it false because they were raised in alcoholic home (of COURSE some of them exist and nobody is completely bias free) have repeatedly found the same results.
Did you even read the citation from the other post?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478320
should be able to get a full copy of the paper with a little googling.
No they have not ALL come to the SAME conclusion.
It's a myth.
An attractive myth.
There's countless studies which show homeopathy to work yet there's even more higher quality ones which show it's useless.
Guess which ones get more attention in the tabloids.
Guess which ones the homoeopaths talk about.
are you familiar with the concept of a systematic review or a meta-analysis?
I probably drink slightly more than you- I do more cold deserts with alcohol in them.
I take the view that any health risks are trivial enough.
Oh and I almost forgot your citation:
a systematic review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478320
most studies fail to exclude people who don't drink because they cannot drink due to ill health or medication.
those that account for this bias the advantages of alcohol disappear.
"You are excluding the fourth group: people who never drank, and started drinking at age 40 in moderate amounts."
no, they'd be under drinkers.
Yes your liver is fine for screening out moderate amounts of toxins but that doesn't make them good for you.
In reasonable quantities it probably won't do you any significant harm but it's not going to make you any healthier.
I'm not a teetotaller I have no beef with beer.
I just recognise marketing campaigns when I see them.
Be wary of anything you want to believe. ....so lets go down to the pub and put away a few pints, it's an attractive idea.
People love to hear that sure alcohol is good for them
How will you find out if your competitors do that if they don't open their code?
if it was a regulatory requirement and they're in the same market- medical devices- they'd have to.
Start with your car.
Too old, no computers built in.
what happens when that same person accidentally stabs himself in the eye with a screwdriver?
or jumps off a bridge?
no doubt his relaives would sue the company which built the bridge and his shoe manufacturer(since he walked to the bridge) anyway.
"people might hurt themselves through stupidity" is an endless argument which could be applied to everything in the universe and every freedom or right.
it is not a decent argument against this.
"I do not have any idea how anyone could expect to review all of the code associated with any medical device."
People manage it for many entire operating systems.
he's not saying GPL.
You can opensource code without giving everyone and his dog the right to steal it for their own hardware.
I don't know about you but if I had a piece of hardware which my life depended on I'd want to be able to inspect the design and code for faults.
My right to stay alive trumps their desire to hide messy code.
by that standard any win32 executable would be a derivative work of windows.
the other company may have been distributing wordpress as well with their code packaged with it - I don't know.
there also seems to be some claims that code was copy-pasted which would make it fairly open and shut but if that were not the case how could they be restricted under the GPL?
If you don't distribute the GPL'd code and your code merely potentially interacts with some GPL code how can it apply?
it doesn't matter how deeply my code interacts with another program, whether it external API's, internal functions or just rams in and screws around with the stack while it's running, unless I distribute whatever code it's screwing with along with my code they're separate.
copyright, not just the GPL shouldn't even get a look-in because I'm not distributing anyone elses work.
could someone post a list of the most cancerous licences so I can avoid ever using them in anything ever?
I like open source but the GPL is sounding more and more dangerous.
when even it's advocates can't seem to agree on what exactly it covers I'd be worried.
If I want to publish something under some other licence OS or not I'd prefer not to end up bound forever to the GPL because my code made a call to some API.
not to put too fine a point on it but most of those studies are bullshit funded by beer companies.
The simplest mistake most make is a selection bias.
They separate people into drinkers and non drinkers and look at their health and wow, the drinkers turn out to be more healthy.
thus leads on all that bullshit about a glass of wine/half a glass/a glass and a half etc etc a day being good for you.
if you separate people into 3 groups, drinkers, non-drinkers and non-drinkers who used to drink but now can't because their liver is fucked.... then the picture looks a lot different.
But even then there's a selection bias since those who've already died in their 40's from liver failure aren't being included.
I have no problem with drinking, I drink alcohol.
it's your choice.
but don't delude yourself that it's good for you.
no.
you're still not making any sense.
Try asking a native english speaker to re-write your statement for you.
there's no need to know what wep or wpa means, all they need to know is what "secured" and "unsecured" means.
it's not just the routers, their PC will be bugging them as well.
The terminally dense might not realise but those same people might also be too dim to work out that their walkie talkie conversations are not private(is their expectation of privacy any less valid). Since they apparently can't read they might also be unable to work out that postcards are readable by all and as such would have an expectation of privacy in that case as well.
"Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings."
Intent is meaningless once we pass the point where is is reasonable.
Not reading instructions you are given- unreasonable.
Not reading the other instructions you see on screen- unreasonable.
Changing things you don't understand away from the defaults- unreasonable.
people can have completely unreasonable expectations of privacy and be simply wrong.
With very few exceptions they've freely chosen to change from the recommended settings as on pretty much every router out there.
This isn't some situation where anyone has to bend over backwards to avoid something being made public.
this is where people either through laziness,foolishness or just to be nice to their neighbours have freely opted in. Have changed the setup to allow anyone.
"(if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?"
they didn't freely choose to set up machines specifically designed to transmit data over IR to everyone within 100 metres and freely choose the option from a dropdown.
Or do I need written permission from the station owner before I use my am radio now?
my neighbour might be using a low powered transmitter for his houses internal intercom system and through ignorance might believe it to be private.