Way to base your conjecture on a cheap graphic that was probably slapped together in a few seconds by someone who probably knows more about PR than they do about rockets.
Re:Whatever happened to single-stage-to-orbit?
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 1
Ah, I just did it myself. The grammar on the page was atrocious as well. If anyone else is up to it, the entire page could use a freshening up. There is far too much passive voice, poor comma usage and various other problems that seriously affect readability.
Not to mention the use of the word "whilst." Did a Brit write this article?
First, look at the Acid2 test as rendered by Firefox. It's got a few problems, but if you compare it to the prerendered picture for comparison you can see a few similarities. At least the overall shape is generally correct.
Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.
Just because it looks "further" from the correct rendering in IE than it does in FF, does not necessarily mean that IE is doing a worse job at it.
You've demonstrated that terrorism has had numerous effects on us; however, you have not demonstrated that it has had the effect that its users desire.
Yes, and the owner has quite obviously decided to give access to anyone who tries to connect. Because that's the way his access point is configured.
But you know that your assumption is wrong, and simply make it to justify your actions, because many access points ship in this configuration and therefore the owner may or may not have decided to give access to anyone who tries to connect.
OK, I've been giving some thought, and I think I've got a handle on The Root Causes of Terrorism. Just why do people turn to terrorism to achieve their goals?
The problem with why people turn to terrorism is that 7) is missing: "It works." Because it most cases, it doesn't work. Terrorism has rarely led to significant change, and in fact, usually ends up just angering your enemy more.
I'm sure there are examples of where it has been effective (examples are welcome), but I imagine there are many more of where it hasn't been effective.
Why use terrorism if it is a proven ineffective method of achieving your goals?
You could probably save a little more if you left the lid open, as a closed lid tends to trap heat (even if the screen is off). Therefore the fan would run less often and you'd save a few pennies a month.
Yet they're smart enough to run a home network and more than one computer? Yet they're using shared public broadcast signals.
Step 1: Go to Best Buy and ask a sales rep what you need to buy. Step 2: Go home and connect the right wires to the right places (pretty simple). Step 3: It works, but your network is insecure.
Wireless networks are VERY easy to setup, which is a "good thing" and a "bad thing."
Can I connect to your network? I am foo bar. Yes, "foo bar", here have ID 198675 and IP address 192.111.111.111
What do you mean '*implied* concent'? Surely 'explicit concent'!
The problem is that you KNOW that just because it gave you an IP address does not mean that the owner wants their network public. More than likely, they're not smart enough to figure out how to add any access controls to it.
In fact, Joe Bob User probably doesn't know his computer is out there handing out IP Addresses, or even know what one is. So how could you possibly reasonably conclude that his AP giving you an IP Address amounts to him giving you access to his network anymore than him leaving his front door unlocked amounts to him giving you access to his house?
You're playing by a different set of rules than the owner of the network, so of course your way makes sense to you.
First of all, afiak, there is no such law in the United States (except maybe a few really anal locales).
Secondly, if such a law did exist, it could approach the issue one of two ways.
First, the law implies that all AP's are private unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. a public welcome message before allowing access stating who is allowed).
The other way would be that the law imples that all AP's are public unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. you need some basic form of authentication before being able to access the network, or there is some form of notice).
The first option (assumed private) has the following benefits:
1. Majority of networks are not intended to be public access. 2. Many APs are sold in an open configuration. 3. Most users are not smart enough to otherwise secure their network, even though if they knew anyone could access it probably would want to know how to stop that.
Therefore, it would protect a lot of people; and once you knew about the law, you would know that you can no longer connect to any access point without permission first.
The second option (assumed public) has the following benefits:
1. There will be more networks available to freely connect to. 2. If you want to open your network to the public you don't have to do anything. 3. It removes any burden of the end user of having to determine if the network is open.
However, I feel the first option is probably the better one, and the attitude you should probably take if there is no such law.
Most people that willingly want to open their network to the public know enough to be able to put some kind of message out to those connecting to it that it is open to the public.
Most people that don't want to open their network to the public probably don't know how to do much more than plug their AP in and use it.
There's more to it than that, but it does make good public policy sense to assume all networks are private until proven authorize. Just like any other kind of property.
Just because there isn't a fence around that lot on the corner, doesn't mean it is public property, or that the user wants you to use it.
This case sets the precedent that there is no way of knowing if an AP is for public use.
Simple, if you want your AP for public use, you simply force them to "login" through a web browser first, at which screen you provide an anonymous login and a message stating that it is for public use.
It is just easier to imply all networks are private, than it is to imply all are public. Especially when you consider that in most cases a private network is preferred, and in most cases the person running the network won't know how to make it private.
How about those old garage door openers where you could open almost every door on the block? Since when I pushed the button on mine their door opened, does that mean I could have used my neighbor's garage? Weren't they consenting through their garage door because it responded to my signal in the affirmative?
Your attempt at rationalizing your actions, because you enjoy leeching bandwidth fails miserably.
If I leave a pie in an open window, it does not mean that pie is free to anyone that passes by, even though it may be very easily accessible.
I have no problem with intentionally open networks; but access another person's network without overcoming an access control is just as wrong as doing it by overcoming an access control.
The funny thing is that what a lot of people are suggesting here is a DMCA style approach. That the crime becomes worse because you overcame security measures. Copyright infringement is still a crime, whether or not you overcame a security measure. Should it only be a crime if you do overcome a security measure?
Of course, I'm not sure we have a crminal penalty for accessing other people's networks here in the U.S., but if we did, I doubt it would apply only to marginally secure networks.
But the Wifi login *is* the electronic proxy for the person. It *is* where the person gets to say whether its OK to come in or not.
Just because I leave my front door open, doesn't mean that I am implying that it is okay for anyone to come into my home and use whatever they want inside.
Just because I leave my wireless router open doesn't mean that I am implying that it is okay for anyone to connect to it and use it whenever they want.
An open network does not give implied consent to use anymore than an unlocked house or car.
However, if you did leave your front door open, your insurance company probably won't pay you for any stolen goods.
Considering the **AA only goes after those who are distributing their copyrighted materials, it wouldn't be very difficult to prevent outgoing data on certain ports. If the person can get around that, the **AA isn't going to find them anyway, they stick to big name distribution services.
Really the only ports you need to provide access to your customers in such an environment is HTTP related ports, FTP, E-mail, and SSH. Maybe some others, but those are the key ones. If someone leaves because they needed access to something else, you probably could do without the trouble.
I don't think it would be fair to say that someone should be allowed to record everything you say out loud and then provide it to someone to use it against you in a court of law.
If you said it in a public place, it's fair game. The Internet is a public place for the most part.
The rules are a little different from criminal liability, but if you say something in public, it's public, and you can't do much about stopping others from using it, even in court.
Lets say person A posted copyrighted info on your web site. You didn't know it was copyrighted at the time. Person B tells you that it is and you pull the content. Copyright owner (C) later sues your ass since they found it on the WBM.
It's copyright infringement, whether or not you know the material is copyrighted, or have reason to know.
Copyright law does provide for reduced penalties in the case where the "infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright."
So, the law has in essence created a duty to users of documents to determine if they are copyrighted prior to distributing.
Right, I know that the website commited a crime in the past but they didn't know it was a crime at the time so it's not the same as beating the crap out of someone.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I can't believe I actually have to point that out to someone.
Just because you stopped doing something, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal while you were doing it.
See, if I am beating the crap out of you, but stop before the police get there and witness it, that doesn't mean I wasn't beating the crap out of you and therefore guilty of battery.
It's a weird example, but it works.
If you've ever read some of the RIAA threat letters you'll notice they specifically state that just because you listen and pull down the offending material doesn't mean they're giving up their right to sue you for posting it in the first place.
Thank you for posting this. I've noticed all over the Internet people citing this example as proof of the importance of anonymity, when it's a very bad example to use.
In fact, most of the major important documents of our time were all written a name attached (or well known who it was).
If certain documents didn't have names attached to them, they probably wouldn't have acheived their desired effect.
Other examples would include such documents as the Declaration of Independence or Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
Anonymity does have value as well, though. A good example of that would be Watergate.
So, should I throw away my Linnaeus classification of species and go back to using Aristotle's system of "air, land or water"?
Or maybe we should throw out the periodic table of elements and just go back to earth, wind, fire, water? After all, we did categorize things that way at one time.
As we learn more about the universe, we'll learn that our categorizations need and update to be more coherent and inclusive. While the original models might "work," as we add more variables to the system, there becomes the need to modify our system of classification.
It's happened with elements and species, so why not large objects in the universe as well?
It doesn't matter at all whether it is a planet or not.
Besides, there is no consensus on what the definition of a "planet" should be, especially considering new discoveries that are occuring. Just as continues to be with classification of organisms, we will likely see a continuing evolution of classification of large objects in the universe.
Classifications assist our understanding of how things are related. But you can't argue that a particular object is or isn't under one particular classification until that classification actually has a solid definition (and Webster's doesn't count.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if they had used the words "former and latter" you wouldn't have been so easily confused, but the rest of us knew what they were saying.
Way to base your conjecture on a cheap graphic that was probably slapped together in a few seconds by someone who probably knows more about PR than they do about rockets.
Ah, I just did it myself. The grammar on the page was atrocious as well. If anyone else is up to it, the entire page could use a freshening up. There is far too much passive voice, poor comma usage and various other problems that seriously affect readability.
Not to mention the use of the word "whilst." Did a Brit write this article?
First, look at the Acid2 test as rendered by Firefox. It's got a few problems, but if you compare it to the prerendered picture for comparison you can see a few similarities. At least the overall shape is generally correct.
Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.
Just because it looks "further" from the correct rendering in IE than it does in FF, does not necessarily mean that IE is doing a worse job at it.
You've demonstrated that terrorism has had numerous effects on us; however, you have not demonstrated that it has had the effect that its users desire.
Yes, and the owner has quite obviously decided to give access to anyone who tries to connect. Because that's the way his access point is configured.
But you know that your assumption is wrong, and simply make it to justify your actions, because many access points ship in this configuration and therefore the owner may or may not have decided to give access to anyone who tries to connect.
While trying to locate the origin of the pie in the window story, I came across this amusing anecdote.
About the oldest source I could find was A 1933 cartoon. Here is some evidence of the thief holding the pie.
OK, I've been giving some thought, and I think I've got a handle on The Root Causes of Terrorism. Just why do people turn to terrorism to achieve their goals?
The problem with why people turn to terrorism is that 7) is missing: "It works." Because it most cases, it doesn't work. Terrorism has rarely led to significant change, and in fact, usually ends up just angering your enemy more.
I'm sure there are examples of where it has been effective (examples are welcome), but I imagine there are many more of where it hasn't been effective.
Why use terrorism if it is a proven ineffective method of achieving your goals?
since I run it with the lid closed (screen off)
You could probably save a little more if you left the lid open, as a closed lid tends to trap heat (even if the screen is off). Therefore the fan would run less often and you'd save a few pennies a month.
Yet they're smart enough to run a home network and more than one computer? Yet they're using shared public broadcast signals.
Step 1: Go to Best Buy and ask a sales rep what you need to buy.
Step 2: Go home and connect the right wires to the right places (pretty simple).
Step 3: It works, but your network is insecure.
Wireless networks are VERY easy to setup, which is a "good thing" and a "bad thing."
Can I connect to your network? I am foo bar.
Yes, "foo bar", here have ID 198675 and IP address 192.111.111.111
What do you mean '*implied* concent'? Surely 'explicit concent'!
The problem is that you KNOW that just because it gave you an IP address does not mean that the owner wants their network public. More than likely, they're not smart enough to figure out how to add any access controls to it.
In fact, Joe Bob User probably doesn't know his computer is out there handing out IP Addresses, or even know what one is. So how could you possibly reasonably conclude that his AP giving you an IP Address amounts to him giving you access to his network anymore than him leaving his front door unlocked amounts to him giving you access to his house?
You're playing by a different set of rules than the owner of the network, so of course your way makes sense to you.
First of all, afiak, there is no such law in the United States (except maybe a few really anal locales).
Secondly, if such a law did exist, it could approach the issue one of two ways.
First, the law implies that all AP's are private unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. a public welcome message before allowing access stating who is allowed).
The other way would be that the law imples that all AP's are public unless specifically shown to be otherwise (i.e. you need some basic form of authentication before being able to access the network, or there is some form of notice).
The first option (assumed private) has the following benefits:
1. Majority of networks are not intended to be public access.
2. Many APs are sold in an open configuration.
3. Most users are not smart enough to otherwise secure their network, even though if they knew anyone could access it probably would want to know how to stop that.
Therefore, it would protect a lot of people; and once you knew about the law, you would know that you can no longer connect to any access point without permission first.
The second option (assumed public) has the following benefits:
1. There will be more networks available to freely connect to.
2. If you want to open your network to the public you don't have to do anything.
3. It removes any burden of the end user of having to determine if the network is open.
However, I feel the first option is probably the better one, and the attitude you should probably take if there is no such law.
Most people that willingly want to open their network to the public know enough to be able to put some kind of message out to those connecting to it that it is open to the public.
Most people that don't want to open their network to the public probably don't know how to do much more than plug their AP in and use it.
There's more to it than that, but it does make good public policy sense to assume all networks are private until proven authorize. Just like any other kind of property.
Just because there isn't a fence around that lot on the corner, doesn't mean it is public property, or that the user wants you to use it.
This case sets the precedent that there is no way of knowing if an AP is for public use.
Simple, if you want your AP for public use, you simply force them to "login" through a web browser first, at which screen you provide an anonymous login and a message stating that it is for public use.
It is just easier to imply all networks are private, than it is to imply all are public. Especially when you consider that in most cases a private network is preferred, and in most cases the person running the network won't know how to make it private.
The purpose of a website is to provide information to the world; therefore it is impliedly open.
However, a wireless network's purpose is to provide access to whomever its owner decides it wants to. It is therefore not impliedly open.
Looking at website is like looking at a sign I have in my front yard.
Connecting to my wireless network is like tapping into the telephone wires running into my home to make your own phone calls.
How about those old garage door openers where you could open almost every door on the block? Since when I pushed the button on mine their door opened, does that mean I could have used my neighbor's garage? Weren't they consenting through their garage door because it responded to my signal in the affirmative?
Your attempt at rationalizing your actions, because you enjoy leeching bandwidth fails miserably.
If I leave a pie in an open window, it does not mean that pie is free to anyone that passes by, even though it may be very easily accessible.
I have no problem with intentionally open networks; but access another person's network without overcoming an access control is just as wrong as doing it by overcoming an access control.
The funny thing is that what a lot of people are suggesting here is a DMCA style approach. That the crime becomes worse because you overcame security measures. Copyright infringement is still a crime, whether or not you overcame a security measure. Should it only be a crime if you do overcome a security measure?
Of course, I'm not sure we have a crminal penalty for accessing other people's networks here in the U.S., but if we did, I doubt it would apply only to marginally secure networks.
But the Wifi login *is* the electronic proxy for the person. It *is* where the person gets to say whether its OK to come in or not.
Just because I leave my front door open, doesn't mean that I am implying that it is okay for anyone to come into my home and use whatever they want inside.
Just because I leave my wireless router open doesn't mean that I am implying that it is okay for anyone to connect to it and use it whenever they want.
An open network does not give implied consent to use anymore than an unlocked house or car.
However, if you did leave your front door open, your insurance company probably won't pay you for any stolen goods.
Considering the **AA only goes after those who are distributing their copyrighted materials, it wouldn't be very difficult to prevent outgoing data on certain ports. If the person can get around that, the **AA isn't going to find them anyway, they stick to big name distribution services.
Really the only ports you need to provide access to your customers in such an environment is HTTP related ports, FTP, E-mail, and SSH. Maybe some others, but those are the key ones. If someone leaves because they needed access to something else, you probably could do without the trouble.
I don't think it would be fair to say that someone should be allowed to record everything you say out loud and then provide it to someone to use it against you in a court of law.
If you said it in a public place, it's fair game. The Internet is a public place for the most part.
The rules are a little different from criminal liability, but if you say something in public, it's public, and you can't do much about stopping others from using it, even in court.
Lets say person A posted copyrighted info on your web site. You didn't know it was copyrighted at the time. Person B tells you that it is and you pull the content. Copyright owner (C) later sues your ass since they found it on the WBM.
It's copyright infringement, whether or not you know the material is copyrighted, or have reason to know.
Copyright law does provide for reduced penalties in the case where the "infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright."
So, the law has in essence created a duty to users of documents to determine if they are copyrighted prior to distributing.
Right, I know that the website commited a crime in the past but they didn't know it was a crime at the time so it's not the same as beating the crap out of someone.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I can't believe I actually have to point that out to someone.
Just because you stopped doing something, doesn't mean it wasn't illegal while you were doing it.
See, if I am beating the crap out of you, but stop before the police get there and witness it, that doesn't mean I wasn't beating the crap out of you and therefore guilty of battery.
It's a weird example, but it works.
If you've ever read some of the RIAA threat letters you'll notice they specifically state that just because you listen and pull down the offending material doesn't mean they're giving up their right to sue you for posting it in the first place.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=112124551185 5
Thank you for posting this. I've noticed all over the Internet people citing this example as proof of the importance of anonymity, when it's a very bad example to use.
In fact, most of the major important documents of our time were all written a name attached (or well known who it was).
If certain documents didn't have names attached to them, they probably wouldn't have acheived their desired effect.
Other examples would include such documents as the Declaration of Independence or Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
Anonymity does have value as well, though. A good example of that would be Watergate.
So, should I throw away my Linnaeus classification of species and go back to using Aristotle's system of "air, land or water"?
Or maybe we should throw out the periodic table of elements and just go back to earth, wind, fire, water? After all, we did categorize things that way at one time.
As we learn more about the universe, we'll learn that our categorizations need and update to be more coherent and inclusive. While the original models might "work," as we add more variables to the system, there becomes the need to modify our system of classification.
It's happened with elements and species, so why not large objects in the universe as well?
Ok, I'll say it, you can say it with me. Ready, Pluto is not a planet. It is a Kuiper belt object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt Yes it's got a moon, yes it's pretty big for a KBO but it's not a proper planet. If Pluto is a planet then so is Ceres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Ceres and Juno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(3)_Juno They're even round too.
You left out the most important thing:
It doesn't matter at all whether it is a planet or not.
Besides, there is no consensus on what the definition of a "planet" should be, especially considering new discoveries that are occuring. Just as continues to be with classification of organisms, we will likely see a continuing evolution of classification of large objects in the universe.
Classifications assist our understanding of how things are related. But you can't argue that a particular object is or isn't under one particular classification until that classification actually has a solid definition (and Webster's doesn't count.)
How much more security can this country -- this nation conceived in anonymity -- survive?
The Federalist Papers were printed to pursuade states to ratify the Constitution, after it was already written.
The Constitution itself was not written anonymously, everyone knew who wrote it and who was at the convention.
The same goes for The Declaration of Independence.
The country was not conceived in anonymity, but it did manage to ratify its constitution by anonymously convincing some people to vote for it.