I have gotten tickets, years ago, when I didn't obey the rules, and surprisingly, got caught. I've also gone to court against a ticket (though I did lose). I've also had friends fight tickets in court and win. Guess your burden of proof is a little lower then, well, anybody's should be.
I know exactly what you mean, and if the speed limit sign is obscured by a tree, then fight the ticket. Take pictures, document the hell out of it and go before a judge.
As for no reason, I doubt that. I live in what most would consider a very rural area. My home town has a population of <10,000. I drive on the highway a lot. There's several places where I have to drop down to ~50km/h while passing through a town.
You know what? I do drop down my speed. I do it whenever the speed limit drops. Its amazing how many people don't. Either claiming that they didn't see the sign, or that they don't see the reason why they should have to.
Let me make something really clear. The speed limit is a law. Ignorance of it is not an excuse, and neither is believing you're above it.
Wow, $1.5 Million a month. Geez, that's $18 million a year! Thats about 0.2% of their annual $8.2 BILLION budget. I'm sure that's a huge concern for them.
There's a section of road that the speed limit drops and you don't know why, so you should be able to just barrel through at whatever speed you feel is appropriate.
You shouldn't actually have to stop at a stop sign
I'm hoping I live nowhere near you, and never end up on the same piece of road as you.
The Wii has a long way to go before it can do what a computer can do. And in case you didn't know, most modern video cards and we're not talking top of the line) do DVI and S-Video out. I'm only speaking for NVidia cards here, since I don't like ATI.
Sorry, I can build an adequate gaming rig, including Windows Vista for $750. Here's one for example. Its $950, but includes a $200 monitor. And, as I said, I was talking of someone who wanted to do both and was buying new. If you're buying used, you can probably do it for $500 or less.
I don't understand your point. IF you want to play games and have a PC lets examine the costs to get into it, assuming you have nothing currently (we won't add in displays since a new TV will skew the numbers even more towards PC gaming). I can put together a PC that will be more than adequate for gaming for $750. The lowest end PC you're realistically to find is $400. Add in your XBOX 360, and you're looking at about the same price. So there are no cost savings either way. So its going to come down to what games you like to play.
And I'd like to see how many games you can play on your console without a TV. Now, if we don't include displays, one can easily put together a reasonable gaming machine for $750 (and probably a lot less). Sure, that's more that your Xbox 360, but I can do a lot more with a PC then I can with a gaming console.
Yes, but then again, I can also check email, surf the web, and enjoy all the things the Internet has to offer, and more. With that gaming console I can play games, or watch movies. Oh, and now a days, most video cards have DVI out, so hooking them up to a modern TV is trivial.
Yup, we're the same way (Canadian ISP/Telecom). If we're outsourcing anything, we have to look at not only where physically the data centre is, but if any of the data crosses the border at some point. One vendor had their data center in Canada, but the offsite backups were across the border. They lost the contract because of it. We however did get Postini (now owned by Google) to open a Canadian data centre which we use.
It's sad that people will go to such lengths to rationalize taking something they didn't pay for (and didn't ask the owner permission to use, that little tidbit always gets ignored) and try to make it seem like it was someone else's fault for not locking them out.
I mean, seriously, when you see arguments modded to +5 that say "it's legal because your access point gave me permission" you know that the discussion is going nowhere.
I know, I've had this dicussion many times before, and I always seem to be in the minority. That being said, the discussion has always been with those who have the technical know how to secure their device. I bet if you asked a signficant number of people that had open ap if they intended to make their internet connection to anyone and everyone in range, the numbers might sway a bit in the opposite direction.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think there is an inherent difference. With an AP (or at least some older ones that are undoubtedly still out there), it requires an action on the part of the "owner" to secure them from unauthorized use. A web server is the opposite. By default, it may not even run, of if it does, it will only display a default page. It requires action on the part of the "owner" to make it useable for everyone.
So, in a default state, there won't be a webserver, or at least not one where everyone can use its services. With an AP, the default state (as I said, at least on some older ones), is to let everyone use it.
So yes, I'll stand by my point that an AP cannot authorize you to use my services. Only *I* can do that. Presumably if the name was "FREE AND OPEN AP" then I could undersand the assumption that you are authorized to use it.
By having an AP, people are not by default making their service available to you. That's a really big assumption that a lot of people make on here. I don't think it does imply authorization, others do. I look at it this way. There are a lot of people out there with wireless access points that have no idea that they need to secure them. Their lack of knowledge of the subject does not mean that they are letting you use their service. The best analogy I've seen so far is the power outlet on your house. By running power to it, are you authorizing me to plug in an extension cord and power my stuff? Its the same idea. By connecting to an open access point without authorization, you could potentially be denying that person service, or costing them money. Yes, this is unlikely, but it is possible.
The point is, you don't know how I get my internet connectivity, now how I pay for it. In my case, I quite regularaly close in on my bandwidth cap. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If someone else starts using my internet connection without my permission, its quite possible I will exceed that cap, and then there are consequences, either extra fees, reduced speeds, etc. That's why this law makes sense. Just because someone hasn't locked there wireless connection down to your expectations doesn't mean they're okay with everyone using it without first asking permission.
Remember that when I come and run an extension cord from your outdoor plugin to my equipment. Yes hour honour, he did authorize me to use it since there was power to that plug. (Saw that analaogy somewhere else in this discussion and its the best one I've seen). My AP cannot authorize you to use my services under the eyes of the law.
You certainly got the right subject line since your comment makes no sense. If you're authorized to use it, then go ahead, its fine. If you are not authorized to use it, its illegal. The Access Point itself cannot authorize you in the eyes of the law, only the preson who owns/pays for the connection can, or another who can act on their behalf.
No, but if you focus purely on making the customer happy (which you can do by giving them the product for free), you won't necessarily make money in the long term, which is what the original comment implied (if not said outright).
That's a gross over simplification. Best way to make me happy is to give me the product/service for free, without any ads. That kills most revenue streams, so how do you make money if you have no revenue streams? Happy customers are better than unhappy ones, but that's not the only factor to consider.
Interesting how posting a complete lie with a link to a wikipedia article is enough to get modded up, even though the link does not back up the statement at all.
I'm from Sasktchewan, and if anything, we're called Saskatchewanians.
Is there something special about technology, that sets tech-savvy humans apart from all the other kinds of humans when it comes to politics? On a site like slashdot, yes.
There is no great economic incentive to have a basement in warmer climates, so prevalence is hit or miss.
Except, like I said, to increase living space. In a 1200sqft bungalow, you have 1200sqft of space. Add a basement, and that can nearly double, without needing more lot space, or the increased property taxes that a 2400sqft home would incur.
Slashdot Mirror
I have gotten tickets, years ago, when I didn't obey the rules, and surprisingly, got caught. I've also gone to court against a ticket (though I did lose). I've also had friends fight tickets in court and win. Guess your burden of proof is a little lower then, well, anybody's should be.
I know exactly what you mean, and if the speed limit sign is obscured by a tree, then fight the ticket. Take pictures, document the hell out of it and go before a judge.
As for no reason, I doubt that. I live in what most would consider a very rural area. My home town has a population of <10,000. I drive on the highway a lot. There's several places where I have to drop down to ~50km/h while passing through a town.
You know what? I do drop down my speed. I do it whenever the speed limit drops. Its amazing how many people don't. Either claiming that they didn't see the sign, or that they don't see the reason why they should have to.
Let me make something really clear. The speed limit is a law. Ignorance of it is not an excuse, and neither is believing you're above it.
Wow, $1.5 Million a month. Geez, that's $18 million a year! Thats about 0.2% of their annual $8.2 BILLION budget. I'm sure that's a huge concern for them.
- There's a section of road that the speed limit drops and you don't know why, so you should be able to just barrel through at whatever speed you feel is appropriate.
- You shouldn't actually have to stop at a stop sign
I'm hoping I live nowhere near you, and never end up on the same piece of road as you.Or you know, you could obey the speed limit, stop at red lights, etc. Seems to keep quite a few of us from getting tickets.
The Wii has a long way to go before it can do what a computer can do. And in case you didn't know, most modern video cards and we're not talking top of the line) do DVI and S-Video out. I'm only speaking for NVidia cards here, since I don't like ATI.
Sorry, I can build an adequate gaming rig, including Windows Vista for $750. Here's one for example. Its $950, but includes a $200 monitor. And, as I said, I was talking of someone who wanted to do both and was buying new. If you're buying used, you can probably do it for $500 or less.
I don't understand your point. IF you want to play games and have a PC lets examine the costs to get into it, assuming you have nothing currently (we won't add in displays since a new TV will skew the numbers even more towards PC gaming). I can put together a PC that will be more than adequate for gaming for $750. The lowest end PC you're realistically to find is $400. Add in your XBOX 360, and you're looking at about the same price. So there are no cost savings either way. So its going to come down to what games you like to play.
And I'd like to see how many games you can play on your console without a TV. Now, if we don't include displays, one can easily put together a reasonable gaming machine for $750 (and probably a lot less). Sure, that's more that your Xbox 360, but I can do a lot more with a PC then I can with a gaming console.
Yes, but then again, I can also check email, surf the web, and enjoy all the things the Internet has to offer, and more. With that gaming console I can play games, or watch movies. Oh, and now a days, most video cards have DVI out, so hooking them up to a modern TV is trivial.
Yup, we're the same way (Canadian ISP/Telecom). If we're outsourcing anything, we have to look at not only where physically the data centre is, but if any of the data crosses the border at some point. One vendor had their data center in Canada, but the offsite backups were across the border. They lost the contract because of it. We however did get Postini (now owned by Google) to open a Canadian data centre which we use.
It's sad that people will go to such lengths to rationalize taking something they didn't pay for (and didn't ask the owner permission to use, that little tidbit always gets ignored) and try to make it seem like it was someone else's fault for not locking them out. I mean, seriously, when you see arguments modded to +5 that say "it's legal because your access point gave me permission" you know that the discussion is going nowhere.
I know, I've had this dicussion many times before, and I always seem to be in the minority. That being said, the discussion has always been with those who have the technical know how to secure their device. I bet if you asked a signficant number of people that had open ap if they intended to make their internet connection to anyone and everyone in range, the numbers might sway a bit in the opposite direction.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think there is an inherent difference. With an AP (or at least some older ones that are undoubtedly still out there), it requires an action on the part of the "owner" to secure them from unauthorized use. A web server is the opposite. By default, it may not even run, of if it does, it will only display a default page. It requires action on the part of the "owner" to make it useable for everyone.
So, in a default state, there won't be a webserver, or at least not one where everyone can use its services. With an AP, the default state (as I said, at least on some older ones), is to let everyone use it.
So yes, I'll stand by my point that an AP cannot authorize you to use my services. Only *I* can do that. Presumably if the name was "FREE AND OPEN AP" then I could undersand the assumption that you are authorized to use it.
There's a big difference betweeen an AP handing out an IP address and me authorizing you to use a service I pay for.
By having an AP, people are not by default making their service available to you. That's a really big assumption that a lot of people make on here. I don't think it does imply authorization, others do. I look at it this way. There are a lot of people out there with wireless access points that have no idea that they need to secure them. Their lack of knowledge of the subject does not mean that they are letting you use their service. The best analogy I've seen so far is the power outlet on your house. By running power to it, are you authorizing me to plug in an extension cord and power my stuff? Its the same idea. By connecting to an open access point without authorization, you could potentially be denying that person service, or costing them money. Yes, this is unlikely, but it is possible.
The point is, you don't know how I get my internet connectivity, now how I pay for it. In my case, I quite regularaly close in on my bandwidth cap. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If someone else starts using my internet connection without my permission, its quite possible I will exceed that cap, and then there are consequences, either extra fees, reduced speeds, etc. That's why this law makes sense. Just because someone hasn't locked there wireless connection down to your expectations doesn't mean they're okay with everyone using it without first asking permission.
Remember that when I come and run an extension cord from your outdoor plugin to my equipment. Yes hour honour, he did authorize me to use it since there was power to that plug. (Saw that analaogy somewhere else in this discussion and its the best one I've seen). My AP cannot authorize you to use my services under the eyes of the law.
What's not? I'm all for this law. It basically says you can't use services from me without my permission. Seems like a good idea to me.
Fine, a judge will decide. The point is you will have a chance to defend yourself.
You certainly got the right subject line since your comment makes no sense. If you're authorized to use it, then go ahead, its fine. If you are not authorized to use it, its illegal. The Access Point itself cannot authorize you in the eyes of the law, only the preson who owns/pays for the connection can, or another who can act on their behalf.
No, but if you focus purely on making the customer happy (which you can do by giving them the product for free), you won't necessarily make money in the long term, which is what the original comment implied (if not said outright).
That's a gross over simplification. Best way to make me happy is to give me the product/service for free, without any ads. That kills most revenue streams, so how do you make money if you have no revenue streams? Happy customers are better than unhappy ones, but that's not the only factor to consider.
Interesting how posting a complete lie with a link to a wikipedia article is enough to get modded up, even though the link does not back up the statement at all.
I'm from Sasktchewan, and if anything, we're called Saskatchewanians.
Is there something special about technology, that sets tech-savvy humans apart from all the other kinds of humans when it comes to politics? On a site like slashdot, yes.
There is no great economic incentive to have a basement in warmer climates, so prevalence is hit or miss.
Except, like I said, to increase living space. In a 1200sqft bungalow, you have 1200sqft of space. Add a basement, and that can nearly double, without needing more lot space, or the increased property taxes that a 2400sqft home would incur.