You are thinking of parole, which is part of prison time.
If you get 9 years, after those 9 years are up the court cannot put more sanctions on you.
They can, however, let you out of prison after 5 years under whatever conditions the parole board decides on, including "No internet use for the remainder of your term"
However, someone who walks into a bank, attempts to rob it, then is attacked by the bystanders and doens't get away with anything, and never actually handles any money.. do you say he can't be charged because he didn't succesfully rob a bank?
Attempting to commit a crime IS a crime.
Breaking into the computers, planting software to gather or intercept credit card numbers, and so on, is very, very clear intent to steal private information. The fact that he didn't complete the task / wasn't successful / made a typo in no way exhonerates him.
It's not like he just got through one proxy and the lawyers said "oh well technically he COULD have stolen all our credit card numbers".. he actively tried to do it.
It's the use of private services attached to that network that are at issue.
There is plenty of room to argue either way, but blanket statements that "using internet over an open wifi access point is legal" are dangerous, and unfounded.
How many credit cards could have been stolen? Someone who fails to rob a liquor store gets less of a sentence than someone who fails to rob an armored car with a few million dollars inside. Same thing here.
He wasn't just lifting a few credit card numbers from a branch, he was trying to get tons and tons of numbers from all the stores in the country.
Just because it's open does not imply permission to use the service.
I'm the first to agree running an open network is stupid, however:
Using my internet connection, which I pay for, without my permission, is theft of service.
Now, if you managed to get on my wireless network because I carelessly left it open, I share some of the blame, for sure. In some places, you might even say my leaving it open was tantamount to permission for you to use it (but then, why doesn't the same logic apply to files on open shares? Same concept).
Just because you CAN access it doens't mean you are allowed to.
It's not as straightforward as that. Hands-free is better, because your driving is not physically impeded, but that's not the whole issue.
It's not just that the person is in the car with you, and can react accordingly. The real issue is about your situational awareness.. when you talk on the phone, part of your brain visualizes the other person, where they are, things like that. This detracts from your awareness of your surroundings. When someone is in the vehicle, they fit into the current situation, even if they are ignoring you or won't shut up, it's much less distracting.
Situational awareness is far, far more important than any other driving habit (signalling, staying in the lane, etc)
I'm pretty sure that when I talk on the phone while driving, I'm far more distracted than when I'm talking to someone than if they were with me in person.
The mind works quite a bit differently on the phone, there is much more visualization of the other person, where they are, subconsciously. This detracts from your situational awareness of the road. OTOH, having a person sitting next to you fits right in with your current situation, and isn't a problem.
If you watch how people drive, and who is on a phone or not, it's quite obvious that those talking on a cellphone do not drive smoothly or with nearly as much attention to what's going on around them.
That's only MLB, and it's not that they are granted the right to have a monopoly; anyone is allowed to have a monopoly. They are exempted from antitrust laws that could otherwise be used against them.
If it's private, and not distributed, and not commercial, you don't need their permission.
They still can't GIVE you permission, because they have exclusive licensing deals, but that doesn't mean you require such permission for this use in the first place.
You have it backwards. The line-of-sight distance between base station and aircraft changes very little when you are right overhead. It changes very quickly when you are further away.
The difference might not be obvious, but studies show there is actually a large difference in how your attention is focused.
Talking to someone sitting next to you and talking to someone on the phone are psychologically very, very different, and you are much more likely to have an accident talking to someone on the phone.
They are currently knee-deep in MS contracts. When those expire, they can't just switch to something else on a whim, they have to be prepared. Switches like this are difficult, and need ot be planned out. The advantages are long-term, not short-term.
So given that you have a huge IT infrastrucutre that relies on MS, and your service and support contracts are expiring.. what do you do? You negotiate with microsoft for how to proceed.
An agreement to persue and prefer open source doesn't mean dropping the ball on everything you are currently doing.
Vorbis can't be peeled, this is not implemented yet.
The concept is there and some people are playing with it, but it still appears to be not much more than a concept, and doesn't even have a satisfactory demo yet.
Yes, however, sites running trackers & associated web interfaces that database, search, discuss, and collect torrents of copyrighted material ARE contributing to copyright infringement. Suprnova, elitetorrents, etc.
I seem to recall this was accomplished simply by having multiple streams at different bitrates in the same file. It's not actually part of the codec. Having a 128kbps stream and a 64kbps stream is the same size as the two files separately.
The idea of bit-stripping wasn't that quality wouldn't be lost, but that if the trnasmission medium is slower, you can just throttle back the stream, drop some data, and have things gracefully degrade, which you cannot do with current formats.
It's a game of chance, yes, however, saying "it's not fair to those not similarly equipped" is irrelevant. You are not competing against other players at the table in any way. You winning or not has no effect on their ability to play, or to win. You are competing against the casino.
The "spirit" of the game is guessing what's going to come up next based on the information available to you and everyone else at the table. If I am smarter than the guy next to me, is that an unfair advantage? If I count cards at blackjack, is that "unfair"? (No, it's not, but will likely get me asked to not play blackjack anymore at that particular casino)
This is not about fairness or anyhting like that, it's purely about profit. Odds are in favor of the house. This device shifts the odds in favor of the players, therefore, the casinos cannot afford to operate the game if these devices are permitted on the premesis. Plain and simple. The same reason they do not allow card counters to play blackjack for too long, becuase they would continuously lose money.
If there was no law on the books against this, then rightly so they should walk away with the money. The casino should do more to protect itself from this.
It's not used because it's absorbed better by water.. in fact it's almost the opposite (as indicated by the site you linked)
Other frequencies are absorbed FAR better by water. The 2.4Ghz is arbitrary, and far, far below the peak absorbtion frequency for water.
"The absorption vs. frequency graph is in the web site I provided previously; it shows that as the water heats up, the peak in absorption increases in frequency, from about 15 GHz in cold water up to close to 100 GHz near the boiling point. The microwave oven frequency is chosen to be below the peak absorption point, so that as the surface of the cooked object heats up, absorption will decrease, allowing the microwave radiation to penetrate into the center of the object and heat it up and thus encouraging more uniform cooking."
Some nice features there... but you open up with saying "Like CVS, you can get productive within minutes; the same cannot be said for Arch or even Subversion."
I'm really not quite sure how that qualifies as "can't be set up in minutes". Easily as fast as darcs, and very simple.
The distributed features are what make darcs unique.. it doesn't seem to me to be any fundamentally easier or faster for basic revision control than subversion, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You are thinking of parole, which is part of prison time.
If you get 9 years, after those 9 years are up the court cannot put more sanctions on you.
They can, however, let you out of prison after 5 years under whatever conditions the parole board decides on, including "No internet use for the remainder of your term"
Yes, the punishment should fit the crime.
However, someone who walks into a bank, attempts to rob it, then is attacked by the bystanders and doens't get away with anything, and never actually handles any money.. do you say he can't be charged because he didn't succesfully rob a bank?
Attempting to commit a crime IS a crime.
Breaking into the computers, planting software to gather or intercept credit card numbers, and so on, is very, very clear intent to steal private information. The fact that he didn't complete the task / wasn't successful / made a typo in no way exhonerates him.
It's not like he just got through one proxy and the lawyers said "oh well technically he COULD have stolen all our credit card numbers".. he actively tried to do it.
Yes, the use of the spectrum isn't the issue.
It's the use of private services attached to that network that are at issue.
There is plenty of room to argue either way, but blanket statements that "using internet over an open wifi access point is legal" are dangerous, and unfounded.
How many credit cards could have been stolen? Someone who fails to rob a liquor store gets less of a sentence than someone who fails to rob an armored car with a few million dollars inside. Same thing here.
He wasn't just lifting a few credit card numbers from a branch, he was trying to get tons and tons of numbers from all the stores in the country.
This is a dangerously bad item in wikipedia.
Just because it's open does not imply permission to use the service.
I'm the first to agree running an open network is stupid, however:
Using my internet connection, which I pay for, without my permission, is theft of service.
Now, if you managed to get on my wireless network because I carelessly left it open, I share some of the blame, for sure. In some places, you might even say my leaving it open was tantamount to permission for you to use it (but then, why doesn't the same logic apply to files on open shares? Same concept).
Just because you CAN access it doens't mean you are allowed to.
It's not as straightforward as that. Hands-free is better, because your driving is not physically impeded, but that's not the whole issue.
It's not just that the person is in the car with you, and can react accordingly. The real issue is about your situational awareness.. when you talk on the phone, part of your brain visualizes the other person, where they are, things like that. This detracts from your awareness of your surroundings. When someone is in the vehicle, they fit into the current situation, even if they are ignoring you or won't shut up, it's much less distracting.
Situational awareness is far, far more important than any other driving habit (signalling, staying in the lane, etc)
The basic idea is to have a computer + modem call every number in an exchange and log which ones were answered by modems.
Really?
I'm pretty sure that when I talk on the phone while driving, I'm far more distracted than when I'm talking to someone than if they were with me in person.
The mind works quite a bit differently on the phone, there is much more visualization of the other person, where they are, subconsciously. This detracts from your situational awareness of the road. OTOH, having a person sitting next to you fits right in with your current situation, and isn't a problem.
If you watch how people drive, and who is on a phone or not, it's quite obvious that those talking on a cellphone do not drive smoothly or with nearly as much attention to what's going on around them.
That's only MLB, and it's not that they are granted the right to have a monopoly; anyone is allowed to have a monopoly. They are exempted from antitrust laws that could otherwise be used against them.
If it's private, and not distributed, and not commercial, you don't need their permission.
They still can't GIVE you permission, because they have exclusive licensing deals, but that doesn't mean you require such permission for this use in the first place.
You have it backwards. The line-of-sight distance between base station and aircraft changes very little when you are right overhead. It changes very quickly when you are further away.
The difference might not be obvious, but studies show there is actually a large difference in how your attention is focused.
Talking to someone sitting next to you and talking to someone on the phone are psychologically very, very different, and you are much more likely to have an accident talking to someone on the phone.
They are currently knee-deep in MS contracts. When those expire, they can't just switch to something else on a whim, they have to be prepared. Switches like this are difficult, and need ot be planned out. The advantages are long-term, not short-term.
So given that you have a huge IT infrastrucutre that relies on MS, and your service and support contracts are expiring.. what do you do? You negotiate with microsoft for how to proceed.
An agreement to persue and prefer open source doesn't mean dropping the ball on everything you are currently doing.
Vorbis can't be peeled, this is not implemented yet.
The concept is there and some people are playing with it, but it still appears to be not much more than a concept, and doesn't even have a satisfactory demo yet.
how decisions made by committee tend to be worthless.
Crappy list. sorry.
Yes, however, sites running trackers & associated web interfaces that database, search, discuss, and collect torrents of copyrighted material ARE contributing to copyright infringement. Suprnova, elitetorrents, etc.
I seem to recall this was accomplished simply by having multiple streams at different bitrates in the same file. It's not actually part of the codec. Having a 128kbps stream and a 64kbps stream is the same size as the two files separately.
The idea of bit-stripping wasn't that quality wouldn't be lost, but that if the trnasmission medium is slower, you can just throttle back the stream, drop some data, and have things gracefully degrade, which you cannot do with current formats.
is that I can read that quite fluently.
but stories about how "the only time I played I put in $2 and made $20" help fuel that gambling addiction.
It's the few people who win at casinos that give the rest hope.
Sorry, BS.
It's a game of chance, yes, however, saying "it's not fair to those not similarly equipped" is irrelevant. You are not competing against other players at the table in any way. You winning or not has no effect on their ability to play, or to win. You are competing against the casino.
The "spirit" of the game is guessing what's going to come up next based on the information available to you and everyone else at the table. If I am smarter than the guy next to me, is that an unfair advantage? If I count cards at blackjack, is that "unfair"? (No, it's not, but will likely get me asked to not play blackjack anymore at that particular casino)
This is not about fairness or anyhting like that, it's purely about profit. Odds are in favor of the house. This device shifts the odds in favor of the players, therefore, the casinos cannot afford to operate the game if these devices are permitted on the premesis. Plain and simple. The same reason they do not allow card counters to play blackjack for too long, becuase they would continuously lose money.
If there was no law on the books against this, then rightly so they should walk away with the money. The casino should do more to protect itself from this.
Except in Nevada where using electronic calculating devices to assist casino play is illegal.
The point is that copyright is automatic.
As an author, I'm not agreeing to continue to produce things that are good for society just because I wrote a book or some software.
The idea behind copyright is to stimulate creative work, yes, but it's not part of the law.
Authors do not agree to produce a work for society.
Society agrees that if you produce a work, you have control over the right to copy that work, in an effort to encourage creative work.
The author hasn't "agreed" to anything.
It's not used because it's absorbed better by water.. in fact it's almost the opposite (as indicated by the site you linked)
Other frequencies are absorbed FAR better by water.
The 2.4Ghz is arbitrary, and far, far below the peak absorbtion frequency for water.
"The absorption vs. frequency graph is in the web site I provided previously; it shows that as the water heats up, the peak in absorption increases in frequency, from about 15 GHz in cold water up to close to 100 GHz near the boiling point. The microwave oven frequency is chosen to be below the peak absorption point, so that as the surface of the cooked object heats up, absorption will decrease, allowing the microwave radiation to penetrate into the center of the object and heat it up and thus encouraging more uniform cooking."
Some nice features there... but you open up with saying "Like CVS, you can get productive within minutes; the same cannot be said for Arch or even Subversion."
/path/to/repository
Subversion:
# Create a local respitory & add files.
svnadmin create
svn import * file://path/to/repository
I'm really not quite sure how that qualifies as "can't be set up in minutes". Easily as fast as darcs, and very simple.
The distributed features are what make darcs unique.. it doesn't seem to me to be any fundamentally easier or faster for basic revision control than subversion, though.