Because they're public trackers. Because public trackers are just so much easier to use than private ones.
OK, I'm a member of a special-interest private tracker, but when I can download a file from a public one instead, I use it. Why? Because I don't have to worry about my upload ratios. In fact, downloading from a public tracker, I usually have ratios of 1.1 or so by the time I finish downloading. But with private trackers that have penalties for not uploading enough, I find I normally have to share a torrent for a month or more (where I'm one of 300 people seeding, with about 10 downloaders) after I've finished downloading otherwise I end up with a shitty ratio. Some of us don't have hundreds of gigabytes of disk space available for storing torrents that we're finished with, thanks. I like to archive off to DVDROM after a few days.
How about commercial licences? At least with FOSS you have a few major ones. With commercial every one is unique and usually much more complicated.
Yes, however most people using commercial software install far fewer packages than a typical Linux installation contains. For example, a quick check suggests I have a total of 92 independent packages installed on my Windows machine, whereas I have 644 on my Linux machine.
If these licenses meet the requirements of the open source definition, then you can use the programs however you like. You might have to worry a little more about distribution, but that's only an issue for a small minority of companies.
The problem is that many of the FOSS licenses purport to extend the terms of those licenses to any software that interacts in a close manner (such as linking). IANAL, but this standard seems really suspect to me (it would mean that Microsoft could release a new version of Windows and declare that no open source software could be developed for it).
It's quite plausible, legally speaking. When you link against a library (even dynamically), parts of that library are copied into your program. This means that the compiled program (probably) becomes a derivitive work, legally speaking, and you will need permission of the copyright holder.
Microsoft could, plausibly, release a new API for Windows and stipulate in its copyright any terms they want for distributing programs that are linked against it.
Note that none of this, however, prevents distribution in source form so that the end user can perform the linking.
'm not sure that the assumption is correct in the large majority of cases. I'd guess that in most cases, they either have thought about it and have left it open on purpose or they haven't thought about it and have just left it open.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority are the latter. I'm also confident that the majority of these, if asked, would say they didn't want other people using their network.
The two other cases being they care and have done something about it or they care and they haven't done anything about it (even something as simple as unplugging it when they are not using it, or asking for help, or even figuring it out for themeselves). The last case I'd guess is the minority of people and not the ones we should shape our public policy around
I agree, but I don't think having actively decided not to allow other users access is a necessary precondition to that access being wrong. If, as I believe, a majority would decide not to allow access if they thought about it, then not allowing access should be the default state.
(and yes I'd rant about seat belt laws, glass bottles in stadiums and other stupid-people policies, but I'm trying not too).
Both these laws exist to protect everyone's interests, not the stupid people. Somebody dying in a car crash costs the economy a rather large amount of money. Glass bottles can be broken and either used as weapons or accidentally cause injury to somebody other than the person who brought them in.
You absolutely did, when you plugged it in. It's an electronic device, it's function is to authorize other electronic devices (and thus, the people controlling them,) to use your network.
Show me where I was made aware of this contractual agreement.
I suspect the amount of the fine is a bit excessive. I'd rather it were small and the perpetrator could just be shamed into not doing it again.
Generally speaking, in Britain, the amounts of fines are tied to ability to pay. If the amount seems large, it was probably because the perpetrator has a high income.
It is unlikely he was aware that a statute on the books prohibited operating his computer in this manner
Sorry, this seems unlikely to me. Several such cases have been widely reported in mainstream news over the last couple of years. He only didn't know this was illegal if he had his head in the sand.
Besides, it is common knowledge that ignorance of the law is not a defence. It is everyone's responsibility to be sure that what they are doing is legal before doing it. In this case (using somebody else's service without permission) there are large ethical warning signs that ought to have tipped him off that research was necessary in this case.
Your computer politely asked the router if you could talk to the network and have an IP address on it, and the router said "yes, use this one".
When did I give my router permission to authorize people to use my network? It didn't ask me if it could when I set it up.
Hint: routers aren't intelligent. They can't grant permission to anybody to do anything. Only a person can do that (perhaps by specifying a set of rules that can be implemented by a router), but without a person taking positive action to grant permission, no permission is granted.
If you leave something where anyone can take it, without trespassing on your property (breaking in to your house, or computer),
Trespassing != breaking in. Trespassing is using without permission. In this case, trespassing was occurring (both trespassing on physical property -- the guy was sitting on the network owner's garden wall -- and trespassing on chattals -- the guy was using the network).
Now, if you ask me, I'd say trespassing shouldn't be a criminal offence (and trespassing on property isn't) but a civil one, thus only the owner of the network should be able to prosecute, not the police, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that an offence took place.
No. Under UK law, at least, a contract is defined as requiring a "meeting of minds" that agree to a certain set of conditions. If the meeting of minds is absent, no contract exists.
Last I heard, DHCP servers didn't have minds, so unless they intended the DHCP server to form contracts when they set it up (unlikely, IMO), a DHCP server cannot form a contract with anybody.
How the hell are you supposed to know if you're allowed to connect to an available unsecured access point or not? Can starbucks arrest everyone in their shop using it if they decide on a whim that they didn't actually mean anyone to unlawfully 'break into' their unsecured wireless network?
Every public access point I've ever used uses one of two conventions:
* There are signs in the establishment that let you know there is free wireless access to use * The access point is known by an SSID (e.g. "hotspot" or "free" or something) that is generally considered a name for a free access point
Is checking for one of these before using the network really so problematic?
People USE computers, and may not know every detail or security concept, and they shouldn't have to.
No. This is what the manuals are for. The installation instructions for every piece of wireless networking hardware I have ever purchased contained, usually in large letters, a warning about the necessity of setting up security, and a clear step-by-step guide on how to do it with a selection of common operating systems.
It really isn't hard for people to know they should be doing this. A brief glance at the documents supplied with the equipment they bought will tell them what to do. The only reason they don't do it is because they don't bother to read those instructions, or think it doesn't apply to them (possibly because they *truly don't care if other people use their network*).
Rubbish law. When you log into a network, so long as you're not hacking it, you politely ask the router "may i use this network and have an IP address?". The router says "yes", on behalf of you, the owner. Therefore it is authorized.
I, for one, have not granted my router permission to authorize people to use my network. Therefore it is doing no such thing on my behalf.
Before anyone starts in with the "if the door is open, you can't go into someones house anyway" argument, I'm going to point out that most laptops these days auto connect to open connections, or at least do a popup that if the avg user isn't paying attention will connect them when they hit enter.
And, under UK law, in order to commit a crime you must generally intend to perform the action that is criminal. If the default setting is to autoconnect, and you are not aware that your laptop will autoconnect to other people's networks, you should be legally in the clear.
If, however, you're perfectly aware of this fact and leave the setting active anyway, then you probably have broken the law.
people leaving their networks with SSID broadcast no security is *not* the equivalent of an open, unlocked door on a residence, it's the equivalent of laying out all your stuff in the middle of the street with a sign that says "please take", or at least a path through their land that they never gated and never shooed anyone off of, it's for the public use at that point.
I really don't see how you make that connection. It really is much more like the open door analogy: we all acknowledge that even if somebody doesn't prevent us from going into their house, we shouldn't do it anyway unless we're invited. Why can the same not be true of wireless networks? There are plenty of ways an invitation could be made (e.g., putting up signs, using an SSID that made the offer explicit, etc.), so why should the standard be different?
Here Pivar is just showing his lack of reading comprehension. The statement in question:
there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence (emphasis mine)
His response:
The 600 listed scientists named Steve claim the belief that evolution happened, and that natural selection is the mechanical process which causes it. (empasis also mine)
Can anyone who has read the book say whether he was claiming that his fanciful drawings described embryonic development, or were they presented as thought experiments?
At $60 for a 164 page book, I strongly suspect the only people who have read the book are reviewers.
The doodles in this book bear absolutely no relationship to anything that goes on in real organisms, but after staring at them for a while, I realized what this book is actually about.
This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals.
Smart VPS hosts are using OpenVZ/Virtuozzo anyway.
Not really, not. VPS hosts who want to run with the herd are running Virtuozzo. Smart VPS hosts know that while Xen is more hardware-hungry, it provides a better virtual environment for demanding customers who are willing to pay a little extra cash for better flexibility.
The reason that I bring all of this up is because I had options after high school. I was not railroaded into a career that might have been interesting when I was 14, but ended up loathing it for the remainder of my life. I am not sure if such luxuries are possible in countries, such as the UK. I am curious. Is it possible to go from a trade job in the UK and later decide that you want to go to the university and get a degree?
Yes. The courses you would need to gain entrance qualifications to a university are generally available as evening classes, and can be completed in 1 year if you work hard on them. Additionally, most universities are more flexible on their admissions policy for older students (under the assumption that they will be more serious about actually studying).
Basically, as you describe your career, a very similar one would have been possible in the UK. But for those who do have a fixed idea of what they want to do with their lives (which seems to be more common in the UK, perhaps because of an educational emphasis on preparation for these decisions), the UK system is definitely better, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.
I tried, but she keeps getting right back up again.
You do know that TPM does _nothing_ unless you actually, you know, use it, don't you?
So by disabling it in your kernel config, the only thing you achieve is making your system incompatible with any software that requires it.
Because they're public trackers. Because public trackers are just so much easier to use than private ones.
OK, I'm a member of a special-interest private tracker, but when I can download a file from a public one instead, I use it. Why? Because I don't have to worry about my upload ratios. In fact, downloading from a public tracker, I usually have ratios of 1.1 or so by the time I finish downloading. But with private trackers that have penalties for not uploading enough, I find I normally have to share a torrent for a month or more (where I'm one of 300 people seeding, with about 10 downloaders) after I've finished downloading otherwise I end up with a shitty ratio. Some of us don't have hundreds of gigabytes of disk space available for storing torrents that we're finished with, thanks. I like to archive off to DVDROM after a few days.
How about commercial licences? At least with FOSS you have a few major ones. With commercial every one is unique and usually much more complicated.
Yes, however most people using commercial software install far fewer packages than a typical Linux installation contains. For example, a quick check suggests I have a total of 92 independent packages installed on my Windows machine, whereas I have 644 on my Linux machine.
Not to mention FUD, too.
If these licenses meet the requirements of the open source definition, then you can use the programs however you like. You might have to worry a little more about distribution, but that's only an issue for a small minority of companies.
The problem is that many of the FOSS licenses purport to extend the terms of those licenses to any software that interacts in a close manner (such as linking). IANAL, but this standard seems really suspect to me (it would mean that Microsoft could release a new version of Windows and declare that no open source software could be developed for it).
It's quite plausible, legally speaking. When you link against a library (even dynamically), parts of that library are copied into your program. This means that the compiled program (probably) becomes a derivitive work, legally speaking, and you will need permission of the copyright holder.
Microsoft could, plausibly, release a new API for Windows and stipulate in its copyright any terms they want for distributing programs that are linked against it.
Note that none of this, however, prevents distribution in source form so that the end user can perform the linking.
'm not sure that the assumption is correct in the large majority of cases. I'd guess that in most cases, they either have thought about it and have left it open on purpose or they haven't thought about it and have just left it open.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority are the latter. I'm also confident that the majority of these, if asked, would say they didn't want other people using their network.
The two other cases being they care and have done something about it or they care and they haven't done anything about it (even something as simple as unplugging it when they are not using it, or asking for help, or even figuring it out for themeselves). The last case I'd guess is the minority of people and not the ones we should shape our public policy around
I agree, but I don't think having actively decided not to allow other users access is a necessary precondition to that access being wrong. If, as I believe, a majority would decide not to allow access if they thought about it, then not allowing access should be the default state.
(and yes I'd rant about seat belt laws, glass bottles in stadiums and other stupid-people policies, but I'm trying not too).
Both these laws exist to protect everyone's interests, not the stupid people. Somebody dying in a car crash costs the economy a rather large amount of money. Glass bottles can be broken and either used as weapons or accidentally cause injury to somebody other than the person who brought them in.
You absolutely did, when you plugged it in. It's an electronic device, it's function is to authorize other electronic devices (and thus, the people controlling them,) to use your network.
Show me where I was made aware of this contractual agreement.
Other than the bicycle analogy, why should we assume the default state is "I don't want you using my WiFi"?
Because that's the assumption that causes the least harm.
Because that's the assumption that's correct in a large majority of cases.
It's quite easy, really.
I suspect the amount of the fine is a bit excessive. I'd rather it were small and the perpetrator could just be shamed into not doing it again.
Generally speaking, in Britain, the amounts of fines are tied to ability to pay. If the amount seems large, it was probably because the perpetrator has a high income.
It is unlikely he was aware that a statute on the books prohibited operating his computer in this manner
Sorry, this seems unlikely to me. Several such cases have been widely reported in mainstream news over the last couple of years. He only didn't know this was illegal if he had his head in the sand.
Besides, it is common knowledge that ignorance of the law is not a defence. It is everyone's responsibility to be sure that what they are doing is legal before doing it. In this case (using somebody else's service without permission) there are large ethical warning signs that ought to have tipped him off that research was necessary in this case.
Your computer politely asked the router if you could talk to the network and have an IP address on it, and the router said "yes, use this one".
When did I give my router permission to authorize people to use my network? It didn't ask me if it could when I set it up.
Hint: routers aren't intelligent. They can't grant permission to anybody to do anything. Only a person can do that (perhaps by specifying a set of rules that can be implemented by a router), but without a person taking positive action to grant permission, no permission is granted.
If you leave something where anyone can take it, without trespassing on your property (breaking in to your house, or computer),
Trespassing != breaking in. Trespassing is using without permission. In this case, trespassing was occurring (both trespassing on physical property -- the guy was sitting on the network owner's garden wall -- and trespassing on chattals -- the guy was using the network).
Now, if you ask me, I'd say trespassing shouldn't be a criminal offence (and trespassing on property isn't) but a civil one, thus only the owner of the network should be able to prosecute, not the police, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that an offence took place.
Request -> Offer -> Accept is valid contract.
No. Under UK law, at least, a contract is defined as requiring a "meeting of minds" that agree to a certain set of conditions. If the meeting of minds is absent, no contract exists.
Last I heard, DHCP servers didn't have minds, so unless they intended the DHCP server to form contracts when they set it up (unlikely, IMO), a DHCP server cannot form a contract with anybody.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
How the hell are you supposed to know if you're allowed to connect to an available unsecured access point or not? Can starbucks arrest everyone in their shop using it if they decide on a whim that they didn't actually mean anyone to unlawfully 'break into' their unsecured wireless network?
Every public access point I've ever used uses one of two conventions:
* There are signs in the establishment that let you know there is free wireless access to use
* The access point is known by an SSID (e.g. "hotspot" or "free" or something) that is generally considered a name for a free access point
Is checking for one of these before using the network really so problematic?
People USE computers, and may not know every detail or security concept, and they shouldn't have to.
No. This is what the manuals are for. The installation instructions for every piece of wireless networking hardware I have ever purchased contained, usually in large letters, a warning about the necessity of setting up security, and a clear step-by-step guide on how to do it with a selection of common operating systems.
It really isn't hard for people to know they should be doing this. A brief glance at the documents supplied with the equipment they bought will tell them what to do. The only reason they don't do it is because they don't bother to read those instructions, or think it doesn't apply to them (possibly because they *truly don't care if other people use their network*).
Rubbish law. When you log into a network, so long as you're not hacking it, you politely ask the router "may i use this network and have an IP address?". The router says "yes", on behalf of you, the owner. Therefore it is authorized.
I, for one, have not granted my router permission to authorize people to use my network. Therefore it is doing no such thing on my behalf.
Before anyone starts in with the "if the door is open, you can't go into someones house anyway" argument, I'm going to point out that most laptops these days auto connect to open connections, or at least do a popup that if the avg user isn't paying attention will connect them when they hit enter.
And, under UK law, in order to commit a crime you must generally intend to perform the action that is criminal. If the default setting is to autoconnect, and you are not aware that your laptop will autoconnect to other people's networks, you should be legally in the clear.
If, however, you're perfectly aware of this fact and leave the setting active anyway, then you probably have broken the law.
people leaving their networks with SSID broadcast no security is *not* the equivalent of an open, unlocked door on a residence, it's the equivalent of laying out all your stuff in the middle of the street with a sign that says "please take", or at least a path through their land that they never gated and never shooed anyone off of, it's for the public use at that point.
I really don't see how you make that connection. It really is much more like the open door analogy: we all acknowledge that even if somebody doesn't prevent us from going into their house, we shouldn't do it anyway unless we're invited. Why can the same not be true of wireless networks? There are plenty of ways an invitation could be made (e.g., putting up signs, using an SSID that made the offer explicit, etc.), so why should the standard be different?
Ultimately, this book's proper place is the science-fiction section.
Sorry. We have higher standards in science fiction. Besides, the vast majority of the SF publishing industry likes PZ Myers.
Here Pivar is just showing his lack of reading comprehension. The statement in question:
there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence (emphasis mine)
His response:
The 600 listed scientists named Steve claim the belief that evolution happened, and that natural selection is the mechanical process which causes it. (empasis also mine)
Can anyone who has read the book say whether he was claiming that his fanciful drawings described embryonic development, or were they presented as thought experiments?
At $60 for a 164 page book, I strongly suspect the only people who have read the book are reviewers.
This prompted a poster on another blog I read to produce what I think is the best lolcat ever.
Smart VPS hosts are using OpenVZ/Virtuozzo anyway.
Not really, not. VPS hosts who want to run with the herd are running Virtuozzo. Smart VPS hosts know that while Xen is more hardware-hungry, it provides a better virtual environment for demanding customers who are willing to pay a little extra cash for better flexibility.
Frankly, you're talking about a small minority of journalists, there. I highly doubt these particular journalists have ever done anything like that.
The reason that I bring all of this up is because I had options after high school. I was not railroaded into a career that might have been interesting when I was 14, but ended up loathing it for the remainder of my life. I am not sure if such luxuries are possible in countries, such as the UK. I am curious. Is it possible to go from a trade job in the UK and later decide that you want to go to the university and get a degree?
Yes. The courses you would need to gain entrance qualifications to a university are generally available as evening classes, and can be completed in 1 year if you work hard on them. Additionally, most universities are more flexible on their admissions policy for older students (under the assumption that they will be more serious about actually studying).
Basically, as you describe your career, a very similar one would have been possible in the UK. But for those who do have a fixed idea of what they want to do with their lives (which seems to be more common in the UK, perhaps because of an educational emphasis on preparation for these decisions), the UK system is definitely better, IMO.