Congratulations! You just disproved Christianity, or at least one of its main doctrines. If people's brains are hard-wired to believe in God, then the entire concept of Free Will goes right out the window.
That's just as ridiculous of a statement as the bolded one I made in my original post. Besides not giving to the possibility that such wiring was intentionally put there by a Creator, it fails to take into account the number of people who consciously ignore that sense. Just as we do not always act altruistically (despite having a wiring for doing so), we do not always believe in a God that our wiring says is there.
I sincerely hope you were also being cheeky? Because if you weren't, I'm afraid that it makes my original point all too clearly.:-(
To belabor the point, I'm saying that extra-universal hypotheses that explicitly define the extra-universal as undetectable are epistemologically worthless.
Not necessarily. It's worthless in the sense that such a hypothesis is worthless to science. It is not worthless from a theological/philosophical perspective unless one cares to exempt theology and philosophy from being part of the sum of human knowledge.
Specifically, theology addresses the questions that can be logically consumed, but only if one bases the logic on different axioms than science is based on. Science is based on two axioms:
1. Observable axiom: scientists can accurately observe reality, and then propose theories and laws to explain their observations.
2. Naturalistic axiom: everything in our universe can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.
Everything in science stems from there. If we cannot correctly observe and deduce the laws of nature around us, then all the work we've done to explain them has been nothing more than mental masturbation. Thankfully, these are fairly self-evident axioms.
Theology is based on different axioms:
1. A being exists who is superior to the very universe itself.
2. That being created humans for a personal reason, and cares about their development.
Everything in theology stems from those axioms. If the axioms are false, then it is also nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. However, these axioms seem just as self-evident to a great many people. (It used to be the majority prior to Science setting itself up as the new religion while Theology set itself up as the enemy of Science.)
The two systems are not necessarily in conflict. There is only a conflict if one is forced. e.g. If a scientist decides that the age of the universe is 20 billion years (it's been revised quite a few times) and that it's impossible that the universe might be a different age, he might collide with a theologian who has decided that the universe is only 6,000 years old (something which a strict reading of the Bible does not necessarily support), the two might get upset at each other and butt heads. The truth of the matter is that the scientist is not yet sure of the age (though he's reasonably certain that 6,000 years is a bit shy) and the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science.
A little humility on both sides prevents a drawn-out (and mostly useless) argument.
FWIW, I just bumped across this link which directly addresses this argument.:-)
Seriously, a hardwired belief is not proof of the belief.
Thus why I called it a silly statement.:-)
Yet look how many people are getting into a tizzy over it? Especially those who are determined to *PROVE* the unprovable. Ok, so evolution can offer a possible explanation. Does that disprove a God? *pff* How can you disprove something that isn't governed by the laws of nature that you are using to do the proof?
i.e. Science is based on certain Axioms upon which it must build. Those axioms don't include, "there must not be anything outside the universe being described that science cannot describe."
Absolutely nothing! Give the man prize for being the first in the thread to realize this.:-)
Ergo, anything we find is evidence of god, 'cause that's how he implemented it?
That is technically the original intent of modern science: To investigate God's creation. As Newton wrote:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler." (Newton, 1686).
That's an absurd claim.
Quite so. And exactly my point. Yet notice how many people are ignoring my words about it being an silly statement, and arguing it as if it were my center point? It's amazingly hard to get people thinking around here.:-/
For that matter, how many people have a built-in desire to believe in a super-being?
Of course, you're assuming that the "Universe" that we inhabit is a subset of some larger whole, and that it is impossible for us to get any information from the larger superset.
Certainly. Although the issue of communication from the superset is no more applicable to today's science. Perhaps the probabilities of quantum mechanics are influenced by a super-universe. But if that is the case, can today's science prove that? Absolutely not. Perhaps we will develop workable theories in the future, but for now that is beyond the grasp of what can and cannot be proven.
Or maybe it's just standard evolution plus game theory.
*clap* *clap*
Bravo! You and others are repeating the exact same errors I pointed out.
1. Axiom: An extra-universal is not provable through the laws of nature.
2. Axiom: Science is a tool that attempts to describe the laws of nature.
3. The laws of nature do not show a being governed by them. Therefore, such a being cannot exist. [ERROR - In conflict with previous axioms]
1. You get a good response from being selfish as well. i.e. You get to have the thing in question and someone else doesn't. A good feeling of altruism still leaves you without the thing you gave up. So if your mind is warring over selfishness vs. altruism, then what makes the decision?
Being the most intelligent species on the planet, it would seem that our conscious logic centers often make this decision. Thus someone can make a decision even if they "feel bad" about it later. With time, it's quite possible to train one's self to ignore that feeling. Thus the reason why we do not always make altruistic decision.
2. In Christianity at least, you don't need to be a "good person" to get to heaven. Being a good person is how the Bible tells a Christian that they should behave. The only real test to get to heaven is, "whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life." The Lutherans even codify this in their services, requiring the body of the church to admit that they are sinful and cannot deserve to go to heaven. They can only make it there by the Grace of God who gave his Son on the cross for that purpose.
I cannot speak to other religions on the matter, but that is the way Christianity sees it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or horrendously misinformed.
Apologies in advance for what is about to be a match to an evolution vs. creation flamewar, but I'm in a bit of a cheeky mood and feel like "getting some back" in this old argument.
Specifically, I've been getting a bit tired of hearing the old "science disproves the existence of a higher being" B.S. that's constantly thrown around. I recall it starting with the baseless Human Genome Confirms Evolution (archive) story a few years back. The author of the article was quick to jump to the conclusion that finding fewer genes than expected *proved* that man must have evolved. (Too bad we never saw his formal proof of that. Would have been fascinating to see how well it stood up to scrutiny.)
Now that's not to say that the theological side of the argument hasn't made some pretty dumb steps itself. e.g. Intelligent Design can't be a true scientific theory, because science can only deal with that which is inside our universe. If we are positing the existence of an extra-universal being who set the universe in motion, then science does not have the reach to make that determination. Science is restricted to the laws of the Universe in which we inhabit. It would be very poor form for a being who trancends time to be an inhabitant of a universe that would forcably constrain Him. Therefore "God" is a concept that must be dealt with in Theology, not the investigation of the laws of nature. (Even Newton was smart enough to know this!)
However, this argument usually gets a "thinking logically, if X happened, is it not more likely that it was a natural occurance rather than the hand of an almighty being?" Which, of course, completely misses the point. (And spurs quite a few eyerolls.) If we are in a Universe put in motion by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are *His* laws of nature. They work according to how He says they should work.
Again, since I'm feeling cheeky, I figured it would be fun to respond with a similarly goofy argument:
It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator.
Ok, go have fun tearing each other up over that. I guarantee that you'll get nowhere, but it might be fun to watch. Lame noodly-appendage references and ID arguments, HO!
Speaking of Hollywood reluctance, I wonder what ever happened to the Tron sequel? A few years ago, Disney was in a buzz about how the new Tron movie was coming out soon. They even made the Tron 2.0 game to ride the promotion wave. Yet nothing ever appeared, and the very idea of a sequel seems to have vanished into the ether.
When you do get lucky and find one, their highly-trained Twit Squad pressures you to purchase a more expensive model, or to purchase useless junk like protection plans.
My favorite was when I was looking for a new switch for my home network. The guy at the store (who I didn't ask for his help in the first place) tells me, "That one you're looking at is a switch. You won't get the full speed out of it because it splits the bandwidth. You want a router."
It's lucky for him that I was feeling a bit under the weather that day, or I would have given him a proper education in networking basics. (Hopefully keeping him away from the other poor customers in the process.):-P
1. Super Paper Mario has sold over a million copies as has Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Rayman Raving Rabbids, and Red Steel. (source) Two of those are third party titles.
2. Nintendo is perfectly willing to share the spotlight. It's the third parties that bet on the PS3 and XBox. Up until recently they've been decrying the Wii as "two gamecubes duct taped together" or "gamecube 1.5". They kind of screwed themselves over.
3. One Word: NiGHTS
4. Three Words: Guitar Hero III
5. 26 Words: Geometry Wars: Galaxies, LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga, Rayman Raving Rabbids 2, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, Tomb Raider: Anniversary:-P
Here's the original text of the summary before Zonk changed it:
For Metroid fans, it does indeed look like Samus will have to wait until 2007.
Oh noes! Not 2007! I don't think I can wait that long! Wait, 2007?
Oh! Zonk changed it...
For Metroid fans, it does indeed look like Samus will have to wait until 2008.
Oh noes! Not 2008! That's even longer!
Wait, the article he links to says...
Thus far, Nintendo hasn't announced an official release date for Metroid Prime 3, so we're thinking that it's going to slip into 2007, particularly because the company doesn't want to release too many franchise games during the Wii's 2006 launch.
Poor confused Zonk. Business Week republished a GameDaily preview of Metroid Prime 3 from 2006. so the date stamp on Business week says 2007, even thought the real date stamp is November 07, 2006. (In late 2006, the MP3 date was pushed to March of 2007 before being pushed again in Feburary.) As amusing as it is, that wasn't a very nice prank by BW.
The real release dates can be found over here. Here are a few of interest:
July 30 - Mario Strikers Charged Nintendo
Aug. 20 - Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
September - Battalion Wars 2
Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are both listed as a "To Be Determined" date in 2007. The expectation is that they will be fall or holiday releases. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, the official Super Smash Bros. website is up here:
I can only hope. Terrible, terrible language. Of course, these days it's actually a template engine for a J2EE server. So it's not nearly as bad as it once was. Unfortunately, most of the ColdFusion projects are massive, sprawling directories from the CF4/CF5 days. You're not likely to see a nicely package JAR here.:-/
Also, what's with "PC Network Administrators"? TFA must be referring to a rather specialized form of administrator, because last I checked we still needed someone to keep the desktops configured, the networks running, the file severs sharing, the login servers logging people in, and the IIS servers serving.
But if you had taken the time to make a copy of the default theme before you started mucking with it -- into a directory called, I dunno, "mytheme," perhaps -- your theme wouldn't get overwritten by anything in the tarball and your look and customizations would still be there as soon as you upgraded your database.
That's assuming, of course, that you can use the old template. The new versions might contain changes to the modified files that can't be simply copied over.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you about the importance of separating out your template.:)
That's becoming a common feature in laptops today. The reasoning behind it is that the thief is probably after the data more than the laptop itself. However, if the laptop is worth a mint itself, the perpetrator will simply wipe the machine and resell it.
I think it's about time web applications like WordPress included an update service.
It depends on what you mean. Wordpress already tells you when a new version is available. What it doesn't do is automatically install it for you. In the case of PHP apps, this is a good thing. (At least, as far as running a PHP app in the first place can be considered a "good thing".)
Wordpress installations rarely run the vanilla software. Usually the look has been customized by modifying templates and/or plugins have been added to provide new functionality. In order to do either of these tasks, you have to modify the PHP code. Wordpress provides an easy-to-use interface to do this, but it doesn't help anything if you upgrade your system. Your look and customizations will go "poof!" the moment you untar that new version. Thus upgrading is a rather painful process that requires that users backup and reapply all their modifications. That's why no one ever upgrades PHP apps if they can help it.:-/
Yes, it (the prosecution) generally needs to show intent to commit a crime. Clearly, the man had no intent to commit a crime.
He intended to use the WiFi service of a local business without patronizing that business. The law says it's illegal to use the WiFi service of a local business without patronizing that business. Therefore, he intended to commit an illegal act, even though he was unaware that it was illegal.
The fact that he was unaware of the law probably weighed on the judge's decision to go easy, but so did the fact that the guy was bumming service. Would it have killed him to go inside? Of course not, but he probably would have been thrown out if he didn't purchase anything. Thus we get back to the fact that his actions were morally questionable to begin with, and that he was probably aware of that fact.
In the case of accidental connection, there was never an intent to connect to the network at all, much less bum service. So it would be far more difficult to prove intent. (And besides, how would they track you down in the first place? The guy got caught because he was obviously helping himself to WiFi service day after day.)
Sorry for the response, but I figured it was worth clarifying.:)
No worries. We have laws to protect against those who intend to be stupid. Holding a bat out the window of your car sounds like a recipe for involuntary manslaughter to me.
In order to be successfully prosecuted for a crime, the prosecution generally has to show intent. Having your laptop accidentally connect while you're passing by a store does not (or at least should not) constitute an intent to defraud internet access. In the case of the guy in Michigan, he was parking next to the store every day and deliberately using his laptop on their WiFi without patronizing the establishment. Even when that's not illegal, it is rather rude.
Being super slim is a nice feature in of itself, but then I saw this (emphasis mine):
Using flash memory in place of the standard hard-disk drive, Ziba and Intel have managed to make this laptop just 0.7 inches thick. The use of flash resulted in a side benefit: the laptop consumes less power and offers up to 14 hours of battery life. At 2.25 pounds, it's also among the lightest notebooks around.
WOW. Can you imagine having a laptop with 14 hours of battery life? You could pretty much work on it all day, then charge it while you're sleeping at night. Assuming, of course, that the figures aren't overinflated estimations. Still...
One thing I'm disappointed by is the lack of any sort of specs. (Or am I just blind?) What kind of processor, how much memory, how much flash disk, and what kind of graphics card this thing has are all factors that would figure into purchasing this or not. For my own needs, I think the size of the flashdisk would be the biggest factor.
I'm not so keen on the purse idea. While it might appeal to some women, I have a suspicion that it would be at risk of theft at all times. Better to use a more nondescript bag than a fancy cover with an external screen that shouts, "Steal me! I'm expensive!"
Slashdot Mirror
That's just as ridiculous of a statement as the bolded one I made in my original post. Besides not giving to the possibility that such wiring was intentionally put there by a Creator, it fails to take into account the number of people who consciously ignore that sense. Just as we do not always act altruistically (despite having a wiring for doing so), we do not always believe in a God that our wiring says is there.
I sincerely hope you were also being cheeky? Because if you weren't, I'm afraid that it makes my original point all too clearly.
Not necessarily. It's worthless in the sense that such a hypothesis is worthless to science. It is not worthless from a theological/philosophical perspective unless one cares to exempt theology and philosophy from being part of the sum of human knowledge.
Specifically, theology addresses the questions that can be logically consumed, but only if one bases the logic on different axioms than science is based on. Science is based on two axioms:
1. Observable axiom: scientists can accurately observe reality, and then propose theories and laws to explain their observations.
2. Naturalistic axiom: everything in our universe can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.
Everything in science stems from there. If we cannot correctly observe and deduce the laws of nature around us, then all the work we've done to explain them has been nothing more than mental masturbation. Thankfully, these are fairly self-evident axioms.
Theology is based on different axioms:
1. A being exists who is superior to the very universe itself.
2. That being created humans for a personal reason, and cares about their development.
Everything in theology stems from those axioms. If the axioms are false, then it is also nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. However, these axioms seem just as self-evident to a great many people. (It used to be the majority prior to Science setting itself up as the new religion while Theology set itself up as the enemy of Science.)
The two systems are not necessarily in conflict. There is only a conflict if one is forced. e.g. If a scientist decides that the age of the universe is 20 billion years (it's been revised quite a few times) and that it's impossible that the universe might be a different age, he might collide with a theologian who has decided that the universe is only 6,000 years old (something which a strict reading of the Bible does not necessarily support), the two might get upset at each other and butt heads. The truth of the matter is that the scientist is not yet sure of the age (though he's reasonably certain that 6,000 years is a bit shy) and the theologian needs to take another pass at his texts because his domain is not that of science.
A little humility on both sides prevents a drawn-out (and mostly useless) argument.
FWIW, I just bumped across this link which directly addresses this argument.
Thus why I called it a silly statement.
Yet look how many people are getting into a tizzy over it? Especially those who are determined to *PROVE* the unprovable. Ok, so evolution can offer a possible explanation. Does that disprove a God? *pff* How can you disprove something that isn't governed by the laws of nature that you are using to do the proof?
i.e. Science is based on certain Axioms upon which it must build. Those axioms don't include, "there must not be anything outside the universe being described that science cannot describe."
Absolutely nothing! Give the man prize for being the first in the thread to realize this.
That is technically the original intent of modern science: To investigate God's creation. As Newton wrote:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler." (Newton, 1686).
Quite so. And exactly my point. Yet notice how many people are ignoring my words about it being an silly statement, and arguing it as if it were my center point? It's amazingly hard to get people thinking around here.
*cough*
Did I?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheolog
To misuse an old cliche, you must be new here.
Certainly. Although the issue of communication from the superset is no more applicable to today's science. Perhaps the probabilities of quantum mechanics are influenced by a super-universe. But if that is the case, can today's science prove that? Absolutely not. Perhaps we will develop workable theories in the future, but for now that is beyond the grasp of what can and cannot be proven.
*clap* *clap*
Bravo! You and others are repeating the exact same errors I pointed out.
1. Axiom: An extra-universal is not provable through the laws of nature.
2. Axiom: Science is a tool that attempts to describe the laws of nature.
3. The laws of nature do not show a being governed by them. Therefore, such a being cannot exist. [ERROR - In conflict with previous axioms]
1. You get a good response from being selfish as well. i.e. You get to have the thing in question and someone else doesn't. A good feeling of altruism still leaves you without the thing you gave up. So if your mind is warring over selfishness vs. altruism, then what makes the decision?
Being the most intelligent species on the planet, it would seem that our conscious logic centers often make this decision. Thus someone can make a decision even if they "feel bad" about it later. With time, it's quite possible to train one's self to ignore that feeling. Thus the reason why we do not always make altruistic decision.
2. In Christianity at least, you don't need to be a "good person" to get to heaven. Being a good person is how the Bible tells a Christian that they should behave. The only real test to get to heaven is, "whosoever believeth in me shall have eternal life." The Lutherans even codify this in their services, requiring the body of the church to admit that they are sinful and cannot deserve to go to heaven. They can only make it there by the Grace of God who gave his Son on the cross for that purpose.
I cannot speak to other religions on the matter, but that is the way Christianity sees it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or horrendously misinformed.
It also works the other way around. And no, I'm not kidding. A good marriage is based on both sides giving.
Science is simply confirming what has already been known for a very long while.
Apologies in advance for what is about to be a match to an evolution vs. creation flamewar, but I'm in a bit of a cheeky mood and feel like "getting some back" in this old argument.
Specifically, I've been getting a bit tired of hearing the old "science disproves the existence of a higher being" B.S. that's constantly thrown around. I recall it starting with the baseless Human Genome Confirms Evolution (archive) story a few years back. The author of the article was quick to jump to the conclusion that finding fewer genes than expected *proved* that man must have evolved. (Too bad we never saw his formal proof of that. Would have been fascinating to see how well it stood up to scrutiny.)
Now that's not to say that the theological side of the argument hasn't made some pretty dumb steps itself. e.g. Intelligent Design can't be a true scientific theory, because science can only deal with that which is inside our universe. If we are positing the existence of an extra-universal being who set the universe in motion, then science does not have the reach to make that determination. Science is restricted to the laws of the Universe in which we inhabit. It would be very poor form for a being who trancends time to be an inhabitant of a universe that would forcably constrain Him. Therefore "God" is a concept that must be dealt with in Theology, not the investigation of the laws of nature. (Even Newton was smart enough to know this!)
However, this argument usually gets a "thinking logically, if X happened, is it not more likely that it was a natural occurance rather than the hand of an almighty being?" Which, of course, completely misses the point. (And spurs quite a few eyerolls.) If we are in a Universe put in motion by an extra-universal being, then the laws of nature are *His* laws of nature. They work according to how He says they should work.
Again, since I'm feeling cheeky, I figured it would be fun to respond with a similarly goofy argument:
It seems to me that if man is hardwired with an sense of altruism and a desire to believe in a super-being, there can be no other answer to this question than the existence of a Creator.
Ok, go have fun tearing each other up over that. I guarantee that you'll get nowhere, but it might be fun to watch. Lame noodly-appendage references and ID arguments, HO!
Done.
Speaking of Hollywood reluctance, I wonder what ever happened to the Tron sequel? A few years ago, Disney was in a buzz about how the new Tron movie was coming out soon. They even made the Tron 2.0 game to ride the promotion wave. Yet nothing ever appeared, and the very idea of a sequel seems to have vanished into the ether.
To be blunt: What happened?
My favorite was when I was looking for a new switch for my home network. The guy at the store (who I didn't ask for his help in the first place) tells me, "That one you're looking at is a switch. You won't get the full speed out of it because it splits the bandwidth. You want a router."
It's lucky for him that I was feeling a bit under the weather that day, or I would have given him a proper education in networking basics. (Hopefully keeping him away from the other poor customers in the process.)
1. Super Paper Mario has sold over a million copies as has Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Rayman Raving Rabbids, and Red Steel. (source) Two of those are third party titles.
:-P
2. Nintendo is perfectly willing to share the spotlight. It's the third parties that bet on the PS3 and XBox. Up until recently they've been decrying the Wii as "two gamecubes duct taped together" or "gamecube 1.5". They kind of screwed themselves over.
3. One Word: NiGHTS
4. Three Words: Guitar Hero III
5. 26 Words: Geometry Wars: Galaxies, LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga, Rayman Raving Rabbids 2, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition, Tomb Raider: Anniversary
Oh noes! Not 2007! I don't think I can wait that long! Wait, 2007?
Oh! Zonk changed it...
Oh noes! Not 2008! That's even longer!
Wait, the article he links to says...
Poor confused Zonk. Business Week republished a GameDaily preview of Metroid Prime 3 from 2006. so the date stamp on Business week says 2007, even thought the real date stamp is November 07, 2006. (In late 2006, the MP3 date was pushed to March of 2007 before being pushed again in Feburary.) As amusing as it is, that wasn't a very nice prank by BW.
The real release dates can be found over here. Here are a few of interest:
Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are both listed as a "To Be Determined" date in 2007. The expectation is that they will be fall or holiday releases. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, the official Super Smash Bros. website is up here:
http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html
(Yes, there was a Slashdot story on that.)
Fixed that for you.
I can only hope. Terrible, terrible language. Of course, these days it's actually a template engine for a J2EE server. So it's not nearly as bad as it once was. Unfortunately, most of the ColdFusion projects are massive, sprawling directories from the CF4/CF5 days. You're not likely to see a nicely package JAR here. :-/
Also, what's with "PC Network Administrators"? TFA must be referring to a rather specialized form of administrator, because last I checked we still needed someone to keep the desktops configured, the networks running, the file severs sharing, the login servers logging people in, and the IIS servers serving.
That's assuming, of course, that you can use the old template. The new versions might contain changes to the modified files that can't be simply copied over.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you about the importance of separating out your template.
That's becoming a common feature in laptops today. The reasoning behind it is that the thief is probably after the data more than the laptop itself. However, if the laptop is worth a mint itself, the perpetrator will simply wipe the machine and resell it.
It depends on what you mean. Wordpress already tells you when a new version is available. What it doesn't do is automatically install it for you. In the case of PHP apps, this is a good thing. (At least, as far as running a PHP app in the first place can be considered a "good thing".)
Wordpress installations rarely run the vanilla software. Usually the look has been customized by modifying templates and/or plugins have been added to provide new functionality. In order to do either of these tasks, you have to modify the PHP code. Wordpress provides an easy-to-use interface to do this, but it doesn't help anything if you upgrade your system. Your look and customizations will go "poof!" the moment you untar that new version. Thus upgrading is a rather painful process that requires that users backup and reapply all their modifications. That's why no one ever upgrades PHP apps if they can help it.
He intended to use the WiFi service of a local business without patronizing that business. The law says it's illegal to use the WiFi service of a local business without patronizing that business. Therefore, he intended to commit an illegal act, even though he was unaware that it was illegal.
The fact that he was unaware of the law probably weighed on the judge's decision to go easy, but so did the fact that the guy was bumming service. Would it have killed him to go inside? Of course not, but he probably would have been thrown out if he didn't purchase anything. Thus we get back to the fact that his actions were morally questionable to begin with, and that he was probably aware of that fact.
In the case of accidental connection, there was never an intent to connect to the network at all, much less bum service. So it would be far more difficult to prove intent. (And besides, how would they track you down in the first place? The guy got caught because he was obviously helping himself to WiFi service day after day.)
Sorry for the response, but I figured it was worth clarifying.
No worries. We have laws to protect against those who intend to be stupid. Holding a bat out the window of your car sounds like a recipe for involuntary manslaughter to me.
Q: How do you know if a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
And that is about as close to bi-partisan cooperation as Congress will ever get.
In order to be successfully prosecuted for a crime, the prosecution generally has to show intent. Having your laptop accidentally connect while you're passing by a store does not (or at least should not) constitute an intent to defraud internet access. In the case of the guy in Michigan, he was parking next to the store every day and deliberately using his laptop on their WiFi without patronizing the establishment. Even when that's not illegal, it is rather rude.
WOW. Can you imagine having a laptop with 14 hours of battery life? You could pretty much work on it all day, then charge it while you're sleeping at night. Assuming, of course, that the figures aren't overinflated estimations. Still...
One thing I'm disappointed by is the lack of any sort of specs. (Or am I just blind?) What kind of processor, how much memory, how much flash disk, and what kind of graphics card this thing has are all factors that would figure into purchasing this or not. For my own needs, I think the size of the flashdisk would be the biggest factor.
I'm not so keen on the purse idea. While it might appeal to some women, I have a suspicion that it would be at risk of theft at all times. Better to use a more nondescript bag than a fancy cover with an external screen that shouts, "Steal me! I'm expensive!"