It may exclude some important categories, but it can't be bad to have such a respected organization running a site which recognizes that some music downloading *is* quite legal. It should go a long way to counteract the message, from some *other* organizations, that any downloading of entertainment is inherently illegal, immoral, and fattening.
I guess it's the lease which makes things complicated. One would have to prove a breach of the lease, and that has to be done before a judge. The lessee has a presumed right to occupy the leased facility until a breach is proven.
I should've made it more clear-cut, like people coming into your yard, pitching a tent, and throwing refuse all over, all without ever asking your permission. Absent any evidence that you *ever* granted them leave to use your property, the officer should be able to handle the situation on his own initiative -- it would be the alleged trespassers' burden to show that they had a right to be there, so *they* could take the matter of their eviction before a judge *after* the fact.
I read the article and I don't even recall him saying which library runs the service in question. There are a lot of libraries in Indianapolis, but some of them are not part of the IMCPL system and some are not *at all* public.
Uh, I was pointing out that the open-window analogy doesn't work. The quality of "service" provided by your stereo through your open window is, for each "user", independent of the number of concurrent users; the quality of service provided by a WAP to any given user is strongly dependent on the number of concurrent user. More users don't drive up the cost of good service in the former case, but they do in the latter.
The analogy tries to pretend that the point of the service is putting electromagnetic energy into the air. It is not; it is the granting of access to a communication channel of limited capacity. The electromagnetic stresses are the means, not the end.
So, if you rent a room to someone who flagrantly violates the terms of the lease, and you demand that he leave but he won't, you'd call the courthouse and ask them to send over a judge to remove him? Ha.
When the policymaking agency decides that the user's refusal to honor the policy constitutes trespass and calls a cop to have him removed. Same rule as it becoming a cop's job to enforce my policy regarding "no strangers holding loud parties on my lawn at 02:00" when I call the police for help.
The officer in question seems to have been told that it's his job to prevent "theft of signal" but given precious little training in recognizing it. I think that, absent a complaint, he really has no basis for determining probable cause, since this is essentially an application of contract law or something like it. [obIANAL]
If 1000 people gather outside your house to listen to your stereo, you don't have to go buy bigger speakers just to continue listening because they have used up all the available audio output.
OTOH if 1000 people gather around a hotspot feeding a single DSL link, you may need another line to support them all. (You may need quite a bit more that that to support them all.) And ISPs aren't giving it away, even to public libraries.
An important point: "public" doesn't mean that *anyone* can decide what's right; it means *everyone* decides, together, what is right and we all abide by the collective decision.
Um, my recollection is that the article didn't say whether it was a *public* library, didn't say whether the wireless was provided for patrons or only for staff, and didn't say whether outside use was expressly forbidden by library policy.
"How do they visit that webpage without an IP? HTTP over raw ethernet frames?"
Here, the leased address is initially firewalled such that you can only reach that web server. Once you provide acceptable credentials, the firewall is reconfigured to pass you to anywhere.
That said, I'll also note that we specifically configured extra APs so that the area between buildings would be covered. Anyone saying that an authorized user is not permitted to use *our* network outside would be wrong.
How do you know if it's okay to use someone's wireless network? When he tells you it's okay. Same as whether it's okay to use someone else's car -- the fact that it's possible does not imply that it is permitted.
If the owner is "the public", the rule stands. Does "the public" permit your intended use of the public facility? If so, go for it; if such use is prohibited, ya better not. In the case of a public library, the library's administrators may make such policy unless the city/state/whatever government to whom they report choose to make policy. (And if you disagree with the public entity making the policy, you can always vote for someone who will make policy your way.)
Whether it's okay for AKMA (whoever he is) to make such use of the facility would seem to be entirely dependent on the library's acceptable-use policy. If it says you can use their wireless only within the building then that's that. If it doesn't say, I'd say your location is irrelevant to whether you are using the facility acceptably.
Of course, the officer *did* have a copy of the library's AUP, right???
Having read the article, I'm now wondering whether AKMA knows if the library's wireless network is in fact provided for the public, or only for staff. That would change the situation markedly. But if it is indeed public, then rousting someone for using it is a bit like rebuking somebody for "stealing" a pamphlet off a pile lying under a "take one" sign.
But if I use this knife to hammer in tent pegs (like I can with my father's Ka-Bar) will the USB widget still work? (Assume that my own wetware memory is functioning normally, meaning that I forgot that the knife has electronics inside and didn't remove the drive before striking.)
My opinion of Victorinox has changed over the years. These days their creations have hack value, but..."that's not a knife!"
"[CID is] not intended to be taken seriously by anyone needing factual information about the calling party."
If it has no meaning then why should anyone pay for it? It's utterly worthless if it can be spoofed. If I can't trust one indication, I can't trust *any* indication and the service loses all value. Cf. the fable of the Boy who Cried Wolf.
So clamp down. If someone wants to operate a telco, let him abide by rules which at least avoid lying. If the ID comes from a telco, then it is assumed reliable because telcos can be punished for providing unreliable data. If it doesn't, then either throw it away or replace it with known information (they *know* where their pairs go) or mark it as "not known to be reliable". Let the telco extend trust to known trustworthy customers, perhaps, but they should be *required* to withdraw that trust from any customer caught spoofing.
I would settle for "either blocked or warranted truthful" as the meaning of "reliable" in this setting. Basically I want my telco to promise that, *if* they provide a caller-ID to me, it will be the truth.
Otherwise, there's a nice business opportunity: build a portable tone-generator crypto-gadget so people can build up their own trust networks with trustworthy, unspoofable IDs. Then we can all stop paying the telcos for caller-ID. They'll be thrilled. But right now, it's their choice.
(Any SBC employees out there? Feel free to take this idea and run with it.)
It seems the current result is approximately the same as saying that if I paint two blocks some indeterminate color, and send one of them to Sirius, then the block at Sol and the block at Sirius are both still the same indeterminate color. The difference is, apparently, that I can determine the color of a block by painting over it. Now I know the color that the *other* block had at time of shipment, because it's the same color as what I just painted over, which I now know. If I'm at Sirius, I have now received information, but the information was generated by the system; it was not put in at Sol, where they still do not know what I now know (unless they paint their block too).
There doesn't seem to be much possibility for communication in that. The practical value of it appears to be limited to enumerating the ways one can NOT build a communication system.
Or the fire department believing that caller-id tells them where to send help.
If the system is unreliable as designed, it should be repaired. Durn telco is always bothering me to buy caller-id, and I certainly will *not* be buying it until they can prove it's been redesigned and made reliable. The fix might not require *any* change in signalling, only procedures: require by law that (a) telcos MUST NOT lie on behalf of their customers, and (b) IDs received from customer equipment MUST be ignored if they can't be verified.
Now I understand the disagreement. You are talking about an experiment; some of us are talking about communication technology based on the science being done in the experiment.
A communication protocol is different from an experimental protocol.
When *using* this "teleportation" thingy:
1. Distribute the entangled state. As before. Takes place at sublight speed.
2. A perturbs the state of the system, thus sending a signal.
3. *B* performs the measurement, thereby receiving the signal.
Apparently the interval between events 2 and 3 is zero. Therefore, if there is in fact a way to create event 2, the information passes from sender to receiver in zero time. Encoding and decoding account for 100% of the delay (which is still nonzero, but is independent of distance.)
The difference between your three events and mine represents a whole lotta science and engineering, but it seems to a lot of people here that the new report moves us a lot closer to being able to impress a signal on the system and recover it elsewhere without destroying the system.
"Communication speed" is pretty vague. Do you mean the data rate, or the latency?
And why on earth would anyone build a communication network just to send a message that's ready to go *now*? Why not just send the message on a piece of paper and forget all the high-tech wizardry? The network is for carrying messages which are generated after it's already established, so the amount of time it took to ship the parts is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
It may exclude some important categories, but it can't be bad to have such a respected organization running a site which recognizes that some music downloading *is* quite legal. It should go a long way to counteract the message, from some *other* organizations, that any downloading of entertainment is inherently illegal, immoral, and fattening.
I guess it's the lease which makes things complicated. One would have to prove a breach of the lease, and that has to be done before a judge. The lessee has a presumed right to occupy the leased facility until a breach is proven.
I should've made it more clear-cut, like people coming into your yard, pitching a tent, and throwing refuse all over, all without ever asking your permission. Absent any evidence that you *ever* granted them leave to use your property, the officer should be able to handle the situation on his own initiative -- it would be the alleged trespassers' burden to show that they had a right to be there, so *they* could take the matter of their eviction before a judge *after* the fact.
I read the article and I don't even recall him saying which library runs the service in question. There are a lot of libraries in Indianapolis, but some of them are not part of the IMCPL system and some are not *at all* public.
Uh, I was pointing out that the open-window analogy doesn't work. The quality of "service" provided by your stereo through your open window is, for each "user", independent of the number of concurrent users; the quality of service provided by a WAP to any given user is strongly dependent on the number of concurrent user. More users don't drive up the cost of good service in the former case, but they do in the latter.
The analogy tries to pretend that the point of the service is putting electromagnetic energy into the air. It is not; it is the granting of access to a communication channel of limited capacity. The electromagnetic stresses are the means, not the end.
So, if you rent a room to someone who flagrantly violates the terms of the lease, and you demand that he leave but he won't, you'd call the courthouse and ask them to send over a judge to remove him? Ha.
Police enforce laws against trespass.
Real end of story.
"Since when is it a cop's job to enforce an AUP?"
When the policymaking agency decides that the user's refusal to honor the policy constitutes trespass and calls a cop to have him removed. Same rule as it becoming a cop's job to enforce my policy regarding "no strangers holding loud parties on my lawn at 02:00" when I call the police for help.
The officer in question seems to have been told that it's his job to prevent "theft of signal" but given precious little training in recognizing it. I think that, absent a complaint, he really has no basis for determining probable cause, since this is essentially an application of contract law or something like it. [obIANAL]
If 1000 people gather outside your house to listen to your stereo, you don't have to go buy bigger speakers just to continue listening because they have used up all the available audio output.
OTOH if 1000 people gather around a hotspot feeding a single DSL link, you may need another line to support them all. (You may need quite a bit more that that to support them all.) And ISPs aren't giving it away, even to public libraries.
An important point: "public" doesn't mean that *anyone* can decide what's right; it means *everyone* decides, together, what is right and we all abide by the collective decision.
*Does* AKMA have a library card? We don't know. I presume that any literate citizen would have one, but the article doesn't say.
Um, my recollection is that the article didn't say whether it was a *public* library, didn't say whether the wireless was provided for patrons or only for staff, and didn't say whether outside use was expressly forbidden by library policy.
"How do they visit that webpage without an IP? HTTP over raw ethernet frames?"
Here, the leased address is initially firewalled such that you can only reach that web server. Once you provide acceptable credentials, the firewall is reconfigured to pass you to anywhere.
That said, I'll also note that we specifically configured extra APs so that the area between buildings would be covered. Anyone saying that an authorized user is not permitted to use *our* network outside would be wrong.
How do you know if it's okay to use someone's wireless network? When he tells you it's okay. Same as whether it's okay to use someone else's car -- the fact that it's possible does not imply that it is permitted.
If the owner is "the public", the rule stands. Does "the public" permit your intended use of the public facility? If so, go for it; if such use is prohibited, ya better not. In the case of a public library, the library's administrators may make such policy unless the city/state/whatever government to whom they report choose to make policy. (And if you disagree with the public entity making the policy, you can always vote for someone who will make policy your way.)
Whether it's okay for AKMA (whoever he is) to make such use of the facility would seem to be entirely dependent on the library's acceptable-use policy. If it says you can use their wireless only within the building then that's that. If it doesn't say, I'd say your location is irrelevant to whether you are using the facility acceptably.
Of course, the officer *did* have a copy of the library's AUP, right???
Having read the article, I'm now wondering whether AKMA knows if the library's wireless network is in fact provided for the public, or only for staff. That would change the situation markedly. But if it is indeed public, then rousting someone for using it is a bit like rebuking somebody for "stealing" a pamphlet off a pile lying under a "take one" sign.
And, did they remember to document it this time?
"My other laptop is an AR-15."
XM came and went and I never spent a dime on it.
But if I use this knife to hammer in tent pegs (like I can with my father's Ka-Bar) will the USB widget still work? (Assume that my own wetware memory is functioning normally, meaning that I forgot that the knife has electronics inside and didn't remove the drive before striking.)
My opinion of Victorinox has changed over the years. These days their creations have hack value, but..."that's not a knife!"
"[CID is] not intended to be taken seriously by anyone needing factual information about the calling party."
If it has no meaning then why should anyone pay for it? It's utterly worthless if it can be spoofed. If I can't trust one indication, I can't trust *any* indication and the service loses all value. Cf. the fable of the Boy who Cried Wolf.
So clamp down. If someone wants to operate a telco, let him abide by rules which at least avoid lying. If the ID comes from a telco, then it is assumed reliable because telcos can be punished for providing unreliable data. If it doesn't, then either throw it away or replace it with known information (they *know* where their pairs go) or mark it as "not known to be reliable". Let the telco extend trust to known trustworthy customers, perhaps, but they should be *required* to withdraw that trust from any customer caught spoofing.
I would settle for "either blocked or warranted truthful" as the meaning of "reliable" in this setting. Basically I want my telco to promise that, *if* they provide a caller-ID to me, it will be the truth.
Otherwise, there's a nice business opportunity: build a portable tone-generator crypto-gadget so people can build up their own trust networks with trustworthy, unspoofable IDs. Then we can all stop paying the telcos for caller-ID. They'll be thrilled. But right now, it's their choice.
(Any SBC employees out there? Feel free to take this idea and run with it.)
It seems the current result is approximately the same as saying that if I paint two blocks some indeterminate color, and send one of them to Sirius, then the block at Sol and the block at Sirius are both still the same indeterminate color. The difference is, apparently, that I can determine the color of a block by painting over it. Now I know the color that the *other* block had at time of shipment, because it's the same color as what I just painted over, which I now know. If I'm at Sirius, I have now received information, but the information was generated by the system; it was not put in at Sol, where they still do not know what I now know (unless they paint their block too).
There doesn't seem to be much possibility for communication in that. The practical value of it appears to be limited to enumerating the ways one can NOT build a communication system.
Or the fire department believing that caller-id tells them where to send help.
If the system is unreliable as designed, it should be repaired. Durn telco is always bothering me to buy caller-id, and I certainly will *not* be buying it until they can prove it's been redesigned and made reliable. The fix might not require *any* change in signalling, only procedures: require by law that (a) telcos MUST NOT lie on behalf of their customers, and (b) IDs received from customer equipment MUST be ignored if they can't be verified.
Sounds to me like this has both public-safety and national-security implications. Shut them down.
Now I understand the disagreement. You are talking about an experiment; some of us are talking about communication technology based on the science being done in the experiment.
A communication protocol is different from an experimental protocol.
When *using* this "teleportation" thingy:
1. Distribute the entangled state. As before. Takes place at sublight speed.
2. A perturbs the state of the system, thus sending a signal.
3. *B* performs the measurement, thereby receiving the signal.
Apparently the interval between events 2 and 3 is zero. Therefore, if there is in fact a way to create event 2, the information passes from sender to receiver in zero time. Encoding and decoding account for 100% of the delay (which is still nonzero, but is independent of distance.)
The difference between your three events and mine represents a whole lotta science and engineering, but it seems to a lot of people here that the new report moves us a lot closer to being able to impress a signal on the system and recover it elsewhere without destroying the system.
Why would the person who doesn't measure care anymore? He's already sent the message.
"Communication speed" is pretty vague. Do you mean the data rate, or the latency?
And why on earth would anyone build a communication network just to send a message that's ready to go *now*? Why not just send the message on a piece of paper and forget all the high-tech wizardry? The network is for carrying messages which are generated after it's already established, so the amount of time it took to ship the parts is irrelevant.