Something like this was mentioned in the Director's Commentary of one of the previous two movies. Where some scene they wish they could have done something but didn't have the time or money. Then it was mentioned that maybe someone on the Internet may add it in. With the way todays technology is headed, it seems likely. What was really interesting, is that they didn't seem to think it was a bad idea that someone on the Internet would distribute an edited version of their movie!
OK folks, help me out here, what was the scene that this was mentioned about. It's late in the day for me (here in Germany) and my mind is fried (have fun with that comment;-)
I mostly agree with you, since SCO is the one that is most visible in doing the attacks. But if Microsoft is secretly funding SCO, shouldn't we hate them more. It would be like hating those that committed 9/11 more than Osama bin Laden, although the hate may be the same.
I agree that what SCO is doing is just straight out horrible. MS is only evil on a business point of view. I really hate paraphrasing a line from the end of the first Survivor series (here goes my Karma!), but it really does fit. There are only rats and snakes here in business. MS is a snake, and SCO is a rat. But it may be that MS is manipulating SCO to do its dirty work for them. Another bonus for MS is that it even takes the hatred from them and points it elsewhere. So you may have people saying, "MS is bad, but at least they aren't as bad as SCO".
1) I've ported libraries from one platform to another, across Unix variants and across architectures. Even trying to stick to the standard c/c++ libraries, there were several times I had to do more than a little tweaking. This was mainly with large libraries and bugs in the OS. This was a few years ago and I don't remember the exact details so I can't give you any, although I would if I could remember them. I just remember the frustration of having system calls not all work the same. But anyway, there were several cases where your argument would be correct, since there were other libraries that ported with no problem at all. But then again, if a customer needed to port a SCO library (do they have libraries or just a kernel?), then the process of porting may be against the contract the customer signed (See #2 below).
2) As for the source code, there are lots of cases that a company signs some NDA agreement to have access to the code. I am now working with a company that is in the process of doing just that, in order to get the source code from a vendor's product so that the company can add its own special hooks. If a customer of SCO were to get the source code from SCO and then use it outside the scope of the contract, then SCO, unfortunately, very well has a case against that customer.
For example, Gandalf is supposedly some really powerful wizard, but do we ever see him take out an army of orcs with lightning bolts or fireballs?
Interesting, because in the commentary, JP specifically specifies that he doesn't care too much for wizards and magic. Thus the scene between Gandalf and Saruman was like two old men fighting instead of a Wizard war. I prefer this too since it gives Gandalf a more advisory role than a fighter. Although the ROTK has him do more magic, but don't get your hopes up, he more or less just keeps the bad guys from doing more magic.
Also, in the Hobbit, he kills orcs with a flash of light. As for the Silmarillion, although I have not read it, I have been told that that is more like a history book on Middle Earth than a story. Of all of Tolkien's books, that should be the last one to read. The LOTR series also gets dry unless you skip some of the scenery descriptions. Tolkien loved to describe scenery, to a point that I was like "OK, enough already, lets get back to the story!".
(* Spoiler for those that have not read the book or seen ROTK *)
The LOTR trilogy was far too complex to stay true to in the movie. There are somethings that I disagreed with that were change. After watching the cometary of FOTR, I now know why he stressed the Uruk Hai, and that was because an Evil Eye far away is hard to show visually. But I accept most of his changes, even with Frodo fighting with Golum at the end, and falling over the cliff. He paid homage to Golum in his glee, but if he would have just fallen over the edge, then that would have been visually anticlimactic. The fight with Frodo is much more exciting to watch.
I'm not a die hard LOTR fan so I can accept the changes made without being too upset, even if I disagree with him. I don't believe that PJ was trying to be better than Tolkien, he was just trying to make it better visually. It's hard to compete with someones imagination, and I thing PJ did a good job.
Since AKnightCowboy didn't see the last movie, the comment is not as interesting. But I have to agree a little here. I did not read the books before seeing the first two LOTR movies. The first one, I thought was a bit boring and confusing. I didn't understand the emphasis on the Uruk hai. It seemed that they were a bigger threat than Sauron. I walked out of the movie quite disappointed. When I saw the Two Towers, I thought that one was much better (for those that have not read the books). It wasn't at all confusing, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. But I didn't think it was that great.
Before seeing the Return of the King, I decided to read the books. Starting with the Hobbit and then the trilogy, I really enjoyed them. I then bought the dvds of the first two movies and watched them with a deeper understanding. This time I loved the first movie, and thought it was better than the second. When I went to see the ROTK, I thought it was excellent. Even though I was in Germany at the time and saw it in German. I later found a theater that played it in English, so I was able to enjoy it a little more. I had a trip to Spain, and saw it there too (Germans can dub better than the Spanish;-). I absolutely loved the movies after reading the books and even went out to buy the extended additions. Which I must add were well worth it.
My point is, the first two were ok (I know others that hated the first one) for those that didn't read the books. But for those that have, the movies were done well enough to express the books visually (even with the changes that were made). I believe that the ROTK is excellent whether or not you read the books, although this time I can't judge that, because I read them before seeing the movie.
I use to use Win4lin, but now my wife has a Windows laptop that I've installed Quicken on. And that is where we do our accounting. None of my own machines have any Windows on it. I'm tired of the hassles of getting Windows products running on Linux. With an exception of some games (RTCW Single Player), I install all windows apps on Windows, and only install native Linux apps on Linux. My complaint is that software vendors don't have respect for Linux as a desktop OS yet and when they do I can get rid of all my Windows boxes. But I won't do that before hand. It's no longer a political movement with me, and as I get older, I see that the simplest way is usually the best.
I've been in the Tech industry for 12 years now. Grant you that I do mostly Unix stuff, but the point is that the article seems to state that Linux is hard and Windows is easy. I can use a Windows box without much trouble (I just get frustrated hunting and pecking looking through the menus trying to figure out where in the menus is the option I need). My point is that Windows is not any better for a newbie than Linux. As you so nicely pointed out that I'm not qualified to administer a Windows box, and I would agree with you for doing so in a business environment, but I did get the system up and running for him, and with three clicks of the mouse he was where he wanted. I just don't know how to automate those three clicks and I don't care about learning how. The point is that he had trouble with those three clicks since he would sometimes miss a button and click something else and then be lost.
Szulik gave an example of his 90-year-old father going to a local retailer in order to purchase a computer with Linux: "We know painfully well what happens. He will try to get it installed and either doesn't have a positive experience or puts a lot of pressure on your support systems," he said.
I'm sorry, but I tried to get my 75 year old father-in-law to use the internet. I got him a Windows box with a simple dial up connection and set everything up for him. But he has yet to use it by himself. It would have been easier for me if I set him up a Linux box, because I know it better and could write scripts to help him log on automatically. I know it is also possible to do that with Windows but I didn't have the time to learn it for him.
My point is that computers in general are not easy for an old fashioned 75 year old who rather write snail mail letters than to use email. So that excuse is not a good one.
Linux is partially ready for those willing to learn. It is not Linux's fault for not being ready, but it wont be ready until all software vendors port there products to linux. I won't be Windows free until I have a reliable tax program for linux. I still use quicken since I don't believe that gnucash is there yet. Also it helps since it works with my tax programs.
Also the GNU/Linux system needs a standard that all non-free software vendors can write code for. This includes games. Once it gets that far, and Linux gets the software vendors to treat Linux equal to Windows, then Linux will be a fine alternative to the average user. I don't care about 70 year olds learning about computers just because their children want them to (well I do care about my father-in-law;-). I really care is when the average 30 year old business person can use it without out any more complaints then they have with Windows.
Ahh, but did you notice in the beginning of that scene when the three of them enter, Neo looks to his left and they show someone being escorted out of the room by two others.
Another interesting thing that I and a few of my friends experienced, was that the first time I saw Reloaded I was disappointed. But I wanted to see it again to find all the hidden things that was in the movie, since the first time I saw it it went too fast to catch everything. After the second watching, I realized that I enjoyed it much more than the first time. I even went a third time and enjoyed that one more than the second. The only part I disliked when going again was the orgy zion thing. But the rest was worth it.
When you put something under the GPL, you are effectively telling people that they are required, under very broadly defined circumstances, to distribute your work indiscriminately to all who come asking for it.
WRONG!
This is one of the most blaintant myths of the GPL. You are NOT required to give your work away to anyone. You are only required to give the source to those that you give the binaries to. So if I give Cmdr Taco a binary of GPL code, I am only required to give Cmdr Taco the source if he asks. You can ask me all you want, but there is nothing in the GPL that requires me to give you the code or binaries if you ask. I am only required to give you the source if I happen to give (or sell) you the binary.
This also means that, if I use GPL code at work and don't distribute it, I am not required to give any of it away. This includes using GPL code on a server that is used by others, including customers.
Being from Upstate-NY, I can confirm that in my area there really wasn't any advertising at all for this movie. So you may be right that the entire budget was spent in your home town! The movie showed only in a small "Arts Theater" and had no mention in the movie megaplex Lowes or Hoyts. The first way I heard about this movie was through the old fashion word-of-mouth. And that came from my father who happens to golf with the over 65 crowd (he himself is in that crowd too), and they all were talking about how good this movie was. I finally went to see it when a coworker of mine saw it and liked it.
So here's one instance that we were not bombarded with trailers.
Ahh, but the brothers could also really screw up our minds. What if this is a matrix inside the matrix and Trinity is not a human but a program. This way the computer could actually setup Neo to fall in love.
Think about it:
We never saw Trinity with the Oracle.
Tank could also be a program to prevent Cypher from killing Neo.
This is also why the Oracle would know Trinity would fall in love with Neo.
The machines would know Trinity would go back into the Matrix.
The scene with Neo kissing the women in front of Trinity could be showing that the machines are achieving human feelings, and Trinity was jealous at the other program.
Now Neo too could be the program, but that doesn't make sense, except that Agent Smith gets part of his program.
Agent Smith is really what the machines don't count on. The world of the machines has problems too, so the people there are to help solve it. Now Agent Smith has grown into something that will be a thorn in both the humans side as well as the general machines.
I was disappointed at the end when I never heard Agent Smit utter "Neo, I am your father!"
Development. It is much easier to develop on an embedded device if it is running the same OS as your desktop. On the desktop, you only need to simulate the device drivers, but the software can be tested natively.
Also having a single OS that is supported quite well has its advantages too. Linux does offer a reusability and a standard api, where as other embedded OSs need to be almost completely designed for a different device (vxWorks).
I'm sorry, but they are calling me at home. Last week I had the flu and a 103 temp. The phone rang and thinking it was the doctor office calling back, I climbed out of bed to answer a telemarketer. Believe me I wasn't nice. Usually, I just place the phone down (not hung up) and go back to bed. But I was waiting for a call and didn't bother doing that.
A telemarketer interrupts me at home so I have no respect back to them. It's part of the job, if your girlfriend can't handle it, then she shouldn't be doing it. One job I had at college was a door to door vacuum salesman. Sure I had several people slam the door in my face and leave me out in the bitter cold. But that's part of the territory. I never complained about it and usually felt sorry to interrupt. As soon as I found another job, I quit that one, even for less pay. I didn't like doing a job that I don't like others doing to me.
What if they post all the prices minus one. So if Walmart sells object X for $4.95 show that it is $4.94 and state to get the actual price, you need to add $.01. That way you are not using the actual price and thus you are not infringing on the copyright:-)
I use Linux full time at work and at home. I bought Win4Lin when it first came out to stop my need to reboot whenever I needed Quicken or TaxCut. Those two are the only reason I use Windows and unfortunately I doubt that they will ever be ported natively to linux. Other than those two, all my other business is done in linux.
My 6yr old daughter's machine runs Windows full time since the only thing she uses it for is the JumpStart educational games. I'm sure they run fine on wine, but I do legally have a copy of windows, and I don't need to waste time with Wine just to make a point.
This is correct but the question still stands as what was used to compile the kernel, since the kernel uses an extensive amount of gcc extensions. But then again, should we call everything GNU/xxx if it uses the gcc extensions to be compiled?
Again I don't care for either of those two analogies because checking doors of someone's house still implies that the person doing so intends to do physical harm. I'm not worried about someone who port scans my machine is going to kidnap my children, but I would worry about someone who's checking to see if my home is locked or not.
There's a big difference between having your computer compromised and having your children killed. And if you disagree then you are obviously not a parent.
I never liked the analogy of "going into someone's house is fine if the door is left open". It's used a lot when talking about scanning ports (where the analogy is way off). But here it is a better used but still wrong. The thing most desturbing about someone walking into my home is that they may do physical harm to me or to my family. Since I expect no physical harm from either port scanning or taking wireless ip for free, the analogy to me is just plain wrong.
But I understand your point and my analogy would be that if you left your bike out on your driveway then it would be ok for someone to take it. This is theft just like the stealing of bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
Something like this was mentioned in the Director's Commentary of one of the previous two movies. Where some scene they wish they could have done something but didn't have the time or money. Then it was mentioned that maybe someone on the Internet may add it in. With the way todays technology is headed, it seems likely. What was really interesting, is that they didn't seem to think it was a bad idea that someone on the Internet would distribute an edited version of their movie!
;-)
OK folks, help me out here, what was the scene that this was mentioned about. It's late in the day for me (here in Germany) and my mind is fried (have fun with that comment
I mostly agree with you, since SCO is the one that is most visible in doing the attacks. But if Microsoft is secretly funding SCO, shouldn't we hate them more. It would be like hating those that committed 9/11 more than Osama bin Laden, although the hate may be the same.
I agree that what SCO is doing is just straight out horrible. MS is only evil on a business point of view. I really hate paraphrasing a line from the end of the first Survivor series (here goes my Karma!), but it really does fit. There are only rats and snakes here in business. MS is a snake, and SCO is a rat. But it may be that MS is manipulating SCO to do its dirty work for them. Another bonus for MS is that it even takes the hatred from them and points it elsewhere. So you may have people saying, "MS is bad, but at least they aren't as bad as SCO".
I'll make a case against your case.
1) I've ported libraries from one platform to another, across Unix variants and across architectures. Even trying to stick to the standard c/c++ libraries, there were several times I had to do more than a little tweaking. This was mainly with large libraries and bugs in the OS. This was a few years ago and I don't remember the exact details so I can't give you any, although I would if I could remember them. I just remember the frustration of having system calls not all work the same. But anyway, there were several cases where your argument would be correct, since there were other libraries that ported with no problem at all. But then again, if a customer needed to port a SCO library (do they have libraries or just a kernel?), then the process of porting may be against the contract the customer signed (See #2 below).
2) As for the source code, there are lots of cases that a company signs some NDA agreement to have access to the code. I am now working with a company that is in the process of doing just that, in order to get the source code from a vendor's product so that the company can add its own special hooks. If a customer of SCO were to get the source code from SCO and then use it outside the scope of the contract, then SCO, unfortunately, very well has a case against that customer.
I beg to differ. What the judge should do to SCO, is exactly what that picture represents!
For example, Gandalf is supposedly some really powerful wizard, but do we ever see him take out an army of orcs with lightning bolts or fireballs?
Interesting, because in the commentary, JP specifically specifies that he doesn't care too much for wizards and magic. Thus the scene between Gandalf and Saruman was like two old men fighting instead of a Wizard war. I prefer this too since it gives Gandalf a more advisory role than a fighter. Although the ROTK has him do more magic, but don't get your hopes up, he more or less just keeps the bad guys from doing more magic.
Also, in the Hobbit, he kills orcs with a flash of light. As for the Silmarillion, although I have not read it, I have been told that that is more like a history book on Middle Earth than a story. Of all of Tolkien's books, that should be the last one to read. The LOTR series also gets dry unless you skip some of the scenery descriptions. Tolkien loved to describe scenery, to a point that I was like "OK, enough already, lets get back to the story!".
(* Spoiler for those that have not read the book or seen ROTK *)
The LOTR trilogy was far too complex to stay true to in the movie. There are somethings that I disagreed with that were change. After watching the cometary of FOTR, I now know why he stressed the Uruk Hai, and that was because an Evil Eye far away is hard to show visually. But I accept most of his changes, even with Frodo fighting with Golum at the end, and falling over the cliff. He paid homage to Golum in his glee, but if he would have just fallen over the edge, then that would have been visually anticlimactic. The fight with Frodo is much more exciting to watch.
I'm not a die hard LOTR fan so I can accept the changes made without being too upset, even if I disagree with him. I don't believe that PJ was trying to be better than Tolkien, he was just trying to make it better visually. It's hard to compete with someones imagination, and I thing PJ did a good job.
Since AKnightCowboy didn't see the last movie, the comment is not as interesting. But I have to agree a little here. I did not read the books before seeing the first two LOTR movies. The first one, I thought was a bit boring and confusing. I didn't understand the emphasis on the Uruk hai. It seemed that they were a bigger threat than Sauron. I walked out of the movie quite disappointed. When I saw the Two Towers, I thought that one was much better (for those that have not read the books). It wasn't at all confusing, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. But I didn't think it was that great.
;-). I absolutely loved the movies after reading the books and even went out to buy the extended additions. Which I must add were well worth it.
Before seeing the Return of the King, I decided to read the books. Starting with the Hobbit and then the trilogy, I really enjoyed them. I then bought the dvds of the first two movies and watched them with a deeper understanding. This time I loved the first movie, and thought it was better than the second. When I went to see the ROTK, I thought it was excellent. Even though I was in Germany at the time and saw it in German. I later found a theater that played it in English, so I was able to enjoy it a little more. I had a trip to Spain, and saw it there too (Germans can dub better than the Spanish
My point is, the first two were ok (I know others that hated the first one) for those that didn't read the books. But for those that have, the movies were done well enough to express the books visually (even with the changes that were made). I believe that the ROTK is excellent whether or not you read the books, although this time I can't judge that, because I read them before seeing the movie.
I use to use Win4lin, but now my wife has a Windows laptop that I've installed Quicken on. And that is where we do our accounting. None of my own machines have any Windows on it. I'm tired of the hassles of getting Windows products running on Linux. With an exception of some games (RTCW Single Player), I install all windows apps on Windows, and only install native Linux apps on Linux. My complaint is that software vendors don't have respect for Linux as a desktop OS yet and when they do I can get rid of all my Windows boxes. But I won't do that before hand. It's no longer a political movement with me, and as I get older, I see that the simplest way is usually the best.
I know in some cases that Linux is a replacement for friends, social life, spouses and the like. So why not replace the average user with it ;-)
I've been in the Tech industry for 12 years now. Grant you that I do mostly Unix stuff, but the point is that the article seems to state that Linux is hard and Windows is easy. I can use a Windows box without much trouble (I just get frustrated hunting and pecking looking through the menus trying to figure out where in the menus is the option I need). My point is that Windows is not any better for a newbie than Linux. As you so nicely pointed out that I'm not qualified to administer a Windows box, and I would agree with you for doing so in a business environment, but I did get the system up and running for him, and with three clicks of the mouse he was where he wanted. I just don't know how to automate those three clicks and I don't care about learning how. The point is that he had trouble with those three clicks since he would sometimes miss a button and click something else and then be lost.
Szulik gave an example of his 90-year-old father going to a local retailer in order to purchase a computer with Linux: "We know painfully well what happens. He will try to get it installed and either doesn't have a positive experience or puts a lot of pressure on your support systems," he said.
;-). I really care is when the average 30 year old business person can use it without out any more complaints then they have with Windows.
I'm sorry, but I tried to get my 75 year old father-in-law to use the internet. I got him a Windows box with a simple dial up connection and set everything up for him. But he has yet to use it by himself. It would have been easier for me if I set him up a Linux box, because I know it better and could write scripts to help him log on automatically. I know it is also possible to do that with Windows but I didn't have the time to learn it for him.
My point is that computers in general are not easy for an old fashioned 75 year old who rather write snail mail letters than to use email. So that excuse is not a good one.
Linux is partially ready for those willing to learn. It is not Linux's fault for not being ready, but it wont be ready until all software vendors port there products to linux. I won't be Windows free until I have a reliable tax program for linux. I still use quicken since I don't believe that gnucash is there yet. Also it helps since it works with my tax programs.
Also the GNU/Linux system needs a standard that all non-free software vendors can write code for. This includes games. Once it gets that far, and Linux gets the software vendors to treat Linux equal to Windows, then Linux will be a fine alternative to the average user. I don't care about 70 year olds learning about computers just because their children want them to (well I do care about my father-in-law
Ahh, but did you notice in the beginning of that scene when the three of them enter, Neo looks to his left and they show someone being escorted out of the room by two others.
Another interesting thing that I and a few of my friends experienced, was that the first time I saw Reloaded I was disappointed. But I wanted to see it again to find all the hidden things that was in the movie, since the first time I saw it it went too fast to catch everything. After the second watching, I realized that I enjoyed it much more than the first time. I even went a third time and enjoyed that one more than the second. The only part I disliked when going again was the orgy zion thing. But the rest was worth it.
When you put something under the GPL, you are effectively telling people that they are required, under very broadly defined circumstances, to distribute your work indiscriminately to all who come asking for it.
WRONG!
This is one of the most blaintant myths of the GPL. You are NOT required to give your work away to anyone. You are only required to give the source to those that you give the binaries to. So if I give Cmdr Taco a binary of GPL code, I am only required to give Cmdr Taco the source if he asks. You can ask me all you want, but there is nothing in the GPL that requires me to give you the code or binaries if you ask. I am only required to give you the source if I happen to give (or sell) you the binary.
This also means that, if I use GPL code at work and don't distribute it, I am not required to give any of it away. This includes using GPL code on a server that is used by others, including customers.
Being from Upstate-NY, I can confirm that in my area there really wasn't any advertising at all for this movie. So you may be right that the entire budget was spent in your home town! The movie showed only in a small "Arts Theater" and had no mention in the movie megaplex Lowes or Hoyts. The first way I heard about this movie was through the old fashion word-of-mouth. And that came from my father who happens to golf with the over 65 crowd (he himself is in that crowd too), and they all were talking about how good this movie was. I finally went to see it when a coworker of mine saw it and liked it.
So here's one instance that we were not bombarded with trailers.
as opposed to female samurai?
Yes, IIRC, the men would slash their stomaches and the women would slice their throats. Which has another name, but I don't remember off hand.
Think about it:
Now Neo too could be the program, but that doesn't make sense, except that Agent Smith gets part of his program.
Agent Smith is really what the machines don't count on. The world of the machines has problems too, so the people there are to help solve it. Now Agent Smith has grown into something that will be a thorn in both the humans side as well as the general machines.
I was disappointed at the end when I never heard Agent Smit utter "Neo, I am your father!"
Development. It is much easier to develop on an embedded device if it is running the same OS as your desktop. On the desktop, you only need to simulate the device drivers, but the software can be tested natively.
Also having a single OS that is supported quite well has its advantages too. Linux does offer a reusability and a standard api, where as other embedded OSs need to be almost completely designed for a different device (vxWorks).
I'm sorry, but they are calling me at home. Last week I had the flu and a 103 temp. The phone rang and thinking it was the doctor office calling back, I climbed out of bed to answer a telemarketer. Believe me I wasn't nice. Usually, I just place the phone down (not hung up) and go back to bed. But I was waiting for a call and didn't bother doing that.
A telemarketer interrupts me at home so I have no respect back to them. It's part of the job, if your girlfriend can't handle it, then she shouldn't be doing it. One job I had at college was a door to door vacuum salesman. Sure I had several people slam the door in my face and leave me out in the bitter cold. But that's part of the territory. I never complained about it and usually felt sorry to interrupt. As soon as I found another job, I quit that one, even for less pay. I didn't like doing a job that I don't like others doing to me.
What if they post all the prices minus one. So if Walmart sells object X for $4.95 show that it is $4.94 and state to get the actual price, you need to add $.01. That way you are not using the actual price and thus you are not infringing on the copyright :-)
I use Linux full time at work and at home. I bought Win4Lin when it first came out to stop my need to reboot whenever I needed Quicken or TaxCut. Those two are the only reason I use Windows and unfortunately I doubt that they will ever be ported natively to linux. Other than those two, all my other business is done in linux.
My 6yr old daughter's machine runs Windows full time since the only thing she uses it for is the JumpStart educational games. I'm sure they run fine on wine, but I do legally have a copy of windows, and I don't need to waste time with Wine just to make a point.
This is correct but the question still stands as what was used to compile the kernel, since the kernel uses an extensive amount of gcc extensions. But then again, should we call everything GNU/xxx if it uses the gcc extensions to be compiled?
Again I don't care for either of those two analogies because checking doors of someone's house still implies that the person doing so intends to do physical harm. I'm not worried about someone who port scans my machine is going to kidnap my children, but I would worry about someone who's checking to see if my home is locked or not.
There's a big difference between having your computer compromised and having your children killed. And if you disagree then you are obviously not a parent.
Ok, I like your analogy better.
I never liked the analogy of "going into someone's house is fine if the door is left open". It's used a lot when talking about scanning ports (where the analogy is way off). But here it is a better used but still wrong. The thing most desturbing about someone walking into my home is that they may do physical harm to me or to my family. Since I expect no physical harm from either port scanning or taking wireless ip for free, the analogy to me is just plain wrong.
But I understand your point and my analogy would be that if you left your bike out on your driveway then it would be ok for someone to take it. This is theft just like the stealing of bandwidth.