Nope. Sadly, you ignorant fucktard, you made the mistake of making it sound, like an ignorant fucktard, like there's nothing McDonalds could have done. 85 degrees celcius is not fit for human consumption. Far from chastity belts being the only possible way this could have been prevented, a modest drop in the storage temperature could have prevented the lawsuit.
Sadly, I'm going to have to stop arguing with you, since you're an ignorant fucktard, and basic logic doesn't actually function correctly for you.
I am incredulous that you know the meaning and correct usage of the word incredulous.
Moreover, I'm afraid that you're missing the major point here. The Access Point advertises it's presence and will automatically assist a wifi-enabled device in connecting to the network.
Unless you'd like laws to start sounding like your ex-wife, "You should know what I want you to do I should'nt have to tell you, and even if I tell you, you should know the right thing to do!", this is absolutely ridiculous. The AP gives EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION in the fact that it will encourage the wifi enabled device to connect. It gives IMPLICIT authorization in the fact that it hasn't been disabled.
Your "slippery slope" arguement is simply bad. It's stupid. It makes you look stupid. Storekeepers don't have to stand at the door and wait for people to knock before coming in, is this a slippery slope towards people walking into your house? Don't be ridiculous.
If you don't want people using your AP, then tell the AP not to advertise it's presence and actively seek out wifi devices to connect with. It's as simple as that. Under your logic, if you click the link to my weight loss site below without asking me, you're engaged in "theft of service".
I mean, think for 30 seconds, and realize that this is NOT something illegal!
Ignorance is no excuse. The fact that you don't want to learn how to maintain the network you've set up does not allow you to legally attack people who use the advertised service.
It may be polite to ask first, but the AP implicitly and explicitly authorizes network access, meaning that this is NOT illegal.
If this IS illegal, that means that anything digital turns into the sort of laws I'd expect from a woman. "I know I told you it was ok to connect, but you should have known what I really meant was that it was unauthorized access and illegal!"
Hey guys? See the link to my site below? Don't click on it. I know I set up a link to my website which I put on the public Internet, but I'm just an ignorant hick! I didn't know that people were going to actually see it!
Is Ford to blame when your car dies a horrible death because you were ignorant about how your car worked and never bothered to change the oil?
Ignorance is no excuse, and it DEFINITELY isn't an admissable legal OFFENSIVE. If it's that important to you that it'd turn into a court case, then it's important enough for you to learn how to lock up your access point.
Please be quiet if you don't know what you're talking about. It just makes you look like an ignorant fucktard.
From Stella Awards (stellaawards.com):
"# Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup. # Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs. # McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent. # From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits. # Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot. # While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded."
Who ever let little things like facts get in the way of a good display of ignorant fucktarditis?
How about taking some responsibility for your own equipment for once in your life, rather than pressing criminal charges when someone uses your AP for exactly what the AP was advertising?
If the grandparent ever has his wallet stolen, he'll have it coming. Leaving something like that out in the open to be stolen *IS* stupid. It's phenominally stupid. If he left a sign saying "free wallet" out with it, as is the case with ssid, it'd be even stupider.
Don't turn it into that sort of arguement. This isn't an ethical or moral arguement and doesn't have to be.
The AP is providing access, advertising it's presence, and allowing anyone with a wifi card to connect to it (something that every wifi device will do automatically).
This is a device giving implicit and explicit authorization, meaning that this charge is completely wrong. Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
If you have a sign that says "Wallet here!", just like an ssid, then yes, you are leaving your wallet to be taken. If you put the sign up and you don't think it means someone will try to take your wallet, you are stupid.
That's the critical distinction here -- we're not talking about someone leaving their bike on their front lawn, we're talking about someone leaving their bike on their lawn with a sign saying "free bike".
This isn't even a matter of just securing a connection, it's a matter of telling a connection to quit actively telling surrounding computers to use it.
Whether it's because you're nice or because you're too ignorant to make it stop, the access point is providing explicit authorization/i to use itself. It takes 5 minutes to read the manual, and 5 minutes to set up any sort of wireless security.
Reasons and excuses are irrelevant. They don't change the fact that a developer will come up to me when I'm running linux and say "Hey SJ Zero, I need help with this program I'm working on! I've tried everything!", and I have to tell them I can't help them because their program won't compile in Linux for one reason or another. Nor will it change the fact that the most useful and important applications I own are for Windows.
The same goes for BeOS, OS/2 Warp, and TSX411, three other OSes which suffered the exact same problem.
An educated user will either move to Linux (the most developed and technically sophisticated system for the x86, *BSD is sophisticated but not nearly as developed as Linux) or MacOSX (the easiest to use and yet still developed and solid system for the PPC).
That seems like sort of a narrow-minded conclusion. An educated user will likely choose the best OS for the job, or even multiple OSes. Myself, I prefer the UIs of other operating systems, definitely. If I could have kde for windows I think it'd be a blast. I've been using msys constantly for the past 3 days for a project I've been working on. I also prefer the power of Linux in terms of being capable of rolling my own kernel and such. However, as an educated user, I've chosen Windows as the Operating System which best suits. First, I have several thousand dollars worth of commercial software which relies upon windows, won't run in an emulator, and can't be replaced by open source alterntives. Secondly, I'm an indie game developer, and whether it's cooperating with other game developers or releasing games and demos for public consumption, I need windows. Finally, though linux is more powerful, Windows is much easier to configure and maintain. In the event that I want to change a setting, odds are more likely in Windows that I'll be able to do wha tI want without having to search for some archaic instructions on the internet.
Education is, after all, the first step towards wisdom. With wisdom, you can make decisions based upon seemingly contradictory facts.
I will admit though, I still have a copy of coLinux on my machine for those times I just can't do without a copy of the OS.;)
I'm not sure what the FUCK is wrong with you americans! Don't you understand that free speech is NOT that IMPRESSIVE! I's NOT something unique to the US -- AT ALL.
You're NOT the only country on earth where jackasses don't get carted away by folks in suits just because they said something the people in power don't agree with! In fact, it's pretty much the DEFAULT behaviour in the CIVILIZED world!!!
I'm not aware of any other nation, anywhere, any time, that has been so forgiving of such vicious sedition.
Maybe because you're an ignorant sod? I can think of at least one country that has had to put up with the exact same million man protests over the war. You know who? The #2 country in this whole thing. BUT, unlike you backwards hicks, they don't have fake video news releases produced by the government using taxpayer dollars, they don't have fake "town hall" style meetings where every person in the audience is LITERALLY an actor, and they don't have entire industries dedicated using fake evidence or outright lies to discredit anyone who says anything the least bit negative about the government.
FINE. You're free. Keep thinking that. I just hope that I don't become as free as you someday.
To set the record straight, in Canada you won't be locked up for expressing your sincerely held beliefs about race relations or homosexuality unless you're advocating genocide or trying to incite hate or violence. The bar is set quite high, or people like Steven Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada would have gone to jail long ago. Furthermore, private conversations are protected completely, so you'd have to get up on your soapbox and start yelling about how we have to kill all the jews like the idiots you see on TV before you're guilty of anything.
I'd say a major problem is that anyone who isn't a lying bastard can't get any airtime. It's really easy to beat your opponents into submission when you don't have to speak facts. The day I saw Cheney flat out lie and deny that he ever made the "pretty much a sure thing" comment, I've realized that the lying has reached such a critical mass that it's more real than the truth.
You mean the anti-war rallies where "free speech zones" are set up?
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. Between that and Video News releases, you're more free than ever and not at all looking like a backwater third world soviet banana republic!
No, this is not a grey area, it's very black and white. It's just like IIS. Everyone knows that the only reason anyone would use IIS is to illegally distribute programs. Frankly, I think the makers of both bittorrent and IIS should be thrown in prison for their obvious and willfull disregard for copyright law.
So you'd prefer people love their masters? I think that ignores human nature.
I've realized something. Both government and the rich can oppress people. People who don't think that's the truth are naieve. I see no problem with hating both -- indeed, hating anyone who would oppress you given a chance -- and working towards making those with the power to toy with peoples lives like that less powerful.
On the other hand, it's important to remember that both government and the rich are neccessary, and useful. Without law, those with strength or wealth would dominate and oppress everyone. Without capital, nobody would have anything to take. It's just a matter of finding a favourable balance between all elements of our society, meaning that there's no magic bullet, but hating anyone powerful enough to have you killed is a good step in the right direction.:P
No, just put your mental energy towards a struggle that isn't stupid. There are things you can do to make this world a better place. Trying to pick which sleazy corp you ought to be buying from won't.
Not really. SCO was doing things that were really slimy, like accusing the Linux community of things in public that it wasn't accusing them of in court. This is quite different.
In fact, invoking SCO in a discussion about a legitimate legal battle should become a sort of godwins law.
With such a small market share, it's unlikely that Intel can sue for libel. I mean, what are they going to say? "No! Even though we did engage in the practices they're accusing us of, and even though we aren't selling 10x more products just because of our good looks and charm, and even though AMD has put out a comperable, even superior product for the better part of a decade, there is NO TRUTH to these allegations!"
If you respect companies, you're in for a shock. They're all trash. It's the law. They're are legally forced to be greedy douchebags. If they aren't, the stockholders can sue them.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Sadly, you ignorant fucktard, you made the mistake of making it sound, like an ignorant fucktard, like there's nothing McDonalds could have done. 85 degrees celcius is not fit for human consumption. Far from chastity belts being the only possible way this could have been prevented, a modest drop in the storage temperature could have prevented the lawsuit.
Sadly, I'm going to have to stop arguing with you, since you're an ignorant fucktard, and basic logic doesn't actually function correctly for you.
I am incredulous that you know the meaning and correct usage of the word incredulous.
Moreover, I'm afraid that you're missing the major point here. The Access Point advertises it's presence and will automatically assist a wifi-enabled device in connecting to the network.
Unless you'd like laws to start sounding like your ex-wife, "You should know what I want you to do I should'nt have to tell you, and even if I tell you, you should know the right thing to do!", this is absolutely ridiculous. The AP gives EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION in the fact that it will encourage the wifi enabled device to connect. It gives IMPLICIT authorization in the fact that it hasn't been disabled.
Your "slippery slope" arguement is simply bad. It's stupid. It makes you look stupid. Storekeepers don't have to stand at the door and wait for people to knock before coming in, is this a slippery slope towards people walking into your house? Don't be ridiculous.
If you don't want people using your AP, then tell the AP not to advertise it's presence and actively seek out wifi devices to connect with. It's as simple as that. Under your logic, if you click the link to my weight loss site below without asking me, you're engaged in "theft of service".
I mean, think for 30 seconds, and realize that this is NOT something illegal!
If you tried to send me to court for walking on your signless, fenceless yard, I'd be forced to kill you, lest you breed.
Ignorance is no excuse. The fact that you don't want to learn how to maintain the network you've set up does not allow you to legally attack people who use the advertised service.
It may be polite to ask first, but the AP implicitly and explicitly authorizes network access, meaning that this is NOT illegal.
If this IS illegal, that means that anything digital turns into the sort of laws I'd expect from a woman. "I know I told you it was ok to connect, but you should have known what I really meant was that it was unauthorized access and illegal!"
Hey guys? See the link to my site below? Don't click on it. I know I set up a link to my website which I put on the public Internet, but I'm just an ignorant hick! I didn't know that people were going to actually see it!
Is Ford to blame when your car dies a horrible death because you were ignorant about how your car worked and never bothered to change the oil?
Ignorance is no excuse, and it DEFINITELY isn't an admissable legal OFFENSIVE. If it's that important to you that it'd turn into a court case, then it's important enough for you to learn how to lock up your access point.
Please be quiet if you don't know what you're talking about. It just makes you look like an ignorant fucktard.
From Stella Awards (stellaawards.com):
"# Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
# Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
# McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
# From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
# Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
# While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded."
Who ever let little things like facts get in the way of a good display of ignorant fucktarditis?
This isn't a troll, it's the truth! The Stella Awards was named after this lawsuit, but after researching the situation, they found that the Stella lawsuit *WAS* justified.
How about turning off ssid broadcasting instead?
How about taking some responsibility for your own equipment for once in your life, rather than pressing criminal charges when someone uses your AP for exactly what the AP was advertising?
If the grandparent ever has his wallet stolen, he'll have it coming. Leaving something like that out in the open to be stolen *IS* stupid. It's phenominally stupid. If he left a sign saying "free wallet" out with it, as is the case with ssid, it'd be even stupider.
Don't turn it into that sort of arguement. This isn't an ethical or moral arguement and doesn't have to be.
The AP is providing access, advertising it's presence, and allowing anyone with a wifi card to connect to it (something that every wifi device will do automatically).
This is a device giving implicit and explicit authorization, meaning that this charge is completely wrong. Calling it hacking is the same as saying that clicking on the link to the story above is hacking.
If you have a sign that says "Wallet here!", just like an ssid, then yes, you are leaving your wallet to be taken. If you put the sign up and you don't think it means someone will try to take your wallet, you are stupid.
That's the critical distinction here -- we're not talking about someone leaving their bike on their front lawn, we're talking about someone leaving their bike on their lawn with a sign saying "free bike".
This isn't even a matter of just securing a connection, it's a matter of telling a connection to quit actively telling surrounding computers to use it.
Whether it's because you're nice or because you're too ignorant to make it stop, the access point is providing explicit authorization/i to use itself. It takes 5 minutes to read the manual, and 5 minutes to set up any sort of wireless security.
Reasons and excuses are irrelevant. They don't change the fact that a developer will come up to me when I'm running linux and say "Hey SJ Zero, I need help with this program I'm working on! I've tried everything!", and I have to tell them I can't help them because their program won't compile in Linux for one reason or another. Nor will it change the fact that the most useful and important applications I own are for Windows.
The same goes for BeOS, OS/2 Warp, and TSX411, three other OSes which suffered the exact same problem.
An educated user will either move to Linux (the most developed and technically sophisticated system for the x86, *BSD is sophisticated but not nearly as developed as Linux) or MacOSX (the easiest to use and yet still developed and solid system for the PPC).
;)
That seems like sort of a narrow-minded conclusion. An educated user will likely choose the best OS for the job, or even multiple OSes. Myself, I prefer the UIs of other operating systems, definitely. If I could have kde for windows I think it'd be a blast. I've been using msys constantly for the past 3 days for a project I've been working on. I also prefer the power of Linux in terms of being capable of rolling my own kernel and such. However, as an educated user, I've chosen Windows as the Operating System which best suits. First, I have several thousand dollars worth of commercial software which relies upon windows, won't run in an emulator, and can't be replaced by open source alterntives. Secondly, I'm an indie game developer, and whether it's cooperating with other game developers or releasing games and demos for public consumption, I need windows. Finally, though linux is more powerful, Windows is much easier to configure and maintain. In the event that I want to change a setting, odds are more likely in Windows that I'll be able to do wha tI want without having to search for some archaic instructions on the internet.
Education is, after all, the first step towards wisdom. With wisdom, you can make decisions based upon seemingly contradictory facts.
I will admit though, I still have a copy of coLinux on my machine for those times I just can't do without a copy of the OS.
I'm not sure what the FUCK is wrong with you americans! Don't you understand that free speech is NOT that IMPRESSIVE! I's NOT something unique to the US -- AT ALL.
You're NOT the only country on earth where jackasses don't get carted away by folks in suits just because they said something the people in power don't agree with! In fact, it's pretty much the DEFAULT behaviour in the CIVILIZED world!!!
I'm not aware of any other nation, anywhere, any time, that has been so forgiving of such vicious sedition.
Maybe because you're an ignorant sod? I can think of at least one country that has had to put up with the exact same million man protests over the war. You know who? The #2 country in this whole thing. BUT, unlike you backwards hicks, they don't have fake video news releases produced by the government using taxpayer dollars, they don't have fake "town hall" style meetings where every person in the audience is LITERALLY an actor, and they don't have entire industries dedicated using fake evidence or outright lies to discredit anyone who says anything the least bit negative about the government.
FINE. You're free. Keep thinking that. I just hope that I don't become as free as you someday.
To set the record straight, in Canada you won't be locked up for expressing your sincerely held beliefs about race relations or homosexuality unless you're advocating genocide or trying to incite hate or violence. The bar is set quite high, or people like Steven Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada would have gone to jail long ago. Furthermore, private conversations are protected completely, so you'd have to get up on your soapbox and start yelling about how we have to kill all the jews like the idiots you see on TV before you're guilty of anything.
You couldn't just leave this as a story about a behemoth crushing the little guy like a grape, could you? :P
I'd say a major problem is that anyone who isn't a lying bastard can't get any airtime. It's really easy to beat your opponents into submission when you don't have to speak facts. The day I saw Cheney flat out lie and deny that he ever made the "pretty much a sure thing" comment, I've realized that the lying has reached such a critical mass that it's more real than the truth.
You mean the anti-war rallies where "free speech zones" are set up?
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. Between that and Video News releases, you're more free than ever and not at all looking like a backwater third world soviet banana republic!
Irony: Both the terrorists and the downloader will have DHS agents after them for some reason, but the downloader has more to fear.
No, this is not a grey area, it's very black and white. It's just like IIS. Everyone knows that the only reason anyone would use IIS is to illegally distribute programs. Frankly, I think the makers of both bittorrent and IIS should be thrown in prison for their obvious and willfull disregard for copyright law.
You know, I know there were people like you in soviet russia.
He could face charges for a comment he made six years ago on a webpage which no longer exists. You don't see a problem with that?
Yes, and those people who became unpeople deserved it too.
So you'd prefer people love their masters? I think that ignores human nature.
:P
I've realized something. Both government and the rich can oppress people. People who don't think that's the truth are naieve. I see no problem with hating both -- indeed, hating anyone who would oppress you given a chance -- and working towards making those with the power to toy with peoples lives like that less powerful.
On the other hand, it's important to remember that both government and the rich are neccessary, and useful. Without law, those with strength or wealth would dominate and oppress everyone. Without capital, nobody would have anything to take. It's just a matter of finding a favourable balance between all elements of our society, meaning that there's no magic bullet, but hating anyone powerful enough to have you killed is a good step in the right direction.
No, just put your mental energy towards a struggle that isn't stupid. There are things you can do to make this world a better place. Trying to pick which sleazy corp you ought to be buying from won't.
Not really. SCO was doing things that were really slimy, like accusing the Linux community of things in public that it wasn't accusing them of in court. This is quite different.
In fact, invoking SCO in a discussion about a legitimate legal battle should become a sort of godwins law.
With such a small market share, it's unlikely that Intel can sue for libel. I mean, what are they going to say? "No! Even though we did engage in the practices they're accusing us of, and even though we aren't selling 10x more products just because of our good looks and charm, and even though AMD has put out a comperable, even superior product for the better part of a decade, there is NO TRUTH to these allegations!"
If you respect companies, you're in for a shock. They're all trash. It's the law. They're are legally forced to be greedy douchebags. If they aren't, the stockholders can sue them.