I use Maxthon, for reasons I'm willing to discuss at length if you wanna meet me in a bar (okay, I'm not the most popular guy in the bar).
It reports as IE (rightly so).
I'm an informed user and programmer, and basically, in all respectfulness due, sod off. If my choice of browser is important enough that you slap me in the face with a self-righteous "you're not good enough to look at this" sort of 'no shirt, no shoes' thing, then screw you and your webpage.
I have a new mental filter. Anything in the pattern "[adjective]-ass [noun]" is replaced by "[adjective ass-[noun]". It provides me with hours of amusement.
I'm sorry. I honestly don't know quite what to make of this problem, and I'm doing my best to bring in appropriate analogies. The 'brother' example is an example of an entity giving specific responses to specific requests that may not have been arranged properly in the first place.
I guess what concerns me is that we have to acknowledge the fact that most routers ship with no password, and that most people -- however much we'd like them to -- haven't figured out that they need to turn on security. Now, I agree that what we need to do is turn on security, but in the present absence of that, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to look at it the way I am -- you are not physically barred from doing this, but the owner may not want you to. (please don't jump on the 'barred' vs. 'permitted' thing. routers ship with the default ability to ALLOW you to connect, and you have to take action to stop them. don't anthropomorphize them.)
So this leaves us with the problem of "the owner may not want us to" being what is keeping us from using her piece of hardware. Because how do we know she doesn't want us to? I honestly do not know. I'm trying to look at (ridiculous) analogous situations to work that out. Generally, you have needed a clear statement of permission to use something belonging to someone. You are trying to say that the router being open IS a clear statement of permission, but I don't see that as true! They ship like that by default, and like it or not, people don't know to enable it. Taking advantage of that ignorance and trust to try to justify intruding on their privacy seems wrong to me, and I'm trying to explain that as best I can.
Interesting point. I'm not totally sure how that sort of distinction works. While I think about it, mod parent up.
I think it has to do with the fact that web servers are created for the purpose of outside use, whereas wireless routers on the whole aren't, so we create a different set of rules, and give wireless users permission to restrict use more firmly.
But it may also have to do with the fact that you're not just connecting to his wireless router, you're either snooping on his conversation (not sure how the laws govern that, but just because it's unencrypted doesn't mean you have the right to stand in his front yard and listen carefully), or you're using his connection to get to the internet (it's his cable connection that he paid for, at least . . . could these same laws kill spyware programs?)
Why should Apple care if you pay for, or even "steal" for that matter, a copy of OSX if it isn't going to generate any more costs for Apple?
When I sit there with my $500 paycheck considering whether or not to buy a Mac Mini, I'm doing it largely because of OS X. If it were available outside the Mac line, I would not buy a Mac, and I would pay Apple less.
I'm not trying to speak for the masses in economic terms; I'm relating my personal thought process. Though I'm sure there it's not an uncommon one.
(note: I should be modded -1 redundant because this point has been made many times in the past and should be considered a trivial component of the overall argument. Or is this a deceptive attempt to rope the power-drunk mods into falling for reverse psychology and modding me up? Am I revealing all this in the hopes of being modded down ironically? Are you outwitting me or playing right into my hands? You may never know!)
Computer starts up wifi -> Computer broadcasts: Hey, is anyone outthere? -> Open Wifi router: Hello, I'm here. Would you like an ip and a default gateway? -> Computer: Yes please.
If this is not permitted by the courts, it's time for the revolution.
If the owner doesn't want you doing that, it's certainly not permitted by the courts. There's no standard of consent in the law RE your router's firmware. I know there are problems with the analogy, but I believe my point is correct. See my cousin comment.
For the record, I think it's your own damn responsibility to secure your access point. But the legal arguments in parent and GGP hold no legal water, and my analogy IS good in the important senses. The firmware is just doing what it's designed to -- that does not mean the owner consents to your use of his property. If that's PERMITTED by the courts, it's time for the revolution.
Yeah, I understand the analogy isn't perfect (I tried several, just to get clear). I'm just making the point that 'consent of a posession' was never any sort of legal standard.
And I don't believe it should be. Objects do not have motivations, and it would get silly to treat them as such under the law. The law addresses the people using the systems and what they do with them. A person intentionally connects to an AP not belonging to him without permission from the owner. The law says this is wrong, the AP firmware's point of view notwithstanding.
The claim that you can argue 'logically and sanely' argue otherwise based on the firmware's intent to subvert its owner's desire is absurd.
One could argue, sanely and logically, that since the Access Point is not secured, and therefore, I am allowed to start a transaction with it that the access point approves (I can't force it to give me access to anything, it has to allow me access), that it is impossible for my action to be illegal.
However, the courts, apparently, have let their brains take a holiday.
No. The fact that your door is unlocked doesn't mean that I can walk into your house. When on earth did "This object let me do it" become a standard of legality?!
Since the cash register gave me money when I hit the button, that 7-11 burglarly couldn't possibly be illegal. Since the car left running at the curb allowed me to drive it, my car theft cannot be illegal.
That standard of permission doesn't even apply to people! ("I wasn't violating the restraining order, her brother let me in!") Since when does it apply to inantimate objects?
You Are An IE User This site has been coded for standard compliant browsers. IE is not one of these browsers. We, at Caffeine Junkies, recommend that you upgrade to a better browser such as:
Motherfucker.
I use a browser based off the IE core (Maxthon) for reasons I'm willing to discuss at great length -- I've used Firefox, Galeon, Konquorer, Safari, et. al. for years as well, and I understand the arguments and the power of each.
So don't fucking talk down to me at your site intro because my browser reports as IE (and is, in fact, not totally compliant, rendering-wise.) You just lost a potential reader.
I understand the need to advertise Firefox. But don't stand in front of your driveway and refuse to let me enter until I talk to you about why I'm using an unfashionable, prone-to-breakdown brand of car.
Here's the usual plug for Maxthon, the alternate IE-based browser I (and many friends) use. It uses the IE core (I actually really get kinda annoyed by Gecko in practice, so I'm okay with the rendering), it actually has fast UI response (which is a breath of fresh air after months of Firefox's dozens-of-ms delay before pulling up tabs), it's compatible, blah blah blah, other stuff I'm too tired to talk about now. I don't wanna proselytize; use whatever works for you. I just want to say I've used Firefox extensively with full extensions setting it up precisely how I want, as have friends on various computing levels, and a lot have gone back to Maxthon.
I feel terrible that I'm reported to sites as using IE, but that's how it is. I'm sorry, everyone.
God dammit, do I have to get wordy with everything? Let me expand that.
"Wow! That comment sure exposed the hole in your argument, perhaps more than an initial glance would make clear! I wholeheartedly agree with your post, and it is odd that you are not modded up for this at all!"
I don't often complain about the editors, because others do and the exact same things keep happening. It doesn't appear to have an effect. You could argue it would be worse without the complaining. But if people keep complaining "the stop signs are backward" and you see backward stop signs, you can conclude that the complaining isn't having the desired result, even if it got them to turn around one or two stop signs.
Of course, there doesn't appear to be anything else to do. Still, I feel like I'm not accomplishing much by doing it.
Well, "Debris Seen Not Hitting Shuttle During Launch" wouldn't have been a very catchy headline, would it? I'm just surprised they didn't take it to the next level, "Fiery Destruction of Shuttle Imminent".
"Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world."
I think we're all well beyond that
Us, on Slashdot, sure. Just an hour ago I was talking to a well-educated guy (college student working at NASA) and he was astonished to hear that there wasn't a huge difference between 2 GHz and 3 GHz, and that clock speeds weren't really being focused on these days, and has plateaued in the last few years and isn't expected to climb much in the near future.
And if he doesn't know, your Joe Sizpack1 sure doesn't. People love having any kind of number to use for comparisons, so they're gonna keep thinking GHz are really really important until it's beaten into them.
I know you're talking about the people involved in the debate. But the OP wasn't wrong to suggest that Apple hates looking worse in GHz comparisons, because though you and he may know to look past that, the aforementioned Mr. Sixpack doesn't.
Wait, I thought this was a website hosted by the company itself. Certainly they can decide what they do or don't want to host. They can absolutely tell the union to move to union.com [example] or Tripod or whatever.
Now, if they were blocking the independently-hosted union.com, they'd be where they had no business to be, and that would obviously be wrong. That's what this story implies is going on. But from TFAs I've been looking at, it's that they're deciding what can be hosted on their own servers. Absolutely their right.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Maxthon, for reasons I'm willing to discuss at length if you wanna meet me in a bar (okay, I'm not the most popular guy in the bar).
It reports as IE (rightly so).
I'm an informed user and programmer, and basically, in all respectfulness due, sod off. If my choice of browser is important enough that you slap me in the face with a self-righteous "you're not good enough to look at this" sort of 'no shirt, no shoes' thing, then screw you and your webpage.
I'm going back down to the bar.
I have a new mental filter. Anything in the pattern "[adjective]-ass [noun]" is replaced by "[adjective ass-[noun]". It provides me with hours of amusement.
Yes, that is one tall ass-elevator.
I'm sorry. I honestly don't know quite what to make of this problem, and I'm doing my best to bring in appropriate analogies. The 'brother' example is an example of an entity giving specific responses to specific requests that may not have been arranged properly in the first place.
I guess what concerns me is that we have to acknowledge the fact that most routers ship with no password, and that most people -- however much we'd like them to -- haven't figured out that they need to turn on security. Now, I agree that what we need to do is turn on security, but in the present absence of that, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to look at it the way I am -- you are not physically barred from doing this, but the owner may not want you to. (please don't jump on the 'barred' vs. 'permitted' thing. routers ship with the default ability to ALLOW you to connect, and you have to take action to stop them. don't anthropomorphize them.)
So this leaves us with the problem of "the owner may not want us to" being what is keeping us from using her piece of hardware. Because how do we know she doesn't want us to? I honestly do not know. I'm trying to look at (ridiculous) analogous situations to work that out. Generally, you have needed a clear statement of permission to use something belonging to someone. You are trying to say that the router being open IS a clear statement of permission, but I don't see that as true! They ship like that by default, and like it or not, people don't know to enable it. Taking advantage of that ignorance and trust to try to justify intruding on their privacy seems wrong to me, and I'm trying to explain that as best I can.
Interesting point. I'm not totally sure how that sort of distinction works. While I think about it, mod parent up.
I think it has to do with the fact that web servers are created for the purpose of outside use, whereas wireless routers on the whole aren't, so we create a different set of rules, and give wireless users permission to restrict use more firmly.
But it may also have to do with the fact that you're not just connecting to his wireless router, you're either snooping on his conversation (not sure how the laws govern that, but just because it's unencrypted doesn't mean you have the right to stand in his front yard and listen carefully), or you're using his connection to get to the internet (it's his cable connection that he paid for, at least . . . could these same laws kill spyware programs?)
Illegal?
*looks with concern at Pringles can on desk*
But yeah, what do you mean? What sorts of cantennas are illegal?
When I sit there with my $500 paycheck considering whether or not to buy a Mac Mini, I'm doing it largely because of OS X. If it were available outside the Mac line, I would not buy a Mac, and I would pay Apple less.
I'm not trying to speak for the masses in economic terms; I'm relating my personal thought process. Though I'm sure there it's not an uncommon one.
(note: I should be modded -1 redundant because this point has been made many times in the past and should be considered a trivial component of the overall argument. Or is this a deceptive attempt to rope the power-drunk mods into falling for reverse psychology and modding me up? Am I revealing all this in the hopes of being modded down ironically? Are you outwitting me or playing right into my hands? You may never know!)
At the end, by 'permitted' I mean 'mandated to be legal' or whatever. You get my point.
If the owner doesn't want you doing that, it's certainly not permitted by the courts. There's no standard of consent in the law RE your router's firmware. I know there are problems with the analogy, but I believe my point is correct. See my cousin comment.
For the record, I think it's your own damn responsibility to secure your access point. But the legal arguments in parent and GGP hold no legal water, and my analogy IS good in the important senses. The firmware is just doing what it's designed to -- that does not mean the owner consents to your use of his property. If that's PERMITTED by the courts, it's time for the revolution.
Yeah, I understand the analogy isn't perfect (I tried several, just to get clear). I'm just making the point that 'consent of a posession' was never any sort of legal standard.
And I don't believe it should be. Objects do not have motivations, and it would get silly to treat them as such under the law. The law addresses the people using the systems and what they do with them. A person intentionally connects to an AP not belonging to him without permission from the owner. The law says this is wrong, the AP firmware's point of view notwithstanding.
The claim that you can argue 'logically and sanely' argue otherwise based on the firmware's intent to subvert its owner's desire is absurd.
No. The fact that your door is unlocked doesn't mean that I can walk into your house. When on earth did "This object let me do it" become a standard of legality?!
Since the cash register gave me money when I hit the button, that 7-11 burglarly couldn't possibly be illegal. Since the car left running at the curb allowed me to drive it, my car theft cannot be illegal.
That standard of permission doesn't even apply to people! ("I wasn't violating the restraining order, her brother let me in!") Since when does it apply to inantimate objects?
Haha, indeed.
I'm a Mac user as well. I use Windows, Macs, Linux, and Unix boxen daily. Firefox on the Mac and *nix, Maxthon on the PC.
But yes, the boycott was just rhetorical. I'm visiting his site and expressing my displeausre on slashdot.
Motherfucker.
I use a browser based off the IE core (Maxthon) for reasons I'm willing to discuss at great length -- I've used Firefox, Galeon, Konquorer, Safari, et. al. for years as well, and I understand the arguments and the power of each.
So don't fucking talk down to me at your site intro because my browser reports as IE (and is, in fact, not totally compliant, rendering-wise.) You just lost a potential reader.
I understand the need to advertise Firefox. But don't stand in front of your driveway and refuse to let me enter until I talk to you about why I'm using an unfashionable, prone-to-breakdown brand of car.
Oh, and it's at over 30 million downloads, which is something to shake a stick at.
Whatever the hell that means. I want to go back to sleep.
Here's the usual plug for Maxthon, the alternate IE-based browser I (and many friends) use. It uses the IE core (I actually really get kinda annoyed by Gecko in practice, so I'm okay with the rendering), it actually has fast UI response (which is a breath of fresh air after months of Firefox's dozens-of-ms delay before pulling up tabs), it's compatible, blah blah blah, other stuff I'm too tired to talk about now. I don't wanna proselytize; use whatever works for you. I just want to say I've used Firefox extensively with full extensions setting it up precisely how I want, as have friends on various computing levels, and a lot have gone back to Maxthon.
I feel terrible that I'm reported to sites as using IE, but that's how it is. I'm sorry, everyone.
A good question. Where's the open-source clone of this project?
In other words, "Sun supernova imminent after Shuttle catastrophe"
Zing. [moderation - -3, offtopic]
God dammit, do I have to get wordy with everything? Let me expand that.
"Wow! That comment sure exposed the hole in your argument, perhaps more than an initial glance would make clear! I wholeheartedly agree with your post, and it is odd that you are not modded up for this at all!"
I thought that was implied, but whatever.
You think they'll have time to read complaints, if they don't even read submissions?
Obviously, which is why I feel stupid doing it.
I don't often complain about the editors, because others do and the exact same things keep happening. It doesn't appear to have an effect. You could argue it would be worse without the complaining. But if people keep complaining "the stop signs are backward" and you see backward stop signs, you can conclude that the complaining isn't having the desired result, even if it got them to turn around one or two stop signs.
Of course, there doesn't appear to be anything else to do. Still, I feel like I'm not accomplishing much by doing it.
Or, to paraphrase, "Shuttle Destroyed in Inferno"
Zing.
Article title:
.
Debris Seen Hitting Shuttle During Launch
Article summary:
While the debris does not appear to hit the shuttle . .
Seriously. I feel stupid complaining about the editors; I don't often. But this is ridiculous.
"Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world."
I think we're all well beyond that
Us, on Slashdot, sure. Just an hour ago I was talking to a well-educated guy (college student working at NASA) and he was astonished to hear that there wasn't a huge difference between 2 GHz and 3 GHz, and that clock speeds weren't really being focused on these days, and has plateaued in the last few years and isn't expected to climb much in the near future.
And if he doesn't know, your Joe Sizpack1 sure doesn't. People love having any kind of number to use for comparisons, so they're gonna keep thinking GHz are really really important until it's beaten into them.
I know you're talking about the people involved in the debate. But the OP wasn't wrong to suggest that Apple hates looking worse in GHz comparisons, because though you and he may know to look past that, the aforementioned Mr. Sixpack doesn't.
1What a weird last name.
Like . . . "mockingbirds on a cat"?
This sounds like a simile stemming from a fascinating situation I'd never heard of. Please elaborate!
Wait, I thought this was a website hosted by the company itself. Certainly they can decide what they do or don't want to host. They can absolutely tell the union to move to union.com [example] or Tripod or whatever.
Now, if they were blocking the independently-hosted union.com, they'd be where they had no business to be, and that would obviously be wrong. That's what this story implies is going on. But from TFAs I've been looking at, it's that they're deciding what can be hosted on their own servers. Absolutely their right.