Anymore, the power company in your area may possibly have a green energy plan. Here in Indianapolis, the local power company will hook you up to wind power in 25% increments of your total power consumption for a small per KWh charge. I use about 750 KWh a month, and I think it costs me an extra 4 or 5 bucks for 100% wind power, which I'm happy to pay.
This means that the only real reason to go solar is to get off the grid, and stop paying for electricity altogether. The "save the Earth" drive is taken out of the equation, and all you have left is a general desire to get "free" power, with an entirely too expensive means of achieving that desire.
Since I live in the midwest, where the solar rate isn't fantastic, I'm looking at pretty much covering my entire roof with solar panels to get the power I need. To the tune of about $40,000. That's a third of the price of my house. If solar companies want to stay in business in a world where green power is becoming more common at the service provider level, the costs are going to need to come WAY down.
I've heard the prez (elect) talk about subsidies, which is cool, but if the purpose is to "reduce our dependance on foreign oil", any subsidy given to a person getting a solar rig in an area that provides cheap wind power is taking tax money for no reason. I'd love to have a little (or a lot of) government help in going solar, but the fact is, I can't justify it.
As more "green" opportunities come to market, mostly translating to electricity usage (electric cars, electrically powered instant water heaters, etc.) I can see a very real and very near reality where I'm powering all aspects of my life on green power. It would be awesome if I could do it for free, (net the cost difference after paying the premium for the technology), and I suppose it would benefit the economy as a whole if no one was paying for home electricity, to power their automobile, heat their home/water, etc., but while the technology exists/is very close at hand to do this, the singularity where it becomes attainable by the average american is significantly further away.
I see where this is going...
Company buys up billions of dollars worth of IP (cheaply, due to the business concept), promising never to use it.
Company gets bought out, at a reasonable price considering all they own, since they're "not really the IP owners".
New company decides it's not bound by previous company's ethics, decides to call in the lawyers for the billions of dollars worth of IP.
New company litigates the living shit out of everyone.
New company buys out other companies using the money won from being sued for using their own IP.
New company now owns 50.1% of the world.
Can someone verify the whereabouts of Pinky and The Brain please? I'm getting a little nervous.
I think this technology will eventually end up paired with some of the speech recognition technology, (like what Ford and Microsoft have put out recently), and this will do away with the keyboard (although I'd still keep a spare sitting in a drawer, just like I do now for my headless servers). I think sound and video editing will be a good application for this, but honestly, I think it will be a while before I walk in to a local midwestern TV station and see them using this tech. On the other hand, I could definitely see this taking off with the rich gadget crowd. I have kind of an embarrassing lust for high end tech (I just built an 8-core, 32GB RAM 4TB HD workstation for use as my home office computer ((I do a little sound editing on the side))), and I just sat here for 5 minutes trying to envision how I would paint the walls of my home office with that projection-friendly paint, and throw up a bunch of projectors. If the price point were right, and the projector market saw this as a natural pairing, thereby offering combo deals to get this concept into the main stream, I definitely think this application has a place in the home. I think for general browsing and OS desktop manipulation, this application fits. Again, only if the price is within reason after taking into consideration that you have to completely rethink the way a home office or home theater is set up. Imagine, though, sitting in a comfy chair in the middle of an empty room, with projected interfaces on 3 of the 4 walls, and a medium size (~35-45") LCD touch panel sitting before you. All your text entry is done via voice recognition. Basic commands are spoken, and then the media that is brought up through applications and web browsers is manipulated by the Oblong application. I could see it working. It is the further evolution of the geek paradise.
Arrgghhh... Scratch what I said before. New master, same slavery. The medium-view images are nice to look at but I tried blowing one up to a decent size and it's pretty heavy on artifacts. The high rez version has a nice big TIME watermark on it. However, the option to fram any print at a somewhat reasonable price ($80-$110 depending on size) is definitely a plus, and I think I may still act on it. It's still about a tenth of the price I was getitng from GI to get a full res print.
Lifelike... you betcha. I've been dying to get my hands on some Margaret Bourke-White images without having to pay Getty Images a few grand per print. Her pictures give a lifelike experience of what it was like to be in so many historical places back in the 40's. It's good that I can finally view these images without having to deall with GI's rediculous pricing policies.
Getty Images has long been the world's largest intellectual property holder. While the general public can get a hold of some of their holdings as prints through poster companies, etc., it's a very small percentage of what they have, and they make no apparent effort to deal with end consumers directly.
While this seems like just a nifty place to view pictured for some, I see it as a victory for those that oppose intellectual property abuse.
I think they need to revisit Freelancer. That game wasn't exactly a MMO, as you were on a relatively small, locally run server (always hated that I'd have to start from scratch if I was at a LAN party and someone wanted to play on a different server), but if they fleshed it out so that it wasn't quite so repetitive, that game would have kicked all kinds of ass. Basically, the combat system was pretty cool, though even it could use a bit of polish. If you were to add in a rich character development and storyline, you'd have... well, you'd have the makings of a good Firefly MMO.
Firefly has the potential to break the back of WoW because it already has a fantastic "grind" system in place, one that allows for maximum enjoyment and time-sink without the "I'm gonna go kill tree frogs for 3 hours to get a new chest piece". Plus, for all those college professors who clearly don't have enough work to do, the economic ramifications are staggering with this game, assuming they can do a little to curb gold farmers, similar to WoW (you'll notice while there is inflation, it's not astronomic, like say SWG). Depending on how much of a traipse it is to get to outer rim planets, I could see the exchange rate differing greatly between planets/moons. That, and the existence of different types of currency. One could probably make a decent living as a currency changer on Persephone.
I have reason to hope, but I'm trying my best to keep my feet on the ground.
I disagree with your first statement. I think it depends on what sport you are talking about. Take football for example, where even from an early age, many kids who show a genetic or physical aptitude for the sport begin training to become specialized athletic instruments. In Texas, and other southern states, it is not terribly uncommon for parents to hold their children back a year in school so that they will be bigger to compete in football. At the professional level, our current stock of "drug free" football players are some of the most fearsome and amazing physical specimens to ever walk the earth. And the willingness already inherent to the sport to risk life and limb for results is already accepted by both athlete and fan. Do some reading on what it's like to be a lineman in between games or off season. Read about how a lot of these former players have completely ruined their bodies in regard to retirement. The nature of game as I describe here would welcome the next stage in human evolution. Players who are accustomed to sacrificing their bodies for the game will gladly volunteer for doping, "bionic" body treatments and the like. Plus, since our society is unfortunately much more centered on professional sports, than on education and science, doing so will immediately create a high budget research field for human enhancement, both at the molecular and the tissue levels. No one is holding a gun to these athletes' heads, (not in this country anyway) telling them to do these things to themselves. If a grown man of consentual age wants to put himself in harm's way, I see no need to intervene.
I second that motion. TIE Fighter was definitely one of the best games of all time. LucasArts really had a streak going there for a while where everything they touched turned to gold. TIE Fighter, Full Throttle, Monkey Island, Dark Forces... I remember Star Wars Rebellion moved me into a completely new genre of vidja games. Recently, I played the first Galactic Battlegrounds, and as soon as I got over the spiffy graphics, I realized the company doesn't have the same outstanding sparkle it used to.
I don't have lawyers for clients, I have lawyers for users (way worse in most respects...). I will say that this is by far the best funded IT department I've ever worked for. The only downside is, once you pick a solution, there's no going back to them and saying you changed your mind, you need more money for a different product. Makes no difference that that decision was made like 10 years ago, by someone else.
Wow... Lot of comments. Shouldn't have stepped away from/. for so long.
The problem isn't if there is a program out there better suited to the task. The problem is I'm a low man on a large IT team, and this is the software that has been chosen. Period. No amount of logic will persuade them to pick a different vendor, now that it has been implemented to some 800 users. Yes, my boss has pointy hair. If there is any Ask Slashdot question due, it is "Is anyone hiring?" I'm tasked with keeping this program up and running, despite the fact it sucks and support is almost nonexistent. It was no big deal for the last application support guy, but he was here for 17 years, and didn't write documentation. So, now when something breaks, I have to reinvent the wheel, and asking the vendor for support is (when I can actually get a hold of them) iffy at best.
Good god do I hear you, brother. I work IT for a legal firm. So many little apps no one else in IT has ever even heard of. And most of them, you're talking to the same guy for support that developed it, and filled the sales order. Out of his basement or garage. Multi-million dollar a year law firm, and it can be brought to its knees if one of our obscure applications goes down and needs support, and the one guy that can support it is out taking his kids to soccer practice.
I'm looking at you North Winds Software. I'll BUY a support contract! If you offered such a thing. If you answered the phone.
You are correct in this. However, I would love to know how many occasions JT has actually made it through a trial without resorting to flailing his arms about and sputtering out sentance fragments. I have a deep seated belief that this is why he does what he does today. When he's filing briefs and suits based on what he believes is morally right, he's not acting on behalf of a paying client. Who in their right mind is going to hire an attorney with this guy's record of shenanigans? It would not surprise me in the least to learn that he took up this cause as a last resort because acting the way he does now completely screwed him out of a client base at one point earlier on in his career.
I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this argument before. The trouble with it is, the logic is a little flawed. Yes, right now JT is the most vocal critic of video games, and yes, he's clearly off his nut. The thing is, there is no rule saying there can only be one heavily publicized video game critic. If someone else wanted to step up and fight Rockstar, et al., if they are as good at putting together a logical argument as you fear, they will find a way to get their point across. And, more than likely, may supplant JT since he seems to be going down in flames at the moment. My point is, if someone is out there trying to denounce video games, he is not being held back my JT presence. That, and I doubt many people would take JT's removal from the public eye as martyrdom, so I don't think him being tied up and put in a burlap sack (just a for instance, not suggesting anyone beat him with canes and set him on fire or anything) would bring another ring leader out of the woodwork like you think.
It's probably bad that the first thing I thought of was, "damn... no more watching porn in the living room"......or watching TV without pants...or making out on the couch...or building bombs on the coffee table
No, you're right. It's easily broken. However, the act of adding even the most rudimentary protection firmly states that your network is off limits The issue at hand is not whether it can be hacked. The issue is whether you're allowed in. Of course I recommend stronger measures. You do make a good point though. The problem is that in most instances, adding a WEP key is usually easier than implementing a 2 part 256-bit AES/Twofish scheme.
I would love it if you could define 'hacking' in such a manner that it includes accessing an open network. If your network is accessed by no other means than both the laptop and the router working exactly as they are designed to, there is no hacking involved. Hacking, by definition, means using something in a manner other than designed. 'Cracking' might be the term you are searching for, but even then, it entails the malicious entry of a protected system. If my 7 year old niece can push a single button and access your network, it's not hacking, cracking, or for in any sense something she should be at risk of jail time.
As for the issue of entry, and the sentience of your router, I will recycle other posts in this thread. Your router, while not a sentient being IS making choices as to who to allow to enter into the network, and is acting on the instructions provided by you. If you, in the absense of any instruction, allow the router to allow anyone access to your system, that is your problem. The router is perfectly capable of making the choice to allow you and no one else access to your system. But it will not do this on its own. It requires an action on your part. If your daughter is not given instructions by you NOT to talk to me, she probably will if I follow the rules of etiquette, or, "protocol". Similar that your router will talk to me absent of instructions from you to do otherwise if I use the correct "protocol".
Again, your car is a bad analogy because it assumes physical presence. I am trespassing with the radio waves from my laptop. Unfortunately, so are every cell phone carrier (aside from whatever one you subscribe to) every radio station, every CB user in range, every broadcast TV signal, every military/police communication, etc. The FCC, or any other regulatory agency, including state and federal government does not have a law against EM waves invading your property. So, leaving your router out of the equation (and addressing it in the paragraph above) and speaking solely of access, neither your original analogy, nor your new one stand ground in this argument.
Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to RTFM. TFM will tell the user to enable WEP or WPA-PSK.
Or Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to [lock his car]. TFM [for the car] will tell the user [how to lock and unlock the car].
Hmm... nope. The onus is on YOU to respect other people's properties and services.
True, but there is not a clear violation here. You have not damaged their property (if we are only talking about access, and not, for example, gleaning private information off another computer on the same WLAN), and have not done anything outside of the way in which the equipment was designed.
Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP. In fact, that is the intended purpose of a WAP in the first place!
No, the intended purpose of the WAP is to allow the OWNER to connect to the WAP. Not you.
Not at all true. The AP was designed to grant computers access to a network. The purpose that the OWNER has in mind is up to them, and is not presupposed by the manufacturer or the law (currently).
. . . and somehow this is being clumped in with computer misuse and unauthorized access laws? How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broacasting an invitation to connect to an open network? Hello, McFly? Anyone home? Come on McFly!
The same way you can't just walk into my home or evasdrop on my phone calls if I'm using a cordless phone.
Flawed analogy. First off, there is no physical presence inside your home. Second, there is a 2-way communication happening here, not just my computer "eavesdropping" on your network. A more fitting analogy would be if you didn't want anyone to talk to your nubile teenage daughter (let's say of legal age for the sake of further argument), but didn't make it expressly clear. So, if I stood at the edge of your property and chatted her up on the balcony without your knowledge, we would be in the same situation. I might have committed an affront to you, but not to your daughter, and not to the law.
I think you might want to spend a little more time thinking about this. If you pay your water bill and run your sprinklers, and that water runs off your property, you have no rights to get upset if someone comes by and gathers that water up (once it's off your property) and uses it for their own purposes. If you pay your electric bill and power your garage band, and I'm next door enjoying your tunes, you don't have any legal recourse to keep me from sitting on my property and collecting the sound wave that travel beyond your property. It's not that you might not have a point. It's that your analogy is full of holes.
The problem here is that there is an ambiguity of intent. SOME people (and it doesn't even have to be a large number) keep their wireless connection open on purpose. To assume that it is automatically an unwelcome act to enter an unsecured network is flawed logic. As is to assume that either AP owners or laptop users are all ignorant or devious.
While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.
Slashdot Mirror
Anymore, the power company in your area may possibly have a green energy plan. Here in Indianapolis, the local power company will hook you up to wind power in 25% increments of your total power consumption for a small per KWh charge. I use about 750 KWh a month, and I think it costs me an extra 4 or 5 bucks for 100% wind power, which I'm happy to pay.
This means that the only real reason to go solar is to get off the grid, and stop paying for electricity altogether. The "save the Earth" drive is taken out of the equation, and all you have left is a general desire to get "free" power, with an entirely too expensive means of achieving that desire.
Since I live in the midwest, where the solar rate isn't fantastic, I'm looking at pretty much covering my entire roof with solar panels to get the power I need. To the tune of about $40,000. That's a third of the price of my house. If solar companies want to stay in business in a world where green power is becoming more common at the service provider level, the costs are going to need to come WAY down.
I've heard the prez (elect) talk about subsidies, which is cool, but if the purpose is to "reduce our dependance on foreign oil", any subsidy given to a person getting a solar rig in an area that provides cheap wind power is taking tax money for no reason. I'd love to have a little (or a lot of) government help in going solar, but the fact is, I can't justify it.
As more "green" opportunities come to market, mostly translating to electricity usage (electric cars, electrically powered instant water heaters, etc.) I can see a very real and very near reality where I'm powering all aspects of my life on green power. It would be awesome if I could do it for free, (net the cost difference after paying the premium for the technology), and I suppose it would benefit the economy as a whole if no one was paying for home electricity, to power their automobile, heat their home/water, etc., but while the technology exists/is very close at hand to do this, the singularity where it becomes attainable by the average american is significantly further away.
I see where this is going...
Company buys up billions of dollars worth of IP (cheaply, due to the business concept), promising never to use it.
Company gets bought out, at a reasonable price considering all they own, since they're "not really the IP owners".
New company decides it's not bound by previous company's ethics, decides to call in the lawyers for the billions of dollars worth of IP.
New company litigates the living shit out of everyone.
New company buys out other companies using the money won from being sued for using their own IP.
New company now owns 50.1% of the world.
Can someone verify the whereabouts of Pinky and The Brain please? I'm getting a little nervous.
I think this technology will eventually end up paired with some of the speech recognition technology, (like what Ford and Microsoft have put out recently), and this will do away with the keyboard (although I'd still keep a spare sitting in a drawer, just like I do now for my headless servers).
I think sound and video editing will be a good application for this, but honestly, I think it will be a while before I walk in to a local midwestern TV station and see them using this tech.
On the other hand, I could definitely see this taking off with the rich gadget crowd. I have kind of an embarrassing lust for high end tech (I just built an 8-core, 32GB RAM 4TB HD workstation for use as my home office computer ((I do a little sound editing on the side))), and I just sat here for 5 minutes trying to envision how I would paint the walls of my home office with that projection-friendly paint, and throw up a bunch of projectors. If the price point were right, and the projector market saw this as a natural pairing, thereby offering combo deals to get this concept into the main stream, I definitely think this application has a place in the home. I think for general browsing and OS desktop manipulation, this application fits. Again, only if the price is within reason after taking into consideration that you have to completely rethink the way a home office or home theater is set up.
Imagine, though, sitting in a comfy chair in the middle of an empty room, with projected interfaces on 3 of the 4 walls, and a medium size (~35-45") LCD touch panel sitting before you. All your text entry is done via voice recognition. Basic commands are spoken, and then the media that is brought up through applications and web browsers is manipulated by the Oblong application. I could see it working. It is the further evolution of the geek paradise.
Arrgghhh... Scratch what I said before. New master, same slavery. The medium-view images are nice to look at but I tried blowing one up to a decent size and it's pretty heavy on artifacts. The high rez version has a nice big TIME watermark on it. However, the option to fram any print at a somewhat reasonable price ($80-$110 depending on size) is definitely a plus, and I think I may still act on it. It's still about a tenth of the price I was getitng from GI to get a full res print.
Lifelike... you betcha. I've been dying to get my hands on some Margaret Bourke-White images without having to pay Getty Images a few grand per print. Her pictures give a lifelike experience of what it was like to be in so many historical places back in the 40's. It's good that I can finally view these images without having to deall with GI's rediculous pricing policies.
Getty Images has long been the world's largest intellectual property holder. While the general public can get a hold of some of their holdings as prints through poster companies, etc., it's a very small percentage of what they have, and they make no apparent effort to deal with end consumers directly.
While this seems like just a nifty place to view pictured for some, I see it as a victory for those that oppose intellectual property abuse.
As much tequila as I've put away in the past, I'm thinking I should have examined more closely the output from a recent bout with kidney stones...
Personally, I think I'm going to pay the extra money for a vanity tag, and solve everyone's problem the first time I'm scanned.
I think they need to revisit Freelancer. That game wasn't exactly a MMO, as you were on a relatively small, locally run server (always hated that I'd have to start from scratch if I was at a LAN party and someone wanted to play on a different server), but if they fleshed it out so that it wasn't quite so repetitive, that game would have kicked all kinds of ass. Basically, the combat system was pretty cool, though even it could use a bit of polish. If you were to add in a rich character development and storyline, you'd have... well, you'd have the makings of a good Firefly MMO.
Firefly has the potential to break the back of WoW because it already has a fantastic "grind" system in place, one that allows for maximum enjoyment and time-sink without the "I'm gonna go kill tree frogs for 3 hours to get a new chest piece". Plus, for all those college professors who clearly don't have enough work to do, the economic ramifications are staggering with this game, assuming they can do a little to curb gold farmers, similar to WoW (you'll notice while there is inflation, it's not astronomic, like say SWG). Depending on how much of a traipse it is to get to outer rim planets, I could see the exchange rate differing greatly between planets/moons. That, and the existence of different types of currency. One could probably make a decent living as a currency changer on Persephone.
I have reason to hope, but I'm trying my best to keep my feet on the ground.
I friggin love this site. And here's about as cheap as you're gonna get. Though it won't exactly test your landlines.
http://www.electronickits.com/kit/complete/fibe/ck1500.htm
I disagree with your first statement. I think it depends on what sport you are talking about. Take football for example, where even from an early age, many kids who show a genetic or physical aptitude for the sport begin training to become specialized athletic instruments. In Texas, and other southern states, it is not terribly uncommon for parents to hold their children back a year in school so that they will be bigger to compete in football.
At the professional level, our current stock of "drug free" football players are some of the most fearsome and amazing physical specimens to ever walk the earth. And the willingness already inherent to the sport to risk life and limb for results is already accepted by both athlete and fan. Do some reading on what it's like to be a lineman in between games or off season. Read about how a lot of these former players have completely ruined their bodies in regard to retirement. The nature of game as I describe here would welcome the next stage in human evolution. Players who are accustomed to sacrificing their bodies for the game will gladly volunteer for doping, "bionic" body treatments and the like. Plus, since our society is unfortunately much more centered on professional sports, than on education and science, doing so will immediately create a high budget research field for human enhancement, both at the molecular and the tissue levels. No one is holding a gun to these athletes' heads, (not in this country anyway) telling them to do these things to themselves. If a grown man of consentual age wants to put himself in harm's way, I see no need to intervene.
I second that motion. TIE Fighter was definitely one of the best games of all time. LucasArts really had a streak going there for a while where everything they touched turned to gold. TIE Fighter, Full Throttle, Monkey Island, Dark Forces... I remember Star Wars Rebellion moved me into a completely new genre of vidja games. Recently, I played the first Galactic Battlegrounds, and as soon as I got over the spiffy graphics, I realized the company doesn't have the same outstanding sparkle it used to.
I don't have lawyers for clients, I have lawyers for users (way worse in most respects...). I will say that this is by far the best funded IT department I've ever worked for. The only downside is, once you pick a solution, there's no going back to them and saying you changed your mind, you need more money for a different product. Makes no difference that that decision was made like 10 years ago, by someone else.
OK, you got me there. :)
But just for the record, I have done my best to take action, and been shut down by my pointy haired boss.
Wrong company. I'm hesitating posting their "website", but they're based out of PA, not ID. Still pretty disadvantaged though, I'd say.
Wow... Lot of comments. Shouldn't have stepped away from /. for so long.
The problem isn't if there is a program out there better suited to the task. The problem is I'm a low man on a large IT team, and this is the software that has been chosen. Period. No amount of logic will persuade them to pick a different vendor, now that it has been implemented to some 800 users. Yes, my boss has pointy hair. If there is any Ask Slashdot question due, it is "Is anyone hiring?" I'm tasked with keeping this program up and running, despite the fact it sucks and support is almost nonexistent. It was no big deal for the last application support guy, but he was here for 17 years, and didn't write documentation. So, now when something breaks, I have to reinvent the wheel, and asking the vendor for support is (when I can actually get a hold of them) iffy at best.
Good god do I hear you, brother. I work IT for a legal firm. So many little apps no one else in IT has ever even heard of. And most of them, you're talking to the same guy for support that developed it, and filled the sales order. Out of his basement or garage. Multi-million dollar a year law firm, and it can be brought to its knees if one of our obscure applications goes down and needs support, and the one guy that can support it is out taking his kids to soccer practice.
I'm looking at you North Winds Software. I'll BUY a support contract! If you offered such a thing. If you answered the phone.
I need to go back to bed. :(
And he'll write a book.
Too late... He already did.
Definitely worth a click to read the comments, the accompanying recommended items (The Joy of Gay Sex?) and the tags. Comedy gold.
You are correct in this. However, I would love to know how many occasions JT has actually made it through a trial without resorting to flailing his arms about and sputtering out sentance fragments. I have a deep seated belief that this is why he does what he does today. When he's filing briefs and suits based on what he believes is morally right, he's not acting on behalf of a paying client. Who in their right mind is going to hire an attorney with this guy's record of shenanigans? It would not surprise me in the least to learn that he took up this cause as a last resort because acting the way he does now completely screwed him out of a client base at one point earlier on in his career.
I understand what you're saying, and I've heard this argument before. The trouble with it is, the logic is a little flawed. Yes, right now JT is the most vocal critic of video games, and yes, he's clearly off his nut. The thing is, there is no rule saying there can only be one heavily publicized video game critic. If someone else wanted to step up and fight Rockstar, et al., if they are as good at putting together a logical argument as you fear, they will find a way to get their point across. And, more than likely, may supplant JT since he seems to be going down in flames at the moment. My point is, if someone is out there trying to denounce video games, he is not being held back my JT presence. That, and I doubt many people would take JT's removal from the public eye as martyrdom, so I don't think him being tied up and put in a burlap sack (just a for instance, not suggesting anyone beat him with canes and set him on fire or anything) would bring another ring leader out of the woodwork like you think.
It's probably bad that the first thing I thought of was, "damn... no more watching porn in the living room"... ...or watching TV without pants ...or making out on the couch ...or building bombs on the coffee table
No, you're right. It's easily broken. However, the act of adding even the most rudimentary protection firmly states that your network is off limits The issue at hand is not whether it can be hacked. The issue is whether you're allowed in. Of course I recommend stronger measures. You do make a good point though. The problem is that in most instances, adding a WEP key is usually easier than implementing a 2 part 256-bit AES/Twofish scheme.
I would love it if you could define 'hacking' in such a manner that it includes accessing an open network. If your network is accessed by no other means than both the laptop and the router working exactly as they are designed to, there is no hacking involved. Hacking, by definition, means using something in a manner other than designed. 'Cracking' might be the term you are searching for, but even then, it entails the malicious entry of a protected system. If my 7 year old niece can push a single button and access your network, it's not hacking, cracking, or for in any sense something she should be at risk of jail time.
As for the issue of entry, and the sentience of your router, I will recycle other posts in this thread. Your router, while not a sentient being IS making choices as to who to allow to enter into the network, and is acting on the instructions provided by you. If you, in the absense of any instruction, allow the router to allow anyone access to your system, that is your problem. The router is perfectly capable of making the choice to allow you and no one else access to your system. But it will not do this on its own. It requires an action on your part. If your daughter is not given instructions by you NOT to talk to me, she probably will if I follow the rules of etiquette, or, "protocol". Similar that your router will talk to me absent of instructions from you to do otherwise if I use the correct "protocol".
Again, your car is a bad analogy because it assumes physical presence. I am trespassing with the radio waves from my laptop. Unfortunately, so are every cell phone carrier (aside from whatever one you subscribe to) every radio station, every CB user in range, every broadcast TV signal, every military/police communication, etc. The FCC, or any other regulatory agency, including state and federal government does not have a law against EM waves invading your property. So, leaving your router out of the equation (and addressing it in the paragraph above) and speaking solely of access, neither your original analogy, nor your new one stand ground in this argument.
Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to RTFM. TFM will tell the user to enable WEP or WPA-PSK.
Or Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to [lock his car]. TFM [for the car] will tell the user [how to lock and unlock the car].
Hmm... nope. The onus is on YOU to respect other people's properties and services.
True, but there is not a clear violation here. You have not damaged their property (if we are only talking about access, and not, for example, gleaning private information off another computer on the same WLAN), and have not done anything outside of the way in which the equipment was designed.
Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP. In fact, that is the intended purpose of a WAP in the first place!
No, the intended purpose of the WAP is to allow the OWNER to connect to the WAP. Not you.
Not at all true. The AP was designed to grant computers access to a network. The purpose that the OWNER has in mind is up to them, and is not presupposed by the manufacturer or the law (currently).
. . . and somehow this is being clumped in with computer misuse and unauthorized access laws? How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broacasting an invitation to connect to an open network? Hello, McFly? Anyone home? Come on McFly!
The same way you can't just walk into my home or evasdrop on my phone calls if I'm using a cordless phone.
Flawed analogy. First off, there is no physical presence inside your home. Second, there is a 2-way communication happening here, not just my computer "eavesdropping" on your network. A more fitting analogy would be if you didn't want anyone to talk to your nubile teenage daughter (let's say of legal age for the sake of further argument), but didn't make it expressly clear. So, if I stood at the edge of your property and chatted her up on the balcony without your knowledge, we would be in the same situation. I might have committed an affront to you, but not to your daughter, and not to the law.
I think you might want to spend a little more time thinking about this. If you pay your water bill and run your sprinklers, and that water runs off your property, you have no rights to get upset if someone comes by and gathers that water up (once it's off your property) and uses it for their own purposes.
If you pay your electric bill and power your garage band, and I'm next door enjoying your tunes, you don't have any legal recourse to keep me from sitting on my property and collecting the sound wave that travel beyond your property.
It's not that you might not have a point. It's that your analogy is full of holes.
The problem here is that there is an ambiguity of intent. SOME people (and it doesn't even have to be a large number) keep their wireless connection open on purpose. To assume that it is automatically an unwelcome act to enter an unsecured network is flawed logic. As is to assume that either AP owners or laptop users are all ignorant or devious.
While not the easiest solution to implement, the most logical solution would be to simply require AP manufacturers to default routers to a closed network. Either using a default WEP/WPA/Etc. key, or with a mandatory setup upon installation (a la the runonce screen you get in IE the first time you open it). This takes the ambiguity out of the equation and allows all users who do not want their networks open to lock them down, even in the face of computer illiteracy. Then, if a network is open, it is set that way by choice, and conversely, if a user logs on to a closed network without authorization, there is a clear intent to trespass.