"there's nothing that access point is doing that's giving you permission to use it."
What can you possibly mean? The access point is doing the fundamental thing that indicates I have permission to use it. It's giving me access! If the access point wasn't doing anything that gave me permission to use it, then I wouldn't be able to use it. That is how the thing implicitly works.
Your golf course analogy flat out fails. You say "If I break onto a private golf course." Requesting and being given an IP from an access point isn't anything close to breaking into a place. Thats like breaking securty to have the wireless access, something I said I don't agress with. Using an open wireless access point is more like going to the pro shop and asking "Can I have a tee time?" and the pro replying "Yes" and assigning one to you. You didn't sneak in, they let you in.
Ok, with a single television, you are pretty much limited to watching the stream from 1 channel at one time. With internet, you can get several streams from multiple sources at once. So, when someone else flips the channel of the television, the entire use of that television is redirected to the new channel.
When someone uses your wireless network to access the internet, yes a resource does become unavailable to you, no doubt. However, the entire use of that resource is not suddenly redirected to the new users requests. This is a huge difference between the two. In one case of television, your watching something, someone changes the channel, and you no longer have access to what you were previsouly watching. With wireless internet, you're shoutcast stream will likely continue to play, you can still browse the web, etc. You haven't lost complete control over the resource. Furthermore, most people aren't even using 100% of all the bandwidth available to them. So, yes you have lost SOME control, but not all. Yes, it is possible for someone to hog so much bandwidth that your experience slows to an unusable crawl, but I'm simply illustrating that yes, there is a difference. That's not any kind of justification for using their bandwidth. That's simply the difference between the two.
I think that the justification for using someone's wireless connection is simply necessity. I have a wireless enabled device. You are providing wireless access. It is common sense to put 2+2 together and use the resource that was made available to you by the owner. Once again, I have to reiterate that the owner MADE this available to you. You didn't break security, you didn't threaten them or coerce them to do this. By their own free will, they have set up their wireless network to allow connections fom the outside world. If they didn't want the outside world connecting to their network they obviously would have set it up in that way. Some people seem to feel that this is not OK, as some people are ignorant in the ways to properly set up a device they own. First, I have to say tough shit to those igorant people. They should understand how to work the things they own. Thier ignorance is not my problem. Second of all, there seems to be lots of support in legislating this, and making it a crime. I wish I could round the people up that support this and kick them the fuck out of this country. Legislation will NOT fix the underlying problem. The problem is the ignorance of people who willingly configure their device to allow outside connections without wanting that functionality. The answer to the problem is Education. Legislating this will simply ensure that the masses continue to remain ignorant, and not educated themselves, as Big Brother has their back. So as a result, we end up with more laws on the books, more peopl in jail, and society that remains ignorant. How can this be a desireable result?
I'm not giving any legal advice. If anyone has taken anything I've said as "legal advice" they need a lot more than a real fucking lawyer. A big fat reality check maybe. I'm simply posing my unprofessional opinion on what I think should be legal behavior. Not on what is or isn't legal, but what I personally think should be. And as I said, I believe that we should have the freedom to take advantage of some nitwit that has made their internet connection available over a wireless network.
see if you don't end up with a brain-full of lead.
See thats what I'm talking about. Personal responsibility. While I really don't consider the radio waves that carry signals to and from my pc to a wireless access point as "private property", if the person who set up the wireless network let it be known that anyone intruding on the network would end up with a "brain-full of lead" they would probably have a significant reduction of users piggybacking on their internet connection. Or they could simply secure the damn thing. I fully support your right to threaten people to get the fuck off your property. It is yours afterall. But at what line would you bust out the shotgun? Would you point it at some kids who were taking a shortcut to the park via your back yard? Or just some homeless guy who decided to take a nap under a tree in your yard? Where's the cutoff? Granted, you are legally entitled to do what ever you want. This is more of an Asshole cut off line I guess.
But it is a HUGE stretch to compare physical property to the concept of a wireless internet connection. I'll take a shot though. Say you haver a fenced in backyard with a swimming pool. An unsecured wireless internet connection is more like leaving the fence open with a sign that says "swim at your leisure." If you don't want people in your fucking pool, you take the sign down and lock the gate. You don't leave things as they are and complain about it when people use it.
Oh, and ending your post with "Moron" makes you look real fucking intelligent...
"This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization."
Identity theft.
The parent suggested it was as if someone ransacked their living room. I was referring back to this analogy. Identify theft is certainly not the same as ransacking a livingroom.
"If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves."
Geeks make lousy lawyers.
So, you really don't think you should be able to receive radio waves and interact with them accordingly based on standard protocols? That is fucking crazy man. What next, are we going to outlaw physics completely?
Yes, it is their internet connection. However, they have made their available to the outside world for everyone to access. The fact that they did not dictate that they did not want outside users accessing their internet is not my problem. Why should I assume that they didn't want me on? That's not my call to make.
This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization. Perhaps, if the house were locked, I'd have to bypass your security. I already agree that bypassing someone's security in order to use their network shouldn't be legal. Next I would have to remove things from your house. I suppose this might be equated to taking up bandwidth. However, a few simple clicks is all it takes to kick someone off your network, secure it, and reclaim that lost bandwidth. You can't really do that with physical possessions. It's apples and oranges. Finally, there is a fundamental difference between acessing someones house without authorization and someones wireless network without authorization. The wireless network is being broadcast out into the world. An unlocked door is not broadcasting anything to anyone It's not saying "Hey I'm here to be used by anyone", while wireless access is. I don't have to enter your property or your household or force entry or anything. I can access to it from public space, the street under your apartment, or the park across the street. Or, I can even access it from my own private space, ie I live in the apartment next store. I should be able to take whatever radio signals that enter my personal space or domain, or what ever public space I happen to be in, and manipulate and use them accordingly. If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves.
I really don't think this is a good comparison either. Flipping the television channel to seomthing else is not really the same as sharing bandwidth. It's more like if I was trying to browse the web and you somehow kept typing in a different URL than one that I wanted to goto. Additionally, there is not a mechanism built into to the TV to allow only your remote control to change its channels. Wireless routers have the ability to only allow traffic from your specific MAC, or explicity specified MACs. If this were built into television, and all remotes had unique ID's, then you could set it so only your remote could possibly change the channel, or your set of remotes. If that were the case, I would say that someone standing outside with their own remote, switching the channel and fucking with you would have all the legal right to do it. You have the capabilites to prevent this from happening. That doesn't mean that the person outside your window isn't an asshole, but he certainly shouldn't be arrested.
Television service is simply fundamentally different than internet service, especially in the way you pose your scenario. In the case of wireless networks, you're actually broadcasting out to the immediate area over radio frequencies, that anyone with the proper equipment can pick up. In terms of television, you're not broadcasting anything to the world. You're receiving the broadcast. Someone watching in through your window is not taking away any resources from you. I guess they could get a splitter and hijack the signal from your cable box, but at that point, they're not really stealing from you, they're stealing from the Cable company.
Anyway, I'm having trouble bring it all together here. My point isn't that wardriving is socially acceptable or unacceptable. I'm not saying you aren't a jerk if you abuse someones connection, or that you are. All I'm saying is that if you don't take the proper precautions to secure your wireless network, it should be fully within the law for someone else to take advantage of it. This issue can be completly sidelined if one would simply secure their network.
"So if I can't adequately physically defend myself, is it my fault for being mugged? Of course not."
This comparison is rediculous. You can't simply check a few security settings on youself and be "secure" from a mugger. You can however do just that to secure your wireless network from outside users.
"The ISP down the road has to recoup their costs, and who pays?"
Gee I'd say this was pretty simple. First off, most broadband accounts are capped in terms of upstream and downstream to prevent this very problem your're describing. This in itself makes it a non-issue from the ISP standpoint. If they somehow DID incur unexpected costs related to a single account, I would expect the account holder to pay for it, no question. They have their network configured to allow unlimited outside access to their internet connection, so they should be the one to pay for the costs incurred through the use of that account. If they don't want to pay these extra costs, than they should SECURE THEIR FUCKING NETWORK.
Ok, I can agree with you that maybe there should be a big sticker on the box with some warnings, but the fact that Joe Somebody has no time or interest in actually learning about the product he intends to buy doesn't pull any sympathy from me. The fact that he is actually listening, and TAKING the advice of a Best Buy sales rep proves that Joe Somebody's an idiot. The fact that Joe Somebody won't even read the manual just reiterates this point. I have exactly ZERO sympathy for people like this. They are simply lazy and feel that actually learning about whatever it may be will take too much of their precious time and effort. I'm not saying they need to understand the underlying protocols or anything like that, but you simply don't drive when you don't know the rules of the road.
"Never underestimate the ignorance of Joe Somebody."
I have certainly not underestimated the ignorance of Joe Sombody, in fact, I expect it. But these people who put exactly zero amount of effort into undrstanding what they are getting into simply deserve to get fucked. In this case, they deserve to have people taking advantage of their wireless network. I'll say it again. They DESERVE it. Ignorance is simply NOT an excuse, any I refuse to feel sorry for poor ol' Joe Somebody. With a little time and effort, he could have just as easily saved money on internet service and a wireless router by taking advantage of his neighbor's unsecured network, who once again due to his attitude of "I don't want to understand" would have DESERVED to be taken advantage of. Personal responsibility over your domain. It's a simple concept people.
Sounds like an interesting idea, in theory, but somehow I think it is going to be a lot more complicated than simply "hitching a ride" on Soyuz. The strapped for cash Russian space program might charge an arm and a leg to let us do that. Such a deal might also entail letting the Russians have use of the telescope for certain periods or other tradeoffs, some I'm not sure would fly politically. I'm not really sure how International the Hubble effort was though, maybe they get to use it anyway. Maybe someone more in the know could shine some more light on this idea.
As a few have already pointed out, War Driving has some murky legal waters surrounding it. I hope that the people involved in the creation of this map don't suddenly wake up with the FBI bursting through their doors and a DOJ lawsuit involving intent to facilitate illegal activities/hacking/terrorism/etc. I really wouldn't put it past the DOJ in this day and age.
Personally I think using someones wireless network without their authorization should be perfectly acceptable. These people should have properly configured their networks if they didn't want people using them. If they use the network access to own the hosts box, that's one story, but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime. You're only partaking in activities that the host allowed through his security settings. If they didn't want to allow it, they should either fix their secuirty settings, or not set up a wireless access point when they obviously had no clue what they were doing. Ignorance of security should be no excuse. If you don't want people piggybacking your wireless connection, configure it properly, don't whine about it to the DOJ. You only have yourself to blame.
Wasn't this the original plan before people let their knee-jerk reactions get the best of them? This plan is obviously better than the one the save Hubble. There is no question Hubble is begining to show its age. Why risk 1.5 billion on a "rescue" mission, when there is no guarantee that some other aging system won't malfunction in another 6 months anyway? Would we be willing to spend another 1.5 billion fixing that? No, the answer is clear: Build a new Space telescope using newer, cheaper, smaller, more powerful technology. To me, it is like the Social Security isuue. It's obvious the current system is broke and won't be able to sustain itself. Lets scrap it and come up with something better that will be more cost efficient with better results. Why people come up with these knee-jerk reactions defending a broken system is beyond me. Just afraid of change I guess.
"Only problem is there is no R rating (or AV or X for that matter) for games."
I would say the only problem is that the Australian goverment finds it justifiable to ban these perfectly acceptable forms of free expression. Why citizens find this blatent government oppression acceptable is beyond me.
If I have to decide between listening to you, and listening to the company that owns three quarters of the online music market and three quarters of the portable music player market, I think I'll listen to the company.
"If I have to decide between listening to you, and listening to the company that owns three quarters of the Web Browser market and three quarters of the Operating Systems market, I think I'll listen to the company."
Bahhh, Bahhh, Dumb sheep. Have you any wool pulled over your eyes? I'm not saying you should listen to this guy, but saying you'll listen instead to a company simply because of their market share is crazy. By that logic we can all just take Microsoft's word for everything and disregard those looney open source characters.
I really don't see the point in this. If you want to support open standards (as you should) then simply.... use open standards. We all know it. This isn't telling us anything we don't know already. People who aren't using them aren't checking out the OpenGroup's web site. This "Developer Declaration of Independence" is just another fluffy mission statement. Yeah it sounds great, but is it actually going to DO anything to help the problem?
Meanwhile the new government, national institutions or regular Iraqis are having to register themselves as ".com," ".org" or ".net".
Dagnabbit! Those domains belong to God's Blessed America! Not the international community! Give em a TLD of their own that won't infringe on our territory. Perhaps.us
Gee, maybe they could make the results of any unresolved queries forward users to a handy search page, instead of returning an appropriate 'not found' response!
"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."
I wonder if Tom Galvin and Darl spend late nights together working on clever metaphors to use in press releases related to their lawsuits...
82 How to win friends and influence record sales.
"We won't win any popularity contests. We don't really care what people think."--Recording Industry Association of America spokeswoman Amy Weiss, on the group's decision to file lawsuits against customers accused of Internet file sharing, including a 12-year-old New York girl and a 65-year-old Massachusetts grandmother. U.S. record sales remain stagnant after the RIAA launches its campaign in the courts, and an appeals court bans the RIAA's legal methods in December.
Am I missing something? Wasn't the point that these methods are illegal? It needs to be drilled into more people's heads that the RIAA is a group of thieves conducting illegal business practices (price fixing for one.) They need to be identified as the #1 law breakers and absolute WORST enemy to music industry.
It really makes me sick to continuously read in articles about China being a hotbed of video game piracy. The PS2 was JUST released there? You gotta be fuckin kidding me. How long has it been out in the US? Japan? 4-5 years or something? No wonder the Chinese have to pirate all that software because THEY WEREN'T EVEN RELEASING IT to them in the first place. This behaviour is forced onto those who want to play games on a reasaonble timetable with the rest of the modern world, not 5 years later. You leave them no choice but to turn to the bootleggers. This problem is obviously of the industries own making, and to fix it, they bitch and moan and push for all sorts of overreaching IP laws. I say clean up your own spilled milk morons.
Slashdot Mirror
"there's nothing that access point is doing that's giving you permission to use it."
What can you possibly mean? The access point is doing the fundamental thing that indicates I have permission to use it. It's giving me access! If the access point wasn't doing anything that gave me permission to use it, then I wouldn't be able to use it. That is how the thing implicitly works.
Your golf course analogy flat out fails. You say "If I break onto a private golf course." Requesting and being given an IP from an access point isn't anything close to breaking into a place. Thats like breaking securty to have the wireless access, something I said I don't agress with. Using an open wireless access point is more like going to the pro shop and asking "Can I have a tee time?" and the pro replying "Yes" and assigning one to you. You didn't sneak in, they let you in.
Ok, with a single television, you are pretty much limited to watching the stream from 1 channel at one time. With internet, you can get several streams from multiple sources at once. So, when someone else flips the channel of the television, the entire use of that television is redirected to the new channel. When someone uses your wireless network to access the internet, yes a resource does become unavailable to you, no doubt. However, the entire use of that resource is not suddenly redirected to the new users requests. This is a huge difference between the two. In one case of television, your watching something, someone changes the channel, and you no longer have access to what you were previsouly watching. With wireless internet, you're shoutcast stream will likely continue to play, you can still browse the web, etc. You haven't lost complete control over the resource. Furthermore, most people aren't even using 100% of all the bandwidth available to them. So, yes you have lost SOME control, but not all. Yes, it is possible for someone to hog so much bandwidth that your experience slows to an unusable crawl, but I'm simply illustrating that yes, there is a difference. That's not any kind of justification for using their bandwidth. That's simply the difference between the two.
I think that the justification for using someone's wireless connection is simply necessity. I have a wireless enabled device. You are providing wireless access. It is common sense to put 2+2 together and use the resource that was made available to you by the owner. Once again, I have to reiterate that the owner MADE this available to you. You didn't break security, you didn't threaten them or coerce them to do this. By their own free will, they have set up their wireless network to allow connections fom the outside world. If they didn't want the outside world connecting to their network they obviously would have set it up in that way. Some people seem to feel that this is not OK, as some people are ignorant in the ways to properly set up a device they own. First, I have to say tough shit to those igorant people. They should understand how to work the things they own. Thier ignorance is not my problem. Second of all, there seems to be lots of support in legislating this, and making it a crime. I wish I could round the people up that support this and kick them the fuck out of this country. Legislation will NOT fix the underlying problem. The problem is the ignorance of people who willingly configure their device to allow outside connections without wanting that functionality. The answer to the problem is Education. Legislating this will simply ensure that the masses continue to remain ignorant, and not educated themselves, as Big Brother has their back. So as a result, we end up with more laws on the books, more peopl in jail, and society that remains ignorant. How can this be a desireable result?
The fact that the network assigns me a IP address and starts routing packets to my network interface IS the sign.
I'm not giving any legal advice. If anyone has taken anything I've said as "legal advice" they need a lot more than a real fucking lawyer. A big fat reality check maybe. I'm simply posing my unprofessional opinion on what I think should be legal behavior. Not on what is or isn't legal, but what I personally think should be. And as I said, I believe that we should have the freedom to take advantage of some nitwit that has made their internet connection available over a wireless network.
see if you don't end up with a brain-full of lead.
See thats what I'm talking about. Personal responsibility. While I really don't consider the radio waves that carry signals to and from my pc to a wireless access point as "private property", if the person who set up the wireless network let it be known that anyone intruding on the network would end up with a "brain-full of lead" they would probably have a significant reduction of users piggybacking on their internet connection. Or they could simply secure the damn thing. I fully support your right to threaten people to get the fuck off your property. It is yours afterall. But at what line would you bust out the shotgun? Would you point it at some kids who were taking a shortcut to the park via your back yard? Or just some homeless guy who decided to take a nap under a tree in your yard? Where's the cutoff? Granted, you are legally entitled to do what ever you want. This is more of an Asshole cut off line I guess. But it is a HUGE stretch to compare physical property to the concept of a wireless internet connection. I'll take a shot though. Say you haver a fenced in backyard with a swimming pool. An unsecured wireless internet connection is more like leaving the fence open with a sign that says "swim at your leisure." If you don't want people in your fucking pool, you take the sign down and lock the gate. You don't leave things as they are and complain about it when people use it.
Oh, and ending your post with "Moron" makes you look real fucking intelligent...
"This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization."
Identity theft.
The parent suggested it was as if someone ransacked their living room. I was referring back to this analogy. Identify theft is certainly not the same as ransacking a livingroom.
"If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves."
Geeks make lousy lawyers.
So, you really don't think you should be able to receive radio waves and interact with them accordingly based on standard protocols? That is fucking crazy man. What next, are we going to outlaw physics completely?
Yes, it is their internet connection. However, they have made their available to the outside world for everyone to access. The fact that they did not dictate that they did not want outside users accessing their internet is not my problem. Why should I assume that they didn't want me on? That's not my call to make.
This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization. Perhaps, if the house were locked, I'd have to bypass your security. I already agree that bypassing someone's security in order to use their network shouldn't be legal. Next I would have to remove things from your house. I suppose this might be equated to taking up bandwidth. However, a few simple clicks is all it takes to kick someone off your network, secure it, and reclaim that lost bandwidth. You can't really do that with physical possessions. It's apples and oranges.
Finally, there is a fundamental difference between acessing someones house without authorization and someones wireless network without authorization. The wireless network is being broadcast out into the world. An unlocked door is not broadcasting anything to anyone It's not saying "Hey I'm here to be used by anyone", while wireless access is. I don't have to enter your property or your household or force entry or anything. I can access to it from public space, the street under your apartment, or the park across the street. Or, I can even access it from my own private space, ie I live in the apartment next store. I should be able to take whatever radio signals that enter my personal space or domain, or what ever public space I happen to be in, and manipulate and use them accordingly. If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves.
I really don't think this is a good comparison either. Flipping the television channel to seomthing else is not really the same as sharing bandwidth. It's more like if I was trying to browse the web and you somehow kept typing in a different URL than one that I wanted to goto. Additionally, there is not a mechanism built into to the TV to allow only your remote control to change its channels. Wireless routers have the ability to only allow traffic from your specific MAC, or explicity specified MACs. If this were built into television, and all remotes had unique ID's, then you could set it so only your remote could possibly change the channel, or your set of remotes. If that were the case, I would say that someone standing outside with their own remote, switching the channel and fucking with you would have all the legal right to do it. You have the capabilites to prevent this from happening. That doesn't mean that the person outside your window isn't an asshole, but he certainly shouldn't be arrested. Television service is simply fundamentally different than internet service, especially in the way you pose your scenario. In the case of wireless networks, you're actually broadcasting out to the immediate area over radio frequencies, that anyone with the proper equipment can pick up. In terms of television, you're not broadcasting anything to the world. You're receiving the broadcast. Someone watching in through your window is not taking away any resources from you. I guess they could get a splitter and hijack the signal from your cable box, but at that point, they're not really stealing from you, they're stealing from the Cable company.
Anyway, I'm having trouble bring it all together here. My point isn't that wardriving is socially acceptable or unacceptable. I'm not saying you aren't a jerk if you abuse someones connection, or that you are. All I'm saying is that if you don't take the proper precautions to secure your wireless network, it should be fully within the law for someone else to take advantage of it. This issue can be completly sidelined if one would simply secure their network.
"So if I can't adequately physically defend myself, is it my fault for being mugged? Of course not."
This comparison is rediculous. You can't simply check a few security settings on youself and be "secure" from a mugger. You can however do just that to secure your wireless network from outside users.
"The ISP down the road has to recoup their costs, and who pays?"
Gee I'd say this was pretty simple. First off, most broadband accounts are capped in terms of upstream and downstream to prevent this very problem your're describing. This in itself makes it a non-issue from the ISP standpoint. If they somehow DID incur unexpected costs related to a single account, I would expect the account holder to pay for it, no question. They have their network configured to allow unlimited outside access to their internet connection, so they should be the one to pay for the costs incurred through the use of that account. If they don't want to pay these extra costs, than they should SECURE THEIR FUCKING NETWORK.
Ok, I can agree with you that maybe there should be a big sticker on the box with some warnings, but the fact that Joe Somebody has no time or interest in actually learning about the product he intends to buy doesn't pull any sympathy from me. The fact that he is actually listening, and TAKING the advice of a Best Buy sales rep proves that Joe Somebody's an idiot. The fact that Joe Somebody won't even read the manual just reiterates this point. I have exactly ZERO sympathy for people like this. They are simply lazy and feel that actually learning about whatever it may be will take too much of their precious time and effort. I'm not saying they need to understand the underlying protocols or anything like that, but you simply don't drive when you don't know the rules of the road.
"Never underestimate the ignorance of Joe Somebody."
I have certainly not underestimated the ignorance of Joe Sombody, in fact, I expect it. But these people who put exactly zero amount of effort into undrstanding what they are getting into simply deserve to get fucked. In this case, they deserve to have people taking advantage of their wireless network. I'll say it again. They DESERVE it. Ignorance is simply NOT an excuse, any I refuse to feel sorry for poor ol' Joe Somebody. With a little time and effort, he could have just as easily saved money on internet service and a wireless router by taking advantage of his neighbor's unsecured network, who once again due to his attitude of "I don't want to understand" would have DESERVED to be taken advantage of. Personal responsibility over your domain. It's a simple concept people.
Sounds like an interesting idea, in theory, but somehow I think it is going to be a lot more complicated than simply "hitching a ride" on Soyuz. The strapped for cash Russian space program might charge an arm and a leg to let us do that. Such a deal might also entail letting the Russians have use of the telescope for certain periods or other tradeoffs, some I'm not sure would fly politically. I'm not really sure how International the Hubble effort was though, maybe they get to use it anyway. Maybe someone more in the know could shine some more light on this idea.
As a few have already pointed out, War Driving has some murky legal waters surrounding it. I hope that the people involved in the creation of this map don't suddenly wake up with the FBI bursting through their doors and a DOJ lawsuit involving intent to facilitate illegal activities/hacking/terrorism/etc. I really wouldn't put it past the DOJ in this day and age. Personally I think using someones wireless network without their authorization should be perfectly acceptable. These people should have properly configured their networks if they didn't want people using them. If they use the network access to own the hosts box, that's one story, but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime. You're only partaking in activities that the host allowed through his security settings. If they didn't want to allow it, they should either fix their secuirty settings, or not set up a wireless access point when they obviously had no clue what they were doing. Ignorance of security should be no excuse. If you don't want people piggybacking your wireless connection, configure it properly, don't whine about it to the DOJ. You only have yourself to blame.
Wasn't this the original plan before people let their knee-jerk reactions get the best of them? This plan is obviously better than the one the save Hubble. There is no question Hubble is begining to show its age. Why risk 1.5 billion on a "rescue" mission, when there is no guarantee that some other aging system won't malfunction in another 6 months anyway? Would we be willing to spend another 1.5 billion fixing that? No, the answer is clear: Build a new Space telescope using newer, cheaper, smaller, more powerful technology. To me, it is like the Social Security isuue. It's obvious the current system is broke and won't be able to sustain itself. Lets scrap it and come up with something better that will be more cost efficient with better results. Why people come up with these knee-jerk reactions defending a broken system is beyond me. Just afraid of change I guess.
"Only problem is there is no R rating (or AV or X for that matter) for games."
I would say the only problem is that the Australian goverment finds it justifiable to ban these perfectly acceptable forms of free expression. Why citizens find this blatent government oppression acceptable is beyond me.
If I have to decide between listening to you, and listening to the company that owns three quarters of the online music market and three quarters of the portable music player market, I think I'll listen to the company. "If I have to decide between listening to you, and listening to the company that owns three quarters of the Web Browser market and three quarters of the Operating Systems market, I think I'll listen to the company." Bahhh, Bahhh, Dumb sheep. Have you any wool pulled over your eyes? I'm not saying you should listen to this guy, but saying you'll listen instead to a company simply because of their market share is crazy. By that logic we can all just take Microsoft's word for everything and disregard those looney open source characters.
I really don't see the point in this. If you want to support open standards (as you should) then simply.... use open standards. We all know it. This isn't telling us anything we don't know already. People who aren't using them aren't checking out the OpenGroup's web site. This "Developer Declaration of Independence" is just another fluffy mission statement. Yeah it sounds great, but is it actually going to DO anything to help the problem?
I know when I code, there no substitute for a bottle of shasta and my all Rush mix tape...
It's a Retirement Community
Sweet. Now I can have beer delivery when I'm stuck in a hospital bed!
Meanwhile the new government, national institutions or regular Iraqis are having to register themselves as ".com," ".org" or ".net".
.us
Dagnabbit! Those domains belong to God's Blessed America! Not the international community! Give em a TLD of their own that won't infringe on our territory. Perhaps
Gee, maybe they could make the results of any unresolved queries forward users to a handy search page, instead of returning an appropriate 'not found' response!
"Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks," said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. "It takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water."
I wonder if Tom Galvin and Darl spend late nights together working on clever metaphors to use in press releases related to their lawsuits...
82 How to win friends and influence record sales. "We won't win any popularity contests. We don't really care what people think."--Recording Industry Association of America spokeswoman Amy Weiss, on the group's decision to file lawsuits against customers accused of Internet file sharing, including a 12-year-old New York girl and a 65-year-old Massachusetts grandmother. U.S. record sales remain stagnant after the RIAA launches its campaign in the courts, and an appeals court bans the RIAA's legal methods in December.
Am I missing something? Wasn't the point that these methods are illegal? It needs to be drilled into more people's heads that the RIAA is a group of thieves conducting illegal business practices (price fixing for one.) They need to be identified as the #1 law breakers and absolute WORST enemy to music industry.
It really makes me sick to continuously read in articles about China being a hotbed of video game piracy. The PS2 was JUST released there? You gotta be fuckin kidding me. How long has it been out in the US? Japan? 4-5 years or something? No wonder the Chinese have to pirate all that software because THEY WEREN'T EVEN RELEASING IT to them in the first place. This behaviour is forced onto those who want to play games on a reasaonble timetable with the rest of the modern world, not 5 years later. You leave them no choice but to turn to the bootleggers. This problem is obviously of the industries own making, and to fix it, they bitch and moan and push for all sorts of overreaching IP laws. I say clean up your own spilled milk morons.