Except that you forgot the basic math of group iq. Take the median IQ of the members of the group and devide bye the number of group members.
A person is reasonable and intelligent but people are dumb stupid and panicky.
Paraphrasing "Men In Black" there, but it's bassically correct.
Phrases like mob mentality, and 'go lemmings go' and group pyscology, etc. spring to mind.
You missed 5)never have a different religeon than anyone else. OOOPS not possible.
and 6)Always have 100% sane rational population and neighbors. AGAIN not possible (though medical science has made some amazing progress here)
However as a general idea many of your suggestions have merit and could significantly reduce some forms of hostility includeing terrorism. However 1) needs a LOT of refinement to even be practical (I just voted my home a new country!). and isn't very likely.
And the rest have exceptions and or require reciprocation or you just get stepped on to the detriment of your citizens.
Actually tossing rocks via mass driver from the moon wouldn't have much effect on it's orbits unless you tossed alot of rocks.
It also wouldn't likely effect earth much unless you droped lots of rocks in the right places. Which could be funny once if you wan't to start a lunar revolution.
It apears that Tampa is a very different place in that case.
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
If you drive emergency services you get a very distorted view of what 'normal' people see as traffic. I hope that's not confusing things here.
The loss of time I implied does occure quite often, but not every time, and somtimes it's very significant (the wreck the idiot speeder caused or when he got pulled over for doing 75 in a 60). Most of the time the loss occures when the lane jocky finaly traps himself behind someone going a bit slower than traffic average because he jumped lanes at the first sign of slowdown only to guessed wrong.
As far as going twenty miles on a highway with lights, well in this case both my home and the home of a friend of mine are both off of the same highway, just near opposite ends, the actuall total distance is closer to 33 miles, but it is usualy the last twenty before I turn on his specif side street where I most often see some idiot do his thing. The last mile of this trip is actually in St. Louis city itself, and the last 5 miles or so are fairly urban and the speed limit drops to 45. None of the interstates (only roads without at least SOME lights) can get me there quicker, just to far to go on small side streets at each end.
My experience is predominately in the St. Louis area, with a little in california while visisting relatives. But we are talking about 19+ years of driving and a third of that job related (but not emergency services). I've also for various reasons tended to live farther from work than average, averaging close to 20-30 miles average for over 10 years. And my experience has consistantly been that those that try to fly down the road faster than traffic flow tend to gain NO ground, piss off everyone around them, and get into wrecks and get pulled over. I've found that I almost always manage to average the same amount of progress in the same time as the guy trying to go faster than every-one else without the wear and tear on my car or nerves.
I have pointed out some of the reasons why I think this is so, but even if my reasoning is flawed, the phenomena is nonetheless what actually happens, speeders go slower on average. I've checked with friends and everyone of them that's that's tried it both ways agree's with me as do most of my coworkers whe drive for a living (and I've checked records, the ones who think speeding works have the WORST time to destination records).
Perhaps the Tampa area is different, however I have trouble believing it based on what I've seen elsewhere. I suspect you're seeing things through the filter of being able (at least at one point in life) to alter traffic flow to accomodate you. Even without thier lights on ambulances and police and fire tend to be given much more curtesy and room to manuver on the roads (As it should be, those jobs are far to important for those in them not to be given a bit more respect all around, esp as the pay sucks from what I hear).
While I to prefer to deal with bad situations with humor (I've tried tears, not so good a response). I suspect some who are taking the humor here badly are also expressing thier shock and dismay at this tragedy. I do not hold thier words as being deliberately mean, but meerly an expression of pain, even if only sympathetic pain with those who have honest suffering this day.
Actually I'm not seeing a huge difference in the comedy level from then to now.
Though then as know I had to eigther read at -1 or infer from the vitrol to determine the levels.
While I find the attack on the Cole much less objectionable than the rest. I'm not shure about leagle. I don't recall that the attackers wore uniforms. I seem to recall this is somehow regarded as important (especially after all the talke about 'illeagle combatants).
The one time a thread of me-too would be apropriate and I can't find the one I'm looking for. So I will take this post as oportunity to express my sympathies to the people of london and the UK over what has happened.
I can't feel the tragedy as strongly as you can, nor even as strong as would someone from NewYork or Madrid, and I know this isn't your only dealings with such foul attacks on innocent civilians, but I nonetheless feel saddened hearing about this horrid attack and hope the pain is as little as possible for you all. I sincerly hope for your sakes it is not as bad at it sofar seems, and my condolences to all concerned.
I'm not going to take any sides here, but isn't a sad commentary when there can be honest debate over whether the "hey stupid buy it" comercials or the 'content' is worse.
Just classify it as an inheritance (well technically someone died and you got the money, even if the someone was you) and just to fair treat everything owned as inheritance.
Be kinda interesting to see the courts handle that if the irs was to declare it such without specific legislation.
Notice I said shouldn't (and mostly modified agree), I was agreeing with OP that in an ideal world locking things up shouldn't be necessary.
But no it's not an ideal world and if I leave the top down on my car I do NOT leave any valuables in the seats. Just about $10 in change (mostly quarters) and the cell charger ($6 anywhere, one the more common types) and cheap leather jacket ($25) till it got hot out and I put it away for the summer.
To be honest leaving the top down is likely a money saver for the insurance company if anyone tries anything anyway. With a soft top the ability to just take a pocket knife to it makes leaving it down better.
Amateurs can't steal the car unless I leave the key in it and pros wouldn't take a knife to the top. And anyone thinking to steal something from inside the car can tell pretty quickly that they won't get anything serious, just pocket change.
No actually I live on the edge of suburbia near St. Louis, MO. I can only guesse you live in a rural setting. I am speaking of the majority of cases. The vast majority of people live in or near a city.
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead of him causing the 'slowpoke' to slow down to safer speeds. Not to mention the fact that stop lights are often close enough and stay red long enough to kill most if not all of any gain. I've litterly been behind someone for 20 miles along one two lane state highway and watched him jocky back and forth to gain two car lengths by the time we reached the next red light, and do this repeatedly untill he got all of 6 or seven cars ahead of where he started, ten to twenty minutes ago. In the meantime at least three people fliped him off and he nearly colided with one guy and generally was an ass.
The optimal speed for most trips under an hour is fairly close to traffic speed. Yes out in rural america, or at 2am, you can find long abandoned straight stretches where if the state patroll hasn't set up you can do 80 for long enough to save 5 or 10 minutes. But that's not most peoples situation.
I see, so if someone is doing the speed-limit it's o.k. for them to sit in the lane you want to go to fast in, but if they speed up over that they have to move if they don't go as fast as you want?!?!
Tell you what next time you get behind someone doing the speed limit in the left lane of a two lane road go ahead and call the police and tell them some one is keeping your from doing 80 in a 60.
The passing thing is a red herring. While in some states the leftmost lane is labled a passing lane (and indeed in mine ALL but the rightmost lane is, even the left three lanes of a four lane highway), you can't as a practical measure enforce such a condition. Also here, while the definition makes all but the rightmost a passing lane, that definition is pretty much rendered meaningless later in the section by removing most of the distinction in many cases making it clear the definition exists to remove ambiguity in certain kinds of situations. Namely to deal with what happens when a passes b and an accident occures that also involves c. It exists primarily to assign liability. Not to mention that 'passing' doesn't usually mean 'no longer subject to the speed limit'. The whole point of the slower moving vehicle and passing and such isn't to allow speeding, but to place those moving at the top ALLOWED speed to drive to drive to the left of those driving slower.
Not that even if someone else is violating 10 traffic laws do you gain the right to make them eigther violate another or inconvience themselves so you can violate the law.
If you are driving at or very near the speed limit and come up on someone going significantly slower than that in the left lane, then you could reasonably expect them to move to the right lane unless they were about to turn left.
Assuming normal traffic conditions, there is an optimal speed, above this and traffic conditions slow you down, below this and you slow yourself down. Once you get within a smallish percentage of traffic speed (usually 5 over) your close enough to optimal that smarts are the only way to reduce trip time.
Most people who insister a greater mph is always quicker trip are those who fail to understand this simple fact.
I suspect most of the people complaining about slowpokes in these threads are the idiots who don't understand that past traffic speed you are wasting time and not saving it.
So my main point is that riding up behind the guy in left lane only doing +5 and complaining he's slowing you down is ignorant at best, stupid most likely. Not to mention that to think one has the right to demand someone speed up past the lawfull limit or change lanes to get out of your way if not is the sign of an asshole.
It's also not like the guy didn't know his ap was unsecured. He stated flat out that he knew how to secure it but chose not to.
Not saying the guy in the suv doesn't seem a bit odd here, but if you advertise free beer don't complain when someone takes a drink.
Being a peeping tom usually require you tresspass or take extra effort to get the view.
This guy left his ap open knowingly. Would you be a peeping tom if your nieghbor walked around naked outside on her front lawn with no fence in broad daylight?
It almost certainly is because it's metered. Here it rarely is for residential on much low end comercial.
Now given that this is NOT true when you go upline a bit, as in most isp's are paying per gigabyte or some such.
You have the situation where an ISP sells you 'unlimited' acess at say 384up/128down for $30 a month (just random figures outa my ass, don't jump on them for being expensive or cheap or some such bs) but thier paying for each gig you send or recive so how do they make any money?!? I mean you could be a total hog and run non-stop at max.
Well some people will be a hog, and some will check thier e-mail three times a week, and occasionally google for a new golf club or better margarita recipie and that is it. They make thier money by selling far more of these plans than they buy the bandwith to cover <i>if everyone was a hog</I> and make money by knowing most people will average around X gigabytes a month and making shure they sell enough plans that they get paid more than X time number of users.
Now what happens if user Joe get enterpriseing and lets his neighbors into his AP? suddenly 'Joe' is using for ten people, ten people who have also lost almost all incentive to buy thier own acess from the isp. Enough enterprising joes and ISP is loosing money not making it.
In the metered system you have the ISP doesn't have to worry about this, they just sell to you each gigabyte at a fixed mark-up, and as long as that markup times the number of users more than covers the non-bandwith over head what do they care if you share.In fact since the more gigabytes they sell you the more profit they make, and if you use extra gigabyte letting your neighbors that they don't have a contract with (and thus don't provide e-mail or tech support for) thier proffit margins actually increase.
Actually in this case you don't have to assume or guess. The man SAID he knew how to secure it, but chose not to.
This man's lawyer should be able to get this one tossed easilly, except for the tendancy of judges to completely missunderstand anything internet or computer related and make all sorts of ignorance bassed assumptions and rulings.
I mostly agree with your point of view on this, if I leave the top down on my car (hey it's a sunny day out!) I shouldn't have to worry that someone will steal my loose change or cell phone charger.
And if someone does they should the bad guy not me.
However this isn't the same kind of thing. The acess point owner KNOWLING and DELIBERATELY left the thing open, that usually means it's ACTIVELY anouncing itself and soliciting connections (some can be set such that they don't announce, but should someone ask they'll grant no-matter who).
This would be more like leaving said laptop on the front passenger seat with a piece of paper in it such that if the laptop was opened it could be read and the paper said "to whom it may concern, please enjoy your use of my laptop, the administratore password is 'freebee', thanks".
It's called IIRC an atractive nuisance. At any-rate just putting up no tresspassing signs around your yard wouldn't help much if the neighbors ten year old climbed onto your trampoline and hurt himslef while you were away.
Even though a ten year old can usually read, the trampoline is such a strong enticement to a ten year old that just signs or the expectation that your property rights or good manners would prevent the child from playing on it isn't enough to keep you from being considered negligent. (IANAL, but the really funny guy on the radio from 4-7pm here is and I've heard him talk about it, so go get your own takshow host admited before the bar in your jurisdiction instead of relying on my third hand info wich isn't leagle advice.)
Actually if this guy KNOWINGLY left his network open like this, then as far as I am concerned he has NO complaint comming.
And accourding to TFA:
"The problem, security experts say, is many people do not take the time or are unsure how to secure their wireless access from intruders. Dinon knew what to do. "But I never did it because my neighbors are older." "
In fact I don't see HOW the guy arrested could be guilty of anything more than accepting an offer.
If I walk out into the street and anounce loudly I'm looking for a phone to use and someone hands me thier cordless handset how the hell am I guilty of theft?!?!?! For that's pretty close to what happened here. Maybe the guy could argue he didn't know I was actually going to dial out on the phone, but it'd be a stupid argument.
I think I've opened all of three pdf's you could cut and past from, and quite a few you couldn't print from.
Adobe's own reader has a broken and kludged UI that won't remember all the settings in many version and has bad defaults. Excuse me, but WHY should it suddenly STOP in midscroll while I'm reading just to make me click somewhere else in a menu or some other extranouse action to get to the next page, that's idiotic, yet the default. And most of the time if you can change it it's still off next time you load a pdf. PDF tries to hard to make a computer act like a book, which is like trying to make a horse act like cat. STUPID.
As far as/.'s homepage loading faster (per KB) it's possible the sight was a bit/.'d, doesn't matter how it happened, the truth is adobe's reader munches every spare cpu cycle it can if it's waiting for the rest of the document, and quite frequently has 'sluggish' moments even when it's got the whole doc.
Quite simple PDF's are rarely suitable for use on a computer, usually lock you out of doing anything else with the default reader, based on the concept of making the computer a book (stupid), and the base reader is a broken kludge.
The fact is there are better formats for the various uses pdf is used for (unless deliberately pissing off users is intended), even the idiotic computer as book useage.
Well Apple does work hard at being distinct from the wintell world, fourtunately they do insist on still being user friendly.
However I will point out that 'last window open' makes it sound like most apps have multiple equivallent windows, they don't generly. If you have two top-level windows for a program open you usually have two instances of that program running. There is rarely any room for confusion between closing out a child window and the whole program itself.
It actually sounds like it could be confusing to have more than one window of a program open and it NOT be obvious which one is the program main window and which are secondary windows.
But then these sorts of things are largely a matter of what your used to, if all you've ever done is Mac then I would expect windows to be confusing, same going from linux to mac or windows to bsd and so on.
>Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
>>No, it most certainly won't.
Unless you are talking about a very simple (or very familliar perhaps) trip you are wrong. I'm not saying perhaps, or IMHO or even sometimes, because after years of driving and PROVING what I said daily basis I know what I'm talking about.
Not guessing, not going on just a few anectedotes, but years of driving and comparing to others who drive for a living.
The fastest way to get somewhere is at traffic speed and to know where you are going and how to get there and to have the brains to look at traffic patterns spot issues in advance rather than ledfoot and CAUSE these issues.
If you check my posting history you'll see I'm very rarely as adamant about what I say as I am in this post. I usually leave room for error on my part as I don't care to look the fool for opening my mouth and inserting foot (though I still have a few times) and more importantly (to me) don't want to seem arogant or an ass or worse yet offend someone (nor do I wish to do so here, honestly) but this is something that is as proven to me as tomorrow's sunrise, death, and taxes (and some skip out on those).
My current car (and favorite sofar:) ) is a 35th aniversary Mustang convertible, I'm very happy with it, yet I still don't go down the road at 90 even though it can easily do that and more, because I know from experience that over most normal trips I won't get there sooner and may even get there later.
I suppose if one forgetts the reality of traffic and road layout and enviroment and idealizes things to straight stretch of unused road without other traffic or police then perhaps raw speed would be a significant factor. But reality is different.
For that matter if thier clueless they shouldn't expect eigther case.
However they are not entirely clueless, just thoughtless.
Most people who set up (or have set up) a wireless router at home have experience with tv, radio, mobile phones, cordless phone, and simular devices that in some cases are privat and other they are not, and some vary depending on circumstance.
I've 'heard' other phone conversations while talking on a cordless phone, many people have and most have at least heard of it.
With these kinds of experiences most people who aren't to lazy to think should realize the question of others using thier wireless connection exists, especially seing as how these devices are designed and marketed to handle multiple computers.
So no, Joe might not have assumed he was open to world here, but the possibility should have occured.
Except in this case a request for a connection was made and answered in the afirmative.
It's more like finding a vending machine with no prices on anything, but has one of those little lcd things on it so you push a button for a candy bar to see how much in lcd. Only it gives you the candybar and the screen just flashes 'thank you, come again'. Then you get arrested for stealing after taking a few more.
I will however point out that BOTH analogies are pretty shitty.
In this case the man parked outside a residence to use thier open wireless and acted furtively when approached.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you forgot the basic math of group iq. Take the median IQ of the members of the group and devide bye the number of group members.
A person is reasonable and intelligent but people are dumb stupid and panicky.
Paraphrasing "Men In Black" there, but it's bassically correct.
Phrases like mob mentality, and 'go lemmings go' and group pyscology, etc. spring to mind.
Mycroft
You missed 5)never have a different religeon than anyone else. OOOPS not possible.
and 6)Always have 100% sane rational population and neighbors. AGAIN not possible (though medical science has made some amazing progress here)
However as a general idea many of your suggestions have merit and could significantly reduce some forms of hostility includeing terrorism. However 1) needs a LOT of refinement to even be practical (I just voted my home a new country!). and isn't very likely.
And the rest have exceptions and or require reciprocation or you just get stepped on to the detriment of your citizens.
Mycroft
Actually tossing rocks via mass driver from the moon wouldn't have much effect on it's orbits unless you tossed alot of rocks.
It also wouldn't likely effect earth much unless you droped lots of rocks in the right places. Which could be funny once if you wan't to start a lunar revolution.
Mycroft
It apears that Tampa is a very different place in that case.
If people really do speed up when crowded form behind around there I can only be thankfull most people around here aren't that stupid.
If you drive emergency services you get a very distorted view of what 'normal' people see as traffic. I hope that's not confusing things here.
The loss of time I implied does occure quite often, but not every time, and somtimes it's very significant (the wreck the idiot speeder caused or when he got pulled over for doing 75 in a 60). Most of the time the loss occures when the lane jocky finaly traps himself behind someone going a bit slower than traffic average because he jumped lanes at the first sign of slowdown only to guessed wrong.
As far as going twenty miles on a highway with lights, well in this case both my home and the home of a friend of mine are both off of the same highway, just near opposite ends, the actuall total distance is closer to 33 miles, but it is usualy the last twenty before I turn on his specif side street where I most often see some idiot do his thing. The last mile of this trip is actually in St. Louis city itself, and the last 5 miles or so are fairly urban and the speed limit drops to 45. None of the interstates (only roads without at least SOME lights) can get me there quicker, just to far to go on small side streets at each end.
My experience is predominately in the St. Louis area, with a little in california while visisting relatives. But we are talking about 19+ years of driving and a third of that job related (but not emergency services). I've also for various reasons tended to live farther from work than average, averaging close to 20-30 miles average for over 10 years. And my experience has consistantly been that those that try to fly down the road faster than traffic flow tend to gain NO ground, piss off everyone around them, and get into wrecks and get pulled over. I've found that I almost always manage to average the same amount of progress in the same time as the guy trying to go faster than every-one else without the wear and tear on my car or nerves.
I have pointed out some of the reasons why I think this is so, but even if my reasoning is flawed, the phenomena is nonetheless what actually happens, speeders go slower on average. I've checked with friends and everyone of them that's that's tried it both ways agree's with me as do most of my coworkers whe drive for a living (and I've checked records, the ones who think speeding works have the WORST time to destination records).
Perhaps the Tampa area is different, however I have trouble believing it based on what I've seen elsewhere. I suspect you're seeing things through the filter of being able (at least at one point in life) to alter traffic flow to accomodate you. Even without thier lights on ambulances and police and fire tend to be given much more curtesy and room to manuver on the roads (As it should be, those jobs are far to important for those in them not to be given a bit more respect all around, esp as the pay sucks from what I hear).
Mycroft
While I to prefer to deal with bad situations with humor (I've tried tears, not so good a response). I suspect some who are taking the humor here badly are also expressing thier shock and dismay at this tragedy. I do not hold thier words as being deliberately mean, but meerly an expression of pain, even if only sympathetic pain with those who have honest suffering this day.
Mycroft
Actually I'm not seeing a huge difference in the comedy level from then to now.
Though then as know I had to eigther read at -1 or infer from the vitrol to determine the levels.
Mycroft
While I find the attack on the Cole much less objectionable than the rest. I'm not shure about leagle. I don't recall that the attackers wore uniforms. I seem to recall this is somehow regarded as important (especially after all the talke about 'illeagle combatants).
The one time a thread of me-too would be apropriate and I can't find the one I'm looking for. So I will take this post as oportunity to express my sympathies to the people of london and the UK over what has happened.
I can't feel the tragedy as strongly as you can, nor even as strong as would someone from NewYork or Madrid, and I know this isn't your only dealings with such foul attacks on innocent civilians, but I nonetheless feel saddened hearing about this horrid attack and hope the pain is as little as possible for you all. I sincerly hope for your sakes it is not as bad at it sofar seems, and my condolences to all concerned.
Mycroft
I'm not going to take any sides here, but isn't a sad commentary when there can be honest debate over whether the "hey stupid buy it" comercials or the 'content' is worse.
Mycroft
Just classify it as an inheritance (well technically someone died and you got the money, even if the someone was you) and just to fair treat everything owned as inheritance.
Be kinda interesting to see the courts handle that if the irs was to declare it such without specific legislation.
Mcyroft
Notice I said shouldn't (and mostly modified agree), I was agreeing with OP that in an ideal world locking things up shouldn't be necessary.
But no it's not an ideal world and if I leave the top down on my car I do NOT leave any valuables in the seats. Just about $10 in change (mostly quarters) and the cell charger ($6 anywhere, one the more common types) and cheap leather jacket ($25) till it got hot out and I put it away for the summer.
To be honest leaving the top down is likely a money saver for the insurance company if anyone tries anything anyway. With a soft top the ability to just take a pocket knife to it makes leaving it down better.
Amateurs can't steal the car unless I leave the key in it and pros wouldn't take a knife to the top. And anyone thinking to steal something from inside the car can tell pretty quickly that they won't get anything serious, just pocket change.
Mycroft
No actually I live on the edge of suburbia near St. Louis, MO. I can only guesse you live in a rural setting. I am speaking of the majority of cases. The vast majority of people live in or near a city.
And what I said is true, traffic condition durring most of the day will eventually cause the lane jocky trying to do +20 (when most everyone else is doing +0 to +5) to get stuck in the right lane on most two lane highways, or in the case of one lane roads this idiot will crowd the 'slowpoke' ahead of him causing the 'slowpoke' to slow down to safer speeds. Not to mention the fact that stop lights are often close enough and stay red long enough to kill most if not all of any gain. I've litterly been behind someone for 20 miles along one two lane state highway and watched him jocky back and forth to gain two car lengths by the time we reached the next red light, and do this repeatedly untill he got all of 6 or seven cars ahead of where he started, ten to twenty minutes ago. In the meantime at least three people fliped him off and he nearly colided with one guy and generally was an ass.
The optimal speed for most trips under an hour is fairly close to traffic speed. Yes out in rural america, or at 2am, you can find long abandoned straight stretches where if the state patroll hasn't set up you can do 80 for long enough to save 5 or 10 minutes. But that's not most peoples situation.
I see, so if someone is doing the speed-limit it's o.k. for them to sit in the lane you want to go to fast in, but if they speed up over that they have to move if they don't go as fast as you want?!?!
Tell you what next time you get behind someone doing the speed limit in the left lane of a two lane road go ahead and call the police and tell them some one is keeping your from doing 80 in a 60.
The passing thing is a red herring. While in some states the leftmost lane is labled a passing lane (and indeed in mine ALL but the rightmost lane is, even the left three lanes of a four lane highway), you can't as a practical measure enforce such a condition. Also here, while the definition makes all but the rightmost a passing lane, that definition is pretty much rendered meaningless later in the section by removing most of the distinction in many cases making it clear the definition exists to remove ambiguity in certain kinds of situations. Namely to deal with what happens when a passes b and an accident occures that also involves c. It exists primarily to assign liability. Not to mention that 'passing' doesn't usually mean 'no longer subject to the speed limit'. The whole point of the slower moving vehicle and passing and such isn't to allow speeding, but to place those moving at the top ALLOWED speed to drive to drive to the left of those driving slower.
Not that even if someone else is violating 10 traffic laws do you gain the right to make them eigther violate another or inconvience themselves so you can violate the law.
If you are driving at or very near the speed limit and come up on someone going significantly slower than that in the left lane, then you could reasonably expect them to move to the right lane unless they were about to turn left.
Mycroft
Assuming normal traffic conditions, there is an optimal speed, above this and traffic conditions slow you down, below this and you slow yourself down. Once you get within a smallish percentage of traffic speed (usually 5 over) your close enough to optimal that smarts are the only way to reduce trip time.
Most people who insister a greater mph is always quicker trip are those who fail to understand this simple fact.
I suspect most of the people complaining about slowpokes in these threads are the idiots who don't understand that past traffic speed you are wasting time and not saving it.
So my main point is that riding up behind the guy in left lane only doing +5 and complaining he's slowing you down is ignorant at best, stupid most likely. Not to mention that to think one has the right to demand someone speed up past the lawfull limit or change lanes to get out of your way if not is the sign of an asshole.
Mycroft
It's also not like the guy didn't know his ap was unsecured. He stated flat out that he knew how to secure it but chose not to.
Not saying the guy in the suv doesn't seem a bit odd here, but if you advertise free beer don't complain when someone takes a drink.
Mycroft
It wasn't through accident or ignorance.
The man said he knew how to secure his AP but chose not to.
Mycroft
Being a peeping tom usually require you tresspass or take extra effort to get the view.
This guy left his ap open knowingly.
Would you be a peeping tom if your nieghbor walked around naked outside on her front lawn with no fence in broad daylight?
Mycroft
It almost certainly is because it's metered.
Here it rarely is for residential on much low end comercial.
Now given that this is NOT true when you go upline a bit, as in most isp's are paying per gigabyte or some such.
You have the situation where an ISP sells you 'unlimited' acess at say 384up/128down for $30 a month (just random figures outa my ass, don't jump on them for being expensive or cheap or some such bs) but thier paying for each gig you send or recive so how do they make any money?!? I mean you could be a total hog and run non-stop at max.
Well some people will be a hog, and some will check thier e-mail three times a week, and occasionally google for a new golf club or better margarita recipie and that is it. They make thier money by selling far more of these plans than they buy the bandwith to cover <i>if everyone was a hog</I> and make money by knowing most people will average around X gigabytes a month and making shure they sell enough plans that they get paid more than X time number of users.
Now what happens if user Joe get enterpriseing and lets his neighbors into his AP? suddenly 'Joe' is using for ten people, ten people who have also lost almost all incentive to buy thier own acess from the isp. Enough enterprising joes and ISP is loosing money not making it.
In the metered system you have the ISP doesn't have to worry about this, they just sell to you each gigabyte at a fixed mark-up, and as long as that markup times the number of users more than covers the non-bandwith over head what do they care if you share.In fact since the more gigabytes they sell you the more profit they make, and if you use extra gigabyte letting your neighbors that they don't have a contract with (and thus don't provide e-mail or tech support for) thier proffit margins actually increase.
Mycroft
Actually in this case you don't have to assume or guess. The man SAID he knew how to secure it, but chose not to.
This man's lawyer should be able to get this one tossed easilly, except for the tendancy of judges to completely missunderstand anything internet or computer related and make all sorts of ignorance bassed assumptions and rulings.
Mycroft
I mostly agree with your point of view on this, if I leave the top down on my car (hey it's a sunny day out!) I shouldn't have to worry that someone will steal my loose change or cell phone charger.
And if someone does they should the bad guy not me.
However this isn't the same kind of thing. The acess point owner KNOWLING and DELIBERATELY left the thing open, that usually means it's ACTIVELY anouncing itself and soliciting connections (some can be set such that they don't announce, but should someone ask they'll grant no-matter who).
This would be more like leaving said laptop on the front passenger seat with a piece of paper in it such that if the laptop was opened it could be read and the paper said "to whom it may concern, please enjoy your use of my laptop, the administratore password is 'freebee', thanks".
Mycroft
It's called IIRC an atractive nuisance. At any-rate just putting up no tresspassing signs around your yard wouldn't help much if the neighbors ten year old climbed onto your trampoline and hurt himslef while you were away.
Even though a ten year old can usually read, the trampoline is such a strong enticement to a ten year old that just signs or the expectation that your property rights or good manners would prevent the child from playing on it isn't enough to keep you from being considered negligent.
(IANAL, but the really funny guy on the radio from 4-7pm here is and I've heard him talk about it, so go get your own takshow host admited before the bar in your jurisdiction instead of relying on my third hand info wich isn't leagle advice.)
Mycroft
Actually if this guy KNOWINGLY left his network open like this, then as far as I am concerned he has NO complaint comming.
And accourding to TFA:
"The problem, security experts say, is many people do not take the time or are unsure how to secure their wireless access from intruders. Dinon knew what to do. "But I never did it because my neighbors are older." "
In fact I don't see HOW the guy arrested could be guilty of anything more than accepting an offer.
If I walk out into the street and anounce loudly I'm looking for a phone to use and someone hands me thier cordless handset how the hell am I guilty of theft?!?!?! For that's pretty close to what happened here. Maybe the guy could argue he didn't know I was actually going to dial out on the phone, but it'd be a stupid argument.
Mycroft
"Similarly- ignorance in how to use a tool you purchased is not an excuse. It was your responsibility to learn how to properly operate it."
Does this apply to the owners of the AP? After all the guy couldn't have logged in if the ap hadn't bassicly said 'yes' to his equipments request.
"All prosecutors would have had to prove was "he knew he was accessing something that didn't belong to him"."
And all the defence would have to prove is the AP was set to allow the connection.
Mycroft
I think I've opened all of three pdf's you could cut and past from, and quite a few you couldn't print from. /.'s homepage loading faster (per KB) it's possible the sight was a bit /.'d, doesn't matter how it happened, the truth is adobe's reader munches every spare cpu cycle it can if it's waiting for the rest of the document, and quite frequently has 'sluggish' moments even when it's got the whole doc.
Adobe's own reader has a broken and kludged UI that won't remember all the settings in many version and has bad defaults. Excuse me, but WHY should it suddenly STOP in midscroll while I'm reading just to make me click somewhere else in a menu or some other extranouse action to get to the next page, that's idiotic, yet the default. And most of the time if you can change it it's still off next time you load a pdf. PDF tries to hard to make a computer act like a book, which is like trying to make a horse act like cat. STUPID.
As far as
Quite simple PDF's are rarely suitable for use on a computer, usually lock you out of doing anything else with the default reader, based on the concept of making the computer a book (stupid), and the base reader is a broken kludge.
The fact is there are better formats for the various uses pdf is used for (unless deliberately pissing off users is intended), even the idiotic computer as book useage.
Well Apple does work hard at being distinct from the wintell world, fourtunately they do insist on still being user friendly.
However I will point out that 'last window open' makes it sound like most apps have multiple equivallent windows, they don't generly. If you have two top-level windows for a program open you usually have two instances of that program running. There is rarely any room for confusion between closing out a child window and the whole program itself.
It actually sounds like it could be confusing to have more than one window of a program open and it NOT be obvious which one is the program main window and which are secondary windows.
But then these sorts of things are largely a matter of what your used to, if all you've ever done is Mac then I would expect windows to be confusing, same going from linux to mac or windows to bsd and so on.
Mycroft
>Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
:) ) is a 35th aniversary Mustang convertible, I'm very happy with it, yet I still don't go down the road at 90 even though it can easily do that and more, because I know from experience that over most normal trips I won't get there sooner and may even get there later.
>>No, it most certainly won't.
Unless you are talking about a very simple (or very familliar perhaps) trip you are wrong. I'm not saying perhaps, or IMHO or even sometimes, because after years of driving and PROVING what I said daily basis I know what I'm talking about.
Not guessing, not going on just a few anectedotes, but years of driving and comparing to others who drive for a living.
The fastest way to get somewhere is at traffic speed and to know where you are going and how to get there and to have the brains to look at traffic patterns spot issues in advance rather than ledfoot and CAUSE these issues.
If you check my posting history you'll see I'm very rarely as adamant about what I say as I am in this post. I usually leave room for error on my part as I don't care to look the fool for opening my mouth and inserting foot (though I still have a few times) and more importantly (to me) don't want to seem arogant or an ass or worse yet offend someone (nor do I wish to do so here, honestly) but this is something that is as proven to me as tomorrow's sunrise, death, and taxes (and some skip out on those).
My current car (and favorite sofar
I suppose if one forgetts the reality of traffic and road layout and enviroment and idealizes things to straight stretch of unused road without other traffic or police then perhaps raw speed would be a significant factor. But reality is different.
Mycroft
For that matter if thier clueless they shouldn't expect eigther case.
However they are not entirely clueless, just thoughtless.
Most people who set up (or have set up) a wireless router at home have experience with tv, radio, mobile phones, cordless phone, and simular devices that in some cases are privat and other they are not, and some vary depending on circumstance.
I've 'heard' other phone conversations while talking on a cordless phone, many people have and most have at least heard of it.
With these kinds of experiences most people who aren't to lazy to think should realize the question of others using thier wireless connection exists, especially seing as how these devices are designed and marketed to handle multiple computers.
So no, Joe might not have assumed he was open to world here, but the possibility should have occured.
Mycroft
Except in this case a request for a connection was made and answered in the afirmative.
It's more like finding a vending machine with no prices on anything, but has one of those little lcd things on it so you push a button for a candy bar to see how much in lcd. Only it gives you the candybar and the screen just flashes 'thank you, come again'. Then you get arrested for stealing after taking a few more.
I will however point out that BOTH analogies are pretty shitty.
In this case the man parked outside a residence to use thier open wireless and acted furtively when approached.
Mycroft