1) They inform innocent people that they have the wrong door. (Unlucky situation with a house, common with cars. I have thrice (while sober)tried to unlock a car that looked like mine.)
2) They strongly discourage impulse crimes, and crimes by incompetent morons (Both of these are important. Every once in a while you hear about some moron writing a "bank robbery note" on his own personal deposit slip that has his address)
3) By doing the above, it negates otherwise plausible defense arguments about it being an "Innocent mistake".
4) For businesses, it informs people that while they are allowed in some areas of this corporate building, customers are not allowed in this area.
This last one is the most important one that applies to War Driving. "War Driving" actually only consists of 2 legal actions: 1) Searching for an open connection. 2) Attempting to connect to it. That is the definition of War Driving, and it is NOT illegal. You are perfectly allowed to drive by libraries, hoping to find a legal way to freely connect to the Internet. However, War Driving has a bad reputation because some people then proceed to do the following illegal activities: A) Illegally hacking past security measures, B) Illegally searching/using the hardward of the computer running the service.
The purpose of the Locks is to tell people that hey, you are not allowed to use this internet connection. To use it they have to commit Crime (A). Without that Lock it is NOT illegal to use someone's open wifi connection and look around, anymore than it is illegal to log on to the free internet connection offered by many libraries.If you or a business leave an object unlocked in the street/the side of the road, without any attempt to notify people that it is yours/prevent them from taking it, you have given up the legal right to claim that people stole it from you.
You are missing the third way to cheat. Say you have a really good hand, worth betting (100). If you bet too high, people will fold.
So you bet moderately (50), trying to get people to stay in. Then when it comes to your secondary hand, "they" raise to what you think your real hand is worth (100).
Worst of all, other people who would have folded at a straight 100 bet may now think they have too much cash invested to walk away. So they match the bet.
It should be noted that the programmers that work for Diebold are rumored to heavily complain to the chairman about the restrictions he puts on them.
Supposedly they are aware of the problems with the machines and want to fix them, but the chairman (a heavy Republican supporter) refuses to let them do it.
Drugs are a cheat, a trick, and the number of people that wish they never became addicted to drugs know this.
Selling them is fraudlent and therefore immoral.
Convince me that the guy giving away free LSD samples in the school yard, telling the kids "no, you won't get addicted, no it doesn't hurt you" is not immoral.
Yes it is possible to sell drugs in a moral manner, but if you do that, you have no profits. Look at the alcohol companies. Compare their commercials with say a car company. They are clearly less moral than car companies. And they are even legal.
Re:Nothing's unpickable - how big a mess do you wa
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 1
There is no such thing as an unpickable lock.
If a mechanical key will open it, there are mechanical devices that a skilled locksmith can use to open it without breaking the lock.
However, there are locks that are complex enough to convince most locksmiths to just buy a drill instead of getting the tools and training neccesary.
There are several good locks. One is the Medeco (One version looks like a flat key with the teeth on the side, not the edge). Another is the Fischer lock (one version looks like a letter H, sort of like a double sided Key wielded to another double sided key).
Not sure how effectively I can answer that question, but I will try.
That is an example of an "Ha Ha, you overthought the question." joke. The reason it is funny is that the person trying to answer the question supposedly can not answer the question.
It is making fun of the supposed person for their inability (misfortune) to come up with such a simple answer.
In the essay he asked why we find misfortune funny.
I like Heinlein's answer to that question:
"We laugh because it hurts to much to cry.".
Basically Heinlein was of the opinion (and I agree) that it is ONLY misfortune that we find funny. That the laugh, the joke etc. are coping mechanisms we have developed to let us deal with bad things.
"It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal the food from artists' tables. ..taking our jobs." - RIAA
I see. So when people choose to buy a product with illegal limitations placed on them, that makes them legal? wrong. there are certain rights you can not sign awayFor example it does NOT matter that your children are dying and the only way to get that rich shmuck to give you the healthy spare kidney he has is to sign an agreement where you become his slave. Slavery is illegal, even if you agree to be his slave.
Your logic does not make any sense.
The fact that Apple lets some other formats be used on there machine is irrelevant, the point is that they personally do NOT have the legal right to restrict you from using other services, no matter WHAT you signed.
I am not (as you falsely claimed) stating that Apple has a monoply on legally downloadable music. I am stating that they are attempting to have a monopoly on downloading music to the iPod I bought. And that is ILLEGAL. I OWN MY IPOD, NOT APPLE.
Because I own my Ipod, I have the legal right to do ANYTHING I want to it. Not only can I download music from Itunes to it, but I can burn it, I can chop it, I can crush it, I dissamble it and plug the memory into a hand made computer.
and I have the right to download Crappy junk from Real and listen to it on the Ipod
Real is an evil company. Apple is usually a fair company, but it is ILLEGAL for them to tell me what I can do with my iPod after I buy it, and THAT is what they are doing.
Real, with there crappy service is NOT attempting to do anything but sell me something that Apple does not want them to sell me. But Apple does not have the right to stop me from buying there junk and that means Apple does not have the right to stop them from selling their junk.
You are missing the main point. They are not asking the Hosting ISP to shut down. They are having the British ISP's block that IP address.
SO it does not matter WHAT jurisdiction it is in, they don't care about taking it down.
Their is only ONE probem, which has been mentioned before, the Joe-Job, where your competitor spams pretendign to be you.
And it has a solution: legal action. When someone spams pretending to be you, that is fraud. If a company is committing fraud to hurt your business, that is a lot more serious than mere Spam, will happen a lot less often than mere spam, and will be investigate a lot more seriously with a lot more resources.
Frankly, that kind of stuff happens already, but tno often because it is clearly criminal and the punishment FAR outweighs the minor benefits. I seriously doubt that the low level barely criminals who do Spam will suddenly start committing felonies.
That is ONE problem, not "so many". So the idea has a pretty good chance of suceeding.
For the same reason that my TV does not only play NBC (NBC once made TV's), my Radio does not only play one station, and my car can use gasoline from more than one gasoline company.
There is NO good reason for Apple to forbid people from using the MACHINE they purchased from Apple from playing music they purchased from Real.
You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action. For a long time corporations have been trying to get rid of the anti-trust laws in the US, but they still exist, no matter how much they try to get around them. It is ILLEGAL for me to make a machine and then attempt to prevent others from selling add-ons, including content to the machine.
The problem is that there are just too many different possibilities, and too many errors.
$o could be So or could be $0
and then there is the real problem, the minor imperfections from copying/on the page that get picked up and turned into wierd punctuation.
If you OCR a blank page you often as not get . ' , : ; and all sorts of wierder junk strewn randomly over it.
I think that would not be a temporary save, but a long term save, if they could pull it off.
Why? Because the content producers would scream COPY-RIGHT INFRINGEMENT faster than Tivo could build the first one - even though the VCR companies already fought and won that battle.
TIVO's competition has strong connections to that industry, many of them are depenedent on them so would not follow too quickly, if at all.
Actually humans are tougher than that.
The various remote controlled battles on cable TV have pretty much convinced me that unless you give the robot a gun, a huma should be able to got on top of the robot and disssamble him, taking no more than minor damage in the process.
I bet that if you give me 1/10 the money to prepare, I could beat any of the robots. Of course I would use the cash to buy a bullet proof vest and a fire fighter's equiptment (flame, chemical and electrical resistant outfit) and a good wrench to dissamble the thing.
Lets fill that in with a bit more data:
Price paid to creators Lyrics + notes):.05
Price paid to performers:.15
Price paid to Label/producers:.55
Original Price:.99
Profit per song:.24
Songs sold: 100,000
Profit: $24,000
Price paid to creators Lyrics + notes):.05
Price paid to performers:.15
Price paid to Label/producers:.55
Original Price:.49
Loss per song: (.26)
Songs sold: 200,000
Loss: ($52,000)
They make no profit because the Producers are charging too much for the music. Eventually price will lower as the producers are forced to bow to demand, or at the very least to not raise prices in the face of inflation.
The truth is 0.50 a song sounds about right to me now. with expected inflation rates, I would expect it to stay that way for the next 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
1) They inform innocent people that they have the wrong door. (Unlucky situation with a house, common with cars. I have thrice (while sober)tried to unlock a car that looked like mine.)
2) They strongly discourage impulse crimes, and crimes by incompetent morons (Both of these are important. Every once in a while you hear about some moron writing a "bank robbery note" on his own personal deposit slip that has his address)
3) By doing the above, it negates otherwise plausible defense arguments about it being an "Innocent mistake".
4) For businesses, it informs people that while they are allowed in some areas of this corporate building, customers are not allowed in this area.
This last one is the most important one that applies to War Driving. "War Driving" actually only consists of 2 legal actions: 1) Searching for an open connection. 2) Attempting to connect to it. That is the definition of War Driving, and it is NOT illegal. You are perfectly allowed to drive by libraries, hoping to find a legal way to freely connect to the Internet. However, War Driving has a bad reputation because some people then proceed to do the following illegal activities: A) Illegally hacking past security measures, B) Illegally searching/using the hardward of the computer running the service.
The purpose of the Locks is to tell people that hey, you are not allowed to use this internet connection. To use it they have to commit Crime (A). Without that Lock it is NOT illegal to use someone's open wifi connection and look around, anymore than it is illegal to log on to the free internet connection offered by many libraries.If you or a business leave an object unlocked in the street/the side of the road, without any attempt to notify people that it is yours/prevent them from taking it, you have given up the legal right to claim that people stole it from you.
So you bet moderately (50), trying to get people to stay in. Then when it comes to your secondary hand, "they" raise to what you think your real hand is worth (100).
Worst of all, other people who would have folded at a straight 100 bet may now think they have too much cash invested to walk away. So they match the bet.
Better start with the ones that have oil that we sold lasers to.
Supposedly they are aware of the problems with the machines and want to fix them, but the chairman (a heavy Republican supporter) refuses to let them do it.
At least, that is the rumor.
In the US, there has been at least one major legal action against adware companies.
What is a license except selling a service?
M$ can compete with open source and maintain a profit, just not the ridiculously high monopolistic profits they get now.
Selling them is fraudlent and therefore immoral.
Convince me that the guy giving away free LSD samples in the school yard, telling the kids "no, you won't get addicted, no it doesn't hurt you" is not immoral.
Yes it is possible to sell drugs in a moral manner, but if you do that, you have no profits. Look at the alcohol companies. Compare their commercials with say a car company. They are clearly less moral than car companies. And they are even legal.
If a mechanical key will open it, there are mechanical devices that a skilled locksmith can use to open it without breaking the lock.
However, there are locks that are complex enough to convince most locksmiths to just buy a drill instead of getting the tools and training neccesary.
There are several good locks. One is the Medeco (One version looks like a flat key with the teeth on the side, not the edge). Another is the Fischer lock (one version looks like a letter H, sort of like a double sided Key wielded to another double sided key).
This would be a good thing. It would allow us to blacklist savvis2.net without affecting the legitamate people who use savvis.net
You can get the same effect by signing up for hotmail and sending all mail from people NOT in your addressbook to the trash.
Puns could be considerd "he said the wrong word" jokes. Making a mistake is misfortune.
That is an example of an "Ha Ha, you overthought the question." joke. The reason it is funny is that the person trying to answer the question supposedly can not answer the question.
It is making fun of the supposed person for their inability (misfortune) to come up with such a simple answer.
I like Heinlein's answer to that question: "We laugh because it hurts to much to cry.".
Basically Heinlein was of the opinion (and I agree) that it is ONLY misfortune that we find funny. That the laugh, the joke etc. are coping mechanisms we have developed to let us deal with bad things.
Or imagine if the US had spent just $100 million on new votign machines that actually have printers. Then the Democrats might win.
"It saddens us to see that yet more tools of a burglar are allowed to be released to the public. Thieves in the night will now have more tools to steal the food from artists' tables. ..taking our jobs. " - RIAA
1) In the summer they use them as iceboxes.
2) In the winter they cant turn them off and use them as warmboxes, to keep things from freezing.
Your logic does not make any sense.
The fact that Apple lets some other formats be used on there machine is irrelevant, the point is that they personally do NOT have the legal right to restrict you from using other services, no matter WHAT you signed.
I am not (as you falsely claimed) stating that Apple has a monoply on legally downloadable music. I am stating that they are attempting to have a monopoly on downloading music to the iPod I bought. And that is ILLEGAL. I OWN MY IPOD, NOT APPLE.
Because I own my Ipod, I have the legal right to do ANYTHING I want to it. Not only can I download music from Itunes to it, but I can burn it, I can chop it, I can crush it, I dissamble it and plug the memory into a hand made computer.
and I have the right to download Crappy junk from Real and listen to it on the Ipod
Real is an evil company. Apple is usually a fair company, but it is ILLEGAL for them to tell me what I can do with my iPod after I buy it, and THAT is what they are doing.
Real, with there crappy service is NOT attempting to do anything but sell me something that Apple does not want them to sell me. But Apple does not have the right to stop me from buying there junk and that means Apple does not have the right to stop them from selling their junk.
Their is only ONE probem, which has been mentioned before, the Joe-Job, where your competitor spams pretendign to be you.
And it has a solution: legal action. When someone spams pretending to be you, that is fraud. If a company is committing fraud to hurt your business, that is a lot more serious than mere Spam, will happen a lot less often than mere spam, and will be investigate a lot more seriously with a lot more resources.
Frankly, that kind of stuff happens already, but tno often because it is clearly criminal and the punishment FAR outweighs the minor benefits. I seriously doubt that the low level barely criminals who do Spam will suddenly start committing felonies.
That is ONE problem, not "so many". So the idea has a pretty good chance of suceeding.
There is NO good reason for Apple to forbid people from using the MACHINE they purchased from Apple from playing music they purchased from Real.
You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action. For a long time corporations have been trying to get rid of the anti-trust laws in the US, but they still exist, no matter how much they try to get around them. It is ILLEGAL for me to make a machine and then attempt to prevent others from selling add-ons, including content to the machine.
The problem is that there are just too many different possibilities, and too many errors. $o could be So or could be $0 and then there is the real problem, the minor imperfections from copying/on the page that get picked up and turned into wierd punctuation. If you OCR a blank page you often as not get . ' , : ; and all sorts of wierder junk strewn randomly over it.
Why? Because the content producers would scream COPY-RIGHT INFRINGEMENT faster than Tivo could build the first one - even though the VCR companies already fought and won that battle.
TIVO's competition has strong connections to that industry, many of them are depenedent on them so would not follow too quickly, if at all.
Actually humans are tougher than that. The various remote controlled battles on cable TV have pretty much convinced me that unless you give the robot a gun, a huma should be able to got on top of the robot and disssamble him, taking no more than minor damage in the process. I bet that if you give me 1/10 the money to prepare, I could beat any of the robots. Of course I would use the cash to buy a bullet proof vest and a fire fighter's equiptment (flame, chemical and electrical resistant outfit) and a good wrench to dissamble the thing.
Lets fill that in with a bit more data: Price paid to creators Lyrics + notes): .05
Price paid to performers: .15
Price paid to Label/producers: .55
Original Price: .99
Profit per song: .24
Songs sold: 100,000
Profit: $24,000
Price paid to creators Lyrics + notes): .05
Price paid to performers: .15
Price paid to Label/producers: .55
Original Price: .49
Loss per song: (.26)
Songs sold: 200,000
Loss: ($52,000)
The truth is 0.50 a song sounds about right to me now. with expected inflation rates, I would expect it to stay that way for the next 7 years.