Broken nose... Lose fingers to a saw... go blind...
It simply stands as a standard that there is no standard that is 100% effective or unbreakable or loss-proof. Things can only be "More Secure" or "Less Secure". Generally the more secure they are, the easier it is to lose them as well.
The only major difference between passwords and biometrics is that one is knowledge-based and one is physical. Neither are fully secure. There is the difference between how easy it is to potentially steal or duplicate somebody's biometric signature versus how easy it is to steal or duplicate a password of similar relative "strength" in any given situation. Compare the process of stealing an 8-digit numeric key code versus duplicating somebody's fingerprint in a way that the scanner will recognize for example.
But with the low recognition rate, and the recommendation to use this as an additional layer of security, itreally is just that, an addition layer. Just like IP access lists. The duplicated fingerprint will do you no good as the nose knows!
So yeah, looks like they reach in but failed to pick a true winner (sorry). But as an extra layer of entropy, the speed makes it potentially more useful than face recognition, and due to the multiple angles and shadows, it doesn't suffer from "Photo in front of the camera" problems.
Machines are countable so the plural interpretation of many gods from different machines is perfectly valid (i.e. "... ex machinae").
The "machine" in this case is the contrivance of the world by the writer. Thus it is a singular machine in all essence. Deus ex machina uses machina as opposed to machos, which is what it really should use.
Like the TV show Heroes? It's fun to watch but certainly not realistic.
Disclaimer: The use of parent as an example is in no way an attack on the author in any way. The author simply provided perfect fodder for this example.
Having written and published (badly) some stuff that could be considered "Sci Fi" by some folks, I will say my impression is that the critics are the real killers in this case. People who complain that it's "Not realistic enough" and "Breaks all the rules" are the folks who are killing the genre and the will of the writers in the genre.
Back in the old days of Sci Fi, we didn't have everybody and their brother who were "internet experts" on anything and everything. A concept could break ideas that the average person knew at that time and still be accepted, since the high end scientists learned more about these ideas and "rules" as we went forward in ways that made these outrageous concepts from Sci Fi a decade ago completely normal now. People enjoyed Star Trek because it was FUN. We didn't have a massive group of people who wanted... ahem... "...SCIENCE fiction, with emphasis on the science...". Sure, we don't have communicators that will chirp and allow an instant communication link from orbit, but current cell phones are pretty darn useful and a lot of them are very similar. So we end up with real things that are inspired by the outrageous things.
Improvements in technology and "Sci Fi" writing do go hand in hand, but the moment the writer gets slammed by 'edumacated' folks who seem to think that the scientific rules are a box to stay in and not inconveniences to find a solution around, they give up on these people and don't write.
For example: How can Sylar pick-up a person and throw him against a wall? Newton's Law dictates that Sylar should be pushed backward with an equal force (recoil). Also where is the energy coming from? Sylar must eat 50,000 calories a day* to maintain that level of "toss people against walls" energy output.
This is a box. A person who thinks only this way will have zero success at furthering current technology. A person who sees the facts and rules above and then decides to figure out a way to make it work anyway is the person who will bring about great advances in Science Reality. Will they succeed at accomplishing that specific thing? Maybe. Probably not. But the work they do to try might just have some interesting side effects that are good.
The problem is that there are more and more people who can't think outside the box and slam Sci Fi writers who try to for not being realistic enough to today's box. Creative folks are not easy to come by (which is why copyright law is considered so important to try to help encourage creativity). Slam them and discourage them out of what they were doing and suddenly you've got the loss mentioned above.
They did not claim that the warranty was voided, they claimed that servicing would cause them to violate OSHA regs. This is nonsense.
True, this is nonsense if it is true, and we all know that all things alleged on the internet is true.;) But if sued, as you suggest in your post, Apple can then likely just say "Well, despite what they claim we said, the failure was caused by the smoke residue in the machine, which is an outside source for the failure, and is not covered by the warranty. Despite alleged claims that we said it was for OSHA reasons, we never did say such a thing." Then the prosecution may end up paying for Apple's side of legal defense and unless they can provide legally-admissible evidence that Apple said the wrong thing, and then prove that extra damage was cause by Apple giving the wrong reason (OSHA as opposed to external causes), they're out of luck anyway.
THe tech certainly isnt obligated to do Haz-mat work, but that doesnt mean Apple can shirk its legal responsibility. THe part is under warranty and is being denied for a non-industry standard reason. Explanations are in order.
The warranty covers damage caused by defects in materials and workmanship. It does not cover damage caused by external factors. If the computer short-circuits because of a misplaced solder splot that expands when it reaches the high range of normal operating temperature, that is a defect in materials and workmanship. If the computer overheats because the fan that should be working is not working because it was built wrong, that is covered.
If the computer overheats because the components are coated in smoke residue, said smoke residue being an outside factor, it is not covered. This is industry standard, just like if they were coated in soda that was spilled on the machine.
If the computer is damaged in other ways because of the presence of smoke residue, also not covered.
If Apple says they are declining it because smoke is a biohazard, they are performing bad PR and reasoning and should be using the proper legal reason of "failure caused by external factors"... but definitely NOT include "...which we sometimes fix anyway if it doesn't cost us much (like dusting out a bit of pet hair in 15 seconds), but our tech puked on your motherboard when he opened up the case, so we're calling it a lost cause".
Its a reason to exercise the 'replace' option in the 'repair or replace at our discretion' portion of your warranty agreement.
If there is enough smoke residue for them to detect, there is no way to say that the damage was not caused by said smoke residue. Warranty covers damage by defects in materials and workmanship. Per Apple's warranty documents:
"This warranty does not apply:... (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple;"
"(ii) Damage to the Covered Equipment caused by accident, abuse, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external causes;"
One of the consumers who was declined service went in because his MacBook was overheating. Smoke residue on the heatsinks, fans, and other surfaces would definitely cause such a thing, just like any other particulate or surface-coating substance (Anybody know the thermal conductivity of cigarette smoke residue?). As such, by the wording above, Apple has the right to refuse service based on the overheating damage being caused by a buildup of cigarette smoke residue on heat transfer surfaces. Legally, the smoke residue could also potentially be considered to be the result of "fire" or "extreme environment"in the APP wording.
"But dust and pet hair will cause the same! Why don't they void my warranty?"
By Apple's wording, they can, and thus, if Apple chooses to determine that they will provide repairs despite what may be abnormal buildup of dust or pet hair inside the system, they do this as a courtesy and not as setting a legal precedent. At the same time, if you end up trying to send in a computer that is as bad as some of these, I highly expect that, though it is just dust and maybe hair in some cases, they will tell you to bugger off.
So Apple gets in a computer that is technically not covered. Being a business, they make a decision at some level as to whether it will be more cost/profit efficient to correct it anyway as a courtesy ("It's just a little dust that can be blown out in 15 seconds and might make somebody sneeze at worst in most cases, then it's fine. It costs us a few bucks and we have a happy customer who buys another $2000 in the next year or so.") or whether to pull in the legalese and decline to correct it because of real or potential costs ("It's making the tech sick, the residue would need to be hand-cleaned on all parts or the parts completely replaced, and with this much gunk in there, we'd have to trash and replace the whole thing at our expense. Then the person keeps smoking, it is likely to get gunked up again, we replace it again, and the income from this customer does not warrant the cost to us.").
Want to sue Apple over it? You need to provide more proof that the error occurred because they didn't build the computer properly than they provide possibility that the smoke caused it, and being an "external cause", is not covered by warranty. It's civil, so it's just "who is more right?". Since they probably have treated other smokers' computers, one really can't say they are discriminating based on smoking, and they are not required to treat everybody equally. The presence of a void item overrides real warranty-covered issues. If you get a DirecTV receiver and the hard
Well, we already know the internet is a series of tubes... So now we're going to have leaky tubes? Blah... More dripping information out there.
If too much information drips out, something horrible might happen, like crashing things into the moon, or some president somewhere making 400 illegal copies of a DVD and putting himself at strike two of three before his own law gets him banned from the internet.
I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.
$20/month for unlimited SMS means that in order to "Break Even" and have them at a discount, a person would need to use 100 SMS per month. Even though there are lots of exceptionally heavy users, the last time I looked up stats for a wireless carrier on SMS usage of Unlimited SMS customers, the average was 62/month. That puts the average unlimited-SMS-for-$20 customer paying $0.32 per SMS.
Your observation that "Nobody with a clue is paying $0.20 per SMS" is wholly correct. There are a lot of clueless folks with unlimited SMS packages though that are paying a whole lot more than that.
The actual point of it though is that it costs a rediculously low amount of money to the wireless carrier to handle an SMS. Fractions of a cent. SMS handling... I forget the precise numbers, but with overhead an SMS is about 182 bytes I think. I'll round it up to 200 bytes just for calculations. If one SMS is 200 bytes, and you only paid a single penny per SMS, that would still be $500 for one megabyte of data transferred, including the header and structure overhead. That is what folks are complaining about.
It's really sad when the company provides their own removal tool. It works, but it makes you wonder why they don't just fix the uninstaller...
Unfortunately, sometimes the uninstaller gets broken/deleted/blocked/etc, so can't do its job properly. Other times the uninstaller will leave the setting behind. Still other times the uninstaller encounters something that it doesn't know how to deal with because of damage to the installation.
The uninstaller is the proper surgical technique to remove parts and still be "user friendly". The "Removal Tool" is the slash and burn and hope there is no collateral damage method.
Could be worse... Trend Micro's removal tool will completely ignore a broken installation that is in the registry and file system, but not in the uninstall section of the system.
The best I can figure is that if a ball lightning object is caught on film, people end up calling them UFO scare attempts, then saying "There is no such thing as a UFO, so it must be a hoax".
Consider though: All of the above-mentioned items are visible unambiguously from miles away. They are all large-scale items. Ball lightning is considered to be small and doesn't act like meteors (falling fireball that you can photograph dozens of on the right night). I would expect that in close proximity, ball lightning would be too bright for the camera (or human eyes) to deal with properly, just ending up washing out the light detection device. At a distance, nobody can really determine whether it's ball lightning or just a proliferation of very short-distance lightning strikes within the cloud, or even just a plane.
If you don't want my signals accessing your network, it is trivially simple to ignore them.
Trivially simple for technically inclined folks to tell their equipment to do so. But the laws are made for the lowest common denominator, and the laws state quite clearly that if you access the network without permission, you are SOL.
Justify it as many ways as you like, but it still all comes down to What Happens When You Get Caught.
I don't know if there is a really good analogy for this, but I do know this: if someone doesn't want anyone else using your wireless access, then secure the damn thing already.
I think one of the main considerations overall was "Is it legally right to use an unintentionally unsecured network?" and "Is it MORALLY right for the same?"
Morals are personal things. That's why everybody has different opinions on this matter. Diferences in morals are the reason that one lost wallet with $5 in it will be returned to the owner with $5 intact, and another similar wallet with $5 in it will be returned with the money missing "Because I should get paid for being so nice and going out of my way to return it."
As to legally, in the US, it is not legally right to use an unintentionally unsecured wireless network, and if you get called on it, it will be your burden to prove to Joe Schmoe Trucker in the jury that your reasonably-diligent effort to ascertain that you had permission did a good job of uncovering implied or explicit permission that Joe Schmoe Trucker would agree is permission.
As a general rule, for "implied" permission, the user is stuck trying to prove that the owner of the network/machine -intentionally- allows for public access. For example, if you slap up a sign saying "Free WiFi! Connect to the network SSID JoesShack for access!", that is implied permission.
In the case of web pages, there are other links pointing to the web pages in question, and generally advertising out there to indicate "Go here!"... otherwise, trust me, people won't. In the case of wireless networks, having an "indicator of it specifically intentionally being an open network" will suffice, such as a sign, or other such item that the user has "reasonable belief" was instated by the owner of the network (Warchalk markers can't be used as defense.;) )
Main thing though is that BOTH the web server and the WiFi require permission... With the web server, the links and intentional public presence indicate implied permission, and will go in your favor in weighing who wins. However, with WiFi, the only indication you have is the discovery of the SSID broadcast. And since the broadcast is a mormal function of the network, and not "Express advertising" beyond that, unless the broadcast SSID is something like "FREE WIFI FOR YOU", the courts generally won't consider it "implicit permission".
Web sites that are well-linked from outside sources and that are obviously meant to be public access are a big difference from "SSID 'linksys' on Ch 6" when trying to prove that it was intended to be public and you did not know you did not have implied permission. A court will generally look at a web site or other public service as the equivilant of a public retail establishment. They have the right to DENY permission to folks, however except when expressly prohibited (Closed signs, locked doors, etc), the general public has a "reasonable belief" that they are allowed to be there. While wireless networks, unless expressly pointed to as or indicating that they are "public" (No, broadcasting an SSID on an unsecured network does not cover that) are generally considered to be private in court precidence.
Then comes the situation of "Public server"... The web site makes itself very obviously a public server. There are links pointing to it, advertising about it, etc. But trust me on this: If you decide to randomly go poking around scanning obscure subnets, and happen to find a web server that puts you on a system at a large police station for looking up police files... Even if it's not secured... You -WILL- get your {censored} handed to you for repeated access (Likely not for "*Look*... Oops! *RUNAWAY*!" (Though they may, you never know).
I guess the main thing to remember is that they are going to put you in front of a Jury of "your peers"... This does not mean technogeeks.. This means "Normal everyday people". And your responsibility is to convinve them that you had a reasonable reason to believe that you were allowed to access the thing.
vs Google: "Well, Millions of people go there, all my friends are there, and they have services that they specifically indicate are public. Google is a well-established system, and they KNOW for a fact that i was connecting, and millions of other people connect with their knowledge and no prohibition, so I had a reasonable belief that I was allowed to access it."
vs Bob Smith: "Well, I scanned for networks on my PC and say 'linksys' on channel 6, so I connected to it, and Bob didn't say not to until he found out. No, Bob is not a technologically inclined person, so he probably didn't know that I was connecting."
Best way to figure it out is VERY simple:
Before you connect somewhere, think to yourself, "If I asked the owner of this resource, 'May I connect to this resource and use it in the manner you intend it to be used?', would they say yes?"...
"Google, may I connect to your website and use it to search?"
"Starbucks, may I connect to your free wifi that you have for me to surf the internet and use it to surf the internet?"
"Bob, may I connect to your wireless network and use your internet connection so I don't have to get my own?"
Except that the water... And the electrical potential from the generator... both are simple the equivilant of radio waves FROM the AP. Neither of those anaologies covers the data carries in the radio waves, nor do they cover sending radio waves back to the AP and opening communication with it, nor do they cover using the signalling and open communication causing other systems on the other side of the AP to do your wishes or carry your data.
You sir, are running your routers on public domain. By law (which the grand parent has stated) anyone is allowed to receive these transmissions and send information back to the receiver. If you do not want people to be able to use these networks beyond these points then you spend the 90 seconds needed to turn on some minimal security measures.
Hmm... By Law, the radio waves are public domain; you can and may listen to them. By law, you can and may transmit radio waves of the same frequency. And by law, you may not access a computer network without permission. Just becasue there is a means by which this network 'can' (possible to do) be accessed in a public area does not make it legal to do so. Regardless of how "easy" it is to get this access, the access itself is still illegal.
Just like an unlocked and wide-open house door makes it 'easy' to break into a house, it does not make it 'legal' to break into a house.
One evening while walking down the street I notice that the light is so bright that I can sit on the curb of the street and read a book by the light. So I do. Is it unethical for me to be using their light to read my book?
No problem! But still a flawed analogy. The radio waves (your neighbor's light) by themselves provide nothing. The data encoded on the manipulation of the radio waves, and your sending radio waves back, thus causing other things in the house to react, are what provides you with the internet service.
So, to make your analogy better, the neighbor's front porch light would need to be a special signalling device that flashes on and off or changes color to talk to the car (AP Outbound signal). The car would then blink it's headlights, and the front porch light sees this blinking and gets information from it (Wireless card to AP). The car then sends a message "Send out a can of gasoline.", and a can of gas is sent to the car, because the front porch light is connected to a house system that understands how to do this.
So, you getting the internet connection on the WiFi is the equivilant of parking YOUR car within view of the front porch light, then causing YOUR car to signal for the house to send out a can of gasoline, and getting the gasoline. Not just "reading a book using their light", because A: Reading the book using their light does not involve decoding the information contained in that light. B: Does not involve sending any information BACK to the light. C: Does not involve getting something back from the house that would normally not have been given to you unless you screwed around with flashing lights.
However... To REALLY make this analogy not involve cars or gasoline...
The light is constantly signalling information of a guy reading a book. There is only one guy, in the house, and he has access to any book in existence. There is a person in the car in the driveway who has the car's headlights flash, and the porch light receives these flashes, and tells the guy in the house "Please start reading 'Flashing Lights for Dummies'." So the guy in the house does this, and what he is reading is sent over the flashing porch light to the car.
Now you bring your car up, and decide "Well, the guy in the house isn't reading any book right now, so I will flash my headlights at the porch light and get him to read 'Hacking Doom for Smart People' to me."
So the question is not of whether you can read your own book under their light, but whether you should have the right to get the guy in their house to read information of your chosing to you via the flashing porch light.
But in this case, the neighbor's faucet/WAP is spraying water/an RF datastream over the property line. Is it wrong to rig up a big funnel/catch basin and use the water that your neighbor was spraying uninvited onto your property?
That analogy covers nothing but "receiving the radio waves" and "using the incoming radio waves" (potentially decoding the information kept in them and sniffing). It does not cover "Sending radio waves back" or "Making use of the other parts of the system that those radio waves allow an interlink with".
Remember: The "water" is nothing but a carrier. Whether it is special based on the colors of the droplets, or whatever, it just carries data. The water in and of itself is of no use to you. Only when you catch the water and decode the colors of the drops do you get data that is of use to you. But then you've got to make your OWN sprinkler to send water BACK to the special funnel on the other side, and request that the control system send out specific droplet colors for you.
Let's say you are watering your garden, and your driveway has concrete gutters where excess water channels into the street. Someone is walking down the public sidewalk and is thirsty, and dips his drinking cup into the water stream emanating from your property (but no longer on it) and drinks it, without ever entering on to your property. Has this person stolen your water?
Your analogy doesn't work unless you are -ONLY- listening to the radio broadcasts and never actually sending anything back. The "water" you speak about in this case is the outbound radio signal from the AP. So, in your dipping the cup analogy, sure, you can listen in on the radio broadcasts... However that also means that the water itself is actually being used as nothing but a signalling device (Since you are making "Water from the sprinklers = Radio Waves" analogy), and so "Drinking the water" would be nothing more than the equivilant of the antenna on any RF revceiver creating a signal on its output.
So "Drinking the water" is nothing but having an antenna that isn't connected to anything, and is purely legal, but also menas that you haven't gotten as far as actually having an internet connection for yourself.
That's part of the issue... Unless you are invited to do so, connecting to a wireless network in the US is illegal. You can listen to parts all you want, but the moment you tell the other systems, "Oh, and I want to talk too!", you're in potential trouble.
If you connect to any unsecured wireless network, you should not necessarily expect an internet connection. Head to the some states, and the roadside rest stops have "free wireless!"... however you can't get onto the internet, only to the state road information. Try to go to google? Get state road information. Heck, go to a T-Mobile Hot Spot, and you won't get an internet connection normally unless you have paid for service. Open wireless != Internet connection. Open wireless exclusively means "You can connect to the wireless segment of this AP's network view." (Note: "Can" != "Legally Permitted". "Can" == "Possible to do")
That's just dumb. You're allowed to throw peas at me, but I can't throw the same kind of peas back at you?
Ahhh, Tit for Tat...
Given that the "peas" are radio waves... Simply put, to make the "pea" analogy work,you'd have to have "Ghost peas" that don't actually hit anybody, aren't even SEEN unless you are specifically looking for them, and are available to be eaten or ignored as you see fit. This is why the OP of this thread pointed out that the analogies are broken.
But again, the important thing is that Yes, you can throw peas around, as long as you don't try to get your peas to grow in the garden. Ie, Yes, you can transmit radio waves, as long as thos radio waves don't act as a medium by which you illegally access a computer network.
Listening to radio waves: Legal
Transmitting radio waves: Legal
Using the combination of listening and transmitting radio waves as a carrier by which to access the computerized system: Not legal.
Analogies of all sorts, and yes, it does come down to radio waves. I only know about the US, so let's see...
Firstly, somebody said "Their radio waves are infringing on my property, so I have the right to use them." This is very similar to the "garden pelting passersby with peas and carrots, so they are allowed to eat them."
Fine. You may eat (LISTEN) to the radio waves. You may NOT send stuff back to the garden to grow, nor may you send radio waves back to the receiver. And of course, actually getting arbitrary data back from the network, or connecting to the network, requires that you send stuff back... at which point YOUR radio waves are invading THEIR property.
But then it gets more complicated...
Okay, yes, as the parent says, you may broadcast on the same frequency, and if the receiver listens, that's its own damn problem. True. Very true.
HOWEVER...
The FCC rules only cover permission to broadcast, and permission to listen to the radio waves. They do NOT cover the permission needed to use the radio waves as a transmission medium by which access to the computer systems on the other side of the radio waves is gained.
The whole thing comes down not to the radio waves, but to the access to the network and computer systems. And that access is the illegal part.
So if you were "talking" on the radio waves, but in NO way accessing anything BEYOND the radio waves themselves (No data went past the receiver on the other end... not even to the chips involved in processing network traffic), then it's fine.
End result?
You can sniff as much as you want, just don't sneeze.
Today we have gone behind the scenes at this fancy vampire restaurant and replaced their normal blood with freeze dried Soldier's Crystals. Will the guests notice the difference?
"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality free download which you can play in your standard DVD player and came out months earlier."
This argument is based on the understanding that everybody pirates, or is at least comfortable with pirating.
The proper question to actually ask, in that case, might be:
"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality physical DVD purchase that you can play in your standard DVD player and comes out at exactly the same time?"
However, the actual case is different from both of these. There are basically three major groups of "Consumers" in this situation. 1: People who Will Buy the DVD. 2: People who Will Not buy the DVD but will Pirate it for free because they want to watch it anyway. 3: People who Want to watch it, but Will Not buy the DVD, and Will Not Pirate it.
Now, they really don't have to worry about group 1. They -COULD- try to target Group 3 in an attempt to garner new audience and sales. However, by the statement from TFA: They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film. , it appears that they are trying to target Group 2.
As such, keeping in mind that they are apparently trying to ignore people who already buy DVD's, not trying to entice new consumers, and specifically are tryign to convince people who would otherwise pirate the product to get it this way instead... Well, the original quoted question of the parent's parent is accurate: "Why buy this junk for just as much as the DVD I don't want to buy when I can get it for free, higher quality, unencumbered by DRM, and sooner?"
The only way they are going to get the pirate crew to stop pirating is if they offer a better alternative with a better value vs cost ratio. If a pirate thinks it's worth $1.50 to get a guarenteed good item with a few concessions on how it can be used, rather than try downloading 4 copies looking for a decent quality copy, then they will pay the $1.50. For $1.50, that might be worth it. For $20, with seriously-restrictive rights, it's not. Save their $20, keep their abilities to play it somewhere else, and deal with 4 downloads to find a decent quality item.
As of right now, the stream is "Working" and not overloaded.
Ahhh, I am proud of/.'ers. Within a few minutes of posting my message, the stream has promptly begun to have issues intermittantly. However we obviously aren't working hard enough here, as it's still working most of the time. Can/. bring Akamai to its knees? Can we drag the speed down, make people buffer all the time, or only see 1 fram every 6 seconds? Do/.'ers in the US actually GET UP at this time of morning... or is it "stay awake until this time of morning..."?
All these questions and more, to be answered as time goes on. Now streaming: "These important messages"... yay. Commercials.
Slashdot Mirror
"Okay, Jim... Be VERY careful edging up to that cliff drop. We need precision control... Don't go too far..."
*Bump*
"Woah!"
*Vrooooom! -KEE-RASH-*
"You know... It was bad enough when you bumped my arm when I was playing Super Monkey Balls..."
(* I'd love to see a robotic Mars rover that could go vrooom)
Broken nose... Lose fingers to a saw... go blind...
It simply stands as a standard that there is no standard that is 100% effective or unbreakable or loss-proof. Things can only be "More Secure" or "Less Secure". Generally the more secure they are, the easier it is to lose them as well.
The only major difference between passwords and biometrics is that one is knowledge-based and one is physical. Neither are fully secure. There is the difference between how easy it is to potentially steal or duplicate somebody's biometric signature versus how easy it is to steal or duplicate a password of similar relative "strength" in any given situation. Compare the process of stealing an 8-digit numeric key code versus duplicating somebody's fingerprint in a way that the scanner will recognize for example.
But with the low recognition rate, and the recommendation to use this as an additional layer of security, itreally is just that, an addition layer. Just like IP access lists. The duplicated fingerprint will do you no good as the nose knows!
So yeah, looks like they reach in but failed to pick a true winner (sorry). But as an extra layer of entropy, the speed makes it potentially more useful than face recognition, and due to the multiple angles and shadows, it doesn't suffer from "Photo in front of the camera" problems.
Machines are countable so the plural interpretation of many gods from different machines is perfectly valid (i.e. "... ex machinae").
The "machine" in this case is the contrivance of the world by the writer. Thus it is a singular machine in all essence. Deus ex machina uses machina as opposed to machos, which is what it really should use.
Like the TV show Heroes? It's fun to watch but certainly not realistic.
Disclaimer: The use of parent as an example is in no way an attack on the author in any way. The author simply provided perfect fodder for this example.
Having written and published (badly) some stuff that could be considered "Sci Fi" by some folks, I will say my impression is that the critics are the real killers in this case. People who complain that it's "Not realistic enough" and "Breaks all the rules" are the folks who are killing the genre and the will of the writers in the genre.
Back in the old days of Sci Fi, we didn't have everybody and their brother who were "internet experts" on anything and everything. A concept could break ideas that the average person knew at that time and still be accepted, since the high end scientists learned more about these ideas and "rules" as we went forward in ways that made these outrageous concepts from Sci Fi a decade ago completely normal now. People enjoyed Star Trek because it was FUN. We didn't have a massive group of people who wanted... ahem... "...SCIENCE fiction, with emphasis on the science...". Sure, we don't have communicators that will chirp and allow an instant communication link from orbit, but current cell phones are pretty darn useful and a lot of them are very similar. So we end up with real things that are inspired by the outrageous things.
Improvements in technology and "Sci Fi" writing do go hand in hand, but the moment the writer gets slammed by 'edumacated' folks who seem to think that the scientific rules are a box to stay in and not inconveniences to find a solution around, they give up on these people and don't write.
For example: How can Sylar pick-up a person and throw him against a wall? Newton's Law dictates that Sylar should be pushed backward with an equal force (recoil). Also where is the energy coming from? Sylar must eat 50,000 calories a day* to maintain that level of "toss people against walls" energy output.
This is a box. A person who thinks only this way will have zero success at furthering current technology. A person who sees the facts and rules above and then decides to figure out a way to make it work anyway is the person who will bring about great advances in Science Reality. Will they succeed at accomplishing that specific thing? Maybe. Probably not. But the work they do to try might just have some interesting side effects that are good.
The problem is that there are more and more people who can't think outside the box and slam Sci Fi writers who try to for not being realistic enough to today's box. Creative folks are not easy to come by (which is why copyright law is considered so important to try to help encourage creativity). Slam them and discourage them out of what they were doing and suddenly you've got the loss mentioned above.
They did not claim that the warranty was voided, they claimed that servicing would cause them to violate OSHA regs. This is nonsense.
True, this is nonsense if it is true, and we all know that all things alleged on the internet is true. ;) But if sued, as you suggest in your post, Apple can then likely just say "Well, despite what they claim we said, the failure was caused by the smoke residue in the machine, which is an outside source for the failure, and is not covered by the warranty. Despite alleged claims that we said it was for OSHA reasons, we never did say such a thing." Then the prosecution may end up paying for Apple's side of legal defense and unless they can provide legally-admissible evidence that Apple said the wrong thing, and then prove that extra damage was cause by Apple giving the wrong reason (OSHA as opposed to external causes), they're out of luck anyway.
THe tech certainly isnt obligated to do Haz-mat work, but that doesnt mean Apple can shirk its legal responsibility. THe part is under warranty and is being denied for a non-industry standard reason. Explanations are in order.
The warranty covers damage caused by defects in materials and workmanship. It does not cover damage caused by external factors. If the computer short-circuits because of a misplaced solder splot that expands when it reaches the high range of normal operating temperature, that is a defect in materials and workmanship. If the computer overheats because the fan that should be working is not working because it was built wrong, that is covered.
If the computer overheats because the components are coated in smoke residue, said smoke residue being an outside factor, it is not covered. This is industry standard, just like if they were coated in soda that was spilled on the machine.
If the computer is damaged in other ways because of the presence of smoke residue, also not covered.
If Apple says they are declining it because smoke is a biohazard, they are performing bad PR and reasoning and should be using the proper legal reason of "failure caused by external factors"... but definitely NOT include "...which we sometimes fix anyway if it doesn't cost us much (like dusting out a bit of pet hair in 15 seconds), but our tech puked on your motherboard when he opened up the case, so we're calling it a lost cause".
Its a reason to exercise the 'replace' option in the 'repair or replace at our discretion' portion of your warranty agreement.
If there is enough smoke residue for them to detect, there is no way to say that the damage was not caused by said smoke residue. Warranty covers damage by defects in materials and workmanship. Per Apple's warranty documents:
"This warranty does not apply: ... (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple;"
The Applecare Protection Plan has similar wording:
"(ii) Damage to the Covered Equipment caused by accident, abuse, neglect, misuse (including faulty installation, repair, or maintenance by anyone other than Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider), unauthorized modification, extreme environment (including extreme temperature or humidity), extreme physical or electrical stress or interference, fluctuation or surges of electrical power, lightning, static electricity, fire, acts of God or other external causes;"
One of the consumers who was declined service went in because his MacBook was overheating. Smoke residue on the heatsinks, fans, and other surfaces would definitely cause such a thing, just like any other particulate or surface-coating substance (Anybody know the thermal conductivity of cigarette smoke residue?). As such, by the wording above, Apple has the right to refuse service based on the overheating damage being caused by a buildup of cigarette smoke residue on heat transfer surfaces. Legally, the smoke residue could also potentially be considered to be the result of "fire" or "extreme environment"in the APP wording.
"But dust and pet hair will cause the same! Why don't they void my warranty?"
By Apple's wording, they can, and thus, if Apple chooses to determine that they will provide repairs despite what may be abnormal buildup of dust or pet hair inside the system, they do this as a courtesy and not as setting a legal precedent. At the same time, if you end up trying to send in a computer that is as bad as some of these, I highly expect that, though it is just dust and maybe hair in some cases, they will tell you to bugger off.
So Apple gets in a computer that is technically not covered. Being a business, they make a decision at some level as to whether it will be more cost/profit efficient to correct it anyway as a courtesy ("It's just a little dust that can be blown out in 15 seconds and might make somebody sneeze at worst in most cases, then it's fine. It costs us a few bucks and we have a happy customer who buys another $2000 in the next year or so.") or whether to pull in the legalese and decline to correct it because of real or potential costs ("It's making the tech sick, the residue would need to be hand-cleaned on all parts or the parts completely replaced, and with this much gunk in there, we'd have to trash and replace the whole thing at our expense. Then the person keeps smoking, it is likely to get gunked up again, we replace it again, and the income from this customer does not warrant the cost to us.").
Want to sue Apple over it? You need to provide more proof that the error occurred because they didn't build the computer properly than they provide possibility that the smoke caused it, and being an "external cause", is not covered by warranty. It's civil, so it's just "who is more right?". Since they probably have treated other smokers' computers, one really can't say they are discriminating based on smoking, and they are not required to treat everybody equally. The presence of a void item overrides real warranty-covered issues. If you get a DirecTV receiver and the hard
Well, we already know the internet is a series of tubes... So now we're going to have leaky tubes? Blah... More dripping information out there.
If too much information drips out, something horrible might happen, like crashing things into the moon, or some president somewhere making 400 illegal copies of a DVD and putting himself at strike two of three before his own law gets him banned from the internet.
*Hides from the leaky nets*
I really wish the people who complain about this would at least provide the proper perspective. The $0.20 per text cost is the cost without a plan. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile (AT&T as well?) all offer unlimited plans nowadays. Nobody with a clue is actually paying $0.20 per SMS.
$20/month for unlimited SMS means that in order to "Break Even" and have them at a discount, a person would need to use 100 SMS per month. Even though there are lots of exceptionally heavy users, the last time I looked up stats for a wireless carrier on SMS usage of Unlimited SMS customers, the average was 62/month. That puts the average unlimited-SMS-for-$20 customer paying $0.32 per SMS.
Your observation that "Nobody with a clue is paying $0.20 per SMS" is wholly correct. There are a lot of clueless folks with unlimited SMS packages though that are paying a whole lot more than that.
The actual point of it though is that it costs a rediculously low amount of money to the wireless carrier to handle an SMS. Fractions of a cent. SMS handling... I forget the precise numbers, but with overhead an SMS is about 182 bytes I think. I'll round it up to 200 bytes just for calculations. If one SMS is 200 bytes, and you only paid a single penny per SMS, that would still be $500 for one megabyte of data transferred, including the header and structure overhead. That is what folks are complaining about.
It's really sad when the company provides their own removal tool. It works, but it makes you wonder why they don't just fix the uninstaller...
Unfortunately, sometimes the uninstaller gets broken/deleted/blocked/etc, so can't do its job properly. Other times the uninstaller will leave the setting behind. Still other times the uninstaller encounters something that it doesn't know how to deal with because of damage to the installation.
The uninstaller is the proper surgical technique to remove parts and still be "user friendly". The "Removal Tool" is the slash and burn and hope there is no collateral damage method.
Could be worse... Trend Micro's removal tool will completely ignore a broken installation that is in the registry and file system, but not in the uninstall section of the system.
The best I can figure is that if a ball lightning object is caught on film, people end up calling them UFO scare attempts, then saying "There is no such thing as a UFO, so it must be a hoax".
Consider though: All of the above-mentioned items are visible unambiguously from miles away. They are all large-scale items. Ball lightning is considered to be small and doesn't act like meteors (falling fireball that you can photograph dozens of on the right night). I would expect that in close proximity, ball lightning would be too bright for the camera (or human eyes) to deal with properly, just ending up washing out the light detection device. At a distance, nobody can really determine whether it's ball lightning or just a proliferation of very short-distance lightning strikes within the cloud, or even just a plane.
Trivially simple for technically inclined folks to tell their equipment to do so. But the laws are made for the lowest common denominator, and the laws state quite clearly that if you access the network without permission, you are SOL.
Justify it as many ways as you like, but it still all comes down to What Happens When You Get Caught.
I think one of the main considerations overall was "Is it legally right to use an unintentionally unsecured network?" and "Is it MORALLY right for the same?"
Morals are personal things. That's why everybody has different opinions on this matter. Diferences in morals are the reason that one lost wallet with $5 in it will be returned to the owner with $5 intact, and another similar wallet with $5 in it will be returned with the money missing "Because I should get paid for being so nice and going out of my way to return it."
As to legally, in the US, it is not legally right to use an unintentionally unsecured wireless network, and if you get called on it, it will be your burden to prove to Joe Schmoe Trucker in the jury that your reasonably-diligent effort to ascertain that you had permission did a good job of uncovering implied or explicit permission that Joe Schmoe Trucker would agree is permission.
In the case of web pages, there are other links pointing to the web pages in question, and generally advertising out there to indicate "Go here!"... otherwise, trust me, people won't. In the case of wireless networks, having an "indicator of it specifically intentionally being an open network" will suffice, such as a sign, or other such item that the user has "reasonable belief" was instated by the owner of the network (Warchalk markers can't be used as defense. ;) )
Main thing though is that BOTH the web server and the WiFi require permission... With the web server, the links and intentional public presence indicate implied permission, and will go in your favor in weighing who wins. However, with WiFi, the only indication you have is the discovery of the SSID broadcast. And since the broadcast is a mormal function of the network, and not "Express advertising" beyond that, unless the broadcast SSID is something like "FREE WIFI FOR YOU", the courts generally won't consider it "implicit permission".
Web sites that are well-linked from outside sources and that are obviously meant to be public access are a big difference from "SSID 'linksys' on Ch 6" when trying to prove that it was intended to be public and you did not know you did not have implied permission. A court will generally look at a web site or other public service as the equivilant of a public retail establishment. They have the right to DENY permission to folks, however except when expressly prohibited (Closed signs, locked doors, etc), the general public has a "reasonable belief" that they are allowed to be there. While wireless networks, unless expressly pointed to as or indicating that they are "public" (No, broadcasting an SSID on an unsecured network does not cover that) are generally considered to be private in court precidence.
Then comes the situation of "Public server"... The web site makes itself very obviously a public server. There are links pointing to it, advertising about it, etc. But trust me on this: If you decide to randomly go poking around scanning obscure subnets, and happen to find a web server that puts you on a system at a large police station for looking up police files... Even if it's not secured... You -WILL- get your {censored} handed to you for repeated access (Likely not for "*Look*... Oops! *RUNAWAY*!" (Though they may, you never know).
I guess the main thing to remember is that they are going to put you in front of a Jury of "your peers"... This does not mean technogeeks.. This means "Normal everyday people". And your responsibility is to convinve them that you had a reasonable reason to believe that you were allowed to access the thing.
vs Google: "Well, Millions of people go there, all my friends are there, and they have services that they specifically indicate are public. Google is a well-established system, and they KNOW for a fact that i was connecting, and millions of other people connect with their knowledge and no prohibition, so I had a reasonable belief that I was allowed to access it."
vs Bob Smith: "Well, I scanned for networks on my PC and say 'linksys' on channel 6, so I connected to it, and Bob didn't say not to until he found out. No, Bob is not a technologically inclined person, so he probably didn't know that I was connecting."
Best way to figure it out is VERY simple:
Before you connect somewhere, think to yourself, "If I asked the owner of this resource, 'May I connect to this resource and use it in the manner you intend it to be used?', would they say yes?"...
"Google, may I connect to your website and use it to search?"
"Starbucks, may I connect to your free wifi that you have for me to surf the internet and use it to surf the internet?"
"Bob, may I connect to your wireless network and use your internet connection so I don't have to get my own?"
Easy to think about at least.
Except that the water... And the electrical potential from the generator... both are simple the equivilant of radio waves FROM the AP. Neither of those anaologies covers the data carries in the radio waves, nor do they cover sending radio waves back to the AP and opening communication with it, nor do they cover using the signalling and open communication causing other systems on the other side of the AP to do your wishes or carry your data.
Hmm... By Law, the radio waves are public domain; you can and may listen to them. By law, you can and may transmit radio waves of the same frequency. And by law, you may not access a computer network without permission. Just becasue there is a means by which this network 'can' (possible to do) be accessed in a public area does not make it legal to do so. Regardless of how "easy" it is to get this access, the access itself is still illegal.
Just like an unlocked and wide-open house door makes it 'easy' to break into a house, it does not make it 'legal' to break into a house.
No problem! But still a flawed analogy. The radio waves (your neighbor's light) by themselves provide nothing. The data encoded on the manipulation of the radio waves, and your sending radio waves back, thus causing other things in the house to react, are what provides you with the internet service.
So, to make your analogy better, the neighbor's front porch light would need to be a special signalling device that flashes on and off or changes color to talk to the car (AP Outbound signal). The car would then blink it's headlights, and the front porch light sees this blinking and gets information from it (Wireless card to AP). The car then sends a message "Send out a can of gasoline.", and a can of gas is sent to the car, because the front porch light is connected to a house system that understands how to do this.
So, you getting the internet connection on the WiFi is the equivilant of parking YOUR car within view of the front porch light, then causing YOUR car to signal for the house to send out a can of gasoline, and getting the gasoline. Not just "reading a book using their light", because A: Reading the book using their light does not involve decoding the information contained in that light. B: Does not involve sending any information BACK to the light. C: Does not involve getting something back from the house that would normally not have been given to you unless you screwed around with flashing lights.
However... To REALLY make this analogy not involve cars or gasoline...
The light is constantly signalling information of a guy reading a book. There is only one guy, in the house, and he has access to any book in existence. There is a person in the car in the driveway who has the car's headlights flash, and the porch light receives these flashes, and tells the guy in the house "Please start reading 'Flashing Lights for Dummies'." So the guy in the house does this, and what he is reading is sent over the flashing porch light to the car.
Now you bring your car up, and decide "Well, the guy in the house isn't reading any book right now, so I will flash my headlights at the porch light and get him to read 'Hacking Doom for Smart People' to me."
So the question is not of whether you can read your own book under their light, but whether you should have the right to get the guy in their house to read information of your chosing to you via the flashing porch light.
That analogy covers nothing but "receiving the radio waves" and "using the incoming radio waves" (potentially decoding the information kept in them and sniffing). It does not cover "Sending radio waves back" or "Making use of the other parts of the system that those radio waves allow an interlink with".
Remember: The "water" is nothing but a carrier. Whether it is special based on the colors of the droplets, or whatever, it just carries data. The water in and of itself is of no use to you. Only when you catch the water and decode the colors of the drops do you get data that is of use to you. But then you've got to make your OWN sprinkler to send water BACK to the special funnel on the other side, and request that the control system send out specific droplet colors for you.
Your analogy doesn't work unless you are -ONLY- listening to the radio broadcasts and never actually sending anything back. The "water" you speak about in this case is the outbound radio signal from the AP. So, in your dipping the cup analogy, sure, you can listen in on the radio broadcasts... However that also means that the water itself is actually being used as nothing but a signalling device (Since you are making "Water from the sprinklers = Radio Waves" analogy), and so "Drinking the water" would be nothing more than the equivilant of the antenna on any RF revceiver creating a signal on its output.
So "Drinking the water" is nothing but having an antenna that isn't connected to anything, and is purely legal, but also menas that you haven't gotten as far as actually having an internet connection for yourself.
That's part of the issue... Unless you are invited to do so, connecting to a wireless network in the US is illegal. You can listen to parts all you want, but the moment you tell the other systems, "Oh, and I want to talk too!", you're in potential trouble.
If you connect to any unsecured wireless network, you should not necessarily expect an internet connection. Head to the some states, and the roadside rest stops have "free wireless!"... however you can't get onto the internet, only to the state road information. Try to go to google? Get state road information. Heck, go to a T-Mobile Hot Spot, and you won't get an internet connection normally unless you have paid for service. Open wireless != Internet connection. Open wireless exclusively means "You can connect to the wireless segment of this AP's network view." (Note: "Can" != "Legally Permitted". "Can" == "Possible to do")
Ahhh, Tit for Tat...
Given that the "peas" are radio waves... Simply put, to make the "pea" analogy work,you'd have to have "Ghost peas" that don't actually hit anybody, aren't even SEEN unless you are specifically looking for them, and are available to be eaten or ignored as you see fit. This is why the OP of this thread pointed out that the analogies are broken.
But again, the important thing is that Yes, you can throw peas around, as long as you don't try to get your peas to grow in the garden. Ie, Yes, you can transmit radio waves, as long as thos radio waves don't act as a medium by which you illegally access a computer network.
Listening to radio waves: Legal
Transmitting radio waves: Legal
Using the combination of listening and transmitting radio waves as a carrier by which to access the computerized system: Not legal.
Analogies of all sorts, and yes, it does come down to radio waves. I only know about the US, so let's see...
Firstly, somebody said "Their radio waves are infringing on my property, so I have the right to use them."
This is very similar to the "garden pelting passersby with peas and carrots, so they are allowed to eat them."
Fine. You may eat (LISTEN) to the radio waves. You may NOT send stuff back to the garden to grow, nor may you send radio waves back to the receiver. And of course, actually getting arbitrary data back from the network, or connecting to the network, requires that you send stuff back... at which point YOUR radio waves are invading THEIR property.
But then it gets more complicated...
Okay, yes, as the parent says, you may broadcast on the same frequency, and if the receiver listens, that's its own damn problem.
True. Very true.
HOWEVER...
The FCC rules only cover permission to broadcast, and permission to listen to the radio waves. They do NOT cover the permission needed to use the radio waves as a transmission medium by which access to the computer systems on the other side of the radio waves is gained.
The whole thing comes down not to the radio waves, but to the access to the network and computer systems. And that access is the illegal part.
So if you were "talking" on the radio waves, but in NO way accessing anything BEYOND the radio waves themselves (No data went past the receiver on the other end... not even to the chips involved in processing network traffic), then it's fine.
End result?
You can sniff as much as you want, just don't sneeze.
Today we have gone behind the scenes at this fancy vampire restaurant and replaced their normal blood with freeze dried Soldier's Crystals. Will the guests notice the difference?
This argument is based on the understanding that everybody pirates, or is at least comfortable with pirating.
The proper question to actually ask, in that case, might be:
"How do they expect a DRM encumbered download which costs as much as the DVD to succeed against a superior quality physical DVD purchase that you can play in your standard DVD player and comes out at exactly the same time?"
However, the actual case is different from both of these. There are basically three major groups of "Consumers" in this situation. 1: People who Will Buy the DVD. 2: People who Will Not buy the DVD but will Pirate it for free because they want to watch it anyway. 3: People who Want to watch it, but Will Not buy the DVD, and Will Not Pirate it.
Now, they really don't have to worry about group 1. They -COULD- try to target Group 3 in an attempt to garner new audience and sales. However, by the statement from TFA: They believe movie fans will prefer to pay a reasonable price for a legal downloaded movie rather than risk illegally swapping a computer file that could contain viruses or be a poor quality copy of a film. , it appears that they are trying to target Group 2.
As such, keeping in mind that they are apparently trying to ignore people who already buy DVD's, not trying to entice new consumers, and specifically are tryign to convince people who would otherwise pirate the product to get it this way instead... Well, the original quoted question of the parent's parent is accurate: "Why buy this junk for just as much as the DVD I don't want to buy when I can get it for free, higher quality, unencumbered by DRM, and sooner?"
The only way they are going to get the pirate crew to stop pirating is if they offer a better alternative with a better value vs cost ratio. If a pirate thinks it's worth $1.50 to get a guarenteed good item with a few concessions on how it can be used, rather than try downloading 4 copies looking for a decent quality copy, then they will pay the $1.50. For $1.50, that might be worth it. For $20, with seriously-restrictive rights, it's not. Save their $20, keep their abilities to play it somewhere else, and deal with 4 downloads to find a decent quality item.
Ahhh, I am proud of /.'ers. Within a few minutes of posting my message, the stream has promptly begun to have issues intermittantly. However we obviously aren't working hard enough here, as it's still working most of the time. Can /. bring Akamai to its knees? Can we drag the speed down, make people buffer all the time, or only see 1 fram every 6 seconds? Do /.'ers in the US actually GET UP at this time of morning... or is it "stay awake until this time of morning..."?
All these questions and more, to be answered as time goes on. Now streaming: "These important messages"... yay. Commercials.