O&A fans aren't likely to listen to Stern, and visa versa. Also, Stern is a huge drain in the finances of Sirrus; he's way overpaid, and no one cares anymore what he does. As far as electroncia goes, I like what XM has, and I know XM has decade channels.. I assume Sirrus has decade channels as well, although I know they have other crap. My gym has Sirrius, and i never liked the channels they play.. and their DJs talk too much.
Oh shut up. From your post I can only assume you've read the press releases from both companies. Oprah isn't XM's competitor to Stern for one. And I decided that NFL isn't something I can to hear on the radio.. so why would I care it's an option? XM already has everything I want; all the merger will do is endanger the options I currently use.
How exactly do I get internet streaming radio in my car? Or uncensored music / talk broadcasts?
Let's try something different; based on your assumption that sat. radio is competing with iPods, terristrial radio and CDs, should we now allow all FM stations to merge into one? After all, they are competing with sat. radio, iPods, etc.
And I'm sure all these surveys you quote did that. Sure..
You're the one that said all books become part of our culture. So, that dumb motherfucking came from you.
No I didn't. I see your reading comprehension is as bad as your debating skills.
Wow, you really are one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to.
I notice when you have no point you resort to insults.
What precisely is the color of the sky in your little world? Very few publishers are going to take on a smaller author because the publishing industry is about selling books, not "art". They couldn't care less if some unknown author has the next great American novel or not. They're going to give a publishing slot to a known seller, given the choice.
Hey, stupid, every publisher wants to sell the next great American novel, BECAUSE IT WILL SELL A LOT OF COPIES. And you call me dumb? You lack even the most basic of reasoning skills, in addition to not being able to comprehend English correctly.
Nope, sorry, not true. They're there because some publisher THOUGHT they could sell them. They languish on the shelves for a few weeks and then are sent on to book outlets that you see popping up all over the place. If they don't sell there, they're destroyed. For someone who claims to know the industry, you probably should actually spend some time here before spouting lies everywhere.
There's no increase in book "outlets." I know you will believe whatever you like, after all I know you can't handle being wrong. The reason some people never tipped you was because you probably sucked as a waiter. But you can't handle critism of yourself, so you invent nonsense and spout it as fact.
Do all books sell well? No. That's why there may only be three copies of something on a self. But to say that most books follow yoru pattern is simply retarded. The book stores would all be out of business.
Again, the color of the sky? The system, as setup today, does not encourage artists of any kind. The music industry, the publishing industry and the movie industry are all about making money. There's no "art" involved. If it makes money, AND can be considered "art", so be it...these industries are only interested in the former. They're designed to ripe all of the artistic content out of an artist, "tweak" it for maximum profit and then dumping it on an unsuspecting audience. Under the system proposed by the intelligent people (which is why you don't understand it), artists provide their works directly to the public and the public decides if they want to buy it or not. The artist loses nothing by doing so. By signing with a publisher/label/studio today, they give up their works entirely for a small (VERY SMALL) percentage of profits. You might want to read up on Nine Inch Nails. In particular, pay attention toward the end where they tried to give fans the right to remix THEIR music, but it was blocked by the label that "owned" the music. Giving away their music is working well for them. Note, they only charge $5 for the complete "CD"...which will net them higher profits than if they'd sold them through the labels at $17-18/CD. I read Rick Dakan's novel "Geek Mafia" for free...and then purchased a print copy of it. As soon as it fits in the rotation, I'll download the latest chapter, and if I like it, I'll buy it.
Perhaps you should research why da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo the Sistine Chapel. The fact that artists today give too much of their rights away is not a problem with copyright law, its a problem with artists negotiating their contracts. As an aside, NIN doesn't NEED to give anyone the right to remix; parady and remixes are covered under fair use.
The new system works, that's why iTunes is doing so well. The old systems were in place to make publishers/labels/studios rich. The new systems are actually making the ARTISTS rich. And, really, isn't that what you want?
If only it were that simple, but it's not. I'm talking about people who have downloaded items for free (legally, of course) and then purchased a copy or donated to the author.
And again, in those studies there is no way to prove that a person that downloaded initally actually purchased later.
Because every book becomes part of our culture...but, again, you missed the point because you're fucktard. So, I'll type slower: the occupation has nothing to do with it. If you're an author, and you sell 50 million copies of your book, and a million people stole a copy of the book, you're still ahead. If, however, you're not an author, but a fuckwit who put out yet another piece of shit just to sell a piece of shit, then, yes, you're going to care about squeezing every single penny out of every single person who's read your book, regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not. The latter is the model we have today, which explains why there's so many bad books on the market.
Really? If I write a book, and no one reads it, it becomes part of our culture? Culture means "shared among a large group of people." Go look it up. You really are a dumb motherfucker aren't you? The majority of authors aren't the ones that sell 50 million, and NO author starts off selling that many. They start off having a small fanbase and have other retards that couldn't write a book to save their life say there are "many bad books on the market." You focus soley on those that have made something in their career. You never look at them though when they first start out. The way it is now, the "bigger" authors are helping the smaller one. Because Stephen King can sell 50 million, a publisher will take a risk on a smaller author that hasn't yet built his base.
You seem to forget that all those "bad books" on the shelves are there because there ARE people out there that wish to buy them. They may not be a majority of people, and they never might be. Yet you would say what they enjoy is crap? Go fuck yourself. The system as is gives people a lot of variety, and beauity is in the eye of the beholder... not some pompus ass angry that he didn't get tipped because he likely did a shit job as a waiter.
Well, since I haven't been a waiter in over 20 years, your rapier-like attacks on them isn't doing anything except prove that you can't grasp a simple comparison that has nothing to do with occupation.
You say I miss the point, yet it's you and your stupid personal experience that is missing it. It takes a lot of time and effort to become a good writer, and the current system allows people to invest in that time and effort. Your system would totally destroy that. I guess we can go back and have what we did before; rich people paying someone to write or paint, but then only the rich get art. Just how I want our society.
If only there were a method that you could INSURE your laptop against loss or theft...huh, if someone comes up with something like that, they could probably make a mint.
Ya, because insurance will get the other stuff on my laptop back. Like my bank account details, the pictures I've taken so far on my vacation. Oh and thanks for reminding me of another expense; report the loss, and I get to pay higher insurance premiums, and let's not forget I still have an out of pocket deductable, which may mean I'm still out the full price anyway. YAY!!!
Huh? I personally haven't lost billions of dollars to ID theft. I actually haven't lost anything, although someone did manage to make a credit card purchase once.
I could do that, but then I'd be lying. Your sentence is the basis of the MPAA & RIAA's claims. Unfortunately, as has been shown time and time again, that's not the case. The only time "most" applies is if you're saying "most people who download music/books/movies also purchase those songs/books/movies".
Ya, shown time and again by asking people "would you also buy the song or book?" Of course most say they would... most people don't like to admit stealing.
You're a daft, clueless twit, but I'll try to make it understandable: I was not basing my opinions of the situation on my experiences, I was RELATING my experiences to the conversation. The point of the conversation was that, yes, SOME people will download books/music/movies/etc illegally and never pay for it.
Right, I'm a clueless twit, because somehow being a waiter and author are even remotely related. Dumbass, they aren't. Your waitering experience is meaningless; you aren't producing anything, you're carrying stuff from point A to point B without dropping it. Big fucking deal. Sorry, but that's nothing like creating a book that actually DOES become part of our culture.
They are in the overwhelming minority. By actively targeting them as the only example of your customers, you are punishing the majority for the actions of the minority. Better to just ignore the minority (as I did with the tippers) so you can concentrate on pleasing the majority who are actual, money-paying customers.
Again, you aren't creating anything, or really doing anything at all of importance. You just look really, really stupid comparing being a waiter, which COULD be fulfilled by monkey's in uniforms, with an author or director.
I always have my laptop with me (I purchased a small one specifically for that reason), so your first argument doesn't hold water.
Oh ya, more anecdote! That explains all the laptops everyone sees on the beach, huh?
Secondly, the point of items like the Kindle is they're the size and weight of a single book, but you can carry hundreds within that format. Finally, if you lose the Kindle, no big whoop: either redownload the book, which these services usually allow, or get a new one and restore from your computer. You haven't lost anything.
Well, you lost the hundreds of dollars on the device. Not exactly pocketchange, especially if we're talking about a laptop.
And, to combat the argument I hear welling up: yes, a Kindle or laptop is an expensive thing to lose. I would think most people would put a lot more effort in ensuring they don't lose it over the amount of effort put into not losing a single book. If they don't, that's their own stupid fault. Me, I've never lost a book, so I'm not worried about losing a laptop.
Ya, I take steps not to have my laptop or kindle stolen; like leaving it at home when I go to the beach. I seriously doubt someone will ever walk off with my latest.Net programming book while I go into the water... leaving the laptop on the towel is just begging for someone to take it.
Well, the Constitution is natural, since people are natural, and those that created the Constitution believed in Natural Rights. Perhaps you would be wise to look more into the philosophy behind the Constitution.
Yes, some people are going to take advantage of the situation and never pay for everything. Boo-hooo. When I was a waiter I learned early: some people are never going to tip, but at the end of the night, my average per table was what was most important.
Change "some" to "most" and you'll have a point. Oh, and it's interested that you form your opinions because others may have treated you unfairly that it's ok to treat someone else like that. Nice line of reasoning. "My life sucks, so it's ok if it sucks for everyone else too."
With a little bit of work, you can download pretty much any book on the market today, yet books are still being sold everyday. Wonder why that is?
Because lugging around a computer isn't quite as easy as carrying a book? Because if I loose my book, I've only lost one book, but if I lose something like the kindle, i've lost everything?
Really? Stephen King won't be missed much? What about Chuck Palahniuk? Full time writers. I would say that they would be, and those that write as a hobby won't produce works as great as say Shakespear, who was also a full time writer. To become a good writer takes hours and hours of actually writing.
Your comparison with blogs is stupid; no one cares enough right nwo about a blog to copy it to THIER site and give it to their friends. Which would NOT reward the blogs author.
Just because you produce soemthing that is more than the sum of its parts (paper and ink) doesn't mean that there is no value in what these people do.
Really? Who's life is endangered if I choose to leave an AP open? Oh yeah, no one.
What you suggest is ridiculous; if I leave my car running in my driveway and someone steals it I become an accessory? Please, don't ever try to argue law, you clearly don't understand it.
You connect, without authorization, to my network, you are soley responsible. Oh and you're guilty of using a computer network without authorization as well.
A webserver is not an AP. One is setup by systems admins, the other is setup by both systems admins adn home users. We're talking about home users here. I already stated reasons why even someone that knows how to secure their AP may not. THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO USE THE AP.
Again, go fucking ask. I know you won't, becuase as soon as you do, you'll have people telling you "no." Oh, and nobody "accidently" sets up a webserver. Get a goddamn clue.
Yes, and then you'll scream "they broke everyone's site that was depending on AX!!!one!" And of course that's a great way to encourage users to upgrade to a newer more secure browser. Make sure it doesn't work with the company intranet. Wonderful.
The AP device is configured by the owner; this configuration is an expression of the owner's will.
You assume that 1) the owner actually configured it, and didn't just plug in the AP and 2) that he didn't leave it open because he doesn't know how to secure it or 3) he left it open so that he gets better wireless speeds. None of those imply that he's giving you permission to use it, however.
Tell me: when you see a store with an open and unlocked door with a sign on it saying "C'mon in!", do you go to the state bureau of records to locate the land owner, and write him or her a letter asking if you are permitted to enter?
There's no such sign on APs, unless the SSID has something in his name that says "come on in" or there's actually a sign that leads you to believe you can use the AP. This is not the same as a store being unlocked, this is the same as my HOUSE being unlocked, and there is no sign. By the way, the law DOES differentite between a commercial property and residitential one. In the former, you can't be charged for trespass even though you were not given explicit permission; in the latter case, you can be.
Do you get signed legal documents expressing permission before you go to a party to which you've been sent an invitation?
The inventation is the explicit permission given in writing. There's no equivolent when all you have is an SSID.
If my neighbor puts a keg on the sidewalk in front of her house with a sign that says "Free beer! Help yourself!", and sends out flyers about it, and puts put shiny balloons on it to attract attention, do you expect me to get a sworn affidavit before I draw a pint?
Again, THERE'S NO SIGN. An unsecure AP in a residential area is more like your neighbor putting a keg in his front lawn and walking away, but giving no indication you may take it. If I leave my garden hose in my front lawn, are you free to borrow it whenever you want without asking?
Inanimate objects can be used to communicate authorization.
The fact that an AP broadcasts its presense however does not imply authorization; it only implies a network exists. More like a sign saying "water faucet here" above my outdoor faucet. Does that sign imply you may use it? No, it simply states it's there.
The owner explicitly grants or withholds permission by means of the AP's various systems of permission.
No, he does not. Running an unsecured connection may be due to the fact that he wants maxium speed from his wireless connection, or perhaps the owner doesn't even know others can use it. It says nothing about whether or not YOU can use it.
Go ahead, ask someone at home if you can use their network. Ask your neighbor. I'm willing to bet most don't even think about someone else using it, just like people never thought that others could listen in on or use their cordless phones to make calls.
Tell me, when I'm sitting at the coffee shop and my computer finds six wireless networks nearby, just how am I to know who owns the access points?
The one that the employee at the counter says is run by the coffee shop and is available for your use.
Yes there is; it's illegal to use the same frequences to make phone calls using someone's cordless phone base station. You do know cordless phones operate in the exact same frequency as 802.11 b/g right?
The fact that the signel enters your property is irrelevent. The base station of my cordless phone does so also, does that mean you can communicate with my phone's base station to make phone calls? No, it doesn't. The trespass occurs because you're using my equipment, it makes no difference that my equipment emits signals to your property. My TV may emit signals to your property as well, that doesn't mean you can use them to watch HBO for free. My toaster also emits signals to your property; it's simply how electronics work.
CBS is different; they were granted sole use of a frequency for the express purpose of you intercepting it. Wireless is using an unrestricted signal space, and one of it's purposes is for private networks. The same spectrum allows my cordless phone to work, that doesn't mean you're allowed to use that spectrum to make phone calls from my line.
Get real; you're not only using my wireless AP signal; you're using my computer equipment and internet connection.
Exactly. And I do that automatically, by using the relevant protocols ask for a connection. The owner of the router programs or configures the router to grant or withhold permission as he or she wishes. It is indeed simple.
I'm sorry, the AP device is the owner? Funny, I thought the AP would be owned by a human being. You know, a PERSON you have to talk to.
I defy all of you morons that say it's ok to use someone else's network without explicity permission from the OWNER to start knocking on doors and really asking. I know NONE of you will do that becuse you know exactly what the person would say: "NO!"
Slashdot Mirror
O&A fans aren't likely to listen to Stern, and visa versa. Also, Stern is a huge drain in the finances of Sirrus; he's way overpaid, and no one cares anymore what he does. As far as electroncia goes, I like what XM has, and I know XM has decade channels.. I assume Sirrus has decade channels as well, although I know they have other crap. My gym has Sirrius, and i never liked the channels they play.. and their DJs talk too much.
No, they'll probably stop manufacturing Sirus radios.. their radios suck, XM has the advantage technology-wise.
Oh shut up. From your post I can only assume you've read the press releases from both companies. Oprah isn't XM's competitor to Stern for one. And I decided that NFL isn't something I can to hear on the radio.. so why would I care it's an option? XM already has everything I want; all the merger will do is endanger the options I currently use.
Ya, that's why Comcast has been reducing prices for years!
So why don't we allow ALL free radio stations to merge also, based on that "competition?"
How exactly do I get internet streaming radio in my car? Or uncensored music / talk broadcasts?
Let's try something different; based on your assumption that sat. radio is competing with iPods, terristrial radio and CDs, should we now allow all FM stations to merge into one? After all, they are competing with sat. radio, iPods, etc.
Sure there is, just check the receipts.
And I'm sure all these surveys you quote did that. Sure..
You're the one that said all books become part of our culture. So, that dumb motherfucking came from you.
No I didn't. I see your reading comprehension is as bad as your debating skills.
Wow, you really are one of the dumbest people I've ever talked to.
I notice when you have no point you resort to insults.
What precisely is the color of the sky in your little world? Very few publishers are going to take on a smaller author because the publishing industry is about selling books, not "art". They couldn't care less if some unknown author has the next great American novel or not. They're going to give a publishing slot to a known seller, given the choice.
Hey, stupid, every publisher wants to sell the next great American novel, BECAUSE IT WILL SELL A LOT OF COPIES. And you call me dumb? You lack even the most basic of reasoning skills, in addition to not being able to comprehend English correctly.
Nope, sorry, not true. They're there because some publisher THOUGHT they could sell them. They languish on the shelves for a few weeks and then are sent on to book outlets that you see popping up all over the place. If they don't sell there, they're destroyed. For someone who claims to know the industry, you probably should actually spend some time here before spouting lies everywhere.
There's no increase in book "outlets." I know you will believe whatever you like, after all I know you can't handle being wrong. The reason some people never tipped you was because you probably sucked as a waiter. But you can't handle critism of yourself, so you invent nonsense and spout it as fact.
Do all books sell well? No. That's why there may only be three copies of something on a self. But to say that most books follow yoru pattern is simply retarded. The book stores would all be out of business.
Again, the color of the sky? The system, as setup today, does not encourage artists of any kind. The music industry, the publishing industry and the movie industry are all about making money. There's no "art" involved. If it makes money, AND can be considered "art", so be it...these industries are only interested in the former. They're designed to ripe all of the artistic content out of an artist, "tweak" it for maximum profit and then dumping it on an unsuspecting audience. Under the system proposed by the intelligent people (which is why you don't understand it), artists provide their works directly to the public and the public decides if they want to buy it or not. The artist loses nothing by doing so. By signing with a publisher/label/studio today, they give up their works entirely for a small (VERY SMALL) percentage of profits. You might want to read up on Nine Inch Nails. In particular, pay attention toward the end where they tried to give fans the right to remix THEIR music, but it was blocked by the label that "owned" the music. Giving away their music is working well for them. Note, they only charge $5 for the complete "CD"...which will net them higher profits than if they'd sold them through the labels at $17-18/CD. I read Rick Dakan's novel "Geek Mafia" for free...and then purchased a print copy of it. As soon as it fits in the rotation, I'll download the latest chapter, and if I like it, I'll buy it.
Perhaps you should research why da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo the Sistine Chapel. The fact that artists today give too much of their rights away is not a problem with copyright law, its a problem with artists negotiating their contracts. As an aside, NIN doesn't NEED to give anyone the right to remix; parady and remixes are covered under fair use.
The new system works, that's why iTunes is doing so well. The old systems were in place to make publishers/labels/studios rich. The new systems are actually making the ARTISTS rich. And, really, isn't that what you want?
iTu
If only it were that simple, but it's not. I'm talking about people who have downloaded items for free (legally, of course) and then purchased a copy or donated to the author.
And again, in those studies there is no way to prove that a person that downloaded initally actually purchased later.
Because every book becomes part of our culture...but, again, you missed the point because you're fucktard. So, I'll type slower: the occupation has nothing to do with it. If you're an author, and you sell 50 million copies of your book, and a million people stole a copy of the book, you're still ahead. If, however, you're not an author, but a fuckwit who put out yet another piece of shit just to sell a piece of shit, then, yes, you're going to care about squeezing every single penny out of every single person who's read your book, regardless of whether they enjoyed it or not. The latter is the model we have today, which explains why there's so many bad books on the market.
Really? If I write a book, and no one reads it, it becomes part of our culture? Culture means "shared among a large group of people." Go look it up. You really are a dumb motherfucker aren't you? The majority of authors aren't the ones that sell 50 million, and NO author starts off selling that many. They start off having a small fanbase and have other retards that couldn't write a book to save their life say there are "many bad books on the market." You focus soley on those that have made something in their career. You never look at them though when they first start out. The way it is now, the "bigger" authors are helping the smaller one. Because Stephen King can sell 50 million, a publisher will take a risk on a smaller author that hasn't yet built his base.
You seem to forget that all those "bad books" on the shelves are there because there ARE people out there that wish to buy them. They may not be a majority of people, and they never might be. Yet you would say what they enjoy is crap? Go fuck yourself. The system as is gives people a lot of variety, and beauity is in the eye of the beholder... not some pompus ass angry that he didn't get tipped because he likely did a shit job as a waiter.
Well, since I haven't been a waiter in over 20 years, your rapier-like attacks on them isn't doing anything except prove that you can't grasp a simple comparison that has nothing to do with occupation.
You say I miss the point, yet it's you and your stupid personal experience that is missing it. It takes a lot of time and effort to become a good writer, and the current system allows people to invest in that time and effort. Your system would totally destroy that. I guess we can go back and have what we did before; rich people paying someone to write or paint, but then only the rich get art. Just how I want our society.
If only there were a method that you could INSURE your laptop against loss or theft...huh, if someone comes up with something like that, they could probably make a mint.
Ya, because insurance will get the other stuff on my laptop back. Like my bank account details, the pictures I've taken so far on my vacation. Oh and thanks for reminding me of another expense; report the loss, and I get to pay higher insurance premiums, and let's not forget I still have an out of pocket deductable, which may mean I'm still out the full price anyway. YAY!!!
Moron.
Huh? I personally haven't lost billions of dollars to ID theft. I actually haven't lost anything, although someone did manage to make a credit card purchase once.
I could do that, but then I'd be lying. Your sentence is the basis of the MPAA & RIAA's claims. Unfortunately, as has been shown time and time again, that's not the case. The only time "most" applies is if you're saying "most people who download music/books/movies also purchase those songs/books/movies".
.Net programming book while I go into the water... leaving the laptop on the towel is just begging for someone to take it.
Ya, shown time and again by asking people "would you also buy the song or book?" Of course most say they would... most people don't like to admit stealing.
You're a daft, clueless twit, but I'll try to make it understandable: I was not basing my opinions of the situation on my experiences, I was RELATING my experiences to the conversation. The point of the conversation was that, yes, SOME people will download books/music/movies/etc illegally and never pay for it.
Right, I'm a clueless twit, because somehow being a waiter and author are even remotely related. Dumbass, they aren't. Your waitering experience is meaningless; you aren't producing anything, you're carrying stuff from point A to point B without dropping it. Big fucking deal. Sorry, but that's nothing like creating a book that actually DOES become part of our culture.
They are in the overwhelming minority. By actively targeting them as the only example of your customers, you are punishing the majority for the actions of the minority. Better to just ignore the minority (as I did with the tippers) so you can concentrate on pleasing the majority who are actual, money-paying customers.
Again, you aren't creating anything, or really doing anything at all of importance. You just look really, really stupid comparing being a waiter, which COULD be fulfilled by monkey's in uniforms, with an author or director.
I always have my laptop with me (I purchased a small one specifically for that reason), so your first argument doesn't hold water.
Oh ya, more anecdote! That explains all the laptops everyone sees on the beach, huh?
Secondly, the point of items like the Kindle is they're the size and weight of a single book, but you can carry hundreds within that format. Finally, if you lose the Kindle, no big whoop: either redownload the book, which these services usually allow, or get a new one and restore from your computer. You haven't lost anything.
Well, you lost the hundreds of dollars on the device. Not exactly pocketchange, especially if we're talking about a laptop.
And, to combat the argument I hear welling up: yes, a Kindle or laptop is an expensive thing to lose. I would think most people would put a lot more effort in ensuring they don't lose it over the amount of effort put into not losing a single book. If they don't, that's their own stupid fault. Me, I've never lost a book, so I'm not worried about losing a laptop.
Ya, I take steps not to have my laptop or kindle stolen; like leaving it at home when I go to the beach. I seriously doubt someone will ever walk off with my latest
Um, college isn't just about learning in courses you know. If you think that, it's probably because you missed out.
Well, the Constitution is natural, since people are natural, and those that created the Constitution believed in Natural Rights. Perhaps you would be wise to look more into the philosophy behind the Constitution.
Yes, some people are going to take advantage of the situation and never pay for everything. Boo-hooo. When I was a waiter I learned early: some people are never going to tip, but at the end of the night, my average per table was what was most important.
Change "some" to "most" and you'll have a point. Oh, and it's interested that you form your opinions because others may have treated you unfairly that it's ok to treat someone else like that. Nice line of reasoning. "My life sucks, so it's ok if it sucks for everyone else too."
With a little bit of work, you can download pretty much any book on the market today, yet books are still being sold everyday. Wonder why that is?
Because lugging around a computer isn't quite as easy as carrying a book? Because if I loose my book, I've only lost one book, but if I lose something like the kindle, i've lost everything?
Really? Stephen King won't be missed much? What about Chuck Palahniuk? Full time writers. I would say that they would be, and those that write as a hobby won't produce works as great as say Shakespear, who was also a full time writer. To become a good writer takes hours and hours of actually writing.
Your comparison with blogs is stupid; no one cares enough right nwo about a blog to copy it to THIER site and give it to their friends. Which would NOT reward the blogs author.
Just because you produce soemthing that is more than the sum of its parts (paper and ink) doesn't mean that there is no value in what these people do.
Yes, that was my point, that people would run IE7 even though 8 might actually be more secure / more standards compliant.
Really? Who's life is endangered if I choose to leave an AP open? Oh yeah, no one.
What you suggest is ridiculous; if I leave my car running in my driveway and someone steals it I become an accessory? Please, don't ever try to argue law, you clearly don't understand it.
You connect, without authorization, to my network, you are soley responsible. Oh and you're guilty of using a computer network without authorization as well.
A webserver is not an AP. One is setup by systems admins, the other is setup by both systems admins adn home users. We're talking about home users here. I already stated reasons why even someone that knows how to secure their AP may not. THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO USE THE AP.
Again, go fucking ask. I know you won't, becuase as soon as you do, you'll have people telling you "no." Oh, and nobody "accidently" sets up a webserver. Get a goddamn clue.
Yes, and then you'll scream "they broke everyone's site that was depending on AX!!!one!" And of course that's a great way to encourage users to upgrade to a newer more secure browser. Make sure it doesn't work with the company intranet. Wonderful.
Well, so would canceling your Comcast service.
I already addressed these in another post I made. Look for it. A webserver is not an AP.
The AP device is configured by the owner; this configuration is an expression of the owner's will.
You assume that 1) the owner actually configured it, and didn't just plug in the AP and 2) that he didn't leave it open because he doesn't know how to secure it or 3) he left it open so that he gets better wireless speeds. None of those imply that he's giving you permission to use it, however.
Tell me: when you see a store with an open and unlocked door with a sign on it saying "C'mon in!", do you go to the state bureau of records to locate the land owner, and write him or her a letter asking if you are permitted to enter?
There's no such sign on APs, unless the SSID has something in his name that says "come on in" or there's actually a sign that leads you to believe you can use the AP. This is not the same as a store being unlocked, this is the same as my HOUSE being unlocked, and there is no sign. By the way, the law DOES differentite between a commercial property and residitential one. In the former, you can't be charged for trespass even though you were not given explicit permission; in the latter case, you can be.
Do you get signed legal documents expressing permission before you go to a party to which you've been sent an invitation?
The inventation is the explicit permission given in writing. There's no equivolent when all you have is an SSID.
If my neighbor puts a keg on the sidewalk in front of her house with a sign that says "Free beer! Help yourself!", and sends out flyers about it, and puts put shiny balloons on it to attract attention, do you expect me to get a sworn affidavit before I draw a pint?
Again, THERE'S NO SIGN. An unsecure AP in a residential area is more like your neighbor putting a keg in his front lawn and walking away, but giving no indication you may take it. If I leave my garden hose in my front lawn, are you free to borrow it whenever you want without asking?
Inanimate objects can be used to communicate authorization.
The fact that an AP broadcasts its presense however does not imply authorization; it only implies a network exists. More like a sign saying "water faucet here" above my outdoor faucet. Does that sign imply you may use it? No, it simply states it's there.
The owner explicitly grants or withholds permission by means of the AP's various systems of permission.
No, he does not. Running an unsecured connection may be due to the fact that he wants maxium speed from his wireless connection, or perhaps the owner doesn't even know others can use it. It says nothing about whether or not YOU can use it.
Go ahead, ask someone at home if you can use their network. Ask your neighbor. I'm willing to bet most don't even think about someone else using it, just like people never thought that others could listen in on or use their cordless phones to make calls.
Tell me, when I'm sitting at the coffee shop and my computer finds six wireless networks nearby, just how am I to know who owns the access points?
The one that the employee at the counter says is run by the coffee shop and is available for your use.
Why? Did the data on the disc somehow break the encryption on its own? Or is it that certain people want information to be free?
Yes there is; it's illegal to use the same frequences to make phone calls using someone's cordless phone base station. You do know cordless phones operate in the exact same frequency as 802.11 b/g right?
The fact that the signel enters your property is irrelevent. The base station of my cordless phone does so also, does that mean you can communicate with my phone's base station to make phone calls? No, it doesn't. The trespass occurs because you're using my equipment, it makes no difference that my equipment emits signals to your property. My TV may emit signals to your property as well, that doesn't mean you can use them to watch HBO for free. My toaster also emits signals to your property; it's simply how electronics work.
CBS is different; they were granted sole use of a frequency for the express purpose of you intercepting it. Wireless is using an unrestricted signal space, and one of it's purposes is for private networks. The same spectrum allows my cordless phone to work, that doesn't mean you're allowed to use that spectrum to make phone calls from my line.
Get real; you're not only using my wireless AP signal; you're using my computer equipment and internet connection.
Exactly. And I do that automatically, by using the relevant protocols ask for a connection. The owner of the router programs or configures the router to grant or withhold permission as he or she wishes. It is indeed simple.
I'm sorry, the AP device is the owner? Funny, I thought the AP would be owned by a human being. You know, a PERSON you have to talk to.
I defy all of you morons that say it's ok to use someone else's network without explicity permission from the OWNER to start knocking on doors and really asking. I know NONE of you will do that becuse you know exactly what the person would say: "NO!"