You are not making any progress, so let me try to simplify this for your benefit.
Stealing and trespassing are two physical things that people can do. It deprives others of their property or is a potential threat to people and property on your land. Trespass typically requires a fence or a sign that informs passers-by of this restriction.
Use of open wifi is niether of these things, and it's pretty damn obvious. Yet somehow, after six posts, you're still going back to it.
What open wifi use is: 1) Harmless. The user rarely notices. 2) Free, costing the renter of the connection nothing extra. 3) 100% avoidable, if the owner of the router chooses.
You're required to put a no tresspassing sign. Why shouldn't you be required to take one minute to close your network? Although you'd like to pretend that grandma just can't do this, that's bullshit. It's child-simple, and if she knows how to connect a wireless router to her home network, then she can do this. The same grandma might indeed install an ftp server, some of which are anonymous by default. In your mind, people can use the ftp, but not the wireless. That makes no sense.
You assume that our society and our law does not allow this, but it's only your assumption. I say that we should assume that people can share in these circumstances. It's just a social convention You think we need to tiptoe around our neighbors for fear of offending them or commiting a social transgression. I say lighten up, Francis. There's no risk of harm. You're just trying to project your anti-social views onto others. Nail up your no trespassing signs, close your own network, and shut up already.
"People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves"
I wish that were true, but this does not magically allow queries that their database does not support. What you get, according to TFA is re-rank, combine with other data, and remove Yahoo branding. It also allows news and image searches and unlimited queries. This is exactly like previous APIs, but with a few more freedoms.
Well, that's a Slashdot summary for ye. The word "consent" appears nowhere in TFA. The ruling was based on the fact that it might have been someone else who downloaded the copyrighted material, and that he is not required to encrypt his network, even though it might be abused.
I'd say it's enough to not consent to the illegal activity, while you could still consent to people using the connection.
1. Not so. You already have many unrefuted examples. 2. OK, you don't care about law (although you bring it up yourself), fine. It was still relevant. 3. So many fallacies, so little time. Implied consent was for use, not to take ownership of their car or router. Copyright infringement is a tangent, so I won't go there. I'm using the word "right" as in not wrong. I don't claim it's my right to use other people's equipment. I think they can and should secure their wifi if that's what they want. Lastly, you appear to know jack about anonymous FTP. The point is that society decides what the expectations are for use when permission is only given electronically. Either convention could be valid. You are the one pretending that only you can be right given the rules of society. Bollocks. 4. Implied Consent is not permission from the owner, it's just allowed. Don't struggle with it. Just disagree. 5. Here you're being obtuse on purpose. If you don't agree with my definition of stealing, at least you should know what I mean by now. 6. Aircraft? Health? It's not so much fallacious as it is irrelevant. You even misunderstood the tangible/intangible position. My opinion is that it's intangible, but "tangible" would also lose the argument. Passive does *not* mean covert, and leeching is not hostile most of the time. You were just a bit off on all of those.
If you don't think I'm being reasonable, then I must assume that you are not accustomed to critical thinking. You much prefer the argument that requires no proof (e.g. stealing is stealing) than justifying something with reason and examining implications. That is not lawyer trickery to me, but rational discourse. If you cared about being reasonable you would argue that leeching wifi is stealing, not that stealing is stealing. You wouldn't say all reasonable people agree with you, but rather acknowledge the many reasonable people who do not. (links were provided)
Belatedly I see your name-calling is not unique to this thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=589015&cid=24052475). You are hardly the person to suppose yourself the defender of reason. You just have a gut feeling and you're sticking with that.
Let's see how long these last before we conclude that the nerds are wrong about how marketable these are. I think Best Buy will soon figure out they're not worth the shelf space.
Yes - except for the virtual Windows, which would require a Windows purchase. Actually, Ubuntu should really be pitched as a free alternative, but then Best Buy wouldn't bother with it. The whole thing is misguided. There's free download, then there's pre-installed, and there's nothing else. If it's meant to be like the retail box of old, then where's the manual? This is something even a geek wouldn't buy.
In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.
It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.
Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.
Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?
"Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong.
Not always, and not in this case in my opinion. If you are creating the expectation that something is OK to use, then reasonable people will. In this case, you always have the remedy of turning it off or reconfiguring it, and your property is never in jeopardy. Thus, not a door, not trespass, not stealing. If someone unintentionally shares their files on the internet, it would not be wrong to download their files. They are the ones making it available after all, and reasonable expectation is relevant.
BTW, I am pleased you have made it clear that all this moral grandstanding is in defense of the lazy, the ignorant, and those who only have themselves to blame.;-)
For the last time, it's not a door. I am not entering someone's house. Your righteous indignation won't allow you to see the situation for what it is. The risk of harm, or even inconvenience by making my assumption is close to zero. Yes, I'm one of those who think that people really should know better if they add a wireless access point to their network, but I don't think that's a necessary opinion to reach the same conclusion.
I also happen to think that an ftp server that allow anonymous ftp is intended for all. I'm quite the criminal, aren't I?
"I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi"
This was the point. You don't know if it's stealing unless you speak to the owner, period. I can tell you like to simplify when making your moral judgments. I think you could have a career in law enforcement.
FYI, DSL installers routinely set up encryption for their customers, and retailers now provide install CDs which try to force to user to enter a password when setting up the AP. Increasingly, an open AP is intended to be open.
"It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open"
Jeez, not that line again. It's great that you have morals, but then you should be willing to make moral distinctions and not call everything stealing. Sometimes when something is left open it is meant to be used. When I see a water fountain without a sign, I assume it's OK to use. If I'm wrong, someone might tell me. No harm done. We might not make the same assumptions about wifi, but if the owner intended it to be used openly, then it is not morally wrong. Even statues which might make it illegal, do not call it stealing. In many places, nothing about using an open wifi connection would be considered illegal.
Sometimes the problem with having high morals is that their owner feels compelled to sit on a high horse.
Logitech Elite keyboards have been showing up around the office. A horrible decision by our IT department. Do they think we need a Shopping key on work computers?! The stupid extra keys can be ignored, but that damn F-Lock turns off on every reboot. I had one situation where I needed to hit F1 during boot, and it was a race to activate and hit it between keyboard reset and the end of the BIOS window. None of those extra features work anyway, since people have not installed the extra software. When things don't work, I don't worry much if the keys having the right springiness or not.
The day the Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, you'll wish you had a gun.
But I don't think I can take out more than one stormtrooper, if that. I would not use a gun in that scenario. What Hollywood slow-motion action sequence are you imagining?
It would only be a trick if the people involved did not believe what they were saying or if they were creating fake blogs
So, you are against people creating additional online entities to repeat and amplify their message by appearing to have more support than they actually do, when in reality it's all just the work of one person?
Well, I agree with you, but I think you need to take it to heart yourself. That was one of the most hypocritical things I've read in a ling time.
And you did not access their computer. In most cases the wireless access point is a DSL router or plugs directly into one. Even when data routes through a computer gateway, there still is no access in the sense of accessing files or logging in. I'm surprised that nobody has successfully fought these charges yet. I recall someone was arrested for using a cafe's free wi-fi service from outside the cafe, even though the owner didn't care. That is monumentally stupid.
When an analogy exaggerates rather than illuminates, then it's useless. You need to ask yourself once you're finished if using someone's open network is the same as entering their house and robbing them blind. Of course it's not. I don't see anyway to make it physically entering someone's house comparable to reading your e-mail at the expense of their internet speed, which they may or may not be using at that moment.
Since the unlocked door was what you thought of first, it may be worth reviewing how open wi-fi networks actually work. An open wireless router is broadcasting its network name and telling everyone that's it's open. When you ask to join, you are told you can join - kind of like anonymous ftp, without the "have fun" message. In the end, you are never in their house, so you are not a potential physical threat to their family or property. It is unlike a door in every case.
I'm going to try the new version. The worst part of SUSE 10.3 was the interminable software update dialog, which I could not cancel. Just selecting update meant it was time to walk away and come back later.
Can we have a little less sucking up, please? They have good and bad, just like everyone else. I know this from personal experience. So, if you are interviewing prospective employees, which I doubt, then you still have to figure out which kind you got.
I think most people know enough to put what you worked on and how well you know your area of expertise above who you worked for.
Replying to yourself is almost always redundant. I read that the reason you made so many sockpuppets was to avoid "unfair" moderation, but if that problem did not exist and you posted with the same name, you would still get hammered for replying to yourself MULTIPLE times! You don't need enemies. You are your own worst enemy.
So, that's *not* informative. Let other people speak. Is it possible that you think your views are so important that you need three or four times the space as anyone else?
It's not in the interest of a well run union to try to prevent bad apples from being fired
but it may be in the interests of Union leadership to prevent anybody they can from being fired. When you're paying dues, you expect protection. Care to guess which kind of a leader will get the most votes?
And yet, even when they can do whatever they want, their success is attributed to "the relationship with developers", innovation, or some other third thing. Control of the market never has anything to do with it in Bill's eyes. That's what I call living the dream.
But if a non-lawyer posted the same type of thing, they might get sued for practicing law without a license. Thank goodness we have licenses to keep idiots from commenting on law they don't understand... except this guy, of course. I'm sure he's the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not making any progress, so let me try to simplify this for your benefit.
Stealing and trespassing are two physical things that people can do. It deprives others of their property or is a potential threat to people and property on your land. Trespass typically requires a fence or a sign that informs passers-by of this restriction.
Use of open wifi is niether of these things, and it's pretty damn obvious. Yet somehow, after six posts, you're still going back to it.
What open wifi use is:
1) Harmless. The user rarely notices.
2) Free, costing the renter of the connection nothing extra.
3) 100% avoidable, if the owner of the router chooses.
You're required to put a no tresspassing sign. Why shouldn't you be required to take one minute to close your network? Although you'd like to pretend that grandma just can't do this, that's bullshit. It's child-simple, and if she knows how to connect a wireless router to her home network, then she can do this. The same grandma might indeed install an ftp server, some of which are anonymous by default. In your mind, people can use the ftp, but not the wireless. That makes no sense.
You assume that our society and our law does not allow this, but it's only your assumption. I say that we should assume that people can share in these circumstances. It's just a social convention You think we need to tiptoe around our neighbors for fear of offending them or commiting a social transgression. I say lighten up, Francis. There's no risk of harm. You're just trying to project your anti-social views onto others. Nail up your no trespassing signs, close your own network, and shut up already.
"People who want more advanced search features (like regex support) can write it themselves"
I wish that were true, but this does not magically allow queries that their database does not support. What you get, according to TFA is re-rank, combine with other data, and remove Yahoo branding. It also allows news and image searches and unlimited queries. This is exactly like previous APIs, but with a few more freedoms.
Somebody is buying into the hype.
Well, that's a Slashdot summary for ye. The word "consent" appears nowhere in TFA. The ruling was based on the fact that it might have been someone else who downloaded the copyrighted material, and that he is not required to encrypt his network, even though it might be abused.
I'd say it's enough to not consent to the illegal activity, while you could still consent to people using the connection.
1. Not so. You already have many unrefuted examples.
2. OK, you don't care about law (although you bring it up yourself), fine. It was still relevant.
3. So many fallacies, so little time. Implied consent was for use, not to take ownership of their car or router. Copyright infringement is a tangent, so I won't go there. I'm using the word "right" as in not wrong. I don't claim it's my right to use other people's equipment. I think they can and should secure their wifi if that's what they want. Lastly, you appear to know jack about anonymous FTP. The point is that society decides what the expectations are for use when permission is only given electronically. Either convention could be valid. You are the one pretending that only you can be right given the rules of society. Bollocks.
4. Implied Consent is not permission from the owner, it's just allowed. Don't struggle with it. Just disagree.
5. Here you're being obtuse on purpose. If you don't agree with my definition of stealing, at least you should know what I mean by now.
6. Aircraft? Health? It's not so much fallacious as it is irrelevant. You even misunderstood the tangible/intangible position. My opinion is that it's intangible, but "tangible" would also lose the argument. Passive does *not* mean covert, and leeching is not hostile most of the time. You were just a bit off on all of those.
If you don't think I'm being reasonable, then I must assume that you are not accustomed to critical thinking. You much prefer the argument that requires no proof (e.g. stealing is stealing) than justifying something with reason and examining implications. That is not lawyer trickery to me, but rational discourse. If you cared about being reasonable you would argue that leeching wifi is stealing, not that stealing is stealing. You wouldn't say all reasonable people agree with you, but rather acknowledge the many reasonable people who do not. (links were provided)
Belatedly I see your name-calling is not unique to this thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=589015&cid=24052475). You are hardly the person to suppose yourself the defender of reason. You just have a gut feeling and you're sticking with that.
Let's see how long these last before we conclude that the nerds are wrong about how marketable these are. I think Best Buy will soon figure out they're not worth the shelf space.
Yes - except for the virtual Windows, which would require a Windows purchase. Actually, Ubuntu should really be pitched as a free alternative, but then Best Buy wouldn't bother with it. The whole thing is misguided. There's free download, then there's pre-installed, and there's nothing else. If it's meant to be like the retail box of old, then where's the manual? This is something even a geek wouldn't buy.
You appear to be ignorant of the principle of implied consent
It is not "Stealing" nor "Theft of services" nor "Unauthorized use of a computer" nor "Computer trespass" according to New York Law, for one example.
Perhaps you'd like a scholarly article on why we should not make your assumptions (and get indignant about it, I might add) from George Washington University - Law School
In fact, I had already given you examples of use which are not stealing, and you are choosing to ignore them so you can't redundantly say stealing is stealing. On the off chance that you blacked out, the examples were anonymous FTP and a web server sharing files. P2P is another situation where you could be sharing files by mistake, but it's reasonable to assume that it is not by mistake - and downloaders use more of your computer resources than someone sending data through your router.
It takes all of one minute to turn on security. You do *not* have to be a hacker - what a canard that is. I won't claim that there isn't anyone who wouldn't be able to do it, but society cannot always limit itself to what the least of us can do. There is no victim in this scenario, just someone who has shared their network, so deserve has nothing to do with it. I was merely suggesting that being lazy and ignorant usually means you are to blame when you do something you did not intend.
Enough of your feeble attempts to claim I will take other people's physical property if it's not bolted down. You are obviously having trouble recognizing the difference between a car parked in your garage and a service that you are broadcasting onto my property which advertises itself as non-private and explicitly authorizes me to join the network.
Is it possible that reasonable people can reach this conclusion? Or am I the only asocial moron with a toddler's mentality?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060227-6272.html
http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/02/26/20060226-H2-03.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_its_ok_to_steal_wi_fi
http://zovirl.com/2006/07/27/you-cant-steal-wifi/
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1179938755.shtml
You may not agree, but you should not continue to pretend that all people who hold this view think it's OK to steal. Try to learn that much.
"Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong.
Not always, and not in this case in my opinion. If you are creating the expectation that something is OK to use, then reasonable people will. In this case, you always have the remedy of turning it off or reconfiguring it, and your property is never in jeopardy. Thus, not a door, not trespass, not stealing. If someone unintentionally shares their files on the internet, it would not be wrong to download their files. They are the ones making it available after all, and reasonable expectation is relevant.
BTW, I am pleased you have made it clear that all this moral grandstanding is in defense of the lazy, the ignorant, and those who only have themselves to blame. ;-)
For the last time, it's not a door. I am not entering someone's house. Your righteous indignation won't allow you to see the situation for what it is. The risk of harm, or even inconvenience by making my assumption is close to zero. Yes, I'm one of those who think that people really should know better if they add a wireless access point to their network, but I don't think that's a necessary opinion to reach the same conclusion.
I also happen to think that an ftp server that allow anonymous ftp is intended for all. I'm quite the criminal, aren't I?
"I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi"
This was the point. You don't know if it's stealing unless you speak to the owner, period. I can tell you like to simplify when making your moral judgments. I think you could have a career in law enforcement.
FYI, DSL installers routinely set up encryption for their customers, and retailers now provide install CDs which try to force to user to enter a password when setting up the AP. Increasingly, an open AP is intended to be open.
"It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open"
Jeez, not that line again. It's great that you have morals, but then you should be willing to make moral distinctions and not call everything stealing. Sometimes when something is left open it is meant to be used. When I see a water fountain without a sign, I assume it's OK to use. If I'm wrong, someone might tell me. No harm done. We might not make the same assumptions about wifi, but if the owner intended it to be used openly, then it is not morally wrong. Even statues which might make it illegal, do not call it stealing. In many places, nothing about using an open wifi connection would be considered illegal.
Sometimes the problem with having high morals is that their owner feels compelled to sit on a high horse.
what don't you like about the f-lock?
Logitech Elite keyboards have been showing up around the office. A horrible decision by our IT department. Do they think we need a Shopping key on work computers?! The stupid extra keys can be ignored, but that damn F-Lock turns off on every reboot. I had one situation where I needed to hit F1 during boot, and it was a race to activate and hit it between keyboard reset and the end of the BIOS window. None of those extra features work anyway, since people have not installed the extra software. When things don't work, I don't worry much if the keys having the right springiness or not.
Those all give a page load error for me. I think your browser wants to be involved in the decision making process.
The day the Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, you'll wish you had a gun.
But I don't think I can take out more than one stormtrooper, if that. I would not use a gun in that scenario. What Hollywood slow-motion action sequence are you imagining?
It would only be a trick if the people involved did not believe what they were saying or if they were creating fake blogs
So, you are against people creating additional online entities to repeat and amplify their message by appearing to have more support than they actually do, when in reality it's all just the work of one person?
Well, I agree with you, but I think you need to take it to heart yourself. That was one of the most hypocritical things I've read in a ling time.
If you're referring to a closed, unlocked door, that is a physical barrier, which is not analogous to an using an open wi-fi signal.
"intentionally accesses a computer..."
And you did not access their computer. In most cases the wireless access point is a DSL router or plugs directly into one. Even when data routes through a computer gateway, there still is no access in the sense of accessing files or logging in. I'm surprised that nobody has successfully fought these charges yet. I recall someone was arrested for using a cafe's free wi-fi service from outside the cafe, even though the owner didn't care. That is monumentally stupid.
When an analogy exaggerates rather than illuminates, then it's useless. You need to ask yourself once you're finished if using someone's open network is the same as entering their house and robbing them blind. Of course it's not. I don't see anyway to make it physically entering someone's house comparable to reading your e-mail at the expense of their internet speed, which they may or may not be using at that moment.
Since the unlocked door was what you thought of first, it may be worth reviewing how open wi-fi networks actually work. An open wireless router is broadcasting its network name and telling everyone that's it's open. When you ask to join, you are told you can join - kind of like anonymous ftp, without the "have fun" message. In the end, you are never in their house, so you are not a potential physical threat to their family or property. It is unlike a door in every case.
There is no door.
I'm going to try the new version. The worst part of SUSE 10.3 was the interminable software update dialog, which I could not cancel. Just selecting update meant it was time to walk away and come back later.
Can we have a little less sucking up, please? They have good and bad, just like everyone else. I know this from personal experience. So, if you are interviewing prospective employees, which I doubt, then you still have to figure out which kind you got.
I think most people know enough to put what you worked on and how well you know your area of expertise above who you worked for.
Replying to yourself is almost always redundant. I read that the reason you made so many sockpuppets was to avoid "unfair" moderation, but if that problem did not exist and you posted with the same name, you would still get hammered for replying to yourself MULTIPLE times! You don't need enemies. You are your own worst enemy.
So, that's *not* informative. Let other people speak. Is it possible that you think your views are so important that you need three or four times the space as anyone else?
Beta should be feature complete. RC should be solid. In fact, in most cases RC will be the release when a serious bug is not found.
It's not in the interest of a well run union to try to prevent bad apples from being fired
but it may be in the interests of Union leadership to prevent anybody they can from being fired. When you're paying dues, you expect protection. Care to guess which kind of a leader will get the most votes?
And yet, even when they can do whatever they want, their success is attributed to "the relationship with developers", innovation, or some other third thing. Control of the market never has anything to do with it in Bill's eyes. That's what I call living the dream.
But if a non-lawyer posted the same type of thing, they might get sued for practicing law without a license. Thank goodness we have licenses to keep idiots from commenting on law they don't understand... except this guy, of course. I'm sure he's the only one.