Whatever happend to the land of the brave and home of the free?
It should be easy enough to separate the internal and guest networks - it's the default setting for modern routers when you enable guest access. That way, you get to run a secure internal wireless network and guests just get internet access.
Thanks for the info. This does make me wonder why so many people here on Slashdot are so scared of open wireless. If they don't want to share, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to be terrified that all their equipment will be confiscated and they'll be thrown in prison.
Routers that support guest access are quite common these days. I've got two of them in my lounge (a Virgin Media supplied SuperHub and a Buffalo Airstation that I actually use for wireless). To be honest, guest users are only going to be as secure as their connections to their websites, so if they're not using https, then anyone could sniff their connections (that's where HTTPS Everywhere comes in useful).
If I ever get into the rare situation you describe, then I'll just have to use a different computer while they investigate my current one. No big deal - if I relied on the contents of my computer, then it could easily be lost if the machine got stolen or crashed.
People seem to be very scared of sharing their internet on this forum, but in real life, I've never heard of anyone expressing these kinds of concerns. I think you're more likely to be struck by lightning than get into trouble for an open wireless access point.
You're so right. Cower and be scared of the law! Don't even do things which are legal, but might be construed as undesirable by your Masters. Lower your head and try not to be noticed as you hide in the flock.
I currently run an open wireless SSID as a guest connection and I am not concerned with being sued. Here in the UK, I don't think the law has yet been tested that you are held liable for someone else's actions. To my mind, if there's something suspicious about what "my" IP address is downloading, then they have to find proof that I'm responsible (e.g. files on my computer).
It's so easy these days to set up a secure internal wireless network and also a guest open network with appropriate bandwidth limits that I'm surprised that more people don't do it. I'm not concerned if people are freeloading as long as my connection isn't noticeably slowed down. I've got unlimited bandwidth, so why should I care if someone uses a little bit of it?
So far, I've not seen anyone camping outside my house so that they can download stuff and I've not noticed any high usage, so I think that most people tend to be reasonable with freely offered services.
In an ideal situation, you'd have a test network. However, it tends to be expensive to duplicate network equipment and it's difficult to justify the expense when network switches don't have their config changed very often.
Virtual networks are useful to test some aspects, but the chances are that it won't necessarily duplicate everything on the production network and testing might not highlight a problem that occurs on production.
Also, network equipment doesn't tend to be as programmable as computers and a typical switch config won't end up being many thousands of lines long, so there's a huge difference in complexity between software programming and network configuration.
It would depend on whether Samsung had published incorrect assumptions about Apple before the outcome of the trial. The whole reason Apple had to apologise is because Apple publicly stated that Samsung had copied them. The judge had ruled that as incorrrect and so Apple has to make amends.
Thanks for the condescending post - I haven't been called a "teen" for over two decades!
I deliberately didn't use a car as an analogy due to my knowledge of the different laws regarding cars (which is probably due to them being fast moving tons of metal) especially in the U.S. Here in the UK, the closest law I know of that would work like that would be aiding and abetting a crime, but that would involve the accused having knowledge that the crime was going to be committed.
Democracy - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Bad analogy time; that's like leaving a box of firewood on your front lawn with a sign saying "Free wood - help yourself" and someone using one of those logs to club someone else. Should you be responsible for assault?
What should happen is that you punish the person who committed the crime. If the police can't find out who did it, they can't just go after a supplier of an otherwise inocent object/service.
What would you think if the police came round and demanded that you put proper security in place for tracking which people took which logs of wood? You'd think they were being stupid and trying to get you to do their job.
I never used to wear my bike helmet for short journeys (to and from the train station - about 2 miles), but after a lot of nagging from my wife and buying a new helmet, I now wear it for all my bike rides. I'm just sceptical that it's worth wearing one all the time. I think the important thing is to get people riding first and once they start riding a lot, then convert them to safety equipment. To my mind, gloves are far more useful than a helmet.
That's all well and good, but how can you know if a helmet provided a critical amount of protection in an accident unless you'd fitted force measuring devices into the helmet ahead of time? Simply stating that the helmet made a difference makes as much sense as saying that a person's curly hair made a difference.
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, I've only ever been involved in traffic accidents twice (during 25 years of cycling) - both times were a car turning right (we drive on the left here in the UK) that didn't see me cycling straight going the other direction. Both times, I managed to accelerate enough so that the car just caught my rear wheel and only caused material damage.
I'm sure my riding style does annoy car drivers, but then inconsiderate or unaware car drivers annoy me and are dangerous. If everyone on the road had my safety record, then there'd be a lot less need for expensive car insurance.
One thing that really puzzles me, though, is why do people get so aggressive/irritable when driving cars? My wife, for example, swears almost continually whilst driving and it tends to be directed at other cars, so cyclists aren't the root cause.
Whenever I go through red lights, I always make sure pedestrians aren't trying to cross - I always stop for pedestrians. In fact, I quite often stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings and then see a car driver behind me go straight over the crossing albeit without hitting anyone.
I don't care about "respect as a responsible road user", I just wish that more car drivers had some kind of awareness of the traffic around them; I'd be much happier if car drivers always gave cyclists a wide berth due to cyclists' unpredictability. I prefer to be hated and noticed on the road, rather than liked and ignored (and then hit).
I live in a city in the UK and for the vast majority of my bike journeys, I'll be quicker than a car, mainly due to the ridiculous number of cars (with only a driver, no passengers) on the road. According to your logic, those cars should be banned from the city centre as they are too slow.
Personally, I'd be more than happy for the toxic fume bellowing motor vehicles to be off the road, but I recognise that it is a public road and that there are multiple types of road users. Why do car drivers have such a problem being considerate to other road users? I've never had any problem with motorbike riders, horse riders, mobility scooters etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever happend to the land of the brave and home of the free?
It should be easy enough to separate the internal and guest networks - it's the default setting for modern routers when you enable guest access. That way, you get to run a secure internal wireless network and guests just get internet access.
Thanks for the info. This does make me wonder why so many people here on Slashdot are so scared of open wireless. If they don't want to share, then that's fine, but a lot of people seem to be terrified that all their equipment will be confiscated and they'll be thrown in prison.
Routers that support guest access are quite common these days. I've got two of them in my lounge (a Virgin Media supplied SuperHub and a Buffalo Airstation that I actually use for wireless). To be honest, guest users are only going to be as secure as their connections to their websites, so if they're not using https, then anyone could sniff their connections (that's where HTTPS Everywhere comes in useful).
If I ever get into the rare situation you describe, then I'll just have to use a different computer while they investigate my current one. No big deal - if I relied on the contents of my computer, then it could easily be lost if the machine got stolen or crashed.
People seem to be very scared of sharing their internet on this forum, but in real life, I've never heard of anyone expressing these kinds of concerns. I think you're more likely to be struck by lightning than get into trouble for an open wireless access point.
You're so right. Cower and be scared of the law! Don't even do things which are legal, but might be construed as undesirable by your Masters. Lower your head and try not to be noticed as you hide in the flock.
I currently run an open wireless SSID as a guest connection and I am not concerned with being sued. Here in the UK, I don't think the law has yet been tested that you are held liable for someone else's actions. To my mind, if there's something suspicious about what "my" IP address is downloading, then they have to find proof that I'm responsible (e.g. files on my computer).
It's so easy these days to set up a secure internal wireless network and also a guest open network with appropriate bandwidth limits that I'm surprised that more people don't do it. I'm not concerned if people are freeloading as long as my connection isn't noticeably slowed down. I've got unlimited bandwidth, so why should I care if someone uses a little bit of it?
So far, I've not seen anyone camping outside my house so that they can download stuff and I've not noticed any high usage, so I think that most people tend to be reasonable with freely offered services.
I hear they patented their new iWheel invention that's used in that.
In an ideal situation, you'd have a test network. However, it tends to be expensive to duplicate network equipment and it's difficult to justify the expense when network switches don't have their config changed very often.
Virtual networks are useful to test some aspects, but the chances are that it won't necessarily duplicate everything on the production network and testing might not highlight a problem that occurs on production.
Also, network equipment doesn't tend to be as programmable as computers and a typical switch config won't end up being many thousands of lines long, so there's a huge difference in complexity between software programming and network configuration.
Why do you ask?
What's the point of rhetorical questions?
It would depend on whether Samsung had published incorrect assumptions about Apple before the outcome of the trial. The whole reason Apple had to apologise is because Apple publicly stated that Samsung had copied them. The judge had ruled that as incorrrect and so Apple has to make amends.
Seems sensible to me.
Remember to bury your treasure BEFORE you die in the past.
Is it Nivea?
You can just point your browser at tpb.pirateparty.org.uk - that works for me and I'm on Virgin Media.
If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us strip-searching you.
Hey look, I can STEAL your name by copying it: AcidPenguin9873
How does it feel to have your name stolen?
There seems to be something wrong with your capslock.
Thanks for the condescending post - I haven't been called a "teen" for over two decades!
I deliberately didn't use a car as an analogy due to my knowledge of the different laws regarding cars (which is probably due to them being fast moving tons of metal) especially in the U.S. Here in the UK, the closest law I know of that would work like that would be aiding and abetting a crime, but that would involve the accused having knowledge that the crime was going to be committed.
Democracy - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Bad analogy time; that's like leaving a box of firewood on your front lawn with a sign saying "Free wood - help yourself" and someone using one of those logs to club someone else. Should you be responsible for assault?
What should happen is that you punish the person who committed the crime. If the police can't find out who did it, they can't just go after a supplier of an otherwise inocent object/service.
What would you think if the police came round and demanded that you put proper security in place for tracking which people took which logs of wood? You'd think they were being stupid and trying to get you to do their job.
I never used to wear my bike helmet for short journeys (to and from the train station - about 2 miles), but after a lot of nagging from my wife and buying a new helmet, I now wear it for all my bike rides. I'm just sceptical that it's worth wearing one all the time. I think the important thing is to get people riding first and once they start riding a lot, then convert them to safety equipment. To my mind, gloves are far more useful than a helmet.
That's all well and good, but how can you know if a helmet provided a critical amount of protection in an accident unless you'd fitted force measuring devices into the helmet ahead of time? Simply stating that the helmet made a difference makes as much sense as saying that a person's curly hair made a difference.
You haven't read the article have you?
The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.
That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, I've only ever been involved in traffic accidents twice (during 25 years of cycling) - both times were a car turning right (we drive on the left here in the UK) that didn't see me cycling straight going the other direction. Both times, I managed to accelerate enough so that the car just caught my rear wheel and only caused material damage.
I'm sure my riding style does annoy car drivers, but then inconsiderate or unaware car drivers annoy me and are dangerous. If everyone on the road had my safety record, then there'd be a lot less need for expensive car insurance.
One thing that really puzzles me, though, is why do people get so aggressive/irritable when driving cars? My wife, for example, swears almost continually whilst driving and it tends to be directed at other cars, so cyclists aren't the root cause.
Whenever I go through red lights, I always make sure pedestrians aren't trying to cross - I always stop for pedestrians. In fact, I quite often stop for pedestrians at zebra crossings and then see a car driver behind me go straight over the crossing albeit without hitting anyone.
I don't care about "respect as a responsible road user", I just wish that more car drivers had some kind of awareness of the traffic around them; I'd be much happier if car drivers always gave cyclists a wide berth due to cyclists' unpredictability. I prefer to be hated and noticed on the road, rather than liked and ignored (and then hit).
Anyone witnessing it gets a good laugh. (Disclaimer - I'm a cyclist, but seeing someone cycle into a stationary car is damn funny)
I live in a city in the UK and for the vast majority of my bike journeys, I'll be quicker than a car, mainly due to the ridiculous number of cars (with only a driver, no passengers) on the road. According to your logic, those cars should be banned from the city centre as they are too slow.
Personally, I'd be more than happy for the toxic fume bellowing motor vehicles to be off the road, but I recognise that it is a public road and that there are multiple types of road users. Why do car drivers have such a problem being considerate to other road users? I've never had any problem with motorbike riders, horse riders, mobility scooters etc.