Dude, what if our whole universe was like, just one atom of like one gigantic flea on an even more gigantic dog's butt? And that dog was in it's own enormous universe?
Surprisingly, buttermilk is actually somewhat lower in fat than 1% milk. It got its name from being the liquid that was left over after butter was churned out of it. (The stuff you can buy today is made quite differently, but has similar properties.)
Sure, and I can legally stand on a Harlem street corner preaching that blacks should all be sent back to Africa, but that doesn't make it a good idea, especially if I'm trying to sell them something.
Additionally, it's plausible that a cable company's status as a gov't-granted local monopoly may restrict what kind of bullshit they put into their contracts. It certainly should.
Nobody has any work to do that doesn't involve using their computer? No one is on salary and would be getting paid regardless? Did the business stop making money while everybody was sitting around with their thumbs up their asses?
Certainly there is some loss of productivity, but it's not nearly as easy to express productivity in dollar terms as you make it out to be.
Tribe.net manages this pretty well. Instead of creating a fake user to represent a common interest, you create a "tribe." These can be open to all or moderated, and you can belong to as many tribes as you like. And having been around a while, it already has a fairly large userbase.
You've jumped from using bandwidth to hacking and kiddie porn. (Most people I know are happy to "give away" something they've paid for, as long as they still have access to it themselves. Maybe I just have unusually generous acquaintances.) Hacking into someone's home network, spamming, and kiddie porn are illegal and unethical, and the blame for those activities falls squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator. An open AP is an invitation to use that bandwidth for legitimate activities, not to browse someone's personal files. Just as the Democrats' inadverdently public folders were not an invitation to distribute the contents.
(I don't think there are a whole lot of ISPs in the US that surcharge for exceeding a cap. Offsite hosting providers of course, but not regular ISPs. And in any case, you'd have a tough time exceeding any cap at 802.11b speeds -- someone would notice you sitting in the parking lot for three weeks nonstop.)
Note my use of the word "reasonable." It's a legal fudge term which recognizes that not all human behavior can be neatly fitted into distinctly defined boundaries that hold true for every instance of every action.
There are many intentionally open APs, and access to one only means access to the owner's bandwidth, something a lot of normal people are happy to share. Thus it's reasonable to assume that an open AP is intentional.
On the other hand, no normal people keep sensitive internal documents where their opposition can read them, so it's not reasonable to assume they were being freely offered. It would be disingenuous for the Republicans to suggest that they didn't know that the documents they were accessing were meant to be private. So disingenuous, in fact, that even they didn't stoop so low as to insult our intelligence by making that claim.
Evidence... such as the documents in question being sent to conservative columnists? Check. Confession from a Republican staffer? Check. What else do you want, a candlestick in the study wit Col. Mustard's fingerprints on it?
The NAACP, AARP, ACLU, AFL-CIO, NRA, etc, represent segments of the population. That makes them legitimate interest groups; their power comes from their election-day influence on their members, not direct contributions to reelection campaigns. Quite dissimilar to (for example) Halliburton, which represents Halliburton, and maintains political influence by handing out briefcases full of cash. The word "backers" strongly suggests the latter type.
Except that the folder was supposed to be private, and they were unaware that it was not. It's like locking papers in your desk without knowing that the facilities manager has given copies of the key to everyone else in the building.
I'd take legitimate access on a server that is supposed to be password-protected for stuff you're not supposed to have access to as implicit right to access anything on there that doesn't have a password prompt to get at or open it.
Whether it's an ethics violation to do so or not, I don't know. That's for someone well-equipped to evaluate the situation to decide.
The latter two sentences are redundant; from the previous one, it's obvious you are not equipped to make any decisions regarding ethics. If someone invites you into their house, do you take that as an implicit right to go rifling through the sex toys in the nightstand and the financial papers they've neglected to lock in a safe?
It's impossible to use someone's unsecured wifi without their explicit permission. When their AP responds to a DHCP request with a valid IP, that's explicit permission. Or are you committing trespass to chattel by using up Slashdot's disk space with your post without having asked CmdrTaco for permission in person first?
A filesystem to which someone has been mistakenly granted read access is probably in the same legal category, but making use of files that you know you're not supposed to have access to is highly unethical. It's reasonable to assume that an AP has been intentionally left open to the public. It is not at all reasonable to think that the Democrats meant for their internal communications to be public.
Just because someone lets you into their house doesn't mean it's okay to read their diary.
For the record, "neu" in German means "again" too.
No, it means "new" and it's pronounced "noy," so.nu doesn't really match up. I believe "nu?" is a slangy filler sound in some dialects though, similar to the Ebonic "knowwhamsayin?" or the Canadian "eh?"
In the environmentalist scientists' worst-case scenario, untold numbers of species are wiped out, coastal cities are underwater, and direct sunlight is practically lethal. In the critics' worst-case scenario, the economy takes a hit and we all have to drive dorky-looking electric cars.
The alleged "science" used to back up this gigantic steaming bowl of crappola has been thoroughly torn to shreds.
So how come there are still articles about it being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like the one cited? I don't see them printing articles about astrology or the healing power of crystals.
Certainty regarding the unknown is anathema to science. Environmentalists say "x and y may occur in the event of z." Critics of global warming theory say "x y and z will never ever happen." Which one sounds like a good scientist?
Abolish minimum wage laws entirely and recalculate the minimum wage for a job daily, based on whatever the employer is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept?
We price houses, eggs, aspirin, and clothing that way. Works pretty good. Why not jobs?
I hope you're kidding. If a grocer arbitrarily decides to charge $40 for a dozen eggs, there's another grocer just down the block I can buy eggs from instead. Even if jobs were that readily available, eggs don't require any retraining, don't have to fill out W-4s and I-9s, don't get health insurance, etc.
Bullshit. A cafe isn't going to get residential DSL and so won't be burdened by those onerous TOS. Furthermore, since they're not reselling the bandwidth there's even less to worry about.
As for secured APs, what makes you think you have to hire someone just to change a password once a week? Let me guess, you're a consultant...
Nowhere in the definition of censorship is it restricted to government officials. (Except the definition pertaining to the ancient Roman political office, which, needless to say, no longer exists.) It is simply the practice of "examining and expurgating" content. Whether that content is available elsewhere doesn't change the verb. Would you say that Alexander Solzhenitsyn wasn't really censored by the Soviet Union since his works were available in samizdat form?
Now, is government censorship worse than that of a retail behemoth? Almost certainly. But the difference between the two is quantitative, not qualitative.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither is the librarian, even if the doors are locked.
META content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0" name=GENERATOR
Dude, what if our whole universe was like, just one atom of like one gigantic flea on an even more gigantic dog's butt? And that dog was in it's own enormous universe?
Surprisingly, buttermilk is actually somewhat lower in fat than 1% milk. It got its name from being the liquid that was left over after butter was churned out of it. (The stuff you can buy today is made quite differently, but has similar properties.)
Sure, and I can legally stand on a Harlem street corner preaching that blacks should all be sent back to Africa, but that doesn't make it a good idea, especially if I'm trying to sell them something. Additionally, it's plausible that a cable company's status as a gov't-granted local monopoly may restrict what kind of bullshit they put into their contracts. It certainly should.
Certainly there is some loss of productivity, but it's not nearly as easy to express productivity in dollar terms as you make it out to be.
Tribe.net manages this pretty well. Instead of creating a fake user to represent a common interest, you create a "tribe." These can be open to all or moderated, and you can belong to as many tribes as you like. And having been around a while, it already has a fairly large userbase.
(I don't think there are a whole lot of ISPs in the US that surcharge for exceeding a cap. Offsite hosting providers of course, but not regular ISPs. And in any case, you'd have a tough time exceeding any cap at 802.11b speeds -- someone would notice you sitting in the parking lot for three weeks nonstop.)
There are many intentionally open APs, and access to one only means access to the owner's bandwidth, something a lot of normal people are happy to share. Thus it's reasonable to assume that an open AP is intentional.
On the other hand, no normal people keep sensitive internal documents where their opposition can read them, so it's not reasonable to assume they were being freely offered. It would be disingenuous for the Republicans to suggest that they didn't know that the documents they were accessing were meant to be private. So disingenuous, in fact, that even they didn't stoop so low as to insult our intelligence by making that claim.
Please cite an example of a "racist rant" in the documents.
Evidence... such as the documents in question being sent to conservative columnists? Check. Confession from a Republican staffer? Check. What else do you want, a candlestick in the study wit Col. Mustard's fingerprints on it?
So the guy who did it says he didn't do anything wrong. I'm convinced!
The NAACP, AARP, ACLU, AFL-CIO, NRA, etc, represent segments of the population. That makes them legitimate interest groups; their power comes from their election-day influence on their members, not direct contributions to reelection campaigns. Quite dissimilar to (for example) Halliburton, which represents Halliburton, and maintains political influence by handing out briefcases full of cash. The word "backers" strongly suggests the latter type.
Except that the folder was supposed to be private, and they were unaware that it was not. It's like locking papers in your desk without knowing that the facilities manager has given copies of the key to everyone else in the building.
Whether it's an ethics violation to do so or not, I don't know. That's for someone well-equipped to evaluate the situation to decide.
The latter two sentences are redundant; from the previous one, it's obvious you are not equipped to make any decisions regarding ethics. If someone invites you into their house, do you take that as an implicit right to go rifling through the sex toys in the nightstand and the financial papers they've neglected to lock in a safe?
A filesystem to which someone has been mistakenly granted read access is probably in the same legal category, but making use of files that you know you're not supposed to have access to is highly unethical. It's reasonable to assume that an AP has been intentionally left open to the public. It is not at all reasonable to think that the Democrats meant for their internal communications to be public.
Just because someone lets you into their house doesn't mean it's okay to read their diary.
No, it means "new" and it's pronounced "noy," so .nu doesn't really match up. I believe "nu?" is a slangy filler sound in some dialects though, similar to the Ebonic "knowwhamsayin?" or the Canadian "eh?"
Which sucks more?
So how come there are still articles about it being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like the one cited? I don't see them printing articles about astrology or the healing power of crystals.
Certainty regarding the unknown is anathema to science. Environmentalists say "x and y may occur in the event of z." Critics of global warming theory say "x y and z will never ever happen." Which one sounds like a good scientist?
We price houses, eggs, aspirin, and clothing that way. Works pretty good. Why not jobs?
I hope you're kidding. If a grocer arbitrarily decides to charge $40 for a dozen eggs, there's another grocer just down the block I can buy eggs from instead. Even if jobs were that readily available, eggs don't require any retraining, don't have to fill out W-4s and I-9s, don't get health insurance, etc.
People are not commodities.
Which is completely asinine. Students are the school's customers/clients, not its employees. They're paying for that support.
No, because if they're "hopping" onto your network it's most likely unsecured, which means you're explicitly offering free access to all and sundry.
As for secured APs, what makes you think you have to hire someone just to change a password once a week? Let me guess, you're a consultant...
Also Fiddler's Green has some freely downloadable models.
Now, is government censorship worse than that of a retail behemoth? Almost certainly. But the difference between the two is quantitative, not qualitative.