I'd argue that the market is proving you right, as we speak. I think the new format of choice is not the two-hour movie, but the 45-minute serial. In the past few years we've seen the demise of the "story arc" sitcom (where each episode was basically self-contained and usually returned the situation to wherever it began, for the next episode),
Of course, the fact that Farscape was serial and not episodic was one of the reasons given for its cancellation. Fox showing Firefly out of order and irregularly helped kill the series.
I think the problem (with TV and movies) is that the networks/studios simply want to make (lots) of money and don't really care about a quality product as far as plot, characterization, subtext, symbology, etc... You know, the things that really make something interesting to watch multiple times.
For example, regardless of one's fondness for Firefly (I love it, BTW) and its sci-fi / western mix, the entire series (and movie Serenity) is superbly crafted, acted, photographed and scored. There are little details that make it wonderful to watch on subsequent viewings and the music gets into your soul when you realize how it's tied to the characters. (listen to the commentary tracks for details about the production details)
Most movies and series offer nothing new after the first viewing, and I find this boring. Unfortunately, I think people are conditioned to flashy gloss with no substance and this is a shame. I think there are producers, directors and actors out there who really do want to make interesting, deep, and exciting products, even if those products don't make a ton of cash.
Perhaps if the studios could get over having to have "blockbusters" and declaring a movie a "flop" if it fails to make a bazillion dollars over the opening weekend, we could get better products.
I was watching Futurama the other day and Bender said that instead of Leela trying to find a man with only one eye, it would be easier for her to find a nice guy with two eyes and poke one of them out...
That got me thinking...
Damn, I'd need a lot of forks (or blindfolds for the squeamish).
But back in reality land, sometimes things go wrong. People are not always what they appear to be, and a good employee can sometimes become embittered...
Good point. Pay and working conditions are important, but so is mutual trust and respect. It's not enough for management to trust and depend on the employee, the employee must be able to trust and depend on management.
How many times has a company had some sort of trouble and fired, replaced, outsourced the employee(s), but kept the manager(s)? How about when the employee gets into some sort of trouble - canned.
Things are different when companies (and managers) view employees as assets rather than liabilities.
I worked for a company once that wasn't able to give any raises for 4 years, but all the employees stayed, plugging along because we believed in the product, company, and owner -- and he believed in us.
Now for an imaginary example for all you Firefly fans. How many of you would sign up as crew on Serenity? Ya, me too - in a second. (Notice that even Jayne stays even though he's supposedly all about the "pay" and such.)
Since your wife's illness was quick - you probably don't know the stress that comes with years of having to look after a person who looks relatively heathy but is totally disabled.
While I cannot begin to realize what you and your wife had to endure, I did get a glimpse of this over the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death. Susan's Solu-Medrol dosage was 160mg / day (40mg x 4) which was high enough to require it be given IV. She had a PIC line and I administered it every 6 hours along with the other (oral) meds -- which I sometimes had to entice her to take.
Each IV application took 20 minutes via Home Pump (med filled elastomer ball with flow requlator) The last week (before she slipped into a coma), the dosage was increased to 40mg x 6 (every 4 hours). I didn't get much sleep. She was very sweet, but not always all there and it broke my heart.
One of the worst things was everything I learned about her condition and the knowledge of what the future would bring. No one should have to endure this.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new here and my heart goes out to you. All my best to you and yours.
You scan an MRI, feed it in to the computer. Some Dr. on his sail-boat looks at the MRI identifies the area to be removed, and does a virtual surgery.
When my wife had a brain biopsy for her GBM, they did indeed get an MRI image and feed it into a computer in the operating room. The computer generated a 3-D image using the scan and aligned it to her head. The image was accurate to 0.06mm (I believe) and could even generate views "looking through the needle" so the Dr. (actually in the room) could avoid blood vessels and such. The system also tracked the surgical instruments within a field and displayed them on/in the image.
Isn't this all really about enhanced DRM and content protection using the lure of higher definition -- that most of use won't really notice past a few feet, or care about after a few beers? Kind of a "ignore the man behind the green curtain" (Wizard of Oz) kind of thing?
Aren't these new players are designed to thwart fair use and be disabled remotely. What are we willing to give up for the bright and shiny pictures? Are we all fish? Until my current player dies, it's rather good enough for me.
The absence of HD DVD's Dolby Digital-Plus tracks on Blu-ray is problematic, and I still find Blu-ray's clunky menu navigation quite irritating.
Forgive me if I don't know any better, but how is the absence of HD soundtracks a problem with the Blu-ray format? Similarly for the menu structure? For that matter, why aren't the menus the same? Did the Warner Brothers pop an aneurysm and make the disks different just to be confusing???
Does the movie studio back (or prefer) one format over the other? If so, will produce either to "make people happy", but their preferred format "better" than the other?
My sympathy as well --- I lost a girlfriend to a GBM some years ago.
Thank you, and I'm sorry for your loss as well. The/. crowd has been (generally) very compassionate in their responses to the relevant posts I've made over the months. You and I share an experience no one should have to endure. I'm not saying that there aren't more tragic events out there, but, well, you know...
So, they had the standard surgical treatment, and _then_ the radioactive venom. Alfred's question remains unanswered... How does 2/18 at 3 years differ from the survival rate for just the surgical procedure?
Not much, (though the stats for GBM patients with treatment is basically 2 / 12,500 after 3 years, so 2/18 is better) but you can't get enrolled in studies like this without first having standard treatment first. The priority is saving lives (well trying to), then furthering research.
For all practical purposes, with GBMs anyway, surgery and treatment just postpone the inevitable, though they all have undesirable consequences. Damage from surgery is irreparable, standard radiation course of 60 Grays is your brain's lifetime radiation limit. Chemotherapy like Temodar cannot generally be used on children.
In general, the worse a patient's present functionality, the worse the response to subsequent treatments. Any treatment that is be effective with reduced side effects is better. The prognosis for Gliomas (specifically GBMs) has not changed significantly in 30 years, even with all the advances in treatment. All it takes is one remaining cancerous cell and the process starts all over again...
Until a cure is found, quality of life is very important.
but I'm still not at all clear on whether this treatment is actually better than the standard treatment.
The problem with the "standard treatment" is it usually involves surgery. The Glial cells are the support and structure cells for the actual brain cells. To the naked eye, the cancerous cells (Glioma) are undistinguishable from normal cells (like sugar and salt mixed in a bowl - for multiforme), though an MRI can differentiate.
Any surgery also removes healthy Glial and brain cells (which do not regenerate) and the patient's functionality degrades. All it takes is one remaining Glioma cell and the process starts again.
Some people cannot, or choose not to, have surgery. As I posted earlier, my wife died in January of a GBM, just 7 weeks after diagnosis. She declined as it was next to her brain stem and would have left her completely paralyzed on her left side and blind in the left side of each eye. Surgery may have prolonged her life a bit, but it wouldn't have been the life she loved.
Hopefully, treatments like this will reduce the need for surgery at some point.
Ah, I see what you mean now. So, law and morality are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but frequently end up being that way.
Man, I hope I said law and morality are "independent" of each other. If I actually said "mutually exclusive" then I'd really be an ass.:-) Oh well, air through the engine, as Mal would say.
I think it's safe for me to apologize for and retract my comments about you being an ass, and for kicking you out of my bathroom.
Apology accepted, but will I understand if you'd like to reserve your comments for a later date -- you wouldn't be the first, let me tell you; I have that effect on people. For my part, I would like to state that I have no knowledge of the reflections your mirror may cast and any rantings to the contrary should be ignored as the ravings of someone doing DOS assembly, Perl and Java programming all on the same day.
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
This is just great, sigh. My wife died from Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) in January, just 7 weeks after diagnosis in November. The average life expectancy for GBM (grade IV Glioma) patients is 4 to 18 months. Only a handful of the 14,000 / year live past 24 months. I hope this proves effective and saves many, many lives.
My world, however, will remain dark.
Remember Sue...
The car being "taken" seriously impairs the original owners intentions for said car.
If you use (but not overload) someone's open wireless network, chances are they won't even notice. I find that using an open wireless network compares more closely to using the car's shade when it's sunny outside.
Yes, these are very nice rationalizations. Very much inline with the popular thinking here on/., but how about this?
Say your neighbor has a swimming pool. Ok to use it without permission? After all, even if he's in it, there's room to spare...
Taking, borrowing, or using something that's not yours, regardless if it deprives or harms the owner, without permission of the owner is wrong. Simple as that. I don't really understand why people have such a hard time with this concept.
Please, please, PLEASE! Think of the parents! They need this law. They don't have the time nor fortitude to teach their children acceptable behavior, to know right from wrong, and not to talk/im/txt/email with strangers.
They cannot be expected to monitor their child's 4 MySpace accounts (1 they know about and 3 they don't) to keep their little girl from posting pictures of herself for all the world to see. Nor can they possibly know why their child would do such a thing -- seeking all that attention from strangers.
Why, the parents give their children all the things their two 14 hour a day jobs can buy, let them go to whatever mall with their friends all the time (though they haven't had time to actually meet these friends), and they leave them alone all afternoon (to get their home work done). They even have all the Hot Pockets they want for dinner.
Why can't these kids just behave? What do they need that their parents haven't given them?
Please, think of the parents. They need these kinds of laws to keep predators away from their children. The bad guys are sooo tricky, getting their kids to reply to email and such. If only the schools would teach the kids to be responsible. Perhaps there's a summer camp for that? Then there could be a law requiring the kids to attend... That's the ticket!
I believe the lack of clear-cut law is due to (American) society placing less importance on education (and educating correctly) as compared with social activities. I question that ineffective law is not a function of a lazy, uneducated public.
Hmm... Perhaps with better education there could be fewer, but more appropriate laws. For example, should we really need a law prohibiting a person from having sex with animals? The fact that such laws exist says a lot about our society (and individuals). I agree that "ineffective" law is not a function of a lazy, uneducated public, but the need for many laws is.
A curriculum including Ethics and critical thinking would go a long way toward eliminating the need for laws we shouldn't really need.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm...
It's suppose to.
Dependence upon morality alone... is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
I agree. I would even go as far as to include the lack of empathy the average person has for those whon he/she *is* personally connected. We shouldn't, but sadly do, need the legal system.
I would like to see a legal system based upon reward rather than punishment.
[I'm sorry, I was daydreaming again.]
Are you saying that you believe private property and ownership to be part of universal morality?
Hmm... I hadn't really thought of it like that. Without time for further thought, let me say "no", but as we've created the concepts of property and ownership, I assert that they should be considered with morality in mind. In the abstract they are just Objects In Space, but then again so are we. [Ow, now my head hurts...]
...My belief in the moral obviousness of this situation plays a rather insignificant role in the decisions of both the government and of big business.
No argument here and I now see where you are coming from with the question of legality. I was considering it in the abstract and it's application to the induvudual. You were interested in the concrete application on the individual (by, say big brother).
How can law and morality be mutually exclusive? How can legal reason block understanding and use of moral implication?
Shouldn't be true, but is. Look at the laws regarding downloading music vs. child p0rn. The penalty for music "piracy" is much higher. Ken Lay died while his appeal was in progress. As a result, his lower court conviction will be thrown out as his death denied him due process (a tradition of the court system). This adversely affects the people would would have benefited by his conviction.
You didn't type a single character in response to my scenario regarding the initial exchange of information between a wireless router and a machine capable of connecting wirelessly to that router. You simply said that law didn't matter,...
I don't have a problem with the senario you designed and the initial exchange and connection. After all, it should be illegal/imoral to say "hello"! But the thread of the topic really revolves around what happens next -- using that connection. Many people seem to believe that access/availablity == permission to use (not just merely connect).
...you simply decided to ignore something that lent credence to my point about private property boundaries being unclear in this situation.
I apoligize. The boundaries are unclear, but I don't think that the implication of actually crossing them are. In a physical sense, the initial handshake and connection can be considered to be the boundary, and network usage to be crossing the boundary.
I'm happy we hashed this out. The conversation was interesting.
The law should be clear for those whose moral compasses do no govern their actions properly...
Probably true, but the law would be (even more) horribly complex and cumbersome. An alternative would be better education with an emphasis on Ethics and critical thinking skills.
...humans aren't perfect, and what's right isn't always evident at the time something happens...
True again. I would add that in the absence of information, the "right" choice is probably the more benign choice. In the box example, take or leave the money? Leave the money until you have further information to the contrary.
But routers have permissions set up for more than just connection... In your analogy, the note would have to say "Please open this box and follow all further rules defined within the contents of this box" to be equivalent. If I then open the box and find no other rules, where does that leave us?
That depends on your moral compass.
One cannot assume that the router owner knows how to configure the device properly to either allow or deny access (not too wild an assumption, else we wouldn't be having this discussion).
Furthermore, one cannot assume that the box owner didn't write a note. Perhaps it was lost or stolen by a previous opener of the box, or the note said, please take this note, but leave the money and reclose the box.
What one does in situations like this defines them. Before my wife died earlier this year, she taught a unit on Heroism to her gifted students. I found the unit plan in with her teaching material. Among the usual types and definitions for a hero (like sports, military, religious, etc) was this:
Most people aren't appreciated enough, and the bravest things we do in our lives are usually known only to ourselves. No one throws a ticker tape parade for the man who choses to be faithful to his wife, or the lawyer who didn't take the drug money, or the daughter who held her tongue again and again. This is anonymous heroism. [Next to it, she wrote my name. I cried for an hour.]
Are these clueless people stealing by attempting to connect from somewhere else on a connection they don't even know they made?
Why yes, they are stealing, they just don't know it. In this case, I wouldn't accuse them on moral grounds unless they continued it after learning of their actions. Legally, they're probably humped ignorant or not.
Pounding your fist and declaring that such things are universal does not make you right.
I do not declare such things universal, some things just are. I am not right, just observant. Is rape right or wrong? Mankind aside, is its morality intrinsically so or so because God says it is? If God decides, the decision is arbitrary and it may very well be one or the other. What if mankind decides?
I say some things have certain intrinsic properties that cannot be "decided". You say, "...without man, morality would not exist...", I say it would, but be unexpressed.
You did "ask for a legal (read: LEGAL) analysis of the situation", I offered a moral opinion, but never declared myself an "expert". You belittled a abstract moral observation seeking a concrete legal reading.
I have repeatedly stated that I am interested in hearing someone who is a legal expert talk about the legal reasoning (if it exists) on this issue.
Yes, but this was in response to my original post about this sort of thing being wrong, and my subsequent posts implying that any "legal reasoning" would simply be a means to ignoring any moral implications. Clearly, a review of all the posts for this story reveals no real legal reasoning (remember, this is/.), merely assertions that access/availablity equals permission. [Similar lax beliefs pervade/. discussions of CD/DVD ownership and copying rights, but that's another thread!]
Furthermore, declaring that my arguments have been "entirely rational and consistent" is not the same as believing them infallible, just not irrational nor inconsistent. I don't think I've switched any topics nor "cherry picked" anything, just responded to the most poignant points.
Lastly, I'm not a dick, just very smart, and I promise to stay away from your bathroom...unless you leave the window open, then I guess I can use it... [Ok, cheap shot, SETTLE DOWN!:-)]
Your piece of equipment says, "Yo, can I connect?"
Theirs says, "Sure, have at it!"
No moral problem with using their connection.
Ok, so you connect to the appliance, because you think access/availability equals permission. Do you have permission to use the rest of the network? How about their laptop share? You see a file containing their banking information on the share, Ok to access the account?
Accessing the AP and using "the connection" are not the same thing.
Let's say you see a box with a note that says, "Please open this box". Inside there's a pile of money. Ok to take the money? You only had permission "open" the box.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the fact that Farscape was serial and not episodic was one of the reasons given for its cancellation. Fox showing Firefly out of order and irregularly helped kill the series.
I think the problem (with TV and movies) is that the networks/studios simply want to make (lots) of money and don't really care about a quality product as far as plot, characterization, subtext, symbology, etc... You know, the things that really make something interesting to watch multiple times.
For example, regardless of one's fondness for Firefly (I love it, BTW) and its sci-fi / western mix, the entire series (and movie Serenity) is superbly crafted, acted, photographed and scored. There are little details that make it wonderful to watch on subsequent viewings and the music gets into your soul when you realize how it's tied to the characters. (listen to the commentary tracks for details about the production details)
Most movies and series offer nothing new after the first viewing, and I find this boring. Unfortunately, I think people are conditioned to flashy gloss with no substance and this is a shame. I think there are producers, directors and actors out there who really do want to make interesting, deep, and exciting products, even if those products don't make a ton of cash.
Perhaps if the studios could get over having to have "blockbusters" and declaring a movie a "flop" if it fails to make a bazillion dollars over the opening weekend, we could get better products.
8. Read about it on
I was watching Futurama the other day and Bender said that instead of Leela trying to find a man with only one eye, it would be easier for her to find a nice guy with two eyes and poke one of them out...
That got me thinking...
Damn, I'd need a lot of forks (or blindfolds for the squeamish).
Good point. Pay and working conditions are important, but so is mutual trust and respect. It's not enough for management to trust and depend on the employee, the employee must be able to trust and depend on management.
How many times has a company had some sort of trouble and fired, replaced, outsourced the employee(s), but kept the manager(s)? How about when the employee gets into some sort of trouble - canned.
Things are different when companies (and managers) view employees as assets rather than liabilities.
I worked for a company once that wasn't able to give any raises for 4 years, but all the employees stayed, plugging along because we believed in the product, company, and owner -- and he believed in us.
Now for an imaginary example for all you Firefly fans. How many of you would sign up as crew on Serenity? Ya, me too - in a second. (Notice that even Jayne stays even though he's supposedly all about the "pay" and such.)
While I cannot begin to realize what you and your wife had to endure, I did get a glimpse of this over the 7 weeks from diagnosis to death. Susan's Solu-Medrol dosage was 160mg / day (40mg x 4) which was high enough to require it be given IV. She had a PIC line and I administered it every 6 hours along with the other (oral) meds -- which I sometimes had to entice her to take.
Each IV application took 20 minutes via Home Pump (med filled elastomer ball with flow requlator) The last week (before she slipped into a coma), the dosage was increased to 40mg x 6 (every 4 hours). I didn't get much sleep. She was very sweet, but not always all there and it broke my heart.
One of the worst things was everything I learned about her condition and the knowledge of what the future would bring. No one should have to endure this.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new here and my heart goes out to you. All my best to you and yours.
But seriously, how would you actually eat this stuff? It would get rock hard on each bite, then soften up. My dog would go nuts!
When my wife had a brain biopsy for her GBM, they did indeed get an MRI image and feed it into a computer in the operating room. The computer generated a 3-D image using the scan and aligned it to her head. The image was accurate to 0.06mm (I believe) and could even generate views "looking through the needle" so the Dr. (actually in the room) could avoid blood vessels and such. The system also tracked the surgical instruments within a field and displayed them on/in the image.
It's called a Stereotaxic Biopsy.
Isn't this all really about enhanced DRM and content protection using the lure of higher definition -- that most of use won't really notice past a few feet, or care about after a few beers? Kind of a "ignore the man behind the green curtain" (Wizard of Oz) kind of thing?
Aren't these new players are designed to thwart fair use and be disabled remotely. What are we willing to give up for the bright and shiny pictures? Are we all fish? Until my current player dies, it's rather good enough for me.
Forgive me if I don't know any better, but how is the absence of HD soundtracks a problem with the Blu-ray format? Similarly for the menu structure? For that matter, why aren't the menus the same? Did the Warner Brothers pop an aneurysm and make the disks different just to be confusing???
Does the movie studio back (or prefer) one format over the other? If so, will produce either to "make people happy", but their preferred format "better" than the other?
Thank you, and I'm sorry for your loss as well. The /. crowd has been (generally) very compassionate in their responses to the relevant posts I've made over the months. You and I share an experience no one should have to endure. I'm not saying that there aren't more tragic events out there, but, well, you know...
Not much, (though the stats for GBM patients with treatment is basically 2 / 12,500 after 3 years, so 2/18 is better) but you can't get enrolled in studies like this without first having standard treatment first. The priority is saving lives (well trying to), then furthering research.
For all practical purposes, with GBMs anyway, surgery and treatment just postpone the inevitable, though they all have undesirable consequences. Damage from surgery is irreparable, standard radiation course of 60 Grays is your brain's lifetime radiation limit. Chemotherapy like Temodar cannot generally be used on children.
In general, the worse a patient's present functionality, the worse the response to subsequent treatments. Any treatment that is be effective with reduced side effects is better. The prognosis for Gliomas (specifically GBMs) has not changed significantly in 30 years, even with all the advances in treatment. All it takes is one remaining cancerous cell and the process starts all over again...
Until a cure is found, quality of life is very important.
The problem with the "standard treatment" is it usually involves surgery. The Glial cells are the support and structure cells for the actual brain cells. To the naked eye, the cancerous cells (Glioma) are undistinguishable from normal cells (like sugar and salt mixed in a bowl - for multiforme), though an MRI can differentiate.
Any surgery also removes healthy Glial and brain cells (which do not regenerate) and the patient's functionality degrades. All it takes is one remaining Glioma cell and the process starts again.
Some people cannot, or choose not to, have surgery. As I posted earlier, my wife died in January of a GBM, just 7 weeks after diagnosis. She declined as it was next to her brain stem and would have left her completely paralyzed on her left side and blind in the left side of each eye. Surgery may have prolonged her life a bit, but it wouldn't have been the life she loved.
Hopefully, treatments like this will reduce the need for surgery at some point.
Man, I hope I said law and morality are "independent" of each other. If I actually said "mutually exclusive" then I'd really be an ass. :-) Oh well, air through the engine, as Mal would say.
I think it's safe for me to apologize for and retract my comments about you being an ass, and for kicking you out of my bathroom.
Apology accepted, but will I understand if you'd like to reserve your comments for a later date -- you wouldn't be the first, let me tell you; I have that effect on people. For my part, I would like to state that I have no knowledge of the reflections your mirror may cast and any rantings to the contrary should be ignored as the ravings of someone doing DOS assembly, Perl and Java programming all on the same day.
Please don't dangle me out a window...My world, however, will remain dark.
Remember Sue...
If you use (but not overload) someone's open wireless network, chances are they won't even notice. I find that using an open wireless network compares more closely to using the car's shade when it's sunny outside.
Yes, these are very nice rationalizations. Very much inline with the popular thinking here on /., but how about this?
Say your neighbor has a swimming pool. Ok to use it without permission? After all, even if he's in it, there's room to spare...
Taking, borrowing, or using something that's not yours, regardless if it deprives or harms the owner, without permission of the owner is wrong. Simple as that. I don't really understand why people have such a hard time with this concept.
God
No disrepect intended, but I would have actually modded this as "funny".
They cannot be expected to monitor their child's 4 MySpace accounts (1 they know about and 3 they don't) to keep their little girl from posting pictures of herself for all the world to see. Nor can they possibly know why their child would do such a thing -- seeking all that attention from strangers.
Why, the parents give their children all the things their two 14 hour a day jobs can buy, let them go to whatever mall with their friends all the time (though they haven't had time to actually meet these friends), and they leave them alone all afternoon (to get their home work done). They even have all the Hot Pockets they want for dinner.
Why can't these kids just behave? What do they need that their parents haven't given them?
Please, think of the parents. They need these kinds of laws to keep predators away from their children. The bad guys are sooo tricky, getting their kids to reply to email and such. If only the schools would teach the kids to be responsible. Perhaps there's a summer camp for that? Then there could be a law requiring the kids to attend... That's the ticket!
</sarcasim>
Hmm... Perhaps with better education there could be fewer, but more appropriate laws. For example, should we really need a law prohibiting a person from having sex with animals? The fact that such laws exist says a lot about our society (and individuals). I agree that "ineffective" law is not a function of a lazy, uneducated public, but the need for many laws is. A curriculum including Ethics and critical thinking would go a long way toward eliminating the need for laws we shouldn't really need.
This is why leaving personal choices up to individual/societal morality makes me squirm...
It's suppose to.
Dependence upon morality alone ... is just not enough for me given the lack of empathy that the average person has for those he or she is not personally connected to.
I agree. I would even go as far as to include the lack of empathy the average person has for those whon he/she *is* personally connected. We shouldn't, but sadly do, need the legal system.
I would like to see a legal system based upon reward rather than punishment.
[I'm sorry, I was daydreaming again.]
Hmm... I hadn't really thought of it like that. Without time for further thought, let me say "no", but as we've created the concepts of property and ownership, I assert that they should be considered with morality in mind. In the abstract they are just Objects In Space, but then again so are we. [Ow, now my head hurts...]
No argument here and I now see where you are coming from with the question of legality. I was considering it in the abstract and it's application to the induvudual. You were interested in the concrete application on the individual (by, say big brother).
How can law and morality be mutually exclusive? How can legal reason block understanding and use of moral implication?
Shouldn't be true, but is. Look at the laws regarding downloading music vs. child p0rn. The penalty for music "piracy" is much higher. Ken Lay died while his appeal was in progress. As a result, his lower court conviction will be thrown out as his death denied him due process (a tradition of the court system). This adversely affects the people would would have benefited by his conviction.
You didn't type a single character in response to my scenario regarding the initial exchange of information between a wireless router and a machine capable of connecting wirelessly to that router. You simply said that law didn't matter,...
I don't have a problem with the senario you designed and the initial exchange and connection. After all, it should be illegal/imoral to say "hello"! But the thread of the topic really revolves around what happens next -- using that connection. Many people seem to believe that access/availablity == permission to use (not just merely connect).
I apoligize. The boundaries are unclear, but I don't think that the implication of actually crossing them are. In a physical sense, the initial handshake and connection can be considered to be the boundary, and network usage to be crossing the boundary.
I'm happy we hashed this out. The conversation was interesting.
Probably true, but the law would be (even more) horribly complex and cumbersome. An alternative would be better education with an emphasis on Ethics and critical thinking skills.
True again. I would add that in the absence of information, the "right" choice is probably the more benign choice. In the box example, take or leave the money? Leave the money until you have further information to the contrary.
That depends on your moral compass.
One cannot assume that the router owner knows how to configure the device properly to either allow or deny access (not too wild an assumption, else we wouldn't be having this discussion).
Furthermore, one cannot assume that the box owner didn't write a note. Perhaps it was lost or stolen by a previous opener of the box, or the note said, please take this note, but leave the money and reclose the box.
What one does in situations like this defines them. Before my wife died earlier this year, she taught a unit on Heroism to her gifted students. I found the unit plan in with her teaching material. Among the usual types and definitions for a hero (like sports, military, religious, etc) was this:
How we are is all we are.
Why yes, they are stealing, they just don't know it. In this case, I wouldn't accuse them on moral grounds unless they continued it after learning of their actions. Legally, they're probably humped ignorant or not.
I do not declare such things universal, some things just are. I am not right, just observant. Is rape right or wrong? Mankind aside, is its morality intrinsically so or so because God says it is? If God decides, the decision is arbitrary and it may very well be one or the other. What if mankind decides?
I say some things have certain intrinsic properties that cannot be "decided". You say, "...without man, morality would not exist...", I say it would, but be unexpressed.
You did "ask for a legal (read: LEGAL) analysis of the situation", I offered a moral opinion, but never declared myself an "expert". You belittled a abstract moral observation seeking a concrete legal reading.
I have repeatedly stated that I am interested in hearing someone who is a legal expert talk about the legal reasoning (if it exists) on this issue.
Yes, but this was in response to my original post about this sort of thing being wrong, and my subsequent posts implying that any "legal reasoning" would simply be a means to ignoring any moral implications. Clearly, a review of all the posts for this story reveals no real legal reasoning (remember, this is /.), merely assertions that access/availablity equals permission. [Similar lax beliefs pervade /. discussions of CD/DVD ownership and copying rights, but that's another thread!]
Furthermore, declaring that my arguments have been "entirely rational and consistent" is not the same as believing them infallible, just not irrational nor inconsistent. I don't think I've switched any topics nor "cherry picked" anything, just responded to the most poignant points.
Lastly, I'm not a dick, just very smart, and I promise to stay away from your bathroom...unless you leave the window open, then I guess I can use it... [Ok, cheap shot, SETTLE DOWN! :-)]
Attempt #2: Umm... Thank you Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska.
Attempt #3: Ok, I actually agree with this.
Theirs says, "Sure, have at it!"
No moral problem with using their connection.
Ok, so you connect to the appliance, because you think access/availability equals permission. Do you have permission to use the rest of the network? How about their laptop share? You see a file containing their banking information on the share, Ok to access the account?
Accessing the AP and using "the connection" are not the same thing.
Let's say you see a box with a note that says, "Please open this box". Inside there's a pile of money. Ok to take the money? You only had permission "open" the box.