Also, I find it amusing that most of the people on here are blaming him COMPLETELY for this. I'll agree that he's a little dense for not changing the password but that doesn't give Verizon the right to intrude onto his network. He said he owns the router so they have no business doing anything to it. Their access ends at THEIR equipment and/or software. If their software gives them access inside his network then it is illegal. You don't get to break the law to do the right thing.
If that were the case, everybody would be cheering when the police bend the rules to get a dirtbag off the street. Personally, I don't have a problem with it but I can't support their actions if they break the law. I also can't just look on as Verizon does the same thing and think, "Oh well."
Correct. In Indiana, for example, it is legal for a 7 year old to carry a firearm in a very particular situation. Indiana's law has a clause that allows property owners to carry a firearm on their own property without hinderance. The youngest you can be and legally own property in Indiana is 7. Hence, the allowance.
As said by others, firearms deaths of children (mostly published by anti-gun groups) include gang deaths and therefor are really not applicable to the situation. Including somebody who is already breaking the law doesn't give reason for another law.
They've also started advertising that here in the Phoenix metro area as well. I did not, however, notice the "based on sync rates" part though. It doesn't matter to me because I will never again do business with Qwest after having their service for about 6 months when I first moved here. Their customer service is the worst of ANY company I've ever dealt with. I'm now using Cox service and it is much faster and their customer service isn't nearly as horrid.
While those actions can be classified as "Christian" or "Un-Christian" it doesn't change the fact of whether you have made the choice. That is what forgiveness is. People are flawed individuals and that is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The belief that your actions override the choice you made to believe is one of the common misconceptions surrounding Christianity. It's also what gives it a bad name, unfortunately.
While I try not to intentionally do anything to harm or violate the rights of anybody else, it is quite hard sometimes because others, more and more everyday, don't concern themselves the same way with me. I know I don't always get it right, I have a short temper in some situations, but if I recognize this in myself that is what God wants. He wants me to work to better myself.
Actually, both belief systems are completely based on peace with a few exceptions while protecting yourself. The problem is the people "following" them, not the belief system itself.
If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things.
Your second sentence there is correct. There is but one thing that Christianity "requires" and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord. That's it, nothing else.
No, the creation doesn't violate copyright, the distribution may. I can do anything I want with my own copy of a copyrighted work, I just can't distribute it.
I didn't say anything about warranty rights. You lose warranty rights, no big deal. What they're claiming is it's illegal. That's like saying putting a different bootloader on a PC is illegal.
causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works rights.
So now we can't install a different OS on hardware that we own? Installing software on something isn't against the law. Distributing someone else's OS modified or not, without their consent is. Jailbreaking doesn't do this. It simply installs a different bootloader that allows you to modify your own device.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. What I meant was, as long as the person taking the photos is on public property, there is nothing the homeowner can do, aside from shutting the curtains.
I'm not really sure what his point is with the first example, a search warrant. A search warrant is a police record and is public information. Anyone can go to the police department and look at them. Granted, being on the internet makes it easier and I'm not sure why NHTSA has it in THEIR database but that isn't the issue he's talking about.
Another example, the coroner's report, is also public record after it is filed I believe. A person's name, who is already dead, is not a protected item with regard to privacy.
"and ATT jacked up surrender fees."
They can't change your ETF after you've signed the contract. Yours is still what it was. Only "new contracts" were changed.
Would have been much better if the Military had come out and said "Yeah, we fucked up bad."
There's only one problem with that. They didn't "fuck up" at all. They were firing on armed enemy combatants. THEY brought their children along into the fight. You can't "not engage" somebody shooting at you just because they thought it was "bring your kid to work" day.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I find it amusing that most of the people on here are blaming him COMPLETELY for this. I'll agree that he's a little dense for not changing the password but that doesn't give Verizon the right to intrude onto his network. He said he owns the router so they have no business doing anything to it. Their access ends at THEIR equipment and/or software. If their software gives them access inside his network then it is illegal. You don't get to break the law to do the right thing.
If that were the case, everybody would be cheering when the police bend the rules to get a dirtbag off the street. Personally, I don't have a problem with it but I can't support their actions if they break the law. I also can't just look on as Verizon does the same thing and think, "Oh well."
Correct. In Indiana, for example, it is legal for a 7 year old to carry a firearm in a very particular situation. Indiana's law has a clause that allows property owners to carry a firearm on their own property without hinderance. The youngest you can be and legally own property in Indiana is 7. Hence, the allowance.
As said by others, firearms deaths of children (mostly published by anti-gun groups) include gang deaths and therefor are really not applicable to the situation. Including somebody who is already breaking the law doesn't give reason for another law.
irregardless Weird, it doesn't mark it. Oh well.
irregardless of its legality
Or of actually being a word.
Yes, he is in the past. But don't let that stop him from spewing FUD.
Well, it doesn't mean the world stops but moving to a place where they don't offer coverage, by itself, lets you out of the contract with no ETF.
They've also started advertising that here in the Phoenix metro area as well. I did not, however, notice the "based on sync rates" part though. It doesn't matter to me because I will never again do business with Qwest after having their service for about 6 months when I first moved here. Their customer service is the worst of ANY company I've ever dealt with. I'm now using Cox service and it is much faster and their customer service isn't nearly as horrid.
Agreed.
*thumbs up*
While those actions can be classified as "Christian" or "Un-Christian" it doesn't change the fact of whether you have made the choice. That is what forgiveness is. People are flawed individuals and that is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
The belief that your actions override the choice you made to believe is one of the common misconceptions surrounding Christianity. It's also what gives it a bad name, unfortunately.
While I try not to intentionally do anything to harm or violate the rights of anybody else, it is quite hard sometimes because others, more and more everyday, don't concern themselves the same way with me. I know I don't always get it right, I have a short temper in some situations, but if I recognize this in myself that is what God wants. He wants me to work to better myself.
Wow, I didn't see that story originally. Really? Gradient hardness is new? I don't think so.
Actually, both belief systems are completely based on peace with a few exceptions while protecting yourself. The problem is the people "following" them, not the belief system itself.
If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things.
Your second sentence there is correct. There is but one thing that Christianity "requires" and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord. That's it, nothing else.
the creation of which violates Apple's copyright.
No, the creation doesn't violate copyright, the distribution may. I can do anything I want with my own copy of a copyrighted work, I just can't distribute it.
I didn't say anything about warranty rights. You lose warranty rights, no big deal. What they're claiming is it's illegal. That's like saying putting a different bootloader on a PC is illegal.
causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in infringement of Apple’s reproduction and derivative works rights.
So now we can't install a different OS on hardware that we own? Installing software on something isn't against the law. Distributing someone else's OS modified or not, without their consent is. Jailbreaking doesn't do this. It simply installs a different bootloader that allows you to modify your own device.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. What I meant was, as long as the person taking the photos is on public property, there is nothing the homeowner can do, aside from shutting the curtains.
As long as you're on public property they can't do anything.
Google was not looking IN, the signal was be broadcast OUT.
I understand what his complaint was. My point is, anyone can go to the PD where it is recorded and look at it, un-redacted.
No they don't.
I'm not really sure what his point is with the first example, a search warrant. A search warrant is a police record and is public information. Anyone can go to the police department and look at them. Granted, being on the internet makes it easier and I'm not sure why NHTSA has it in THEIR database but that isn't the issue he's talking about. Another example, the coroner's report, is also public record after it is filed I believe. A person's name, who is already dead, is not a protected item with regard to privacy.
"and ATT jacked up surrender fees." They can't change your ETF after you've signed the contract. Yours is still what it was. Only "new contracts" were changed.
each of which has the ability to look inside.
Um, no? Your safe deposit box should require TWO keys to open.
Would have been much better if the Military had come out and said "Yeah, we fucked up bad."
There's only one problem with that. They didn't "fuck up" at all. They were firing on armed enemy combatants. THEY brought their children along into the fight. You can't "not engage" somebody shooting at you just because they thought it was "bring your kid to work" day.
"both are making it harder to actually find the free version"
Yeah, http://free.avg.com/ is really difficult.
I personally use MSE now because AVG started getting a little bloated before 9.0 came out.