But I'm not. I'm in my own home. And your signal is leaking into it. What if I don't want it there? What if your equipment is interfering with something I own?
Then lobby the FCC.
Or...
Sucks to be you. If interference was an issue, like you said, you have options. Why'd you go and get a device which must by law accept any and all interference given to it. You know, that whole public spectrum.
With the above, now I get suspicious when you mentioning upgrading his firmware, and interference with your equipment. Why would it not surprise me if in another you post you mention turning down the transmit power on his WLAN, too?
Do you also modify people's engine management computers in their cars, too, if you see an opportunity, if they strike you as "not actually having a notion one way or another".
Let me put it simpler for you: It's not yours. It's his. That means you don't fuck around with it, even if you think you know better than him.
Right, and the fact you can connect to that server and run your little local privilege escalation, that's not a crime either, because it -could- let you do it. And then it let you have root access to a DB server, and that's not a crime, because it -let- you. And it gave you all the information within those databases, because you asked and it -let- you, so that's not a crime either.
Right... so by that rationale no-one's ever been convicted or sued over breaking into satellite signals and doing that, because once the signal is on their property, it's theirs.
That thing was laughable, the whole pledge thing. I mean, if I recall, there were hundreds of users in Western Sahara pledging. Svalbard and Jan Mayen, too (if you know anything about Svalbard, 2,000 people living on about three small islands near the North Pole. I think there were some for British Indian Ocean Territory. Hundreds in countries with GDPs less than $1000 a head. I'm curious where they were getting their computers, in between putting a roof over their head (not an example of prejudice, more at the laughability of these stats - "People in every country on earth pledged to download Firefox 3!" - no, people were able to look at a map, see which countries had no pledges, and made up one).
That's silly. How did you get the object code? They are obliged to make the source code available to users of their product. Not "I happen to have the object code here".
Well, 3.0 is horribly broken for me under Vista. Within 15 minutes of starting it, the entire toolbar menu area is blank, and only redraws on mouse-over. Awesome.
Agreed, partly. The first part is laughable, farcical.
The second part (the guy with the aliases) is often used to detect sales people violating NDAs by taking customer lists with them after they leave a company. If you get email in one of your boxes from exemployee@competitor.com then you know you have a "problem".
Sorry. This is a silly whine. The check is not for you, it's for you to put into the economy. If you're already making more than $150,000 as a family, you're putting enough into the economy.
Agree or disagree as you wish with the rationale, but the concept is sound. No-one was ever "entitled" to that money.
Re:The number 1 story is almost what you want.
on
Bone-Headed IT Mistakes
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Ahhh, Twitter, how pleasant your life must be to wile away your days with such utter drivel, made only worse by the fact that you pay for subscriptions on at least one of your many many accounts.
You do quite probably hold a record though, I can't think of any other paying subscriber who posts at -1 by default. Kudos to you, kudos!
Yeah, it's not like you can't get them on eBay or anything...
My wife got a 2400mAh battery for hers, came with a new form fitting battery back, and now lasts the best part of a week in heavy voice usage + push email.
What a joke. You're honestly attempting to justify this with all that?
The merchant was not entitled to charge you extra for the ability to pay by credit card - this is between the merchant and the merchant provider. YOU accepted the charge, knowing that it could lead to you being able to dispute the transaction with the card provider, which you did. Your liability was from the merchant in the tune of $50, not $1,050.
You do realize that nothing in the merchant agreement that disallowed them from doing such a thing prohibits the merchant from now initiating civil proceedings against you for the recovery of the goods, be they tangible, or compensation to the tune of the retail cost (that $1,000)?
You're not even close to being on remotely ethical or moral grounds, and your attempts to justify things along the lines of "well if the retailer wants to play dirty...". You saw a loophole. You knew you could exploit it, you went ahead and did it, and rather than the merchant "ripping you off" to the sum of $50, you've justified your "ripping them off" to the sum of $1,000 along the lines of two wrongs make a right.
I bet it's "hella convenient" to you, too, undocumented income on the side that the tax man knows nothing about, and isn't linked to you by anything more than an email address, if you want.
I'd hardly say your solution was ethical, either. "Hey, I'll accept this purchase/charge, knowing full well I intend to charge back the transaction as soon as I get home."
I still have an ancient phone my parents leased back in the 60s. It's a rotary model, but I tell you, it is nice (I still use it). If parts wear out, they are all modular and easy to replace. Spill Cola in the ear-piece? Twist the covers off and the speaker & microphone are sitting on springs. Need new ones? Go find a pay phone and take the ones off it.
"It's an absolute breeze to maintain and repair, after all, all the parts are easily STEALABLE!"
I'd say "What are you, twelve?" but for your comment about pranking in the 80s. So I'll go with, "When did you stop developing, twelve?"
Jesus Christ, listen to you. "OMG, other mobile manufacturers are screwed! They're doomed, I tell you!"
What. The. Fuck?
Here's a little hint for you. Nokia sells more phones EVERY THREE DAYS than Apple EVER HAS.
Is the iPhone something they're watching and responding to? Of course it is. That's not saying anything.
"In store activation is going to be seen as a huge draw" - uhh, as opposed to EVERY OTHER PHONE ON THE MARKET?
Gruber: "Platforms have staying power, and, once entrenched, are very hard to displace."
Me: "Great. Thing is, the iPhone has less than THREE PER CENT of the market (and that's being generous). Symbian, for one, has upwards of SIXTY. I think it's a little premature to be saying that the iPhone platform is 'entrenched'."
1&2) you have a right to do with your property what you please. Claims by other parties that they have the right to control your property for their own profit are contrary to that right and invalid. Nothing situational about that.
Thanks for playing, sport. BIG problem with your claim: "UNLESS one of the conditions of sale is that you accede such rights (for example, in the contract offered at the time of purchase of the item)".
I dunno, re the web. I used to use Opera on my N95... then I just did a firmware upgrade last week, and the internal Nokia browser (based off, I believe, WebKit)... man, leaps and bounds ahead.... intuitive zoom in, zoom out, based on whether you're scrolling, or reading. Worth a new investigation. PIE on an MDA, though? Evil.
I'm sure that if you do so, you'll be required to return the phone, because it was supplied to you at a subsidized price based on your acceptance of the contract. And rightly so.
Am I missing something? Because I thought Bluetooth was a wireless protocol.
Yes you are. Something pretty simple and important. It costs power to receive and transmit wireless via Bluetooth, just as turning off WLAN on your laptop will give you up to an extra third battery life.
"Hey, we really need to ramp up sales in the Vatican City for cellphones, after all, we just sold 500, and the population's only 800! Look at that per capita! Divert those sales from the US now!"
In some ways AT&T is contract-jumping on TMO, encouraging Starbucks not to fulfill their obligations and courts really don't like that between businesses.
The phrase you are looking for is tortious interference, where someone influences a party in a contract to breach that contract, or otherwise works to prevent a contract being established by two other parties.
You talk about different things. First, "I pay for 1.5mbps so that's what I should get", and second, "I have rarely found a site that actually gives me their data at 180Kbytes/sec" - they're hardly under any obligation to. You pay for a connection that's technically capable of receiving 1.5mbps, not for a promise that a site will deliver at that bandwidth. This sounds like the very inverse of net neutrality, but from a consumer perspective.
The problem is supply and demand. The oil companies want to produce more supply, but environmentalists won't let them. They are trying to control your behavior via prices. To them, caribou in Alaska are more important that people in Ohio.
They are. The caribou in Alaska have no choices. The people in Ohio do. It's just too "difficult", or "inconvenient" to exercise them, or explore alternatives and other solutions.
But go ahead, continue blaming the environmentalists. The Alaskan oil reserves have a maximum of two years supply for US gas at its current use rate. "Fuck the animals, that's two years more gas for my Expedition/Explorer/Escalade".
Slashdot Mirror
Then lobby the FCC.
Or...
Sucks to be you. If interference was an issue, like you said, you have options. Why'd you go and get a device which must by law accept any and all interference given to it. You know, that whole public spectrum.
With the above, now I get suspicious when you mentioning upgrading his firmware, and interference with your equipment. Why would it not surprise me if in another you post you mention turning down the transmit power on his WLAN, too?
Let me put it simpler for you: It's not yours. It's his. That means you don't fuck around with it, even if you think you know better than him.
You just keep telling yourself that.
Wait, that's not true. Nice try, though.
Uhhh, what? Trespass for one comes immediately to mind...
That thing was laughable, the whole pledge thing. I mean, if I recall, there were hundreds of users in Western Sahara pledging. Svalbard and Jan Mayen, too (if you know anything about Svalbard, 2,000 people living on about three small islands near the North Pole. I think there were some for British Indian Ocean Territory. Hundreds in countries with GDPs less than $1000 a head. I'm curious where they were getting their computers, in between putting a roof over their head (not an example of prejudice, more at the laughability of these stats - "People in every country on earth pledged to download Firefox 3!" - no, people were able to look at a map, see which countries had no pledges, and made up one).
That's silly. How did you get the object code? They are obliged to make the source code available to users of their product. Not "I happen to have the object code here".
Well, 3.0 is horribly broken for me under Vista. Within 15 minutes of starting it, the entire toolbar menu area is blank, and only redraws on mouse-over. Awesome.
The second part (the guy with the aliases) is often used to detect sales people violating NDAs by taking customer lists with them after they leave a company. If you get email in one of your boxes from exemployee@competitor.com then you know you have a "problem".
Agree or disagree as you wish with the rationale, but the concept is sound. No-one was ever "entitled" to that money.
You do quite probably hold a record though, I can't think of any other paying subscriber who posts at -1 by default. Kudos to you, kudos!
My wife got a 2400mAh battery for hers, came with a new form fitting battery back, and now lasts the best part of a week in heavy voice usage + push email.
The merchant was not entitled to charge you extra for the ability to pay by credit card - this is between the merchant and the merchant provider. YOU accepted the charge, knowing that it could lead to you being able to dispute the transaction with the card provider, which you did. Your liability was from the merchant in the tune of $50, not $1,050.
You do realize that nothing in the merchant agreement that disallowed them from doing such a thing prohibits the merchant from now initiating civil proceedings against you for the recovery of the goods, be they tangible, or compensation to the tune of the retail cost (that $1,000)?
You're not even close to being on remotely ethical or moral grounds, and your attempts to justify things along the lines of "well if the retailer wants to play dirty...". You saw a loophole. You knew you could exploit it, you went ahead and did it, and rather than the merchant "ripping you off" to the sum of $50, you've justified your "ripping them off" to the sum of $1,000 along the lines of two wrongs make a right.
How utterly pathetic.
I bet it's "hella convenient" to you, too, undocumented income on the side that the tax man knows nothing about, and isn't linked to you by anything more than an email address, if you want.
I'd hardly say your solution was ethical, either. "Hey, I'll accept this purchase/charge, knowing full well I intend to charge back the transaction as soon as I get home."
"It's an absolute breeze to maintain and repair, after all, all the parts are easily STEALABLE!"
I'd say "What are you, twelve?" but for your comment about pranking in the 80s. So I'll go with, "When did you stop developing, twelve?"
What. The. Fuck?
Here's a little hint for you. Nokia sells more phones EVERY THREE DAYS than Apple EVER HAS.
Is the iPhone something they're watching and responding to? Of course it is. That's not saying anything.
"In store activation is going to be seen as a huge draw" - uhh, as opposed to EVERY OTHER PHONE ON THE MARKET?
Gruber: "Platforms have staying power, and, once entrenched, are very hard to displace."
Me: "Great. Thing is, the iPhone has less than THREE PER CENT of the market (and that's being generous). Symbian, for one, has upwards of SIXTY. I think it's a little premature to be saying that the iPhone platform is 'entrenched'."
Thanks for playing, sport. BIG problem with your claim: "UNLESS one of the conditions of sale is that you accede such rights (for example, in the contract offered at the time of purchase of the item)".
I dunno, re the web. I used to use Opera on my N95... then I just did a firmware upgrade last week, and the internal Nokia browser (based off, I believe, WebKit)... man, leaps and bounds ahead.... intuitive zoom in, zoom out, based on whether you're scrolling, or reading. Worth a new investigation. PIE on an MDA, though? Evil.
I'm sure that if you do so, you'll be required to return the phone, because it was supplied to you at a subsidized price based on your acceptance of the contract. And rightly so.
Yes you are. Something pretty simple and important. It costs power to receive and transmit wireless via Bluetooth, just as turning off WLAN on your laptop will give you up to an extra third battery life.
"Hey, we really need to ramp up sales in the Vatican City for cellphones, after all, we just sold 500, and the population's only 800! Look at that per capita! Divert those sales from the US now!"
The phrase you are looking for is tortious interference, where someone influences a party in a contract to breach that contract, or otherwise works to prevent a contract being established by two other parties.
You talk about different things. First, "I pay for 1.5mbps so that's what I should get", and second, "I have rarely found a site that actually gives me their data at 180Kbytes/sec" - they're hardly under any obligation to. You pay for a connection that's technically capable of receiving 1.5mbps, not for a promise that a site will deliver at that bandwidth. This sounds like the very inverse of net neutrality, but from a consumer perspective.
They are. The caribou in Alaska have no choices. The people in Ohio do. It's just too "difficult", or "inconvenient" to exercise them, or explore alternatives and other solutions.
But go ahead, continue blaming the environmentalists. The Alaskan oil reserves have a maximum of two years supply for US gas at its current use rate. "Fuck the animals, that's two years more gas for my Expedition/Explorer/Escalade".