Yeah, that worked splendidly in the Jammie Thomas case.
"Nothing can protect you from having to deal with the police or the FBI."
Well, not completely, but I would say not allowing people to commit crimes on your network would do something to dissuade that a little bit. And this headline couldn't more clearly refute your claim - "Child porn case shows that an open WiFi network is no defense". From TFA -
The merits of leaving your wireless access point (WAP) open have been discussed and debated at length, especially when it comes to law enforcement. There is a growing belief that file sharers can protect themselves against lawsuits by keeping their wireless access points open. The problem is, it won't necessarily.
A Texas man who was convicted of possessing child pornography tried to use his open WiFi network as a defense, saying that someone else could have used the same network to traffic in pornographic images. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit didn't buy his argument and upheld the conviction.
So while I do admire your spirit, you are obviously NAL and should stop dispensing questionable legal advice. I mean who should I believe - you or the US Supreme Court when it comes to legal questions about WiFi?
Sure, I'll unsecure my wireless network for you to use. As long as you leave your front door unlocked so I can come over to your house anytime I want, make a sandwich, watch some TV, play some video games, etc. Entertainment is what we want. If you want to do entertaining things, you ought to be required to provide this service to all.
Doing something about the problem? I think outside of this site and other tech sites like it, the general population has no clue what a "botnet" is or how they could be a problem. No cop wants to try and take credit for helping fix a problem nobody understands or cares about...
"Nice try. Do you really think that a sudden, giant wash of cheap, legal narcotics wouldn't bring a lot more young people into a (shorter) lifetime of addiction?"
No, I don't. Want proof? You offered it yourself - If drugs were legal tomorrow would you go out and binge on heroin and cocaine?
No.
Why would the rest of the population be any different from you? There are already scores of drug addicts, so obviously the threat of incarceration isn't an effective deterrent. So what are the benefits of draconian drug laws? Prisons that are so over crowded, criminals are getting let out early to make more room. A huge burden on the taxpayers footing the bill for the great "War on Drugs" that the drugs are winning. If you took all the money spent on bullshit tactics that stop less than 10% of the drug trafficking, it would be more than enough to offer free drug treatment and also realistic education about drugs and their effects. The only education I ever got about drugs is that anyone who tries any drug immediately gets hooked and becomes a rabid criminal, so I should "Just Say No". What do you think happens when what you see with your own two eyes differs from that?
You remember the early days of/. where everyone was predicting the end of Microsoft and the golden age of "Linux on Every Desktop" would happen by 2006? Thanks Slashdot.
"Will you also be subsidizing other people's consumption of those drugs, and for that matter the rest of their not-as- or non-productive lives as they consume them? With other people's tax dollars?"
We already do. It is called prison and over 50% of the people there are in there for drug convictions. Who do you think pays for the courts and prison systems? The taxpayers.
"Because if you expect that people are still going to have to pay for what they consume, many of those over-21-year-olds that you'd be happy to see on heroin are still going to resort to crime in order to pay for their existence."
You do know that the reason illegal drugs cost so much is because they are illegal, right? That's what the black market does to prices. Legalize drugs and the cost would plummet.
"when they present with conditions that are far harder to figure out once you know they're full of nice, legal, hard drugs all the time?"
What? If a doctor knew exactly what kind of drugs they were taking, in controlled strengths and dosages (due to the fact they are now legal and regulated), how would that make it any more difficult? Talk about your hypothetical straw man argument...
let me ask you a question - if drugs were legal tomorrow would you go out and binge on heroin and cocaine? No? Maybe that is due to the fact the legality of a drug has no bearing on whether or not a person chooses to take it. If it did, then obviously nobody would be taking illegal drugs.
Well, the real questions are - How often do you use a table saw, and How much do these things cost? Sure for businesses where accidents can be costly I'm sure the accident reduction would be well worth the higher price. But really, I use my table saw a couple times a year at most, and while doing it my brain is absolutely screaming "BE CAREFUL! DO NOT CUT ANYTHING OFF!" the entire time...
I think you can make tools "safer", but no matter how "safe" some idiot will find a way to misuse it and injure themselves. Just remember the Douglas Adams quote -
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
P.S. I wonder how many hot dogs were cut before the owner had the nerve to use his own hand
P.P.S. I wonder how many shot of whiskey were drank before the owner had the nerve to use his own hand
Yes, but all the "Reagan won the Cold War" folks like to point out the "Reagan laid the groundwork". Besides, the Soviet Union had basically collapsed when Ronnie was still in office, just not "officially" yet. It is still my opinion that Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis blockade did more to "end" the Cold War than Reagan did.
If by WWIII you mean the Cold War, and if by Reagan won it, you mean the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own bloated inefficiency while Reagan happened to be president, then yes you are correct. And please, don't confuse the voters with real issues. The smoke and mirror campaigns haven't even started in full force yet!
You may have a point, but MS is hardly losing money to competitors by businesses not adopting Vista. It's not like all the corporations running XP have switched to Macs or are running Linux as an alternative. The biggest alternative to Vista is still XP.
Yeah, I have seen this before. Next time I want to make tiny cuts in hot dogs, I'll use one. But for the record, you would still be injured by one of these, just not as bad as with a regular saw...
If I misuse or use inappropriately tools/cars/housing etc... I expect to injure myself...
Fixed it for you. The actual brand of tools/cars/housing should be irrelevant. Are you saying there is no way you could injure yourself by using "quality" tools, even by using them incorrectly? If so that is preposterous.
Most likely because Snopes doesn't deal with theoretical "What if" situations much. Now if someone actually had a phone explode while pumping gas, they would probably address this. The thing that Snopes is claiming about cellphones is that so far there hasn't been a single case where a cell phone has been proven to spark the gas vapors. There have been a few cases where explosions have happened while people were talking on a cell phone, but the cause in each case was determined to be static electricity discharge and the fact they were using a cell phone at the time was merely coincidental.
Mythbusters even featured this urban myth on their show (Season 2- Episode 14) and couldn't get a cell phone inside a box full of gas vapors to ignite anything. They declared the myth "Busted!".
BSA != Microsoft. Apple is a member of the BSA also.
Why is it everything that/. people don't like somehow get linked to Microsoft? Place the blame where the blame belongs...
That isn't the point. What if you don't own a computer already? What if your display is broken, and that is what motivated you to upgrade? What if you have a system already, but want more than one functional computer? None of this even matters - the original point was entry level cost for a new computer system. The cost is the cost for the entire system, not just a part of it. My point was that there are $600 systems that come with all of those things included, and a $600 Mini isn't "usable" as is right out of the box.
No, I am seriously telling you that when you buy a Mac Mini, that you do not receive any of these included in the price. And for comparison purposes, I gave an example of an entry level PC for less than $600 that did. So lighten up Francis, I am not paid by Dell ( should I ask you if you are paid by Apple to pimp their expensive hardware?), I was simply pointing out that the $600 Mini is not usable "out of the box" at that price. What if it was your first computer and didn't have those spare items? I am not saying either system is better in any way, that is a bullshit discussion that I have no interest in having... But my point is relevant in a discussion when someone says $600 is all you need to start using a Mac Mini, because it simply isn't the whole truth.
Yes, you can get a Mac Mini for $600. Then another $200-$300 for a display. Then add in another $40 - $80 on a USB keyboard and mouse (make it $100 if you want official Apple brand stuff). Then don't forget speakers.
All in all a Mac Mini will cost you about $900 or more to set up, not the "it's only $600" I hear often quoted.
"others are not claiming that giraffes started out much shorter than the acacia"
That was exactly what the OP was saying (well technically he was saying that the acacias were much taller than the giraffes, but same thing), and I was pointing out the flaw with his logic.
First animal: "Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. Too bad they are like 15 feet up there".
Next Generation: "Still looks yummy, too bad it is still 15 feet up there."
Except the first generation of giraffes would die out, because they couldn't reach the food. Therefore no evolution due to extinction.
Slashdot Mirror
"We keep the value of their trust funds secret, but the two are worth over $300k today"
At their ages I am going to assume they are single. Can I send you my pic and resume? Oh wait, I guess I can just find them on MySpace...
"You always have plausible deniability"
Yeah, that worked splendidly in the Jammie Thomas case.
"Nothing can protect you from having to deal with the police or the FBI."
Well, not completely, but I would say not allowing people to commit crimes on your network would do something to dissuade that a little bit. And this headline couldn't more clearly refute your claim - "Child porn case shows that an open WiFi network is no defense". From TFA -
The merits of leaving your wireless access point (WAP) open have been discussed and debated at length, especially when it comes to law enforcement. There is a growing belief that file sharers can protect themselves against lawsuits by keeping their wireless access points open. The problem is, it won't necessarily.
A Texas man who was convicted of possessing child pornography tried to use his open WiFi network as a defense, saying that someone else could have used the same network to traffic in pornographic images. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit didn't buy his argument and upheld the conviction.
So while I do admire your spirit, you are obviously NAL and should stop dispensing questionable legal advice. I mean who should I believe - you or the US Supreme Court when it comes to legal questions about WiFi?
Sure, I'll unsecure my wireless network for you to use. As long as you leave your front door unlocked so I can come over to your house anytime I want, make a sandwich, watch some TV, play some video games, etc.
Entertainment is what we want. If you want to do entertaining things, you ought to be required to provide this service to all.
Doing something about the problem? I think outside of this site and other tech sites like it, the general population has no clue what a "botnet" is or how they could be a problem. No cop wants to try and take credit for helping fix a problem nobody understands or cares about...
The FBI is an American organization, they have no use for your "Queen's English". Now change your story or prepare to be waterboarded.
Like you sir, I lurked for a long time anonymously before signing up. And how do you know this is my only /. ID?
"Nice try. Do you really think that a sudden, giant wash of cheap, legal narcotics wouldn't bring a lot more young people into a (shorter) lifetime of addiction?"
No, I don't. Want proof? You offered it yourself -
If drugs were legal tomorrow would you go out and binge on heroin and cocaine?
No.
Why would the rest of the population be any different from you? There are already scores of drug addicts, so obviously the threat of incarceration isn't an effective deterrent. So what are the benefits of draconian drug laws? Prisons that are so over crowded, criminals are getting let out early to make more room. A huge burden on the taxpayers footing the bill for the great "War on Drugs" that the drugs are winning. If you took all the money spent on bullshit tactics that stop less than 10% of the drug trafficking, it would be more than enough to offer free drug treatment and also realistic education about drugs and their effects. The only education I ever got about drugs is that anyone who tries any drug immediately gets hooked and becomes a rabid criminal, so I should "Just Say No". What do you think happens when what you see with your own two eyes differs from that?
Can Bush order a pre-pardon for himself and the rest of the administration?? Some sort of political golden parachute?
You remember the early days of /. where everyone was predicting the end of Microsoft and the golden age of "Linux on Every Desktop" would happen by 2006? Thanks Slashdot.
"Will you also be subsidizing other people's consumption of those drugs, and for that matter the rest of their not-as- or non-productive lives as they consume them? With other people's tax dollars?"
We already do. It is called prison and over 50% of the people there are in there for drug convictions. Who do you think pays for the courts and prison systems? The taxpayers.
"Because if you expect that people are still going to have to pay for what they consume, many of those over-21-year-olds that you'd be happy to see on heroin are still going to resort to crime in order to pay for their existence."
You do know that the reason illegal drugs cost so much is because they are illegal, right? That's what the black market does to prices. Legalize drugs and the cost would plummet.
"when they present with conditions that are far harder to figure out once you know they're full of nice, legal, hard drugs all the time?"
What? If a doctor knew exactly what kind of drugs they were taking, in controlled strengths and dosages (due to the fact they are now legal and regulated), how would that make it any more difficult? Talk about your hypothetical straw man argument...
let me ask you a question - if drugs were legal tomorrow would you go out and binge on heroin and cocaine? No? Maybe that is due to the fact the legality of a drug has no bearing on whether or not a person chooses to take it. If it did, then obviously nobody would be taking illegal drugs.
Well, the real questions are - How often do you use a table saw, and How much do these things cost? Sure for businesses where accidents can be costly I'm sure the accident reduction would be well worth the higher price. But really, I use my table saw a couple times a year at most, and while doing it my brain is absolutely screaming "BE CAREFUL! DO NOT CUT ANYTHING OFF!" the entire time...
I think you can make tools "safer", but no matter how "safe" some idiot will find a way to misuse it and injure themselves. Just remember the Douglas Adams quote -
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
P.S. I wonder how many hot dogs were cut before the owner had the nerve to use his own hand
P.P.S. I wonder how many shot of whiskey were drank before the owner had the nerve to use his own hand
Yes, but all the "Reagan won the Cold War" folks like to point out the "Reagan laid the groundwork". Besides, the Soviet Union had basically collapsed when Ronnie was still in office, just not "officially" yet. It is still my opinion that Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis blockade did more to "end" the Cold War than Reagan did.
If by WWIII you mean the Cold War, and if by Reagan won it, you mean the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own bloated inefficiency while Reagan happened to be president, then yes you are correct. And please, don't confuse the voters with real issues. The smoke and mirror campaigns haven't even started in full force yet!
You may have a point, but MS is hardly losing money to competitors by businesses not adopting Vista. It's not like all the corporations running XP have switched to Macs or are running Linux as an alternative. The biggest alternative to Vista is still XP.
Yeah, I have seen this before. Next time I want to make tiny cuts in hot dogs, I'll use one. But for the record, you would still be injured by one of these, just not as bad as with a regular saw...
If I misuse or use inappropriately tools/cars/housing etc... I expect to injure myself...
Fixed it for you. The actual brand of tools/cars/housing should be irrelevant. Are you saying there is no way you could injure yourself by using "quality" tools, even by using them incorrectly? If so that is preposterous.
Which is too bad, because he missed the email warning about exploding cell phones...
Most likely because Snopes doesn't deal with theoretical "What if" situations much. Now if someone actually had a phone explode while pumping gas, they would probably address this. The thing that Snopes is claiming about cellphones is that so far there hasn't been a single case where a cell phone has been proven to spark the gas vapors. There have been a few cases where explosions have happened while people were talking on a cell phone, but the cause in each case was determined to be static electricity discharge and the fact they were using a cell phone at the time was merely coincidental.
Mythbusters even featured this urban myth on their show (Season 2- Episode 14) and couldn't get a cell phone inside a box full of gas vapors to ignite anything. They declared the myth "Busted!".
BSA != Microsoft. Apple is a member of the BSA also. /. people don't like somehow get linked to Microsoft? Place the blame where the blame belongs...
Why is it everything that
That isn't the point. What if you don't own a computer already? What if your display is broken, and that is what motivated you to upgrade? What if you have a system already, but want more than one functional computer? None of this even matters - the original point was entry level cost for a new computer system. The cost is the cost for the entire system, not just a part of it. My point was that there are $600 systems that come with all of those things included, and a $600 Mini isn't "usable" as is right out of the box.
No, I am seriously telling you that when you buy a Mac Mini, that you do not receive any of these included in the price. And for comparison purposes, I gave an example of an entry level PC for less than $600 that did. So lighten up Francis, I am not paid by Dell ( should I ask you if you are paid by Apple to pimp their expensive hardware?), I was simply pointing out that the $600 Mini is not usable "out of the box" at that price. What if it was your first computer and didn't have those spare items?
I am not saying either system is better in any way, that is a bullshit discussion that I have no interest in having... But my point is relevant in a discussion when someone says $600 is all you need to start using a Mac Mini, because it simply isn't the whole truth.
Yeah. I sure wouldn't want to slight the rather large percentage of PC owners who are running OS/2. They would both really be pissed.
Yes, you can get a Mac Mini for $600. Then another $200-$300 for a display. Then add in another $40 - $80 on a USB keyboard and mouse (make it $100 if you want official Apple brand stuff). Then don't forget speakers.
All in all a Mac Mini will cost you about $900 or more to set up, not the "it's only $600" I hear often quoted.
Just to give you an idea, you could get a Dell Inspiron 531s desktop with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+, 1 GB RAM, 250GB hard drive, 17" widescreen flat panel LCD for $549. And yes, that also includes keyboard, mouse, and speakers...
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/inspndt_bundles?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
"others are not claiming that giraffes started out much shorter than the acacia"
That was exactly what the OP was saying (well technically he was saying that the acacias were much taller than the giraffes, but same thing), and I was pointing out the flaw with his logic.
First animal: "Hey! look at those yummy acacia leaves. Too bad they are like 15 feet up there".
Next Generation: "Still looks yummy, too bad it is still 15 feet up there."
Except the first generation of giraffes would die out, because they couldn't reach the food. Therefore no evolution due to extinction.