I've also found that the combination of using a homebuilt router and an off-the-shelve AP/switch works well. If you don't make them do NAT and shit then most consumer router/switch/ap combos work fine (even my shittaclular linksys thing).
The problem here is you are using a phrase ("Nobody is forcing people to use this phone") that is commonly employed by apple fanatics to assert that the only people who have a right to complain about apple are those people that have bought the right to do so (by buying an apple product, why the hell would I do that if I don't like them?) and that people should simply not purchase their products instead of complaining. The reasoning is of course flawed, nobody expects M$-flamers on slashdot to purchase and use windows before complaining on slashdot about it.
Do I feel sorry for people that bought iphones and this is happening to? Of course not, they brought it on themselves. Is this still a morally reprehensible action by Apple, and does it deserve my full and unreserved criticism? Absolutely.
As for new laws? I agree that we don't need new ones. There are probably plenty on the books already that would make retroactively changing terms of use legally questionable. All that we need is for these laws to be properly interpreted and applied.
Well, actually SPAM has aparently meant numerous things over the years. My favorite meaning is "Shoulder of Pork and Ham". Seems the most honest and descriptive.
In at least some states that would still be quite illegal. Actually, I think that'd be illegal in just about all states, as neither party would be informed of the wiretap, let alone both of them.
It is my understanding (stories from family members that have been there) that at least Burger King does indeed sell Spam sandwhiches in Hawaii. I don't know the details of it though, might not also have a burger patty.
For what it's worth, I make spam burgers all the time for lunch. Easy and delicious (no really, grill the spam and it's no worse than any other meat!).
Although it is not currently, sheetsda's post to which I was responding was modded offtopic. I understand that it is common practice for slashdot to point out that thinkgeek is a sister company to itself, but lets be honest, not all mods RTFS. I wasn't trying to criticise the article as much as the moderators that downmoded sheetsda's post.
What I did find interesting however was the line from the fucking summary:
the newswires refused to distribute it for some reason.
which refers to the pdf copy of Geeknet's appology. If you read that pdf, it becomes immediately obvious why newswires refused to distribute it, and that line practically sounds like it's actually dripping in sarcasm. It blatantly reads like the piece of marketing, to the absurd.
In fact, it reeks so heavily of marketing, that if I was more of a tinfoil hat type I might even suggest that the entire situation was a joint National Pork Board and Geeknet marketing collarboration. Seriously, read that PDF...
Note to the moderators: This might look to be offtopic, but then you should remember that slashdot is also owned by Geeknet.
Parent's point is that this is obviously a front page article because it's a slashvertisement for a website owned by the same company that owns slashdot.
Well despite how irrelevant AOL may be, they can still haul your ass to court. Of course if VideoLAN doesn't have people in the US then perhaps that wouldn't really be that big of a deal...
SCO was pretty damned irrelevant by the time they decided to become a troll.
You are again attempting to underplay the the relationship between the Saturn 1 and previous rockets. The early Saturn rockets were basically comglomerations of components from older, less sucessful rocket designs.
The Falcon 1 was independantly developed by Spacex and had issues, but the Falcon 9, independantly designed by spacex and built up from Falcon 1 technology has so far been an enourmous success.
If you want to whitewash Americas early space program, then logically you should do the same for SpaceX. The parallels are not to be ignored.
Same thing goes for the gas chamber. Nerve gasses or whatever they used to use are absurd overkill, just flood the chamber with nitrogen, displacing all of the oxygen and CO2. They won't even feel thing and they'll be out of it in 15-20 seconds (time it takes for oxygen depleted blood to reach your brain from your lungs). Within minutes they'll be braindead.
The Saturn 1's maiden flight was in October 27, 1961. And it wasn't developed in a vacuum either, it was build after experience with Vanguard, Atlas, and Titan rockets. In fact, large portions of the Saturn 1 rockets were components taken from previous rockets. Drawing the line between contractor developed and NASA developed to whitewash Americas early spaceflight history is pretty disingenuous. Basically you are again ignoring previous lines of development, cherry-picking your track records to paint the picture you want to see.
You know, I can put up with a lot of idiocy before I start to suspect malice, but this has gone too far. A potato battery article on slashdot, "news for nerds"? Kdawson is officially a troll.
See here for an example of infrared imaging devices being used to "invade privacy". Basically, cops use(ed?) these things to look for unusually hot attics or basements (presumably caused by glow lamps) and would then get a search warrant to look for drugs.
Probably worth noting: although I think the comparison between wifi and infrared is a poor one (people expect a certain degree of privacy on the infrared part of the spectrum, while anyone who expects privacy on unsecured wifi is (in my humble opinion...) being foolish), I actually disagree with the supreme court on this one. I don't have any real legal issue with police using infrared imaging without a warrant.
Whoooole 'nother debate here though. There was a slashdot article a while back about it that I didn't immediately find. You can check out that for more detailed conversation;)
As I said, despite how popular it is among tech people (like the crowd found on slashdot) to assert that the general public is completely clueless, I think it is pretty safe to assume that anyone who knows what wifi is (ie, they use it) knows that it goes through walls (because they've used it through walls), and knows that it works with radio waves (the general population has been pretty up on what radios are for probably about the past century).
If they never considered that what they are doing can be seen by other people, then in all likelihood they just never bothered to think about it. That is what I'm saying when I said "they just arn't familar enough with the concept yet to think of it in correct terms." People see other peoples APs all the time, and people generally have a pretty good idea of whether or not they need a password to get onto their network. If they don't know their neighbors can use their wifi it's only because they didn't bother to put 2 and 2 together.
As a little piece of anecdotal evidence, when my grandparents purchased their first PC (last year), they had me help them get set up. When I explained that I'd be setting up their wifi router for them too, they kindly (and of course unnecessarily) reminded me set it up with a password, so their neighbors couldn't use it. I then spent the rest of the weekend trying to explain to them how to check the news online. Despite practically no computer experience, they knew enough to request that their network be secured.
Note: I'm not saying that the general public is aware of how to properly secure their transmissions. Judging by the APs I can see right now, most people seem to think WEP is fine, and unless they bothered to research it they can't be blamed. This is a separate issue though, "knowing that you are unsecure" and "knowing how to secure yourself" are two separate things. Probably worth noting that even using WEP would have prevented this from happening. What I'm getting at is that the difference between "unsecured network" and "secured network" is well understood by the general population, in sufficient detail.
I think realistically the only real grey area here is people who think they don't need to secure their network because their house is too far away from anything else. From my experience, these people are usually more or less correct. (barring the application of cantennas, and I don't believe google was using unusually high-gain antennas. At least I haven't heard anything to indicate they were).
PS: really? a troll moderation? you might not agree with my point of view but I don't think it is particularly controversial, and I think I backed them up well enough. To reiterate though: I think the comparison between wifi and people radiating infrared is flawed because by merely purchasing, installing, and using a wifi AP, the user is actively making a decision to broadcast information. Broadcasting information is the one and only purpose of a wifi AP. Conversely, nobody makes the decision to radiate infrared, it is something we do by default (and unless we go to extreme lengths, it is something we cannot stop). As I've explained in the rest of my post, I believe that for the general public, this is also an informed decision to broadcast information.
1. Occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment: the snags incidental to a changeover in upper management. See Synonyms at accidental. 2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature: incidental expenses.
In other words, unlike WiFi APs, human beings are not designed, built, and used as broadcasting equipment.
Despite Joe Sixpack not knowing much about radio communication, I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the general public that doesn't have some basic and more or less correct idea of how wifi works. Everyone knows that the radio signals they use reach farther than their house, they just arn't familar enough with the concept yet to think of it in correct terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I've also found that the combination of using a homebuilt router and an off-the-shelve AP/switch works well. If you don't make them do NAT and shit then most consumer router/switch/ap combos work fine (even my shittaclular linksys thing).
Maybe the font they were using was ShittyLowRezScan-Serifs.
The problem here is you are using a phrase ("Nobody is forcing people to use this phone") that is commonly employed by apple fanatics to assert that the only people who have a right to complain about apple are those people that have bought the right to do so (by buying an apple product, why the hell would I do that if I don't like them?) and that people should simply not purchase their products instead of complaining. The reasoning is of course flawed, nobody expects M$-flamers on slashdot to purchase and use windows before complaining on slashdot about it.
Do I feel sorry for people that bought iphones and this is happening to? Of course not, they brought it on themselves. Is this still a morally reprehensible action by Apple, and does it deserve my full and unreserved criticism? Absolutely.
As for new laws? I agree that we don't need new ones. There are probably plenty on the books already that would make retroactively changing terms of use legally questionable. All that we need is for these laws to be properly interpreted and applied.
Cellular providers MAY be doing this. Apple IS doing this.
I wonder which one I am going to express more concern about...
Well, actually SPAM has aparently meant numerous things over the years. My favorite meaning is "Shoulder of Pork and Ham". Seems the most honest and descriptive.
In at least some states that would still be quite illegal. Actually, I think that'd be illegal in just about all states, as neither party would be informed of the wiretap, let alone both of them.
It is my understanding (stories from family members that have been there) that at least Burger King does indeed sell Spam sandwhiches in Hawaii. I don't know the details of it though, might not also have a burger patty.
For what it's worth, I make spam burgers all the time for lunch. Easy and delicious (no really, grill the spam and it's no worse than any other meat!).
Although it is not currently, sheetsda's post to which I was responding was modded offtopic. I understand that it is common practice for slashdot to point out that thinkgeek is a sister company to itself, but lets be honest, not all mods RTFS. I wasn't trying to criticise the article as much as the moderators that downmoded sheetsda's post.
What I did find interesting however was the line from the fucking summary:
which refers to the pdf copy of Geeknet's appology. If you read that pdf, it becomes immediately obvious why newswires refused to distribute it, and that line practically sounds like it's actually dripping in sarcasm. It blatantly reads like the piece of marketing, to the absurd.
In fact, it reeks so heavily of marketing, that if I was more of a tinfoil hat type I might even suggest that the entire situation was a joint National Pork Board and Geeknet marketing collarboration. Seriously, read that PDF...
Note to the moderators: This might look to be offtopic, but then you should remember that slashdot is also owned by Geeknet.
Parent's point is that this is obviously a front page article because it's a slashvertisement for a website owned by the same company that owns slashdot.
This is very true.
Well despite how irrelevant AOL may be, they can still haul your ass to court. Of course if VideoLAN doesn't have people in the US then perhaps that wouldn't really be that big of a deal...
SCO was pretty damned irrelevant by the time they decided to become a troll.
This explains a lot.
Maybe their just trying to take themselves out of their own misery.
I went to school in the 90s and only learned metric. It was my understanding that this was pretty universal among public schools in my area.
Really, if everyone stopped using imperial units tomorrow, I'd venture to guess that only a handful of old geezers would have any trouble with it.
That applies for spoofing your IP address, but not for spoofing your MAC address.
You are again attempting to underplay the the relationship between the Saturn 1 and previous rockets. The early Saturn rockets were basically comglomerations of components from older, less sucessful rocket designs.
The Falcon 1 was independantly developed by Spacex and had issues, but the Falcon 9, independantly designed by spacex and built up from Falcon 1 technology has so far been an enourmous success.
If you want to whitewash Americas early space program, then logically you should do the same for SpaceX. The parallels are not to be ignored.
Nah, I'm going with the other guy. Kdawson is actually Jon Katz.
Same thing goes for the gas chamber. Nerve gasses or whatever they used to use are absurd overkill, just flood the chamber with nitrogen, displacing all of the oxygen and CO2. They won't even feel thing and they'll be out of it in 15-20 seconds (time it takes for oxygen depleted blood to reach your brain from your lungs). Within minutes they'll be braindead.
Cue wingnuts complaining about the German government bombarding them with ZOMG RADIATION.
News at 11: Is the German Government giving your children brain cancer!?!?!?
Huh?
The Saturn 1's maiden flight was in October 27, 1961. And it wasn't developed in a vacuum either, it was build after experience with Vanguard, Atlas, and Titan rockets. In fact, large portions of the Saturn 1 rockets were components taken from previous rockets. Drawing the line between contractor developed and NASA developed to whitewash Americas early spaceflight history is pretty disingenuous. Basically you are again ignoring previous lines of development, cherry-picking your track records to paint the picture you want to see.
Fact remains:
Falcon 9 record: Perfect.
Aries record: None.
You know, I can put up with a lot of idiocy before I start to suspect malice, but this has gone too far. A potato battery article on slashdot, "news for nerds"? Kdawson is officially a troll.
See here for an example of infrared imaging devices being used to "invade privacy". Basically, cops use(ed?) these things to look for unusually hot attics or basements (presumably caused by glow lamps) and would then get a search warrant to look for drugs.
Probably worth noting: although I think the comparison between wifi and infrared is a poor one (people expect a certain degree of privacy on the infrared part of the spectrum, while anyone who expects privacy on unsecured wifi is (in my humble opinion...) being foolish), I actually disagree with the supreme court on this one. I don't have any real legal issue with police using infrared imaging without a warrant.
Whoooole 'nother debate here though. There was a slashdot article a while back about it that I didn't immediately find. You can check out that for more detailed conversation ;)
As I said, despite how popular it is among tech people (like the crowd found on slashdot) to assert that the general public is completely clueless, I think it is pretty safe to assume that anyone who knows what wifi is (ie, they use it) knows that it goes through walls (because they've used it through walls), and knows that it works with radio waves (the general population has been pretty up on what radios are for probably about the past century).
If they never considered that what they are doing can be seen by other people, then in all likelihood they just never bothered to think about it. That is what I'm saying when I said "they just arn't familar enough with the concept yet to think of it in correct terms." People see other peoples APs all the time, and people generally have a pretty good idea of whether or not they need a password to get onto their network. If they don't know their neighbors can use their wifi it's only because they didn't bother to put 2 and 2 together.
As a little piece of anecdotal evidence, when my grandparents purchased their first PC (last year), they had me help them get set up. When I explained that I'd be setting up their wifi router for them too, they kindly (and of course unnecessarily) reminded me set it up with a password, so their neighbors couldn't use it. I then spent the rest of the weekend trying to explain to them how to check the news online. Despite practically no computer experience, they knew enough to request that their network be secured.
Note: I'm not saying that the general public is aware of how to properly secure their transmissions. Judging by the APs I can see right now, most people seem to think WEP is fine, and unless they bothered to research it they can't be blamed. This is a separate issue though, "knowing that you are unsecure" and "knowing how to secure yourself" are two separate things. Probably worth noting that even using WEP would have prevented this from happening. What I'm getting at is that the difference between "unsecured network" and "secured network" is well understood by the general population, in sufficient detail.
I think realistically the only real grey area here is people who think they don't need to secure their network because their house is too far away from anything else. From my experience, these people are usually more or less correct. (barring the application of cantennas, and I don't believe google was using unusually high-gain antennas. At least I haven't heard anything to indicate they were).
PS: really? a troll moderation? you might not agree with my point of view but I don't think it is particularly controversial, and I think I backed them up well enough. To reiterate though: I think the comparison between wifi and people radiating infrared is flawed because by merely purchasing, installing, and using a wifi AP, the user is actively making a decision to broadcast information. Broadcasting information is the one and only purpose of a wifi AP. Conversely, nobody makes the decision to radiate infrared, it is something we do by default (and unless we go to extreme lengths, it is something we cannot stop). As I've explained in the rest of my post, I believe that for the general public, this is also an informed decision to broadcast information.
1. Occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment: the snags incidental to a changeover in upper management. See Synonyms at accidental.
2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature: incidental expenses.
In other words, unlike WiFi APs, human beings are not designed, built, and used as broadcasting equipment.
Despite Joe Sixpack not knowing much about radio communication, I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the general public that doesn't have some basic and more or less correct idea of how wifi works. Everyone knows that the radio signals they use reach farther than their house, they just arn't familar enough with the concept yet to think of it in correct terms.