So do you think that ignorance of the law should be a valid defense in court cases? The very reason that it is not should apply here: people need to be responsible for themselves. An adult who is competent enough to drive a car should also know that DUI is illegal. An adult who goes out and buys a wireless access point should know how to use it or suffer for his ignorance. That's life, grow up and be responsible.
So, you are trying to foist responsibility for your actions onto his his shoulders? I can see that going down well in court. Your Honour, the real crime here lies with the so-called 'owner' of the vehicle. If he didn't want my client to take his car, he should have locked the doors like any responsible adult.
Your use of the word 'unwillingly' belies that you don't really understand the 'responsibility' concept. He chose to set up a signal broadcasting device in an open configuration. That is willful , no two ways about it. Secondly, you use the loaded phrase 'take advantage' like there is some kind of fraud going on. It's not like somebody is tricking the guy who sets up the access point. There is no misrepresentation. In fact, all the neighbor does is use the signal that gets pushed on him. In the physical cable example, all the owner has to do is disconnect/retract the cable. The wireless scenario is the same, just close it.
Do drivers have to be trained mechanics? Should pilots all have degrees in aerodynamics? You know just as well as I do that the type of person who would leave a wireless access point open like that will be some 9-5 working Joe, who only bought a computer at the insistence of their children, and hired some barely competent 'technician' from the cheapest store they could find to set it up. They don't know anything about technology. That's hardly what I call wilful. And when you use this lack of knowledge against him to deprive him of bandwidth, or download allowance, damn straight you are taking advantage.
It's up to a user to be responsible. You shouldn't blame the owners for the privileges that you take from them, just because those privileges are default doesn't make it their fault.
Except that he didn't throw it over your fence, he dropped it over unknowingly and unwillingly. It comes down to one thing: Is it OK to take advantage of other peoples stupidity. In a case of depriving them of something they paid for, I would say no.
Your analogy is flawed. Using WiFi is a 2-way system. You have so send and receive. I don't see anything wrong with packet sniffing openly transmitted signals, but sending commands back to his router to get it to send you specific data without authorisation by the owner of the service: that is wrong.
Hey, my neighbour just went down the street without locking his house. I can smell the aroma of delicious pie, wafting freely and openly out of his kitchen window. I'm well within my rights to sniff that smell, and salivate. It is NOT right for me to walk in and take a slice.
Do you really expect that they would say anything else?
"Sorry guys, this one has us stumped, we've no idea who did it."
There are 15 paragraphs in TFA, and they've used them to not say a damned thing. Why did they even put this press release out?
Are you kidding? I'd friggin' love to have a helmet to wear while gaming, so long as it didn't impair my abilities. I don't care whether or not the helmet even does anything. How could anyone not want a helmet to wear while gaming?
There is also (usually) an inverse correlation between their enthusiasm for suppressing the information and the need for it to be revealed in public interest.
Why is it that all 'green'cars are prohibitively expensive(Tesla Roadster), horribly ugly(LEAF, Prius, Volt) or largely impractical?(Tesla again)
Seriously, if they made some decent, normal looking 'green' cars, more people might be enthusiastic about buying and using them...
Uh, no. You've got it back to front. The nature of most religions requires belief before death. If you don't believe by the time you die, you fail, either missing out on a heavenly reward or suffering a hellish punishment. On the other hand atheism inherently states that it doesn't matter anyway whether you believe or not, you cease to exist upon death. By this logic, religion should be investigated first. Just saying...
What if filtering options allowed you to hide religious material? Nazi propaganda? Would you still be crying about bigotry? If people want to censor themselves without forcing it on others, it shouldn't be everyone else's concern to jump in and shout them down.
Ok, I'll bite. As a subscriber to YEC, I can tell you the main verse that YEC groups like to quote as proof that evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive is Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, on the sixth day.
This is oft interpreted as 'meaning no room for improvement', and as such is used as 'proof' against evolution.
Myself, I have my own interpretation of the matter. I can see that things change. That much is obvious. But I disagree with anyone who claims that we came from monkeys/apes or bacteria or any such organism. I see the genepool of the world as degenerating; Albanism, muscular distrophy, giantism, dwarfism and all manner of birth defects. Can this be considered evolution? Personally, I'd say that we are devolving(I don't think that's a real word, but I don't know a more suitable one). Biblically, I take the lifespans quoted in the early old testament as evidence of this.
As for survival of fittest, I see no issue with the concept. But was the fittest man a new, superior, branch on the evolutionary tree? Or was he just the best of a bad bunch?
I hope they fix the unit AI. In the last couple of iterations, my men spent more time running around in circles trying to 'stay in formation' than actually charging. I think there is more fun to be had giving orders when they are actually being obeyed.
The _real_ problem is free speech, that is what is under threat.
Really? As far as I was aware, we don't actually have a constitutional right to free speech in Australia anyway. That's why we can outright ban groups like the KKK.
Slashdot Mirror
When will they learn, correlation does not imply... wait, this article favours computers? IT MUST BE TRUE!!
Day one, Activision unexpectedly axes the heads of the studio that created CoD. Day Two, Activision announces that it is whoring out the IP for every last dollar ala Halo.
Coincidence? I think not.
So do you think that ignorance of the law should be a valid defense in court cases? The very reason that it is not should apply here: people need to be responsible for themselves. An adult who is competent enough to drive a car should also know that DUI is illegal. An adult who goes out and buys a wireless access point should know how to use it or suffer for his ignorance. That's life, grow up and be responsible.
So, you are trying to foist responsibility for your actions onto his his shoulders? I can see that going down well in court. Your Honour, the real crime here lies with the so-called 'owner' of the vehicle. If he didn't want my client to take his car, he should have locked the doors like any responsible adult.
Your use of the word 'unwillingly' belies that you don't really understand the 'responsibility' concept. He chose to set up a signal broadcasting device in an open configuration. That is willful , no two ways about it. Secondly, you use the loaded phrase 'take advantage' like there is some kind of fraud going on. It's not like somebody is tricking the guy who sets up the access point. There is no misrepresentation. In fact, all the neighbor does is use the signal that gets pushed on him. In the physical cable example, all the owner has to do is disconnect/retract the cable. The wireless scenario is the same, just close it.
Do drivers have to be trained mechanics? Should pilots all have degrees in aerodynamics? You know just as well as I do that the type of person who would leave a wireless access point open like that will be some 9-5 working Joe, who only bought a computer at the insistence of their children, and hired some barely competent 'technician' from the cheapest store they could find to set it up. They don't know anything about technology. That's hardly what I call wilful. And when you use this lack of knowledge against him to deprive him of bandwidth, or download allowance, damn straight you are taking advantage.
It's up to a user to be responsible. You shouldn't blame the owners for the privileges that you take from them, just because those privileges are default doesn't make it their fault .
See how that works?
Except that he didn't throw it over your fence, he dropped it over unknowingly and unwillingly. It comes down to one thing: Is it OK to take advantage of other peoples stupidity. In a case of depriving them of something they paid for, I would say no.
Oops, that should be 'you have to'.
Your analogy is flawed. Using WiFi is a 2-way system. You have so send and receive. I don't see anything wrong with packet sniffing openly transmitted signals, but sending commands back to his router to get it to send you specific data without authorisation by the owner of the service: that is wrong. Hey, my neighbour just went down the street without locking his house. I can smell the aroma of delicious pie, wafting freely and openly out of his kitchen window. I'm well within my rights to sniff that smell, and salivate. It is NOT right for me to walk in and take a slice.
Oh, if I had mod points...
No, anything but that!
Stupid kids! Where's my flying car?
Do you really expect that they would say anything else? "Sorry guys, this one has us stumped, we've no idea who did it." There are 15 paragraphs in TFA, and they've used them to not say a damned thing. Why did they even put this press release out?
If you haven't bothered to stockpile gum, you aren't ready for the apocalypse. Good luck as zombie-chew, suckers!
Are you kidding? I'd friggin' love to have a helmet to wear while gaming, so long as it didn't impair my abilities. I don't care whether or not the helmet even does anything. How could anyone not want a helmet to wear while gaming?
There is also (usually) an inverse correlation between their enthusiasm for suppressing the information and the need for it to be revealed in public interest.
I believe the distinction is rather important.
Why is it that all 'green'cars are prohibitively expensive(Tesla Roadster), horribly ugly(LEAF, Prius, Volt) or largely impractical?(Tesla again) Seriously, if they made some decent, normal looking 'green' cars, more people might be enthusiastic about buying and using them...
Uh, no. You've got it back to front. The nature of most religions requires belief before death. If you don't believe by the time you die, you fail, either missing out on a heavenly reward or suffering a hellish punishment. On the other hand atheism inherently states that it doesn't matter anyway whether you believe or not, you cease to exist upon death. By this logic, religion should be investigated first. Just saying...
What if filtering options allowed you to hide religious material? Nazi propaganda? Would you still be crying about bigotry? If people want to censor themselves without forcing it on others, it shouldn't be everyone else's concern to jump in and shout them down.
But if game "X" was awesome fun, and the sequel is more of the same, how is that a bad thing?
'The Handler of the Swabs' what an awesome name for a serial killer!
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, on the sixth day.
This is oft interpreted as 'meaning no room for improvement', and as such is used as 'proof' against evolution.
Myself, I have my own interpretation of the matter. I can see that things change. That much is obvious. But I disagree with anyone who claims that we came from monkeys/apes or bacteria or any such organism. I see the genepool of the world as degenerating; Albanism, muscular distrophy, giantism, dwarfism and all manner of birth defects. Can this be considered evolution? Personally, I'd say that we are devolving(I don't think that's a real word, but I don't know a more suitable one). Biblically, I take the lifespans quoted in the early old testament as evidence of this.
As for survival of fittest, I see no issue with the concept. But was the fittest man a new, superior, branch on the evolutionary tree? Or was he just the best of a bad bunch?
Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen.
Wait a minute, zero tolerance on prescription drugs? What the hells with that?
As far as I'm aware, Japanese trains have to be within ~2 minutes of the schedule or the passengers get a partial refund.
Yeah, thanks a lot. Now I have to get this Sunkist off my keyboard...
I hope they fix the unit AI. In the last couple of iterations, my men spent more time running around in circles trying to 'stay in formation' than actually charging. I think there is more fun to be had giving orders when they are actually being obeyed.
I don't see everyone's problem here. You pay more money for a better product :)
The _real_ problem is free speech, that is what is under threat.
Really? As far as I was aware, we don't actually have a constitutional right to free speech in Australia anyway. That's why we can outright ban groups like the KKK.