it is good to try to treat everything with a modicum of respect. The dividing line you draw in the sand between what you will show respect for, and what you won't, is subjective, and specific to only you. Someone else may come along and think that what you have decided not to show respect for, deserves respect. Who is right? While applying respect unilaterally gives you closer to a true moral high ground to work from.
I respect those of a religious persuasion enough to actually take a look at their Big Book of Holiness, to attempt to point out to them where they are making their mistakes (if we are to disregard the old testament for the new testament, why follow the ten commandments.. and if we are to follow the ten commandments, why ignore the rest of the rules laid out in the old testament?)
There is science to back up the probability that we are adding to global warming, but there is also science that shows that the Earth goes through normal periods of heating up and cooling down. I mean... who caused the global warming that brought us back from the last Ice Age?
Understanding an issue is leading someone from ignorance to knowledge. One cannot condemn another for their ignorance. One can only condemn another for their lack of desire to leave their ignorance behind. All you can hope to do is educate and allow people to see the reason and logic behind the presented evidence. You cannot say that you are sick of dealing with thick-headed people and therefore you see no point in explaining yourself. If you can't be bothered to make an honest attempt at improving the situation, you are only making it worse.
Personally, I think playing with our Ocean's chemistry is playing with fire... so to speak. I'd rather see a manmade increase in Plankton and Forests, and gain the benefit of the additional oxygen.
But then, people would have to give up on living on their 4 acres of grass.
Your statement... "So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged. So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate."...lacks some relevancy. It's not just that UBISoft used a no-CD crack developed by software pirates, to fix an issue with one of their games. If that was the only issue, this would not have been nearly as big a deal as it is.
As it turns out, UBISoft has taken a very aggressive stance in the past against people who mentioned cracks in their forums, and specifically people who have mentioned THIS particular RELOADED no-cd crack.
Let's try it this way.
Forum User: Hey, if you've got issues with Direct-2-drive and Rainbow 6:Vegas, try using that RELOADED No-CD crack. UBISoft: I'm sorry, we do not allow discussions about using pirated software on our forums. You have now been banned from our forums, and your online account is suspended. UBISoft: (aside) hey, wait.. that kids Idea actually works. Ours doesn't. Let's get that RELOADED crack thingy, change the name of the executable, and release it as an official patch. Noone is going to be smart enough to examine the Hex to see if RELOADED left their tags in it.
It's like going to the police station and walking into a cloud of Ganja smoke, cocaine in lines on the desk blotters and hookers servicing the cops in the aisles. I'm not saying that cops don't do these things in private, but if cops do it blatantly in public they get punished.
UBISoft has taken a very public (and very loud) stance against the EXACT same no-cd crack that they just released as a patch. I don't mean the concept of a no-cd workaround. I mean the same damn file, made by the RELOADED.
So what you are saying, is that in Portland Or, with it's good public transit, every bus comes with a screaming lunatic? That every time you ride the bus, there is someone occupying the Screaming Lunatic seat, going full tilt?
Because I see more near accidents on a 6 lane straight stretch of road out in front of my work than I can keep track of. I guess that means that every driver everywhere in the USA is a fucking moron who doesn't know how to drive... because occasionally I see how inconsiderate and selfish drivers can be in causing and almost causing accidents.
How can you miss what is at the core of your statement?
"If you ever get to the Midwestern United States, try riding a bus in Kansas City (Missouri or Kansas) at night."
So you are blaming crime rate and poverty on public transportation? If there are "undesirables" on a particular bus, this is not the fault of the transit authority. Would you rather the drunk who spent all his money at the bar DRIVE home? When you are homeless, sometimes you need to get out of the rain or cold (or hail of drunk frat-boy fists) and a bus ride around the city does the trick nicely. You hate screaming kids? Bring your Ipod.
You are correct. I've not been everywhere. Maybe all the bus rides in Kansas City after the sun goes down are like the bar scenes in "From Dusk Till Dawn". I still would not blame that on public transportation. I'd blame that on the quality of life in Kansas City. The buses don't make the ride hellish. The people do. Those people who make up the city.
Ok. You are correct that Pluto was indeed a planet from the time of it's discovery, until reclassification in 2006. How long is that, roughly? About 76 years. Yes, we discovered Pluto about 78 years ago.
Now... how long did mankind believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? I dunno exactly. However, I guarantee it was FAR longer than 78 years.
Why aren't you complaining about how THAT definition got revised? Why aren't you complaining that we don't believe that the Sun is a flaming chariot being driven across the sky by a God, anymore? Mankind believed things like this for Eons. They based these beliefs on what observations they made, and whatever rational sounding guesswork they could use as mortar to patch together some kind of definitions.
Look. Based upon your argument, we revised history when we decided not to believe that the world was flat. You apparently did not like the decision to give up on THAT definition either.
"I don't avoid public transportation because of poor people, but mostly because of dangerous, violent lunatics, who threaten people just because they're bored. Also because of stupid kids that have nothing better to do than scream and wave their mobile phones around."...to realize that you were talking about public transportation. I don't know how, but I missed the first part. Everything after the word because fits nicely with driving as well. You know... road ragers... the lunatics who threaten people just because they are bored (or in a hurry, or mad at their spouse, etc.). Also because of the stupid kids that have nothing better to do than scream and wave their mobile phones around while they drive.
But the assumption that public transportation is the same everywhere as that one bus ride you took that was full of escapees from the Asylum... that's just stupid man. The public transportation system in Portland Oregon is pretty fantastic. Now, in Vegas, the buses are notoriously late (quite common to see one bus on a route passing another bus on that same route, where they should be separated by minutes if not an hour). In Boston, the only way to get across the city is by using the T. Driving can take you 4 hours or more, while jumping on the Orange line in Malden, changing trains in Downtown crossing, and hopping the Red line to Braintree will take you half an hour total. In fact, if you want to visit Boston and you don't live near it, the best way is to park at the end of one of the T lines, and ride in.
My experience with public transportation in Washington DC, Tallahassee Fl, Las Vegas, Boston MA, Providence RI, Portland Or, Milwaukee Wi, New Orleans La, and Dallas Tx has always been good. I've never been on a bus or train with screaming violent lunatics (of any age). This includes my cross-country bus trips as well as my cross-country train trips. And I've done several of both. So I've got more proof that public transportation is safe and pleasant, than you have proof that it is not. And I don't even feel like I have to carry a gun to secure my trip. But, with car jacking and the like, I guess it's not surprising that you feel the need to drive alone and armed.
Gee. Anyone actually reading the posts is going to notice something unusual...
There are people posting who have a WRT54G that works perfectly, no rebooting, right out of the box. There are people who replace the firmware on the WRT54G and it works perfectly for them. There are people who own a WRT54G using the original firmware and have to reboot it every week, or few weeks, or every day, or every few days.
This tells me that quite possibly it is not the WRT54G product line that is the problem. It might be different versions that have issues... product runs that proved problematic until a change was made in the hardware or firmware... thus Every WRT54g is different, and while one may require regular rebooting, another might not. But, this would mean that there is no QC.
If we assume that there is actually QC at Cisco/Linksys... then how could there be such different results in the usage of the same product (WRT54G) from person to person? Other factors. Maybe the ISP is alternating dynamic IPs fast... Maybe the person in question that is having issues is torrenting. Maybe one ISP is sending those TCP kill packets causing the issues. Maybe Someone is being hacked (silly, I know). Maybe there are connection issues on the actual cable/phone line. Maybe the modem has to be replaced. Maybe...
However, just the fact that this one brand of router, this WRT54g, apparently has the ability to work perfectly for some people and require regular rebooting for others... should point away from the possibility that it is an inexpensive and thus garbage piece of equipment.
Then again, since it took more than 30 words to get this point across, I doubt many have read far enough to understand my conclusion... that something other than the router might be the cause.
I'd have to agree completely... if it weren't for self-extracting archives.
Don't worry about responding with "Who would be stupid enough to download a self-extracting archive?". I don't think you want to remove sourceforge in it's entirety (or any other resource site that distributes files in archives)... which would be the next step if you think people are too stupid to download a single executable that contains what they were looking to download.
I dunno exactly how hard it is to explain, but remember this... you are talking about trying to explain software dependencies to people who do not yet understand that hardware needs software to run. They can't wrap their minds around drivers. I should know. I have to try to explain things like this every day at the repair shop I work at.
These people also think that their hard drives are the same as their ram, since both refer to the same units (MB and GB). I can't tell you how many times a customer will call and say "Hi. I need more memory. My computer is running too slowly. I have too many programs on it and I don't have any room left." Then there are those who call for support. You ask them to open their web browser, and they reply "Huh? What's a web browser?" I say, you know... Firefox, or Internet Explorer... which will usually draw up the response of "Oh. The big E on my desktop." The trouble only continues, when I ask them to put a URL in their address bar... which again prompts the reply "Huh?" At which they seem to notice for the very first time ever, the www.whatever up top.
These are also the people who believe that the thing they get from the cable company for their internet, plugs into the MODEM on their computer. Nono, not the actual modem, but the "other" modem, you know, the one with the bigger phone plug.
Of course, one of the staples of our business is spyware cleaning. Why? Because people do not seem to understand that when they are surfing, and that little popup comes up telling them that they are infected, and they HAVE to download and purchase AntiVirus 2008 in order to get rid of the infections. So we clean them, and arm them with tools they can use to continue to clean their systems, telling them at length how these programs work, and how they are to be used. And can you guess what happens? Several weeks or months later they bring the machines back to be cleaned again, and they not only did not even run their copies of SPybot or AdAware or Malwarebytes like they were shown how to do... (logs), but they did not even update their definition databases like they were told to do.
And you think that "This software needs that part of software to work, and this other software needs that same part of software to work. By using this installer, you only need to download and install that part only once." is going to successfully explain software dependencies to them?
{sarcasm} oh, yeah... because what the world, and slashdot, needs is more pandering to people who can't read more than 30 words without having their brain seize up. {/sarcasm}
If you UNDERSTOOD my replies, you would see that the difference is irrelevant. Let me try to be clear. I started posting to a parent, who said that when you buy ANYTHING, there are no restrictions as to what you can do with it, including resale. I have shown that there are indeed items that when purchased, carry restrictions as to resale, among other things. I have made my point, and you and others want to quibble over who puts those restrictions in place (FDA, Government, Lawyers, etc.). It doesn't matter who puts the restrictions in place, if the point is only to prove the EXISTENCE of said restrictions.
I can understand how you are too blinded by your own opinion to see that as well.
Oh. I get it now. Because it isn't contractual, there are no restrictions.
Nono, I see what you mean... because what I've been saying, is that there are items that when you purchase them, carry restrictions on resale, as well as restrictions on use, etc. I've been saying that again and again. To people who want to argue that point. I mean, you MIGHT be just quibbling with me over the difference in who puts those restrictions on... but I doubt that. This would be very petty of you.
Since this discussion started when someone said that NO items have these restrictions, and when you purchase anything, you can do whatever you please with it legally and completely. I pointed out several specific items that when purchased, are limited as to what you can do after that.
But I can plainly see you don't understand that. You are hung up on the difference between contractual and governmental responsibilities. Oh, and the gas thing. You ARE contractually bound to pay the bill, or else you face legal action.
You do realize that the word sale, is contained within and part of the word resale... right? And you do understand that the concept of selling something, is a majority of the concept of reselling something... right? I mean reselling something, is SELLING something again, right?
So "Not for individual sale" means not for individual sale OR resale. It is hard to resell something without selling it. Duh.
And I reiterate what I said in another post. There is no contract that is sighed when purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, or gasoline. However, all three have specific rules and regulations regarding the use of, and the sale of, and the RESALE of (since you want to insist that those two things are not related)... and you are bound by those rules without signing anything.
Excellent... and now an FYI. You are confirming that indeed there are limitations on the resale, for whatever reason... right? Well, I don't particularly care exactly what the reasons are for the label "Not for individual sale" to be printed on the product. Just the existence of it proves that you can purchase something with a limitation on it's use and/or resale.
So, we are to realize that if you sell a food product without the proper nutritional information printed on the packaging, you are doing something wrong. A store might face fines, an individual might lose his vendor's permit... but there do exist penalties for not following the proper rules when attempting to resell certain products. Which means there are rules for some products regarding their use and resale.
It has been proven time and time again that you do not have to sign a contract to be contractually bound. Do you sign a reciept when you get gas and pay at the pump with your card? Yet you are contractually bound to pay for that gas.
And no, you are not free to do as you choose with something once you purchase it. Just because you THINK we should be able to do whatever we want with what we just bought, does not mean it is so. If you dispense gasoline into a non-approved container (milk jug), and a cop wants to give you a hard time, he can. In fact, there is another product that the purchase of carries with it limitations as to it's use, storage, and transportation.
Here is another one. Fireworks. You can buy them in lots of states where it is illegal to actually set them off. So you can purchase all the fireworks you want, but you can't light them. Will the cops overlook you lighting them (especially on the 4th of july)? Most likely. Does that make it legal? Nope.
Cigarettes. May a minor buy them? Nope. May an adult buy them and give them to a minor? Nope. You may not turn around a resell them legally, without purchasing a license to do so. Sounds like limitations.
Alcohol. May a minor purchase it? Nope. May an adult purchase it and give it to a minor? In some states, in specific places (a parent letting a child drink in their own home), yes. In most places, no. You also may not turn around and resell alcohol without the proper permit or license. Again.. sounds like limitations.
But, I guess that the intelligence of some Slashdot readers is exceptionally low today. I mean, these things are common sense, and you want to argue them? Oh, I know, you will attempt to provide specific reasons for the things I mentioned... but you would not be understanding that THESE ARE PRODUCTS THAT CARRY LIMITATIONS ON USE AND RESALE! Hello! Isn't that the point? You are saying that there are none, I am proving that there are indeed some.
You are obfuscating the issue, on purpose I believe. If not, you are failing to see the larger picture. The packages marked "Not for individual sale" are not for individual sale, regardless of WHY. By purchasing the products, you are agreeing NOT to sell them individually. Thus, there is an attached caveat to potentially reselling the product, once you purchase the product.
This is the point in question. The post I was replying to was quite clear that nothing that is purchased has any kind of rules attached to the resale of that item. This is an incorrect assumption on the part of the parent, as there are (I already said this) a large number of products that if you purchase them, they have attached rules regarding their resale.
Now, on the surface, your argument seems to have merit. However, let me drop one example on you. Take (or rather, purchase) an 8 pack of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. You know, the pack of individually wrapped candies? Each one states quite clearly on the packaging that they are not for individual sale. You will find that this practice of designating the individual portions of a multi-pack as "Not For Individual Sale" is quite common.
So we find that if you want to resell your candy legally, you can't. Sure, you will argue that there is a huge difference between a car and a peanut butter cup. But if you did, you would be missing the point. If you purchase something that comes with an attached contractual agreement NOT to resell it, or purchase something with an attached contractual agreement not to resell it outside of the producing company's authorized distributors, then indeed the producer has full legal control over resale rights.
If you bought that Corolla and in the contract it said that you had to return it to Toyota for resale, then guess what? You can't just resell it out of your front yard. Why? Because it was in your purchase agreement.
Your statement; "In short, the ruling (if allowed to stand) basically says that no one actually owns any physical object anymore or can resell said object without permission of the original producer." is pathetically incorrect, and nothing you said leads to this conclusion. All you really said is that this ruling, if allowed to stand, basically says that if you don't read the fine print, you are liable regardless of your ignorance. You can resell whatever you want, as long as it is not in violation of the contract you entered into by purchasing it.
To Reiterate, there are (is?) a plethora of products out on the market that clearly state either on the packaging itself, or in the TOS, or in the purchase contract that there are specific terms that apply to resale. Your assumption that this is not so is just ignorant.
You are arguing semantics with a cute and clever twist on word usage and multiple definitions for the same words.
Your router has no rights. Your router does not have a legal power of attorney to make decisions for you that will stand up in court.
Your router is no different than a latch on your gate. If you do not lock that latch, it might make the difference between "Breaking and Entering" and "Criminal Trespass", but both are still criminal activities. You cannot argue that the latch on the gate gave you permission to access the property, because it did not bar your access. A router might be more complex than a latch, but neither is intelligent.
Now, the law is all about intent. What's the difference between manslaughter charge and a murder charge? Intent. You know you are accessing a router that is not yours. You know that you should not be accessing it without expressed permission from the OWNER of the router. Thus, you are committing a crime not only because you are stealing wi-fi access, but because you KNOW you are accessing it illegally. You can add all the semantic bullshit you want. It doesn't change the facts.
1. This is not your internet connection. 2. You do not have the permission of the OWNER of the equipment to access the connection.
With those two facts, your connection to the router in question is illegal.
An SSID of "default" or "linksys" is NOT an invitation. IT is an indication at the very least, of someone who does not know very much about their equipment. You can not assume that an open router with a factory SSID is supposed to be accessed freely. It doesn't matter what you personally believe it means when you see a default SSID. An SSID of "Free Internet Access" is an invitation.
So go ahead and use your clever justifications. All you are proving is that you are good with words. Your actions as a Wi-Fi Thief stand on their own merits.
To respond to the examples.... #1 - let him lean on his air horn and exhaust brakes all he wants. I won't be traveling slowly in the left lane, so he is free to venture over to the left lane to pass me whenever he can. I'm not going to speed up just to satisfy his dementia, although if he tailgated me for far too tong (say, if he could have freely passed me anytime) I might actually slow down to encourage him into passing me. I've already made sure that if I'm on the road I'm not late or in a hurry. Considering his actions, I might even get on the cell phone and notify the nearest State Trooper barracks of this jerk's actions, so they can be aware of the potential accident rolling down the road on 18 wheels. But no yelling on my part is going to change the situation. No gestures I make out of my window is going to make any kind of a good difference in any way.
#2 - I've been in many of those kind of lines that you describe... like when three lanes is reduced to one for construction (just to name one instance). In cases like that I always let people in front of me. Sometimes I let two people in front of me. If someone sees me letting in the car in front of them, but I don't let THEM in... oh well. I'm sorry if they get upset, but I did my good deed, and they can see that. There has been the occasion though, where a person DID get upset that I did not let them in in addition to the person I let cut in front of me. One time, I recall the person laid into the horn and because windows were open, I could hear him yell. So, I stopped, put the van in park (there in the lane in traffic), got out of the vehicle, and did an elaborate bow while shouting at the top of my lungs "My Apologies, Your Honor." topping it off with an embellished wave. He passed me fuming, while the car behind him stopped along side me, the lady behind the wheel smiling and clapping... and held up HER lane of traffic so I could get back in the van and continue.
#3 - I've seen this situation in parking lots as well, where someone who was waiting for a parking space gets shoved out of the way at the last second by an asshole. In the past, when confronted by this type of situation, I have simply sought out another parking space. No swearing or yelling on my part is going to make the guy get back in his car and vacate the spot. In the case of the gas station hypothetical that you brought up, I can only reply from the reality of my past. Twice before at gas stations I arrived at a pump seconds before someone else. Both times, I vacated the pump because the drivers DID seem very upset/annoyed/frustrated. If this moment in time is so important to the that they have to get that upset, then I (a total stranger) am going to perform a random act of kindness to try to help their situation, regardless of my personal issues at the time.
Your failing is not that you refuse to cower. Your failing is that you see confrontation where there is none. Another failing is that you feel you have to meet force with equal force. Yet another failing is that those who do not play the wolf because circumstance forces it on them, are all seen as sheep in your eyes.
Driving defensively never means going on the offensive, for any reason. When you do, you become a threat on the roads, regardless of your personal justification. All it takes are two drivers to tell themselves that THIS time "I'm not gonna back down" and you have an accident (usually with innocent bystanders).
Action is not the defining characteristic of road rage. Action is the end result regarding road rage. Long before Johnny decides he's had enough and he's gonna take what he deems to be appropriate action for his emotional state on the road, he's been yelling, swerving, swearing, and in general expressing his displeasure at not getting his way on the road. People experience and express road rage long before they ever take any "action".
Of course, "action" can be defined as many different things. Is waving a gun at you through my driver's side window considered to be an action? I'm not leaving my personal space, I'm not driving erratically, I'm not swearing or cursing you out, and I'm not tailgating you. I'm just pissed that you passed me on the right and swerved in front of me. So I decide to remind you that this kind of activity might get you shot if it continues, by waving my gun at you. Is what I have done road rage? You bet. I can even get arrested for it.
If you have been on the receiving end of three road rage attacks/incidents... you need to reexamine how you drive. I always drive the speed limit, and although I'm usually the only one on the road doing so, I've never in my 39 years (23 on the road) been on the receiving end of a road rage attack. Sure, people might have gotten angry at me driving 55 or 65 or 35, etc... but nobody honked or yelled or shook a fist. You are apparently driving in a manner that not only pisses people off, but is annoying enough to prompt people into taking action against you. But just be aware. If three people ACTUALLY took action against you, how many more WANTED to take action against you?
Road "ragers" say it is the fault of the morons on the road who can't drive properly. Victims of road rage blame it on the person expressing the rage. Neither party realizes that they are both at fault and both need fix their attitudes and actions while on the road. The rest of us are tired of the nonsense.
Seems like true road rage just waiting to escalate...
Why would I say such a thing? Let me ask you this. Why would you put a bumper sticker on your car that said "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!"? First of all, the people in your way would never be able to read it. It would either be backwards in their rear view mirror (if you placed it on the front bumper) or they would never see it (if you placed it on your rear bumper).
Seems like you are getting territorial regarding your personal space while in a public place.
Remember, if you are cursing at idiots on the road, you are just another of those idiots ON the road, since your cursing does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. It doesn't even make you feel any better; rather it serves to remind you of how powerless you are in that situation, adding to your frustration and annoyance. You appear to be approaching that point where "Enough is Enough"... where one day you grab the tire iron you keep in the back seat and smash that fucker's rear window because he cut you off one too many times, and you caught up to him in traffic.
Maybe Tami realizes that getting upset at all is a waste, and will only lead to worse things. Maybe you should rethink your own obvious "get the fuck out of my way" rage and listen to Tami more.
I'm glad we are on the same page as far as the how a man with a Rifle can beat a man with a pistol. I thought I was clear about that by saying "that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes." but obviously not.
I suspect that there are more deer hit by motorists that do not have firearms in their cars, than there are deer hit by motorists WITH firearms in their cars. So that's not necessarily a good argument why a rancher should have his rifle with him at all times. I mean, for that matter, that Rancher should carry his rifle with him into the stores he visits, just in case the store is robbed, or we are invaded by the Ruskies... if you are going to argue that he should carry his rifle with him in the truck just because he might hit an animal that would need to be put down.
But then again, that argument means that "just in case" becomes a blanket reason why everyone should be carrying firearms with them, regardless of living on a ranch or in the city.
People who own guns are supposed to be overly aware of the rules involving their use. Shouldn't that include an awareness of likely perceptions? There's a post in this thread where a man from AZ is constantly reminded that people do not know that it is legal to carry unconcealed in his state, by their reactions to him walking around with a pistol on his hip. He believes that everyone moving to that state should be forced to be educated in this before they move there. That might be a bit extreme, but by now, he knows that whether or not he personally likes the attention, he is going to GET attention by wearing his gun. He knows this because it has been beaten into his head time after time that this is what happens. If he doesn't like the attention, his choices are limited to either not wearing the gun, or not caring about the reactions. He feels that people should be educated, so that they do not give him the unwanted attention he is facing. That smells of passing off the responsibility. If he wants that attention reduced, he is just as responsible for the reduction as are the people he wants to pay attention to him less.
There was a nice take on that Rifle vs Pistol issue in Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1967... starring Clint Eastwood). It didn't turn out well for the guy with the rifle, but that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes.
I would have to assume, from what information has been spread around, that they arrived, asked permission, and were denied. THEN more people showed up. Don't you think this might have given the landowner reason for concern? Wouldn't you think the land owner started thinking "Just how many more people are going to show up?".
Or there is the POV of the Geohashers..., where they KNOW that they are not a threat to anyone, and everyone they encounter should figure out that they are not a threat. So, the presence of a gun of any kind sets off alarm bells. Notice, that the American farmers seem to think that a gun is an absolute necessity, while Farmers in places other than the US of A seem to think that a gun is NOT a necessity. This is apparent in the posts here anyway.
So, those without guns got alarmed at those with guns. I feel bad for those poor demented fools who think that this is NOT normal. Sure, you might need a gun to deal with a coyote. You don't need it to deal with a bunch of geeks that already asked for permission. If people are supposed to be aware of the fact that farmers/ranchers need to carry guns while they work... why aren't the farmers/ranchers aware of the fact that they don't need to be carrying those guns everywhere they go (the store, a friends house, riding around town, facing a small group of city folk/geeks who respectfully accept a "no" when they hear it)...
That expectation of knowledge and understanding goes both ways. Right? (not you, Firethorn, the Leone movie reference was for you, the rest for everyone else)
Slashdot Mirror
it is good to try to treat everything with a modicum of respect. The dividing line you draw in the sand between what you will show respect for, and what you won't, is subjective, and specific to only you. Someone else may come along and think that what you have decided not to show respect for, deserves respect. Who is right? While applying respect unilaterally gives you closer to a true moral high ground to work from.
I respect those of a religious persuasion enough to actually take a look at their Big Book of Holiness, to attempt to point out to them where they are making their mistakes (if we are to disregard the old testament for the new testament, why follow the ten commandments.. and if we are to follow the ten commandments, why ignore the rest of the rules laid out in the old testament?)
There is science to back up the probability that we are adding to global warming, but there is also science that shows that the Earth goes through normal periods of heating up and cooling down. I mean... who caused the global warming that brought us back from the last Ice Age?
Understanding an issue is leading someone from ignorance to knowledge. One cannot condemn another for their ignorance. One can only condemn another for their lack of desire to leave their ignorance behind. All you can hope to do is educate and allow people to see the reason and logic behind the presented evidence. You cannot say that you are sick of dealing with thick-headed people and therefore you see no point in explaining yourself. If you can't be bothered to make an honest attempt at improving the situation, you are only making it worse.
Personally, I think playing with our Ocean's chemistry is playing with fire... so to speak. I'd rather see a manmade increase in Plankton and Forests, and gain the benefit of the additional oxygen.
But then, people would have to give up on living on their 4 acres of grass.
Your statement... ...lacks some relevancy. It's not just that UBISoft used a no-CD crack developed by software pirates, to fix an issue with one of their games. If that was the only issue, this would not have been nearly as big a deal as it is.
"So everyone uses cracks to go around copy protection schemes when they're not supposed to, and then when that company uses that crack to fix a problem, everyone is outraged. So it's OK if you steal from a company, but it's NOT OK if a company uses, to fix their own product and provide the support everyone cries for, something that was made specifically to target that company's product making it easier to pirate."
As it turns out, UBISoft has taken a very aggressive stance in the past against people who mentioned cracks in their forums, and specifically people who have mentioned THIS particular RELOADED no-cd crack.
Let's try it this way.
Forum User: Hey, if you've got issues with Direct-2-drive and Rainbow 6:Vegas, try using that RELOADED No-CD crack.
UBISoft: I'm sorry, we do not allow discussions about using pirated software on our forums. You have now been banned from our forums, and your online account is suspended.
UBISoft: (aside) hey, wait.. that kids Idea actually works. Ours doesn't. Let's get that RELOADED crack thingy, change the name of the executable, and release it as an official patch. Noone is going to be smart enough to examine the Hex to see if RELOADED left their tags in it.
It's like going to the police station and walking into a cloud of Ganja smoke, cocaine in lines on the desk blotters and hookers servicing the cops in the aisles. I'm not saying that cops don't do these things in private, but if cops do it blatantly in public they get punished.
UBISoft has taken a very public (and very loud) stance against the EXACT same no-cd crack that they just released as a patch. I don't mean the concept of a no-cd workaround. I mean the same damn file, made by the RELOADED.
This is what makes the event so wrong.
So what you are saying, is that in Portland Or, with it's good public transit, every bus comes with a screaming lunatic? That every time you ride the bus, there is someone occupying the Screaming Lunatic seat, going full tilt?
Because I see more near accidents on a 6 lane straight stretch of road out in front of my work than I can keep track of. I guess that means that every driver everywhere in the USA is a fucking moron who doesn't know how to drive... because occasionally I see how inconsiderate and selfish drivers can be in causing and almost causing accidents.
How can you miss what is at the core of your statement?
"If you ever get to the Midwestern United States, try riding a bus in Kansas City (Missouri or Kansas) at night."
So you are blaming crime rate and poverty on public transportation? If there are "undesirables" on a particular bus, this is not the fault of the transit authority. Would you rather the drunk who spent all his money at the bar DRIVE home? When you are homeless, sometimes you need to get out of the rain or cold (or hail of drunk frat-boy fists) and a bus ride around the city does the trick nicely. You hate screaming kids? Bring your Ipod.
You are correct. I've not been everywhere. Maybe all the bus rides in Kansas City after the sun goes down are like the bar scenes in "From Dusk Till Dawn". I still would not blame that on public transportation. I'd blame that on the quality of life in Kansas City. The buses don't make the ride hellish. The people do. Those people who make up the city.
Ok. You are correct that Pluto was indeed a planet from the time of it's discovery, until reclassification in 2006. How long is that, roughly? About 76 years. Yes, we discovered Pluto about 78 years ago.
Now... how long did mankind believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? I dunno exactly. However, I guarantee it was FAR longer than 78 years.
Why aren't you complaining about how THAT definition got revised? Why aren't you complaining that we don't believe that the Sun is a flaming chariot being driven across the sky by a God, anymore? Mankind believed things like this for Eons. They based these beliefs on what observations they made, and whatever rational sounding guesswork they could use as mortar to patch together some kind of definitions.
Look. Based upon your argument, we revised history when we decided not to believe that the world was flat. You apparently did not like the decision to give up on THAT definition either.
I had to re-read this paragraph...
"I don't avoid public transportation because of poor people, but mostly because of dangerous, violent lunatics, who threaten people just because they're bored. Also because of stupid kids that have nothing better to do than scream and wave their mobile phones around." ...to realize that you were talking about public transportation. I don't know how, but I missed the first part. Everything after the word because fits nicely with driving as well. You know... road ragers... the lunatics who threaten people just because they are bored (or in a hurry, or mad at their spouse, etc.). Also because of the stupid kids that have nothing better to do than scream and wave their mobile phones around while they drive.
But the assumption that public transportation is the same everywhere as that one bus ride you took that was full of escapees from the Asylum... that's just stupid man. The public transportation system in Portland Oregon is pretty fantastic. Now, in Vegas, the buses are notoriously late (quite common to see one bus on a route passing another bus on that same route, where they should be separated by minutes if not an hour). In Boston, the only way to get across the city is by using the T. Driving can take you 4 hours or more, while jumping on the Orange line in Malden, changing trains in Downtown crossing, and hopping the Red line to Braintree will take you half an hour total. In fact, if you want to visit Boston and you don't live near it, the best way is to park at the end of one of the T lines, and ride in.
My experience with public transportation in Washington DC, Tallahassee Fl, Las Vegas, Boston MA, Providence RI, Portland Or, Milwaukee Wi, New Orleans La, and Dallas Tx has always been good. I've never been on a bus or train with screaming violent lunatics (of any age). This includes my cross-country bus trips as well as my cross-country train trips. And I've done several of both. So I've got more proof that public transportation is safe and pleasant, than you have proof that it is not. And I don't even feel like I have to carry a gun to secure my trip. But, with car jacking and the like, I guess it's not surprising that you feel the need to drive alone and armed.
Gee. Anyone actually reading the posts is going to notice something unusual...
There are people posting who have a WRT54G that works perfectly, no rebooting, right out of the box. There are people who replace the firmware on the WRT54G and it works perfectly for them.
There are people who own a WRT54G using the original firmware and have to reboot it every week, or few weeks, or every day, or every few days.
This tells me that quite possibly it is not the WRT54G product line that is the problem. It might be different versions that have issues... product runs that proved problematic until a change was made in the hardware or firmware... thus Every WRT54g is different, and while one may require regular rebooting, another might not. But, this would mean that there is no QC.
If we assume that there is actually QC at Cisco/Linksys... then how could there be such different results in the usage of the same product (WRT54G) from person to person? Other factors. Maybe the ISP is alternating dynamic IPs fast... Maybe the person in question that is having issues is torrenting. Maybe one ISP is sending those TCP kill packets causing the issues. Maybe Someone is being hacked (silly, I know). Maybe there are connection issues on the actual cable/phone line. Maybe the modem has to be replaced. Maybe...
However, just the fact that this one brand of router, this WRT54g, apparently has the ability to work perfectly for some people and require regular rebooting for others... should point away from the possibility that it is an inexpensive and thus garbage piece of equipment.
Then again, since it took more than 30 words to get this point across, I doubt many have read far enough to understand my conclusion... that something other than the router might be the cause.
I'd have to agree completely... if it weren't for self-extracting archives.
Don't worry about responding with "Who would be stupid enough to download a self-extracting archive?". I don't think you want to remove sourceforge in it's entirety (or any other resource site that distributes files in archives)... which would be the next step if you think people are too stupid to download a single executable that contains what they were looking to download.
LOL
That, and they have never heard of Hibernate.
wow.. from the moderation on my post, I guess that we already have too many people who can't read more than 30 words... and they are now the standard.
I dunno exactly how hard it is to explain, but remember this... you are talking about trying to explain software dependencies to people who do not yet understand that hardware needs software to run. They can't wrap their minds around drivers. I should know. I have to try to explain things like this every day at the repair shop I work at.
These people also think that their hard drives are the same as their ram, since both refer to the same units (MB and GB). I can't tell you how many times a customer will call and say "Hi. I need more memory. My computer is running too slowly. I have too many programs on it and I don't have any room left." Then there are those who call for support. You ask them to open their web browser, and they reply "Huh? What's a web browser?" I say, you know... Firefox, or Internet Explorer... which will usually draw up the response of "Oh. The big E on my desktop." The trouble only continues, when I ask them to put a URL in their address bar... which again prompts the reply "Huh?" At which they seem to notice for the very first time ever, the www.whatever up top.
These are also the people who believe that the thing they get from the cable company for their internet, plugs into the MODEM on their computer. Nono, not the actual modem, but the "other" modem, you know, the one with the bigger phone plug.
Of course, one of the staples of our business is spyware cleaning. Why? Because people do not seem to understand that when they are surfing, and that little popup comes up telling them that they are infected, and they HAVE to download and purchase AntiVirus 2008 in order to get rid of the infections. So we clean them, and arm them with tools they can use to continue to clean their systems, telling them at length how these programs work, and how they are to be used. And can you guess what happens? Several weeks or months later they bring the machines back to be cleaned again, and they not only did not even run their copies of SPybot or AdAware or Malwarebytes like they were shown how to do... (logs), but they did not even update their definition databases like they were told to do.
And you think that "This software needs that part of software to work, and this other software needs that same part of software to work. By using this installer, you only need to download and install that part only once." is going to successfully explain software dependencies to them?
{sarcasm} oh, yeah... because what the world, and slashdot, needs is more pandering to people who can't read more than 30 words without having their brain seize up. {/sarcasm}
If you UNDERSTOOD my replies, you would see that the difference is irrelevant. Let me try to be clear. I started posting to a parent, who said that when you buy ANYTHING, there are no restrictions as to what you can do with it, including resale. I have shown that there are indeed items that when purchased, carry restrictions as to resale, among other things. I have made my point, and you and others want to quibble over who puts those restrictions in place (FDA, Government, Lawyers, etc.). It doesn't matter who puts the restrictions in place, if the point is only to prove the EXISTENCE of said restrictions.
I can understand how you are too blinded by your own opinion to see that as well.
Oh. I get it now. Because it isn't contractual, there are no restrictions.
Nono, I see what you mean... because what I've been saying, is that there are items that when you purchase them, carry restrictions on resale, as well as restrictions on use, etc. I've been saying that again and again. To people who want to argue that point. I mean, you MIGHT be just quibbling with me over the difference in who puts those restrictions on... but I doubt that. This would be very petty of you.
Since this discussion started when someone said that NO items have these restrictions, and when you purchase anything, you can do whatever you please with it legally and completely. I pointed out several specific items that when purchased, are limited as to what you can do after that.
But I can plainly see you don't understand that. You are hung up on the difference between contractual and governmental responsibilities. Oh, and the gas thing. You ARE contractually bound to pay the bill, or else you face legal action.
You do realize that the word sale, is contained within and part of the word resale... right? And you do understand that the concept of selling something, is a majority of the concept of reselling something... right? I mean reselling something, is SELLING something again, right?
So "Not for individual sale" means not for individual sale OR resale. It is hard to resell something without selling it. Duh.
And I reiterate what I said in another post.
There is no contract that is sighed when purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, or gasoline. However, all three have specific rules and regulations regarding the use of, and the sale of, and the RESALE of (since you want to insist that those two things are not related)... and you are bound by those rules without signing anything.
Thanks for playing.
Excellent... and now an FYI. You are confirming that indeed there are limitations on the resale, for whatever reason... right? Well, I don't particularly care exactly what the reasons are for the label "Not for individual sale" to be printed on the product. Just the existence of it proves that you can purchase something with a limitation on it's use and/or resale.
So, we are to realize that if you sell a food product without the proper nutritional information printed on the packaging, you are doing something wrong. A store might face fines, an individual might lose his vendor's permit... but there do exist penalties for not following the proper rules when attempting to resell certain products. Which means there are rules for some products regarding their use and resale.
Which is my point.
It has been proven time and time again that you do not have to sign a contract to be contractually bound. Do you sign a reciept when you get gas and pay at the pump with your card? Yet you are contractually bound to pay for that gas.
And no, you are not free to do as you choose with something once you purchase it. Just because you THINK we should be able to do whatever we want with what we just bought, does not mean it is so. If you dispense gasoline into a non-approved container (milk jug), and a cop wants to give you a hard time, he can. In fact, there is another product that the purchase of carries with it limitations as to it's use, storage, and transportation.
Here is another one. Fireworks. You can buy them in lots of states where it is illegal to actually set them off. So you can purchase all the fireworks you want, but you can't light them. Will the cops overlook you lighting them (especially on the 4th of july)? Most likely. Does that make it legal? Nope.
Cigarettes. May a minor buy them? Nope. May an adult buy them and give them to a minor? Nope. You may not turn around a resell them legally, without purchasing a license to do so. Sounds like limitations.
Alcohol. May a minor purchase it? Nope. May an adult purchase it and give it to a minor? In some states, in specific places (a parent letting a child drink in their own home), yes. In most places, no. You also may not turn around and resell alcohol without the proper permit or license. Again.. sounds like limitations.
But, I guess that the intelligence of some Slashdot readers is exceptionally low today. I mean, these things are common sense, and you want to argue them? Oh, I know, you will attempt to provide specific reasons for the things I mentioned... but you would not be understanding that THESE ARE PRODUCTS THAT CARRY LIMITATIONS ON USE AND RESALE! Hello! Isn't that the point? You are saying that there are none, I am proving that there are indeed some.
You are obfuscating the issue, on purpose I believe. If not, you are failing to see the larger picture. The packages marked "Not for individual sale" are not for individual sale, regardless of WHY. By purchasing the products, you are agreeing NOT to sell them individually. Thus, there is an attached caveat to potentially reselling the product, once you purchase the product.
This is the point in question. The post I was replying to was quite clear that nothing that is purchased has any kind of rules attached to the resale of that item. This is an incorrect assumption on the part of the parent, as there are (I already said this) a large number of products that if you purchase them, they have attached rules regarding their resale.
So Fuck the FDA.
Now, on the surface, your argument seems to have merit. However, let me drop one example on you. Take (or rather, purchase) an 8 pack of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups. You know, the pack of individually wrapped candies? Each one states quite clearly on the packaging that they are not for individual sale. You will find that this practice of designating the individual portions of a multi-pack as "Not For Individual Sale" is quite common.
So we find that if you want to resell your candy legally, you can't. Sure, you will argue that there is a huge difference between a car and a peanut butter cup. But if you did, you would be missing the point. If you purchase something that comes with an attached contractual agreement NOT to resell it, or purchase something with an attached contractual agreement not to resell it outside of the producing company's authorized distributors, then indeed the producer has full legal control over resale rights.
If you bought that Corolla and in the contract it said that you had to return it to Toyota for resale, then guess what? You can't just resell it out of your front yard. Why? Because it was in your purchase agreement.
Your statement;
"In short, the ruling (if allowed to stand) basically says that no one actually owns any physical object anymore or can resell said object without permission of the original producer." is pathetically incorrect, and nothing you said leads to this conclusion. All you really said is that this ruling, if allowed to stand, basically says that if you don't read the fine print, you are liable regardless of your ignorance. You can resell whatever you want, as long as it is not in violation of the contract you entered into by purchasing it.
To Reiterate, there are (is?) a plethora of products out on the market that clearly state either on the packaging itself, or in the TOS, or in the purchase contract that there are specific terms that apply to resale. Your assumption that this is not so is just ignorant.
You are arguing semantics with a cute and clever twist on word usage and multiple definitions for the same words.
Your router has no rights. Your router does not have a legal power of attorney to make decisions for you that will stand up in court.
Your router is no different than a latch on your gate. If you do not lock that latch, it might make the difference between "Breaking and Entering" and "Criminal Trespass", but both are still criminal activities. You cannot argue that the latch on the gate gave you permission to access the property, because it did not bar your access. A router might be more complex than a latch, but neither is intelligent.
Now, the law is all about intent. What's the difference between manslaughter charge and a murder charge? Intent. You know you are accessing a router that is not yours. You know that you should not be accessing it without expressed permission from the OWNER of the router. Thus, you are committing a crime not only because you are stealing wi-fi access, but because you KNOW you are accessing it illegally. You can add all the semantic bullshit you want. It doesn't change the facts.
1. This is not your internet connection.
2. You do not have the permission of the OWNER of the equipment to access the connection.
With those two facts, your connection to the router in question is illegal.
An SSID of "default" or "linksys" is NOT an invitation. IT is an indication at the very least, of someone who does not know very much about their equipment. You can not assume that an open router with a factory SSID is supposed to be accessed freely. It doesn't matter what you personally believe it means when you see a default SSID. An SSID of "Free Internet Access" is an invitation.
So go ahead and use your clever justifications. All you are proving is that you are good with words. Your actions as a Wi-Fi Thief stand on their own merits.
Reasonable behavior...
To respond to the examples....
#1 - let him lean on his air horn and exhaust brakes all he wants. I won't be traveling slowly in the left lane, so he is free to venture over to the left lane to pass me whenever he can. I'm not going to speed up just to satisfy his dementia, although if he tailgated me for far too tong (say, if he could have freely passed me anytime) I might actually slow down to encourage him into passing me. I've already made sure that if I'm on the road I'm not late or in a hurry. Considering his actions, I might even get on the cell phone and notify the nearest State Trooper barracks of this jerk's actions, so they can be aware of the potential accident rolling down the road on 18 wheels. But no yelling on my part is going to change the situation. No gestures I make out of my window is going to make any kind of a good difference in any way.
#2 - I've been in many of those kind of lines that you describe... like when three lanes is reduced to one for construction (just to name one instance). In cases like that I always let people in front of me. Sometimes I let two people in front of me. If someone sees me letting in the car in front of them, but I don't let THEM in... oh well. I'm sorry if they get upset, but I did my good deed, and they can see that. There has been the occasion though, where a person DID get upset that I did not let them in in addition to the person I let cut in front of me. One time, I recall the person laid into the horn and because windows were open, I could hear him yell. So, I stopped, put the van in park (there in the lane in traffic), got out of the vehicle, and did an elaborate bow while shouting at the top of my lungs "My Apologies, Your Honor." topping it off with an embellished wave. He passed me fuming, while the car behind him stopped along side me, the lady behind the wheel smiling and clapping... and held up HER lane of traffic so I could get back in the van and continue.
#3 - I've seen this situation in parking lots as well, where someone who was waiting for a parking space gets shoved out of the way at the last second by an asshole. In the past, when confronted by this type of situation, I have simply sought out another parking space. No swearing or yelling on my part is going to make the guy get back in his car and vacate the spot. In the case of the gas station hypothetical that you brought up, I can only reply from the reality of my past. Twice before at gas stations I arrived at a pump seconds before someone else. Both times, I vacated the pump because the drivers DID seem very upset/annoyed/frustrated. If this moment in time is so important to the that they have to get that upset, then I (a total stranger) am going to perform a random act of kindness to try to help their situation, regardless of my personal issues at the time.
Your failing is not that you refuse to cower. Your failing is that you see confrontation where there is none. Another failing is that you feel you have to meet force with equal force. Yet another failing is that those who do not play the wolf because circumstance forces it on them, are all seen as sheep in your eyes.
Driving defensively never means going on the offensive, for any reason. When you do, you become a threat on the roads, regardless of your personal justification. All it takes are two drivers to tell themselves that THIS time "I'm not gonna back down" and you have an accident (usually with innocent bystanders).
You really need to rethink this whole topic.
Action is not the defining characteristic of road rage. Action is the end result regarding road rage. Long before Johnny decides he's had enough and he's gonna take what he deems to be appropriate action for his emotional state on the road, he's been yelling, swerving, swearing, and in general expressing his displeasure at not getting his way on the road. People experience and express road rage long before they ever take any "action".
Of course, "action" can be defined as many different things. Is waving a gun at you through my driver's side window considered to be an action? I'm not leaving my personal space, I'm not driving erratically, I'm not swearing or cursing you out, and I'm not tailgating you. I'm just pissed that you passed me on the right and swerved in front of me. So I decide to remind you that this kind of activity might get you shot if it continues, by waving my gun at you. Is what I have done road rage? You bet. I can even get arrested for it.
If you have been on the receiving end of three road rage attacks/incidents... you need to reexamine how you drive. I always drive the speed limit, and although I'm usually the only one on the road doing so, I've never in my 39 years (23 on the road) been on the receiving end of a road rage attack. Sure, people might have gotten angry at me driving 55 or 65 or 35, etc... but nobody honked or yelled or shook a fist. You are apparently driving in a manner that not only pisses people off, but is annoying enough to prompt people into taking action against you. But just be aware. If three people ACTUALLY took action against you, how many more WANTED to take action against you?
Road "ragers" say it is the fault of the morons on the road who can't drive properly. Victims of road rage blame it on the person expressing the rage. Neither party realizes that they are both at fault and both need fix their attitudes and actions while on the road. The rest of us are tired of the nonsense.
Seems like true road rage just waiting to escalate...
Why would I say such a thing? Let me ask you this. Why would you put a bumper sticker on your car that said "get the fuck out of my way, asshole!"? First of all, the people in your way would never be able to read it. It would either be backwards in their rear view mirror (if you placed it on the front bumper) or they would never see it (if you placed it on your rear bumper).
Seems like you are getting territorial regarding your personal space while in a public place.
Remember, if you are cursing at idiots on the road, you are just another of those idiots ON the road, since your cursing does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. It doesn't even make you feel any better; rather it serves to remind you of how powerless you are in that situation, adding to your frustration and annoyance. You appear to be approaching that point where "Enough is Enough"... where one day you grab the tire iron you keep in the back seat and smash that fucker's rear window because he cut you off one too many times, and you caught up to him in traffic.
Maybe Tami realizes that getting upset at all is a waste, and will only lead to worse things. Maybe you should rethink your own obvious "get the fuck out of my way" rage and listen to Tami more.
I'm glad we are on the same page as far as the how a man with a Rifle can beat a man with a pistol. I thought I was clear about that by saying "that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes." but obviously not.
I suspect that there are more deer hit by motorists that do not have firearms in their cars, than there are deer hit by motorists WITH firearms in their cars. So that's not necessarily a good argument why a rancher should have his rifle with him at all times. I mean, for that matter, that Rancher should carry his rifle with him into the stores he visits, just in case the store is robbed, or we are invaded by the Ruskies... if you are going to argue that he should carry his rifle with him in the truck just because he might hit an animal that would need to be put down.
But then again, that argument means that "just in case" becomes a blanket reason why everyone should be carrying firearms with them, regardless of living on a ranch or in the city.
People who own guns are supposed to be overly aware of the rules involving their use. Shouldn't that include an awareness of likely perceptions? There's a post in this thread where a man from AZ is constantly reminded that people do not know that it is legal to carry unconcealed in his state, by their reactions to him walking around with a pistol on his hip. He believes that everyone moving to that state should be forced to be educated in this before they move there. That might be a bit extreme, but by now, he knows that whether or not he personally likes the attention, he is going to GET attention by wearing his gun. He knows this because it has been beaten into his head time after time that this is what happens. If he doesn't like the attention, his choices are limited to either not wearing the gun, or not caring about the reactions. He feels that people should be educated, so that they do not give him the unwanted attention he is facing. That smells of passing off the responsibility. If he wants that attention reduced, he is just as responsible for the reduction as are the people he wants to pay attention to him less.
There was a nice take on that Rifle vs Pistol issue in Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1967... starring Clint Eastwood). It didn't turn out well for the guy with the rifle, but that was how the script was written, not necessarily how life goes.
I would have to assume, from what information has been spread around, that they arrived, asked permission, and were denied. THEN more people showed up. Don't you think this might have given the landowner reason for concern? Wouldn't you think the land owner started thinking "Just how many more people are going to show up?".
Or there is the POV of the Geohashers..., where they KNOW that they are not a threat to anyone, and everyone they encounter should figure out that they are not a threat. So, the presence of a gun of any kind sets off alarm bells. Notice, that the American farmers seem to think that a gun is an absolute necessity, while Farmers in places other than the US of A seem to think that a gun is NOT a necessity. This is apparent in the posts here anyway.
So, those without guns got alarmed at those with guns. I feel bad for those poor demented fools who think that this is NOT normal. Sure, you might need a gun to deal with a coyote. You don't need it to deal with a bunch of geeks that already asked for permission. If people are supposed to be aware of the fact that farmers/ranchers need to carry guns while they work... why aren't the farmers/ranchers aware of the fact that they don't need to be carrying those guns everywhere they go (the store, a friends house, riding around town, facing a small group of city folk/geeks who respectfully accept a "no" when they hear it)...
That expectation of knowledge and understanding goes both ways. Right? (not you, Firethorn, the Leone movie reference was for you, the rest for everyone else)
Why