SO the AC and yourself, Willy, don't trust infomercials, unless you like the product, in which case, you then reverse your position on infomercials conditionally.
Sounds like you enjoy making blanket statements, then ignoring their content to what suits your needs.
You OBVIOUSLY have no issues with infomercials themselves, regardless of what you might say, since if the product is something you need or want you don't seem to mind infomercials all that much. If you don't like the particular product, then you shout to the world that you don't trust infomercials. They might be silly or stupid, but infomercials work. They worked on you. You want a Little Giant ladder.
Let me guess. Since you don't like Moxie soda, you hate all cans and plastic bottles... right?
I know, I know... the whole stupid idea of a half-hour or hour long commercial, thinly disguised as a talk-show, is really stupid. Yes, it is. So is Fox News. So is the ABC fall line up. So is NFL football. But regardless of all that, like I already pointed out, infomercials already worked their magic on you, even if you hate them.
Actually, this comment really shows how no one bothers to do a little more research than just reading titles.
For instance... did you know...
These computers, as well as the TRS-80 CoCos and the Model I, III, and IV units... the units that saved programs to cassette, have greater wireless capabilities than our current hardware. All it takes is to plug in the input and output that are supposed to go to the cassette recorder, and patch it into a HAM radio. It's already being done. People are sending programs and information half-way around the world, without wires and without the assistance of satellites.
I did a search of the page, and noone seemed to post what I thought of...
Odd.
Well, here's two words that seem to Apply to this. "Final Fantasy"
Here is... I'm not sure what to call it... it is a series of games, an MMORPG, and a series of animated movies. Seems like movies were made from the major plot lines used in the games. Sure, you can fire up Final Fantasy XI and grind away, but if you are silly enough to think that TV producers would turn THAT material into a program... you aren't very imaginative.
Now, what would making a TV series that is loosely based on an MMO really be looking for? Well, picture this. Picture that there is a quest for a party of players. Say that quest is a bit convoluted. Let's say that 300 different parties of players go through this quest. Chances are, if records can be kept from each run of that quest, there will be MORE than enough material to set up a single TV ready visual run through of this same quest. I doubt that the Director would use screen caps of game action for the final product, but I bet that a director would LOVE video caps from the game to provide a basic framework to shoot from. I bet a director would enjoy using a spectator flying camera to observe game play from whatever angle he chooses, and to even be able to get players to act out scenes for a live and mobile storyboard.
TV shows and movies are supposed to be about the extraordinary events that make people stand out. Yes, I know that there are plenty of movies and TV shows that contain humdrum moments. However, those moments rarely ever make up the entire TV show (if it is a work of fiction or a dramatization of real events). So, instead of laughing about how much this show will be teh suXorz because all people are gonna see on their TV screens is some gold faming and a pile of Leeeeeeroy Jeeeeeenkinz wannabes... stop and think about it. The MMO is just going to allow people to play around in this new fictional universe BEFORE the storyline is revealed in the TV show. Their actions may possibly even make it into the show.
Like so many of you in the Anti-patent crowd, you have some sort of delusion that everything that is invented, is done by a team of people all being paid by a large organization, regardless of the results they produce.
Sure, some of the things I mentioned may have been invented by a team. However, the first artificial heart was invented by an individual, Paul Winchell. He filed for his patent in '56, and got it in '63. No team, no big firm, nothing like that.
Spend some time at www.patentstorm.us and you will be able to research patents by browsing the inventors, to prove that indeed, not only are large teams inventing things, but still to this day, individuals working out of their garages are also inventing things and getting patents.
Now, let's talk a bit MORE about my example with AMD and Intel. After both companies did the research, and came up with different designs that do the same thing... because of the glorious patent system we now have two DIFFERENT Products that do exactly the same thing (see also ball point pen, felt tip pen, liquid ink pen, permanent marker, pencil, etc.)... except that because we have two different products that do the same thing, we now have competition, and LOWER costs to the consumer. If only Intel sold PC Processors, we would be paying FAR more for them (see Microsoft regarding Windows, and no, linux does not count, since you can't install the same software on both OSes). The gain to the consumer is huge, since the consumer can now choose the lowest cost solution, rather than only having one choice. But that is so painfully obvious, you HAVE to have been trolling by posting a response to me.
Granted you quoted and repeated me... although while I just said that it can't be proven that we are the only life out here, you did a nice job of pointing out that you can't prove a negative.
You did lose sight of facts and details in my post (probably because it was too long for you to read)... I can prove that aliens do exist. In fact, let me rephrase that... it can be proven that Aliens do exist. SETI is in the process of proving that. If you choose to see the fact that it has not been proven YET as concrete evidence that it will NEVER be done, you fail to remember your history. I don't even have to mention any one specific historical fact, because there are countless examples of where something had not been done, that same something was called impossible to do, and then it was done.
I'm not saying that Aliens exist. I am also saying that they probably do exist. However, you know Air exists although you can't see it. You know that microbial bacteria exist, even though you can't see, or touch them. You know that there are planets orbiting other stars, even though you personally can't see, touch, taste, smell, or hear them.
But which probability is higher... the probability that there is other sentient life, somewhere out there in the universe, or the probability that we are the ONLY sentient life in the entire universe?
Wow.. here I was, picking out posts that needed some moderation (since I'm sitting on points)... then I came across your post. So much for moderation.
I can't decide if I should just reword what you've got there, in the standard/. tradition, or if I should just deal with the issues I see one at a time.
Climatology is way too complex, with lots of unexplained and speculative stuff. Ok. I'll agree to that. You aren't a scientist? Ok. I'll tuck that fact away for future use. How would you have any clue as to what you should designate as "Junk Science" if you are not a scientist? As someone who is not a scientist, how would you have any clue as to how much more research needs to be done before ANY number crunching is done? Does it not occur to you that this number crunching you refer to *is* research? Shouldn't you be a scientist in this specific area before you condemn their actions in attempting to propel advancements in their field? As someone who admits NOT to be a specialist in climatology, what the hell do you know?
And if they want the internet community involved, they should what?? Get Enlightened as to different image formats? Why? Because you don't like the size of that bmp? Because you realize that they could pass out even more finely detailed images that would be smaller, if they only know what YOU know? Do you already know ALL of the reasons they chose to use BMP? Did YOU inform them of alternate image format possibilities that provide them with ALL the advantages they believe they are getting from BMP images, while also getting other advantages YOU are aware of that they are apparently not aware of? Have you been in contact with them at all, about this image format problem that you see? Or are you waiting for someone ELSE to read your mind as to the details of this issue, and waiting for someone ELSE to send off an email that climateprediction.net should change formats? I mean, I get it. You want someone other than yourself to make a fuss about this BMP thing. You can find the time to post about it here, but you can't be bothered to mention the problem to the people who matter.
Now... where is the address at the site Stanford put up to support Folding@Home? You know the address I'm talking about... the one that I can mail my frozen peas to, to feed starving folk in Africa. Because I didn't find it. No, you can't get away with saying that you were just pointing out how using Folding@home is LIKE actually sending food to end African hunger. I do get it that you are CLEARLY saying here that using anything other than Folding@Home (in your opinion) is a complete waste of time and energy... your wastebasket reference. But on the whole, and in parts, you are wrong. Folding@home is no more, or no less a waste of time than SETI@Home... or any other distributed processing that is being passed around. Remember, you are not a scientist. You have no idea if the numbers you are crunching are going toward a problem that is going to be solved in 5 years, or in 50 years... or at all. However, for all you know, data crunched for Climateprediction.net could provide positive and useful results in 2 years. You admit that you are not a scientist, or a climatologist. So you are simply an ignorant individual who is claiming to have all the right answers.
Now... SETI. Ok. Fine. You don't believe that there is intelligent life out there in the Cosmos. You have done a good job in proving to me that there was no intelligence at work behind the creation of your post. So, since I see no evidence of thought or intelligence in your post, I should assume there is no intelligent life on Earth? Show me your proof that we are the only intelligent life in the Galaxy... or the Universe? I won't leave you hanging... you CAN'T prove it, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that we are the only intelligent life out here. However, it is the height of arrogance and hubris to assume that we are the MOST intelligent species out here in the universe. We are on the v
You seem to have missed the point of patents. Think Intel and AMD. You said that there are likely many ways to do the things that his novel algorithm is trying to solve. This is true. However, his patent on his algorithm does not block everyone ELSE from solving the same problem using their own algorithm. It just stops people from using HIS algorithm without his permission, or making a profit on HIS algorithm without paying him for it.
AMD proved there was indeed another way to make a processor that would do the same things that an Intel processor would do, just with a different design. According to what you said, AMD would be violating any and all patents that Intel might have, just because it's processor can produce the same results.
Now, if we do not provide protection and encouragement for inventors, then those with the money will bully and steal inventions from those who cannot afford to protect themselves.
You don't like the patent system? You've never invented something before that was in demand. I guarantee that *IF* you invented something that had the potential for profit, you would be *SCREAMING* for improvements in the patent laws to increase your level of protection.
Because without patent laws... well, let's look at your example again... if I did come up with an algorithm to search for widgets on the internet faster than anyone else, I would only make money at it IF I marketed my product properly... IF I packaged it properly... IF I had the ability to sell it (web site, online credit card processing, etc)... and if I had a clue as to how to do any of these three things or any of the multitudes of other things I would have to know to be able to sell a product and make a profit. It is not just based on the price I charge. I could build the best car in the world, and if it looked like total crap and I was selling it out of a tumble-down, rat-infested used car lot, it doesn't matter if my price was "good".
Without the patent system, I could invent the best search algorithm in the world to look for widgets... and the first individual or company to come along with the money to do all the things I *should* do, will be able to do those things AND keep the profits, leaving me out in the cold. If you think that's fair, then why should I invent any more widgets? Or for that matter, why should I invent the next stage of safety glass? Why bother with that improved dragon-scale bullet proof vest? Why should I make an improved version of the life-alert system? I don't believe the world needs me to release my designs for airbags that can save 78% more lives. Why? What's in it for me? Oh, does that sound too selfish? Awww...
No patent system means inventors are slaves to financiers. Literally.
How power efficient are these old laptops? When you compare these OLD laptops to your NEW laptop, you are missing the point entirely. If you mean to compare these to yours, what happens if you come across one of these older ones that uses less juice than your current laptop? Are you going to dump that Core 2 Duo in favor of that IBM ThinkPad with the P166 chip? Because that IBM Thinkpad with the P166 chip only runs on 60 watts. Does YOURS consume that little juice? If you don't know, look at your power supply, and examine the voltage and amperage output. Multiply them. Now you know how many Watts of juice your laptop consumes, regardless of a processor that scales up or down.
As to efficiency... let's put it another way. If you are surfing the web on youe core 2 duo rig, consuming 120 watts of juice with your efficient scaling processor speed, doesn't it occur to you that you could see the same pages, read the same emails, etc... with an older, less efficient laptop that only consumes 60 watts of juice? Your super efficient unit will use more electricity and cost more to operate than the older 60 watt Thinkpad.
The P4 3.3ghz Toshiba I'm using at the moment demands 120 watts... and running with any less will cause the unit to heat up faster and shut down due to being throttled. Older units generate less heat as well. Older units won't have to come with warning stickers that tell you to avoid using the laptop in your lap due to the possibility of being burned (like mine does). Older laptops are less likely to require a Chill Pad. Older laptops are less likely to have two fans that require regular cleaning (like more modern units). Now, is anyone suggesting that one of these older units replace your nice, fast Core 2 duo unit permanently? Hell no. The suggestions are that laptops like these make great thin terminals that provide internet access where you want the access.
My bad. I stand corrected. I did not know that Marines are not soldiers.
However, I never said that if you watch porn you think about raping people, and you are not proving how well you pay attention if you are assuming that is what I meant. I was very specific, in that the EVIDENCE THAT THESE MARINES LEAVE BEHIND ON THEIR COMPUTERS THAT HAS TO BE CLEANED OFF FOR THEM indicates that the mindsets that drove soldiers and marines to rape and pillage in Vietnam still exists, but now is being exercised in their usage of their laptops. For example. A dozen or so videos entitled "Gangbang Rape Volume xx" etc. that had to go bye bye on Friday... they could be mis-labeled but I don't know. I didn't watch them. Sure, I imagine they aren't real rape. I only caught the fact that they were even on that machine as their titles flashed by in a delete. Doesn't change the fact that here is this marine, downloading I-dunno-how-many "rape" videos. If he could not get his fix on the internet, would he be like one of the countless who actually DID rape native women in Vietnam? I can't say for sure he would, but you definitely cannot say that he would not.
But if you want to prove your reading comprehension is not up to snuff, you go right ahead. Just be aware. Ignorance is not a privilege.
My Bad. Thanks for the correction. I really had no idea. I just fix their machines, watch the helicopters and Ospreys fly overhead, listen to them practice with their artillery, and otherwise try to avoid them as they drive like crazed maniacs to Walmart from the base.
Granted I haven't been on the Cape for maybe 4 years now, but when I was living in Provincetown on the tip of Cape Cod (great place to pick up college girls or Lithuanian girls working for the summer... since most of the men in town are gay) I had DSL for years. This article confuses me because am I to understand that DSL is NOT offered on the cape anymore?
My boss (the owner of the T-Shirt shop I worked for) got his internet via a cable modem... I can't remember if it was Cox or Comcast or whatnot... so I know that cable internet was ALSO available on Cape Cod. Is this also something that is no longer offered out there?
Sounds like it is not just about these companies refusing to upgrade their hardware. Sounds like they have removed services that were there, altogether.
Well, I'm not a pimply-faced anything. In fact, I work in the busiest computer repair shop near Camp Lejune (see Marine Boot Camp). I repair laptops (and desktops) all day long that belong to soldiers. I'm regularly cleaning Iraq out of the laptops, and I'm just talking dirt and grime. However, all of them... and I do mean all of them, come in infected with malware, spyware, and viruses. Not only your Smitfraud.C based infections (Smitfraud, virus heat, etc.) but porn dialers, porn redirects and browser hijacks... you name it.
As far as tolerance is concerned, I'm glad that all these marines appear to know absolutely nothing about keeping their machines clean. It keeps me in a paycheck. However, I don't have much tolerance for people who insist that this might be an overblown story. As far as the Parent comment about rape and pillaging... our armed forces have changed radically since the Vietnam days. You can't necessarily blame the guy for his comment though. If what I'm cleaning off these machines is any indication... even if our armed forces aren't raping and pillaging, they sure are thinking of it. Where they are going on the web to screw up their machines like they are points to that conclusion.
Yeah, switches would have worked just as well, providing that there was a device to pass out DHCP and set itself up as the gateway... which wouldn't be all that dificult to do with a simple ICS setup with windows, or a linux box acting as a router... oops looks like there is going to essentially be a router in there somewhere (or a selection of devices that collectively act as a router)... can't do it with switches alone.
Sucks that there was a contractual clause that prohibited you from sharing internet access to multiple machines at the end of the iPipe that you got from your ISP. I wouldn't call it silly though. Annoying... maybe even tantalizing in how it is a rule that needs (begs) to be broken.
We didn't get ourselves routers because it was "silly that providers were charging on a per computer basis"...
We got routers so we could have multiple computers share a single internet pipe that was coming into our homes. It didn't matter if the ISP said something about only one connection=one computer. We definitely did not add the ability for all the computers in our home to get online at the same time, because something was silly.
But I agree with the sentiment in a few posts that if something like what Dan is proposing starts to take off, the ISPs are gonna respond in some nasty ways. Passing out internet access for free to all your neighbors... and all their neighbors... that is practically stealing money from the ISPs.
you bring up an interesting point about how in this day and age where an individual can, more easily than ever before, get a relatively impartial view of what is going on in the world, but instead will tend to seek out those sources of information that confirm a predetermined point of view...
I guess this changes everything for people who decide they want to offer free wireless internet and leave their routers open. Now, they can lose all their equipment and go to jail, just because someone they didn't know decided to use their open wireless connection and surf some kiddie porn anonymously.
The Argument of "It wasn't me. It must have been someone on my wireless." isn't going to cut it with the feds.
You have no way of knowing what someone intends, just by seeing "linksys" or "default". You have no way of knowing if they intended to leave it open, or if they just did not know. You can NOT go on the assumption that since it is the default SSID, and that since it is unsecured, that it MUST be because they intended it to be so. That logic is faulty, simply because it is a well known fact by computer repair technicians (and others) that the majority of wireless access point/wireless router owners out there know little to nothing about securing their network.
Now, I agree completely that if you want to keep people off your network, you have to secure it. I tell this to my customers. I get PAID to go to their homes and do this for them. Every week. I can only tell so many people though. I've walked over to my neighbors houses (three of them) and informed them that I could see and access their wireless networks. All three were surprised. All three asked me if I could "fix" it for them. I did.
How much educating of the public do YOU do? Or do you just shrug and say "Screw them. If they are too stupid to know better, they deserve the loss of bandwidth."
And I want to be clear on something... something unrelated, yet something that should put my feelings into perspective.
Smoking Grass is illegal. It's not wrong. It's just illegal.
Now, I'm going to use that word "wrong" again. When you see someone doing something wrong, aren't you obliged on some level to inform them of what is right? I didn't say on Every Level.
I've been to Coffee shops where they left their SSID set to the default out of the box setting. And although I didn't get every owner/manager to change their SSID, I did get more than half of them to change their SSIDs to one that related to their particular shop. I explained to them why. I told them that by doing so, they were not encouraging people to connect to other people's home routers by the same name. They were increasing their advertising. They were showing tech savvy people that at the very least, they knew how to get into their router, and they were willing to make a technological effort. In a few cases where the shop owners checked their router logs, the owners noticed a significant drop in the attempts of their "customers" to try to log into the admin panels of the routers... AFTER just that simple change of their SSID. So you would be doing a coffee shop owner/manager a service if you mentioned to them that they should get rid of that default SSID and replace it with one that pertained to their business.
If you want to offer free wireless privately, what's wrong with showing a little insight and intelligence, and renaming your SSID "Free Wireless Here"? That removes all doubt.
The law is clearly NOT wrong... and it will be even more clearly NOT wrong as more ISPs get on the bandwagon of charging for bandwidth used.
This sounds more like the "Million Monkeys write Shakespere" thought experiment. First, without knowing how to read, she was able to randomly grab a sign that said the exact opposite of what she meant to say? Sorry. I reject your thought experiment at the moment.
I suppose though that would be similar to a record store accidentally tagging a boxed CD set at 1/10th the retail price it should be (16.99 instead of 169.99). They did not intend to sell it for that price, and would rather NOT sell it for that price. However, the law in most US states indicates that if a customer sees that price, they are allowed to purchase it at that (mis)tagged price, regardless of how unhappy it makes the store.
The major problem with your thought experiment, is that an SSID of "linksys" does NOT equal "Free Internet Access" regardless of whether or not you want it to. Also, the lack of security on a wireless connection does NOT equal "Free Internet Access" regardless of what you might personally want.
"It may be illegal, but your chance of getting in trouble for it are very low."
I've been saying all along that it is illegal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Speeding is illegal also, as you say. Just because people don't get caught speeding EVERY TIME, doesn't make it alright to speed. And yes, I'm one of those annoying jerks who drives the speed limit.
Yep. I could not be bothered to google stuff that I did not need to read. However, I'm glad YOU bothered to google it, since you needed to see that I was indeed right about people illegally stealing bandwidth and being arrested for it.
Stealing little things from the corner pharmacy, is no better than stealing stereos or Plasma TVs. The fact that the police officers were stealing during and after Hurricane Katrina, did not make it alright for the everyday Joe to be stealing the same things. The argument, "Just because everyone else is doing it" just doesn't cut it. Neither does "It's only a little theft."
There is no agreement made, because there are no people involved to make the agreements. The devices are not authorized on their own to make legal and binding agreements and contracts. The wireless card cannot determine on its own who owns the wireless access point to be able to decide if what it is connecting to is a free hot spot, or just someone who left it open because they did not know any better. A wireless access point can make the determination if a client that is attempting to connect is allowed to connect, but only after the owner has authorized the appropriate mac addresses in the router's software. If more people were properly educated as to how to do this, they would. Sure, some people would leave their wireless open for everyone to use, however, if more ISPs follow the example of Time Warner in Texas, those private individuals who leave their access points open will drop significantly.
Assuming that *if* an access point is unsecured that this means they are leaving it open for everyone to access freely, is no different from assuming that *if* someone leaves their bike unlocked, that this means anyone is allowed to take it.
Again, describing how the process works by humanizing the actions taken does not make it legal when someone who does not own the wireless access point (or someone that has direct expressed permission to use it) decides to allow their hardware to connect to it.
If a business owner is providing free wi-fi, it is in their best interests to customize the SSID. This not only makes it less confusing for patrons to use the wireless, but it is a form of cheap advertising.
Bruce Schneier's page reads very well, and he is a polite, well spoken individual. He acknowledges being in the minority. He states very clearly why he leaves his wireless open. He doesn't state whether or not he leaves the default SSID in place, which is actually a pivotal point. If he makes it clear that he knows something about his wireless and gives his network a unique name AND leaves it open, that indicates that he most likely has left it open on purpose, since he obviously knows enough about his wireless to be able to change his SSID. However, as a tech that works in a computer repair shop, and as a tech that continually has to perform housecalls to setup and secure customer's wireless routers, I can tell you that the majority of people out there who have open wireless routers using the default SSIDs DO NOT KNOW ABOUT SECURING THEIR WIRELESS EQUIPMENT PROPERLY!
And there is a massive difference between a plate of cookies with a sign above them that expresses in plain english "Free for the taking" and a plate of cookies just sitting on a table. The former are there for free, and the number of cookies taken is irrelevant. The latter is undefined as to their "free" status, therefore any number of them taken could be construed as theft, if they are not indeed intended to be free.
I guess you aren't aware that Time Warner cable in parts of Texas is starting to charge by how much you download. You must have missed the articles posted here on Slashdot.
I guess you aren't aware of the Charter and Roadrunner customers who have gotten letters from those two companies, informing them that they have been downloading illegally (torrents), only to have those customers claim ignorance and point to their open routers saying "It must have been someone on my wireless doing it." If it was LEGAL to just connect to any wireless you see and use it as you see fit, then the person with the wireless access point would be legally responsible for anything that occurs on it.
Your description of how the hardware works, does not make the fact that you are illegally connecting to someone else's wireless actually legal. You are skipping over the simple fact that it is exploitation of ignorance. YOU know that the owner of that home wireless should be securing their shit. You know it, and since they didn't, you feel it is too bad for them and you are gonna use their shit.
And that makes it the same as stealing someone's bike off their porch. Because YOU know what you are doing is wrong. It is not the same at all as listening to someone else's radio. If anything, it is the same as mooching off someone's cable. You seem to think that since it is broadcast through the air, that means it is free. It is not. Satellite is broadcast through the air. It isn't free. Are you saying that if you could hack a satellite box, that makes it free and legal to just grab satellite TV? Normal TV and Digital TV are INTENDED to be free, and thus if you have an arial on your TV or digital receiver, you can watch those channels for free. As I said, they are INTENDED to be free. That is why it is not illegal to watch them.
A better example, would be the way that cable USED to be transmitted. All the channels used to be sent to your home. All of them. The box you had decided which channels you could watch. Your argument says that since all the channels are potentially available, that if the cable company is to stupid to check to see what box you are ACTUALLY using, it should be legal for you to watch all those channels, not just be limited to the ones you pay for.
It is illegal to steal internet access from people who are not smart enough to enable security on their wireless routers.
Just like it is illegal to steal a bicycle that someone is not smart enough to lock up on their front porch.
By looking for any of the common (IE default) SSIDs out there, you are exploiting people who are too ignorant (IE uneducated in how to secure their wireless) to lock down the bandwidth that they pay for. Sure, some businesses offer free WiFi, but most of them will at least change their SSID to something relating to their shop.
So, "You can quickly get a lot more than email doing that" most likely means that you can get trouble. Lots of trouble. And a google search or three or more will turn up people who have already been charged with stealing wireless access. In multiple countries.
Slashdot Mirror
SO the AC and yourself, Willy, don't trust infomercials, unless you like the product, in which case, you then reverse your position on infomercials conditionally.
Sounds like you enjoy making blanket statements, then ignoring their content to what suits your needs.
You OBVIOUSLY have no issues with infomercials themselves, regardless of what you might say, since if the product is something you need or want you don't seem to mind infomercials all that much. If you don't like the particular product, then you shout to the world that you don't trust infomercials. They might be silly or stupid, but infomercials work. They worked on you. You want a Little Giant ladder.
Let me guess. Since you don't like Moxie soda, you hate all cans and plastic bottles... right?
I know, I know... the whole stupid idea of a half-hour or hour long commercial, thinly disguised as a talk-show, is really stupid. Yes, it is. So is Fox News. So is the ABC fall line up. So is NFL football. But regardless of all that, like I already pointed out, infomercials already worked their magic on you, even if you hate them.
Actually, this comment really shows how no one bothers to do a little more research than just reading titles.
For instance... did you know...
These computers, as well as the TRS-80 CoCos and the Model I, III, and IV units... the units that saved programs to cassette, have greater wireless capabilities than our current hardware. All it takes is to plug in the input and output that are supposed to go to the cassette recorder, and patch it into a HAM radio. It's already being done. People are sending programs and information half-way around the world, without wires and without the assistance of satellites.
I did a search of the page, and noone seemed to post what I thought of...
Odd.
Well, here's two words that seem to Apply to this. "Final Fantasy"
Here is... I'm not sure what to call it... it is a series of games, an MMORPG, and a series of animated movies. Seems like movies were made from the major plot lines used in the games. Sure, you can fire up Final Fantasy XI and grind away, but if you are silly enough to think that TV producers would turn THAT material into a program... you aren't very imaginative.
Now, what would making a TV series that is loosely based on an MMO really be looking for? Well, picture this. Picture that there is a quest for a party of players. Say that quest is a bit convoluted. Let's say that 300 different parties of players go through this quest. Chances are, if records can be kept from each run of that quest, there will be MORE than enough material to set up a single TV ready visual run through of this same quest. I doubt that the Director would use screen caps of game action for the final product, but I bet that a director would LOVE video caps from the game to provide a basic framework to shoot from. I bet a director would enjoy using a spectator flying camera to observe game play from whatever angle he chooses, and to even be able to get players to act out scenes for a live and mobile storyboard.
TV shows and movies are supposed to be about the extraordinary events that make people stand out. Yes, I know that there are plenty of movies and TV shows that contain humdrum moments. However, those moments rarely ever make up the entire TV show (if it is a work of fiction or a dramatization of real events). So, instead of laughing about how much this show will be teh suXorz because all people are gonna see on their TV screens is some gold faming and a pile of Leeeeeeroy Jeeeeeenkinz wannabes... stop and think about it. The MMO is just going to allow people to play around in this new fictional universe BEFORE the storyline is revealed in the TV show. Their actions may possibly even make it into the show.
Like so many of you in the Anti-patent crowd, you have some sort of delusion that everything that is invented, is done by a team of people all being paid by a large organization, regardless of the results they produce. Sure, some of the things I mentioned may have been invented by a team. However, the first artificial heart was invented by an individual, Paul Winchell. He filed for his patent in '56, and got it in '63. No team, no big firm, nothing like that. Spend some time at www.patentstorm.us and you will be able to research patents by browsing the inventors, to prove that indeed, not only are large teams inventing things, but still to this day, individuals working out of their garages are also inventing things and getting patents. Now, let's talk a bit MORE about my example with AMD and Intel. After both companies did the research, and came up with different designs that do the same thing... because of the glorious patent system we now have two DIFFERENT Products that do exactly the same thing (see also ball point pen, felt tip pen, liquid ink pen, permanent marker, pencil, etc.)... except that because we have two different products that do the same thing, we now have competition, and LOWER costs to the consumer. If only Intel sold PC Processors, we would be paying FAR more for them (see Microsoft regarding Windows, and no, linux does not count, since you can't install the same software on both OSes). The gain to the consumer is huge, since the consumer can now choose the lowest cost solution, rather than only having one choice. But that is so painfully obvious, you HAVE to have been trolling by posting a response to me.
Granted you quoted and repeated me... although while I just said that it can't be proven that we are the only life out here, you did a nice job of pointing out that you can't prove a negative.
You did lose sight of facts and details in my post (probably because it was too long for you to read)... I can prove that aliens do exist. In fact, let me rephrase that... it can be proven that Aliens do exist. SETI is in the process of proving that. If you choose to see the fact that it has not been proven YET as concrete evidence that it will NEVER be done, you fail to remember your history. I don't even have to mention any one specific historical fact, because there are countless examples of where something had not been done, that same something was called impossible to do, and then it was done.
I'm not saying that Aliens exist. I am also saying that they probably do exist. However, you know Air exists although you can't see it. You know that microbial bacteria exist, even though you can't see, or touch them. You know that there are planets orbiting other stars, even though you personally can't see, touch, taste, smell, or hear them.
But which probability is higher... the probability that there is other sentient life, somewhere out there in the universe, or the probability that we are the ONLY sentient life in the entire universe?
Wow.. here I was, picking out posts that needed some moderation (since I'm sitting on points)... then I came across your post. So much for moderation.
/. tradition, or if I should just deal with the issues I see one at a time.
I can't decide if I should just reword what you've got there, in the standard
Climatology is way too complex, with lots of unexplained and speculative stuff. Ok. I'll agree to that. You aren't a scientist? Ok. I'll tuck that fact away for future use. How would you have any clue as to what you should designate as "Junk Science" if you are not a scientist? As someone who is not a scientist, how would you have any clue as to how much more research needs to be done before ANY number crunching is done? Does it not occur to you that this number crunching you refer to *is* research? Shouldn't you be a scientist in this specific area before you condemn their actions in attempting to propel advancements in their field? As someone who admits NOT to be a specialist in climatology, what the hell do you know?
And if they want the internet community involved, they should what?? Get Enlightened as to different image formats? Why? Because you don't like the size of that bmp? Because you realize that they could pass out even more finely detailed images that would be smaller, if they only know what YOU know? Do you already know ALL of the reasons they chose to use BMP? Did YOU inform them of alternate image format possibilities that provide them with ALL the advantages they believe they are getting from BMP images, while also getting other advantages YOU are aware of that they are apparently not aware of? Have you been in contact with them at all, about this image format problem that you see? Or are you waiting for someone ELSE to read your mind as to the details of this issue, and waiting for someone ELSE to send off an email that climateprediction.net should change formats? I mean, I get it. You want someone other than yourself to make a fuss about this BMP thing. You can find the time to post about it here, but you can't be bothered to mention the problem to the people who matter.
Now... where is the address at the site Stanford put up to support Folding@Home? You know the address I'm talking about... the one that I can mail my frozen peas to, to feed starving folk in Africa. Because I didn't find it. No, you can't get away with saying that you were just pointing out how using Folding@home is LIKE actually sending food to end African hunger. I do get it that you are CLEARLY saying here that using anything other than Folding@Home (in your opinion) is a complete waste of time and energy... your wastebasket reference. But on the whole, and in parts, you are wrong. Folding@home is no more, or no less a waste of time than SETI@Home... or any other distributed processing that is being passed around. Remember, you are not a scientist. You have no idea if the numbers you are crunching are going toward a problem that is going to be solved in 5 years, or in 50 years... or at all. However, for all you know, data crunched for Climateprediction.net could provide positive and useful results in 2 years. You admit that you are not a scientist, or a climatologist. So you are simply an ignorant individual who is claiming to have all the right answers.
Now... SETI. Ok. Fine. You don't believe that there is intelligent life out there in the Cosmos. You have done a good job in proving to me that there was no intelligence at work behind the creation of your post. So, since I see no evidence of thought or intelligence in your post, I should assume there is no intelligent life on Earth? Show me your proof that we are the only intelligent life in the Galaxy... or the Universe? I won't leave you hanging... you CAN'T prove it, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that we are the only intelligent life out here. However, it is the height of arrogance and hubris to assume that we are the MOST intelligent species out here in the universe. We are on the v
You seem to have missed the point of patents. Think Intel and AMD. You said that there are likely many ways to do the things that his novel algorithm is trying to solve. This is true. However, his patent on his algorithm does not block everyone ELSE from solving the same problem using their own algorithm. It just stops people from using HIS algorithm without his permission, or making a profit on HIS algorithm without paying him for it.
AMD proved there was indeed another way to make a processor that would do the same things that an Intel processor would do, just with a different design. According to what you said, AMD would be violating any and all patents that Intel might have, just because it's processor can produce the same results.
Now, if we do not provide protection and encouragement for inventors, then those with the money will bully and steal inventions from those who cannot afford to protect themselves.
You don't like the patent system? You've never invented something before that was in demand. I guarantee that *IF* you invented something that had the potential for profit, you would be *SCREAMING* for improvements in the patent laws to increase your level of protection.
Because without patent laws... well, let's look at your example again... if I did come up with an algorithm to search for widgets on the internet faster than anyone else, I would only make money at it IF I marketed my product properly... IF I packaged it properly... IF I had the ability to sell it (web site, online credit card processing, etc)... and if I had a clue as to how to do any of these three things or any of the multitudes of other things I would have to know to be able to sell a product and make a profit. It is not just based on the price I charge. I could build the best car in the world, and if it looked like total crap and I was selling it out of a tumble-down, rat-infested used car lot, it doesn't matter if my price was "good".
Without the patent system, I could invent the best search algorithm in the world to look for widgets... and the first individual or company to come along with the money to do all the things I *should* do, will be able to do those things AND keep the profits, leaving me out in the cold. If you think that's fair, then why should I invent any more widgets? Or for that matter, why should I invent the next stage of safety glass? Why bother with that improved dragon-scale bullet proof vest? Why should I make an improved version of the life-alert system? I don't believe the world needs me to release my designs for airbags that can save 78% more lives. Why? What's in it for me? Oh, does that sound too selfish? Awww...
No patent system means inventors are slaves to financiers. Literally.
How power efficient are these old laptops? When you compare these OLD laptops to your NEW laptop, you are missing the point entirely. If you mean to compare these to yours, what happens if you come across one of these older ones that uses less juice than your current laptop? Are you going to dump that Core 2 Duo in favor of that IBM ThinkPad with the P166 chip? Because that IBM Thinkpad with the P166 chip only runs on 60 watts. Does YOURS consume that little juice? If you don't know, look at your power supply, and examine the voltage and amperage output. Multiply them. Now you know how many Watts of juice your laptop consumes, regardless of a processor that scales up or down.
As to efficiency... let's put it another way. If you are surfing the web on youe core 2 duo rig, consuming 120 watts of juice with your efficient scaling processor speed, doesn't it occur to you that you could see the same pages, read the same emails, etc... with an older, less efficient laptop that only consumes 60 watts of juice? Your super efficient unit will use more electricity and cost more to operate than the older 60 watt Thinkpad.
The P4 3.3ghz Toshiba I'm using at the moment demands 120 watts... and running with any less will cause the unit to heat up faster and shut down due to being throttled. Older units generate less heat as well. Older units won't have to come with warning stickers that tell you to avoid using the laptop in your lap due to the possibility of being burned (like mine does). Older laptops are less likely to require a Chill Pad. Older laptops are less likely to have two fans that require regular cleaning (like more modern units). Now, is anyone suggesting that one of these older units replace your nice, fast Core 2 duo unit permanently? Hell no. The suggestions are that laptops like these make great thin terminals that provide internet access where you want the access.
My bad. I stand corrected. I did not know that Marines are not soldiers.
However, I never said that if you watch porn you think about raping people, and you are not proving how well you pay attention if you are assuming that is what I meant. I was very specific, in that the EVIDENCE THAT THESE MARINES LEAVE BEHIND ON THEIR COMPUTERS THAT HAS TO BE CLEANED OFF FOR THEM indicates that the mindsets that drove soldiers and marines to rape and pillage in Vietnam still exists, but now is being exercised in their usage of their laptops. For example. A dozen or so videos entitled "Gangbang Rape Volume xx" etc. that had to go bye bye on Friday... they could be mis-labeled but I don't know. I didn't watch them. Sure, I imagine they aren't real rape. I only caught the fact that they were even on that machine as their titles flashed by in a delete. Doesn't change the fact that here is this marine, downloading I-dunno-how-many "rape" videos. If he could not get his fix on the internet, would he be like one of the countless who actually DID rape native women in Vietnam? I can't say for sure he would, but you definitely cannot say that he would not.
But if you want to prove your reading comprehension is not up to snuff, you go right ahead. Just be aware. Ignorance is not a privilege.
My Bad. Thanks for the correction. I really had no idea. I just fix their machines, watch the helicopters and Ospreys fly overhead, listen to them practice with their artillery, and otherwise try to avoid them as they drive like crazed maniacs to Walmart from the base.
Granted I haven't been on the Cape for maybe 4 years now, but when I was living in Provincetown on the tip of Cape Cod (great place to pick up college girls or Lithuanian girls working for the summer... since most of the men in town are gay) I had DSL for years. This article confuses me because am I to understand that DSL is NOT offered on the cape anymore?
My boss (the owner of the T-Shirt shop I worked for) got his internet via a cable modem... I can't remember if it was Cox or Comcast or whatnot... so I know that cable internet was ALSO available on Cape Cod. Is this also something that is no longer offered out there?
Sounds like it is not just about these companies refusing to upgrade their hardware. Sounds like they have removed services that were there, altogether.
Well, I'm not a pimply-faced anything. In fact, I work in the busiest computer repair shop near Camp Lejune (see Marine Boot Camp). I repair laptops (and desktops) all day long that belong to soldiers. I'm regularly cleaning Iraq out of the laptops, and I'm just talking dirt and grime. However, all of them... and I do mean all of them, come in infected with malware, spyware, and viruses. Not only your Smitfraud.C based infections (Smitfraud, virus heat, etc.) but porn dialers, porn redirects and browser hijacks... you name it.
As far as tolerance is concerned, I'm glad that all these marines appear to know absolutely nothing about keeping their machines clean. It keeps me in a paycheck. However, I don't have much tolerance for people who insist that this might be an overblown story. As far as the Parent comment about rape and pillaging... our armed forces have changed radically since the Vietnam days. You can't necessarily blame the guy for his comment though. If what I'm cleaning off these machines is any indication... even if our armed forces aren't raping and pillaging, they sure are thinking of it. Where they are going on the web to screw up their machines like they are points to that conclusion.
Obviously you two did. MoO for teh win.
Yeah, switches would have worked just as well, providing that there was a device to pass out DHCP and set itself up as the gateway... which wouldn't be all that dificult to do with a simple ICS setup with windows, or a linux box acting as a router... oops looks like there is going to essentially be a router in there somewhere (or a selection of devices that collectively act as a router)... can't do it with switches alone.
Sucks that there was a contractual clause that prohibited you from sharing internet access to multiple machines at the end of the iPipe that you got from your ISP. I wouldn't call it silly though. Annoying... maybe even tantalizing in how it is a rule that needs (begs) to be broken.
We didn't get ourselves routers because it was "silly that providers were charging on a per computer basis"...
We got routers so we could have multiple computers share a single internet pipe that was coming into our homes. It didn't matter if the ISP said something about only one connection=one computer. We definitely did not add the ability for all the computers in our home to get online at the same time, because something was silly.
But I agree with the sentiment in a few posts that if something like what Dan is proposing starts to take off, the ISPs are gonna respond in some nasty ways. Passing out internet access for free to all your neighbors... and all their neighbors... that is practically stealing money from the ISPs.
you bring up an interesting point about how in this day and age where an individual can, more easily than ever before, get a relatively impartial view of what is going on in the world, but instead will tend to seek out those sources of information that confirm a predetermined point of view...
I guess this changes everything for people who decide they want to offer free wireless internet and leave their routers open. Now, they can lose all their equipment and go to jail, just because someone they didn't know decided to use their open wireless connection and surf some kiddie porn anonymously.
The Argument of "It wasn't me. It must have been someone on my wireless." isn't going to cut it with the feds.
Hearing
"I'm positively furious at you young man, and I'm positive your father is going to take the belt to you when he hears about this!"
Created`some rather negative feelings in me, growing up... but otherwise I agree.
You said it yourself.
"free internet access"
That's what equals free internet access.
You have no way of knowing what someone intends, just by seeing "linksys" or "default". You have no way of knowing if they intended to leave it open, or if they just did not know. You can NOT go on the assumption that since it is the default SSID, and that since it is unsecured, that it MUST be because they intended it to be so. That logic is faulty, simply because it is a well known fact by computer repair technicians (and others) that the majority of wireless access point/wireless router owners out there know little to nothing about securing their network.
Now, I agree completely that if you want to keep people off your network, you have to secure it. I tell this to my customers. I get PAID to go to their homes and do this for them. Every week. I can only tell so many people though. I've walked over to my neighbors houses (three of them) and informed them that I could see and access their wireless networks. All three were surprised. All three asked me if I could "fix" it for them. I did.
How much educating of the public do YOU do? Or do you just shrug and say "Screw them. If they are too stupid to know better, they deserve the loss of bandwidth."
And I want to be clear on something... something unrelated, yet something that should put my feelings into perspective.
Smoking Grass is illegal. It's not wrong. It's just illegal.
Now, I'm going to use that word "wrong" again. When you see someone doing something wrong, aren't you obliged on some level to inform them of what is right? I didn't say on Every Level.
I've been to Coffee shops where they left their SSID set to the default out of the box setting. And although I didn't get every owner/manager to change their SSID, I did get more than half of them to change their SSIDs to one that related to their particular shop. I explained to them why. I told them that by doing so, they were not encouraging people to connect to other people's home routers by the same name. They were increasing their advertising. They were showing tech savvy people that at the very least, they knew how to get into their router, and they were willing to make a technological effort. In a few cases where the shop owners checked their router logs, the owners noticed a significant drop in the attempts of their "customers" to try to log into the admin panels of the routers... AFTER just that simple change of their SSID. So you would be doing a coffee shop owner/manager a service if you mentioned to them that they should get rid of that default SSID and replace it with one that pertained to their business.
If you want to offer free wireless privately, what's wrong with showing a little insight and intelligence, and renaming your SSID "Free Wireless Here"? That removes all doubt.
The law is clearly NOT wrong... and it will be even more clearly NOT wrong as more ISPs get on the bandwagon of charging for bandwidth used.
This sounds more like the "Million Monkeys write Shakespere" thought experiment. First, without knowing how to read, she was able to randomly grab a sign that said the exact opposite of what she meant to say? Sorry. I reject your thought experiment at the moment.
I suppose though that would be similar to a record store accidentally tagging a boxed CD set at 1/10th the retail price it should be (16.99 instead of 169.99). They did not intend to sell it for that price, and would rather NOT sell it for that price. However, the law in most US states indicates that if a customer sees that price, they are allowed to purchase it at that (mis)tagged price, regardless of how unhappy it makes the store.
The major problem with your thought experiment, is that an SSID of "linksys" does NOT equal "Free Internet Access" regardless of whether or not you want it to. Also, the lack of security on a wireless connection does NOT equal "Free Internet Access" regardless of what you might personally want.
"It may be illegal, but your chance of getting in trouble for it are very low."
I've been saying all along that it is illegal. Thank you for agreeing with me. Speeding is illegal also, as you say. Just because people don't get caught speeding EVERY TIME, doesn't make it alright to speed. And yes, I'm one of those annoying jerks who drives the speed limit.
Yep. I could not be bothered to google stuff that I did not need to read. However, I'm glad YOU bothered to google it, since you needed to see that I was indeed right about people illegally stealing bandwidth and being arrested for it.
Stealing little things from the corner pharmacy, is no better than stealing stereos or Plasma TVs. The fact that the police officers were stealing during and after Hurricane Katrina, did not make it alright for the everyday Joe to be stealing the same things. The argument, "Just because everyone else is doing it" just doesn't cut it. Neither does "It's only a little theft."
There is no agreement made, because there are no people involved to make the agreements. The devices are not authorized on their own to make legal and binding agreements and contracts. The wireless card cannot determine on its own who owns the wireless access point to be able to decide if what it is connecting to is a free hot spot, or just someone who left it open because they did not know any better. A wireless access point can make the determination if a client that is attempting to connect is allowed to connect, but only after the owner has authorized the appropriate mac addresses in the router's software. If more people were properly educated as to how to do this, they would. Sure, some people would leave their wireless open for everyone to use, however, if more ISPs follow the example of Time Warner in Texas, those private individuals who leave their access points open will drop significantly.
Assuming that *if* an access point is unsecured that this means they are leaving it open for everyone to access freely, is no different from assuming that *if* someone leaves their bike unlocked, that this means anyone is allowed to take it.
Again, describing how the process works by humanizing the actions taken does not make it legal when someone who does not own the wireless access point (or someone that has direct expressed permission to use it) decides to allow their hardware to connect to it.
If a business owner is providing free wi-fi, it is in their best interests to customize the SSID. This not only makes it less confusing for patrons to use the wireless, but it is a form of cheap advertising.
Bruce Schneier's page reads very well, and he is a polite, well spoken individual. He acknowledges being in the minority. He states very clearly why he leaves his wireless open. He doesn't state whether or not he leaves the default SSID in place, which is actually a pivotal point. If he makes it clear that he knows something about his wireless and gives his network a unique name AND leaves it open, that indicates that he most likely has left it open on purpose, since he obviously knows enough about his wireless to be able to change his SSID. However, as a tech that works in a computer repair shop, and as a tech that continually has to perform housecalls to setup and secure customer's wireless routers, I can tell you that the majority of people out there who have open wireless routers using the default SSIDs DO NOT KNOW ABOUT SECURING THEIR WIRELESS EQUIPMENT PROPERLY!
And there is a massive difference between a plate of cookies with a sign above them that expresses in plain english "Free for the taking" and a plate of cookies just sitting on a table. The former are there for free, and the number of cookies taken is irrelevant. The latter is undefined as to their "free" status, therefore any number of them taken could be construed as theft, if they are not indeed intended to be free.
I guess you aren't aware that Time Warner cable in parts of Texas is starting to charge by how much you download. You must have missed the articles posted here on Slashdot.
I guess you aren't aware of the Charter and Roadrunner customers who have gotten letters from those two companies, informing them that they have been downloading illegally (torrents), only to have those customers claim ignorance and point to their open routers saying "It must have been someone on my wireless doing it." If it was LEGAL to just connect to any wireless you see and use it as you see fit, then the person with the wireless access point would be legally responsible for anything that occurs on it.
Your description of how the hardware works, does not make the fact that you are illegally connecting to someone else's wireless actually legal. You are skipping over the simple fact that it is exploitation of ignorance. YOU know that the owner of that home wireless should be securing their shit. You know it, and since they didn't, you feel it is too bad for them and you are gonna use their shit.
And that makes it the same as stealing someone's bike off their porch. Because YOU know what you are doing is wrong. It is not the same at all as listening to someone else's radio. If anything, it is the same as mooching off someone's cable. You seem to think that since it is broadcast through the air, that means it is free. It is not. Satellite is broadcast through the air. It isn't free. Are you saying that if you could hack a satellite box, that makes it free and legal to just grab satellite TV? Normal TV and Digital TV are INTENDED to be free, and thus if you have an arial on your TV or digital receiver, you can watch those channels for free. As I said, they are INTENDED to be free. That is why it is not illegal to watch them.
A better example, would be the way that cable USED to be transmitted. All the channels used to be sent to your home. All of them. The box you had decided which channels you could watch. Your argument says that since all the channels are potentially available, that if the cable company is to stupid to check to see what box you are ACTUALLY using, it should be legal for you to watch all those channels, not just be limited to the ones you pay for.
It is illegal to steal internet access from people who are not smart enough to enable security on their wireless routers.
Just like it is illegal to steal a bicycle that someone is not smart enough to lock up on their front porch.
By looking for any of the common (IE default) SSIDs out there, you are exploiting people who are too ignorant (IE uneducated in how to secure their wireless) to lock down the bandwidth that they pay for. Sure, some businesses offer free WiFi, but most of them will at least change their SSID to something relating to their shop.
So, "You can quickly get a lot more than email doing that" most likely means that you can get trouble. Lots of trouble. And a google search or three or more will turn up people who have already been charged with stealing wireless access. In multiple countries.