The Dean
-
Posts
26,416 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Dean
-
-
Ahh... Brings up the old Wrigley Field situation with regards to the roof tops. Why can't I watch the game from my roof... Now if I charge others to use my neighbors connection, I take that is bad...
Agreed.
I also always felt the same way about scrambled cable signals. At one time, the cable company would send all the signals to your home, only some (channels you didn't pay for) were scrambled. I always felt that, if they are in my home, and I can find a way to unscramble them, they are mine. If they don't want me to have those channels, don't send them in my house. Now, I know that it was illegal, and my beliefs didn't change that. But, to me, it was wrong. Their signals invaded my home. There are filters and other ways to prevent the signal from getting into my home...use one of those methods.
I never thought it was OK to go up the pole and screw with their filters, or steal cable from the neighbor...that seems different, to me.
-
I agree...LT was a tremendous player, but let's face it...watch the old highlights and see how many times he rushes in unblocked, or with only a RB standing between him and the QB. Out of all the players who could block an LB, the RB is the worst blocker you could face. Basically his sacks were gift wrapped for him a large percentage of the time. Smith rushed the passer against the other teams BEST lineman in most cases, the LT(Left Tackle, not Lawrence Taylor ), so in my mind his sack total is much more impressive than Taylor's, especially since he averaged more per year than Taylor did.
I agree with regard to sack totals....Bruce was better at sacks. But that wasn't the question of the post. LT did more, across the board, and has been mentioned, really changed the game.
-
If you need the net while you're mobile, then wifi doesn't make sense, and you'd be on AT&T's 3G network. But if you're sitting in a park or S'bucks, then wifi is the better option.
Agreed. The point of the earlier poster was, the iPhone connected to unsecured Wi-fi, automatically. So, if you are walking down the street, and turn the phone on, what does it do?
-
You know, enough already. You make it sound like people just wish for a wireless network at their house and -- PRESTO -- it simply appears out of thin air.
Someone has to install a router, and if you're either smart enough to have someone set it up (like your service provider) or smart enough to figure out how to do it yourself, you're smart enough to set up a freaking password. In other words, you can't possibly be smart enough to get wireless set up in your house and yet, somehow, also be too ignorant to understand the security part of it. If you're that !@#$ing stupid, you're too !@#$ing stupid to know people are using your network.
I appreciate your defending the ignorant, but seriously...for a guy who's talked himself out of being shot on four different occasions, your argument on this is ridiculously sappy. If you want to defend the world, leave the ignorant for your spare time because most of the time you just can't fix ignorant, and defending them only prolongs the pain for everyone.
Look, I actually go to people's homes and fix their computers. These are usually elderly folks, or simple people with very little computer knowledge. Often their wireless router was installed by Bell South/AT&T, or some local computer company....maybe it was installed by a relative, who doesn't live with them. Really doesn't matter, the point is they have no real idea of how it works. So, you are suggesting that people who don't understand the technology shouldn't be using the Internet...or are fair game for those who might want to take advantage of them? That is really a disgusting point of view, IMO. It is the position that many in the spyware/adware/bot game take. Many believe that those who don't properly secure their machines deserve what they get.
I'd rather defend the ignorant, than defend those who take advantage of them for a living. Those people are some of the lowest scum the earth has to offer. Of course, if it were you, or someone in your family that was duped by a doctor, perhaps, and subjected to poor/dangerous medical treatment...the explanation that they deserved it, because they didn't understand all the implications, probably would upset you...at least i hope it would.
But, I will end it here, as I can't really have a legitimate conversation with someone who is devoid of scruples.
-
It will connect at either, and AT&T's preference is that you connect to the Internet via wifi. Come to think, it's also the user's preference too.
Ah...I guess that makes more sense, then. But, if you are walking down the street, and turn it on, will it connect to an unknown/unsecured wi-fi from a house you are passing, just to lose the signal moments later? It would seem like connecting to your home's/office's wi-fi first, makes sense, but not to an unknown network. I would think you would want the AT&T net, in those circumstances...no?
-
For the moment:
Never been any reason - Head East
I got you - Split Enz
Head East! Flat as a Pancake was a decent album...and "no", I never owned it.
-
Too bad the router can't tell the owner that someone used it, like the butler would tell the owner. You presume that if somebody is unaware of the security features of their router, that's tantamount to permission. I don't, and most reasonable people wouldn't either.
I agree with you, and that's why I don't use that reason to justify/defend using unsecured wi-fi. But, IMO, you don't need that reason, as there are other, better reasons, to defend it.
-
My laptop will connect to any wifi network it can find if I have the settings turned on properly for it. Just to complicate things further...those settings happen to be the default settings.
So if my brand new laptop computer connects to a wireless network because the default settings cause it to without any knowledge or input on my part, am I breaking the law, is Dell, or is Microsoft?
Exactly. That's the main reason I think it would/should be hard (in most cases) to prosecute this sort of thing.
But, I was questioning the statement that the iPhone did the same thing. I thought the iPhone used a devoted network to access the internet, and didn't rely on the availability of private, unsecured, wi-fi.
-
There is no way on earth this can be illegal, because now I can have my IPhone in my pocket and it can connect to networks without me even knowing about it.
Are you suggesting that the iPhone uses private wi-fi connections to access the Internet? That really doesn't sound right.
-
that shamwow guy used to be a scientoligist.. he got screwed over by em..
Wow (pun intended). That is the first time I have heard about that. Crazy story.
-
Peters is a dick for, Boldin wants out, Baltimore says they can't keep both CB's and can't afford to keep that lB corp together.
Yeah, sure. You understand that they can't trade Suggs, right?...He's a FA.
-
First Gentlemen Taylor can't catch a break today. I am actually thinking that this is one of the funnier seasons. I want to see Dubaku kill the crippled sister. I do have to say that Jack killing Vossler was cool, but not his greatest. I am waiting for Walker to snap also, and go on her own killing frenzy.
Clearly there are no police working in Washington DC.
-
President Obama was being asked all of these intense political questions and then this reporter asks how he feels about alex rodriguez's steroid use the with Rangers...
To his credit, Obama really didn't miss a beat, when he was asked that. Well...maybe one beat.
-
How is an end user supposed to know whether it's a free public hot-spot or a private router broadcasting for all to use?
Most people who have their PC's wireless turned on don't actually pick from a list -- they just connect to whatever is broadcasting in range (or at least that's a setting). That makes it even more of a gray area, IMHO.
Oh, as I said, I agree that, in practice, as long as the use is lawful, and you aren't attempting to compromise someone's computer, I think it is hard to call use of an open connection "illegal". Of course, it is possible that you KNOW the signal is from your neighbor and that the neighbor does not want you using his/her connection...but, let's put that aside for a moment.
I have problems with the justification of "if they didn't want it used, they would enable security". I can tell you, many many people are totally unaware of the security measures they should be taking. And, we shouldn't assume that people who are behind the security curve (and not up to speed with ever changing technology...like my 85 year old father, for instance), are somehow fair game for those with more technical knowledge.
I believe it shouldn't be considered illegal (in most circumstances) because, for the average user, it is sometimes hard to know what is, and isn't, a legit public connection and because it has little-to-no negative consequences for the person whose service is used. But, i reject the "should know better" argument for many reasons.
-
Ignorance is no defense.
Ignorance of the law is no defense. Ignorance of technology is another thing, entirely.
-
No, it is being broadcast for all to use. If they didn't want it used, they would lock it.
What if they are unaware that it is open, or don't understand how to lock it?
(Again, I'm more or less on the if it is open, it is OK to use, but I don't assume that people leave it open on purpose.)
-
Four times, Deano? You've gotta start hanging out with some more savory people.
Those days are behind me, thankfully.
-
Scenario #1. AZ needs a LT BADLY, to replace Gandy. We have one and need an elite WR to complimant Evans' deep threat...som, trade Peters and swap 1st's with AZ for Bolden...spend the $$, Bolden fits perfectly with a check down offense as he can create yardage after the catch.
Scenario #2. Baltimore will be in need of a CB, as they won't be able to hold on to both, or either for that matter, of thiers. We need a dominant OLB...so, trade Mcgee and swap firsts with Baltimore for Suggs. (assuming we re-sign Greer.)
Scenario #3. Folllow 1 & 2 until you get to swapping 1st's w/baltimore, make both trade, but give baltimore McGee and our 3rd, then trade Lil' Roscoe and our 5th for someone's 3rd rd pick.
There is Genious in this post, I know it! On the contrary, if there is, it's too smart for the Bills' front office.
How is this not "far fetched"?
-
What if you leave your lawnmower on my driveway without my permission with a sign that says, "Feel free to use me?" That's what you're doing with an unsecured wireless router.
That's exactly what I say -- you're sending waves (sound vs radio) out of your house. If you don't want someone to use it, then don't broadcast it for them to use.
The law is very fuzzy on this - some think it's illegal, some say it's not. Cracking WEP/WPA/WPA2 would be illegal. But if it's an open system, it's not as cut and dry.
When you connect to an unsecured wireless network, your computer and router have this conversation:
PC: Is there anybody out there with a network connection?
Router: I'm here!
PC: May I connect to you?
Router: Sure can!
PC: Will you please give me an IP address and tell me what your gateway is?
Router: You may use IP 1.2.3.4 and gateway 1.2.3.254
PC: Thank you!
So this isn't much different than knocking on someone's door to use their bathroom or telephone, except the computers are doing the talking. Shouldn't be illegal, but the laws haven't been tested much.
Good post, Fez.
-
Why wouldn't it? They have no right to be in the country let alone to trespass on his land. So therefore they are wrong twice.
Although you didn't post about it I feel it necessary to point out that the 'nice' illegeals aren't the only ones coming across the border. The drug cartels who have taken Islamic murder to the next level (killing in acid, beheading children, etc) are also trespassing regularly and who knows how well armed thay are. Actually, we do know how well armed they are...
Weren't you the poster who doesn't see the need for Americans to arm themselves? The guy who "Talked his way out of being held at gunpoint" numerous times? Or am I mistaken?
I defend the right for American's to arm themselves, but think it is folly for most people to think they need to.
I believe I said I have had guns pointed on me on several occasions, which is the case. I suppose we could quibble about the demarcation between "a few" and "several". It was four times (of any consequence), to be precise.
Irrespective of the nationality or legal status of these people, they were trespassing. "Doubly wrong" is fairly nonsensical, IMO. I think it is clear they committed illegal acts (which is all that really matters, here). But, if they were mistreated, I also don't care what their status was.
-
Dunno that I have a favorite. Here are some I like (and let me preface this by saying, "DAMN I'm old"):
Venus: Shocking Blue
Ride Captain Ride: The Blues Image
Brandy (You're a Fine Girl): Looking Glass
Stuck in the Middle" Stealers Wheel
Fire: The Crazy World of Arthur Brown
Gimme Just a Little More Time: Chairmen of the Board
More Today Than Yesterday: Spiral Starecase
Give Me One More Chance: Wilmer & the Dukes
Love Land: Charles Wright and the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm Band (To be fair, they also did "Express Yourself" which was pretty good, too.)
We Got More Soul: Dyke & the Blazers (Terrific B-Side: Shotgun Slim)
...well...that's a start...more later
-
I'm not sure that the legal status of the people involved should be a big issue. Some of the comments here are pretty racist, IMO. But, this does seem like trespassing and vandalism and destruction of property, etc. Does it really matter whether the perpetrators are Mexican, or illegal?
Seems to me the guy should have a right to protect his property against trespassers irrespective of their nationality or legal status. If the landowner did anything illegal while defending his property, then that should be addressed, again without regard to the status of the individuals. I'm guessing MALDEF is involved as these individuals happen to be Mexican and have nowhere else to go, to get a legitimate defense.
The system works best when the least among us still gets a vigorous defense.
-
If they didn't want people hijacking their conneciton, they should have secured it.
Perhaps. Maybe the unit shouldn't work unless security is enabled. Some people simply aren't intelligent, or knowledgeable, enough to know what to do...that shouldn't make them fair game for abuse.
Now, in truth, using someone's wireless signal has almost no impact on them, unless you are downloading huge files, or trying to compromise their system...so I really don't think it is that big of a deal. I've done it myself, when I really needed a connection and that's all that was available. The only reason I reacted that way is, people use the same kind of reasoning for legitimizing spyware, adware, etc. They argue, if the person doesn't protect their system then they deserve to get infected. To that, I say. "Bulls#it!".
But, back to "stealing" wireless. Some areas have free access points. The condo complex where I live has a free wireless signal from the clubhouse. They don't advertise it, but it is for use for residents who get a good signal. When I lived in SF, the Marina area had a free zone which I got a good signal from some days, but not others. So, here's my take. If you KNOW it is your neighbor's signal, then using it is probably illegal. But, if you encounter an unknown unsecured wireless signal, that you can connect to, who's to say it isn't there for you to use?
-
I've been an advocate for some time.
They could do much worse. I have no problem with Fitzpatrick, if that's the direction they decide to go.
Bills need to draft this guy
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I just about always think it is stupid when someone starts a thread with "the Bills need to draft this guy". But, in this case, you may have a point.