my mission

[phyco126]

Why should we malke an effort to defend ourselves? Under that logic, I can go into your house and kill you and your entire family. Hey, you didn't take the time to secure your house with blast doors, kevlar walls, security cameras, guns, and boobytraps.

[Werefrog]

Hey, you didn't take the time to secure your house with blast doors, kevlar walls, security cameras, guns, and boobytraps.

Maybe you didn't...

[Kizyr]

Hey, you didn't take the time to secure your house with blast doors, kevlar walls, security cameras, guns, and boobytraps.

Maybe you didn't...

Phyco totally did. That's something he would do.
Also 6 years of mixed martial arts training.
I wouldn't mess with Phyco. Just look at that gotee. He means business. KF

[phyco126]

Yes, yes I would.

[Sonic#]

Im not trying to say that stealing and jaywalking are similar, i think what i'm trying to get at is that the government has to make ridiculous laws like the one that got Sam Peterson arrested in Michigan for taking wifi from the coffee shop, if someone doesn't want their internet stolen then don't send out such a strong signal, i don't live in an apartment complex there's a good distance between our houses. The problem is a lack of common sense and laziness people won't take the time to secure their internet properly or change the password once every now and then. why should the government waste my money dealing with crimes like this, if people refuse to make an effort to defend themselves. lets say i leave my car unlocked in a parking garage and my stuff got stolen it would be my own fault that it happened since i made no effort, or even if the car had a broken window that i taped over with clear plastic it doesn't matter i cant go around blaming others for my problems like a filthy hippy now can i.

1. Tell me, in the language that most internet users would understand, how to send out a less strong signal without impacting the speed of my internet connection within my apartment. Then seek to get your ideas published.
2. It's funny that your original post is about cracking the internet connection of someone that probably takes the possible precautions you mention (nonobvious password, etc.), and then you ridicule the ones that don't, saying they open themselves up to being victims when there are people out there who would take from them even with precautions set up.
3. phyco's right, your argument becomes ridiculous when taken to an extreme. If the victim is solely to blame because of a lapse in their security, because of an oversight, then what do we call an oversight? Is it just when we forget to lock our doors (an easy and suitable precaution), when we forget to engage our car alarm (a slightly more costly and less affordable feature), when we park it in a parking garage (as opposed to next to the police station), or when we don't engage our flamethrower system if the car is touched without shouting "A Elbereth Gilthoniel," doing a twenty-sequence hand motion, and keying in the secret number on your hexadecimal keychain? If all the responsibility is on the victim protecting themselves, then there is no use for government enforcement at all. You have anarchy. I don't think you intend that extreme, but it's there. What is reasonable protection? Where do you draw the line?
4. Even for the basic oversights such as forgetting to lock your door, even though it may be your fault for doing so, it still took a criminal with the gall enough to take advantage of that situation. Who is more guilty in that case, the person who had a mental lapse and forgot to take the necessary precautions, or the person who went out of their way to take someone else's property after checking to see whether the door is unlocked? I would say the more active participant, the one who stole. That is also what the courts would say. I would say that the victim suffers enough by the loss of their property, as well as the loss of time that goes into reporting the theft, answering questions, and possibly having to serve in court. You think that in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne should've killed Chill, the man who killed his parents? You think that Bruce Wayne's parents were to blame for not defending themselves? Do you think that they got what they deserved?

So if a crook steals from me, I'm going to blame them. Of course I am. I'd have to be an idiot to let them go and try it again, unless it's a case of a Jean Valjean who absolutely needs what he steals, in which case I'll give it to him as charity or tell him where else to find it (that's a case of food).
5. The government should be there to take care of those transgressors then, even if the crimes seem petty and preventable. The waste of money that goes into frivolous laws is another topic entirely, and isn't that much generally anyway since many of those laws are rarely enforced. What we're dealing with here is who is culpable when a ... a sin against another is committed (to distinguish it from crime, which is the government's jurisdiction), not the government's involvement in the process.

But since the question's been raised, how would you improve the government's response?
6. I know very few filthy hippies, just like I know very few filthy people in general. Of course, I do know the type you're citing, but ... I think it's poorly understood. As for blaming others, so far you've blamed victims and the government for crimes. Very little blame has been given to the criminals, which given the post that started this, is probably for a good reason from your end of it.

[phyco126]

1. Tell me, in the language that most internet users would understand, how to send out a less strong signal without impacting the speed of my internet connection within my apartment.

Actually, wireless signals still trasnmit beyond what people can use. With the proper equipment and the know how, you can actually tap into someone's WiFi several miles away, even if the person loses their connection only outside of their house.

I'd have to be an idiot to let them go and try it again, unless it's a case of a Jean Valjean who absolutely needs what he steals, in which case I'll give it to him as charity or tell him where else to find it (that's a case of food).

24601!!!!!!!!!!!!

[exigence]

You're going to vote for Ron Paul, aren't you?

Yes, too bad he got knocked out before he had chance to shine. i think i can still write him in.

also yes my house is secured with guns.

[White Shadow]

Yes, too bad he got knocked out before he had chance to shine. i think i can still write him in.

Isn't he still technically a candidated for the GOP nod?



As for the question of RF signals, you can do a lot of interesting (and illegal) things if you have a strong enough transmitter. Hell, if you have a radio tower at your disposal you could render every wireless network within the broadcast range unusable by broadcasting garbage into the frequency band that wireless networks use. You'd also go to jail and the FCC would prosecute you, but you can do it.

The FCC was formed to regulate broadcasting because there's a limited number of frequencies. At some point it decided to transform into the morality police, but its original function is still there too.

[Werefrog]

Yes, too bad he got knocked out before he had chance to shine. i think i can still write him in.

also yes my house is secured with guns.

Wow, that was just a shot in the dark. And yes, you can still write him in.

[Kizyr]

Wow, that was just a shot in the dark. And yes, you can still write him in.

I didn't think it was possible for me to find another reason not to take Ron Paul seriously. KF