[Tfug] OT: Cox cable

[Rich Smit]

> bigj at flatwan.net wrote: >
> As bad as this sounds it may be cheaper to invest some money for a high
> gain roof mount wifi antenna and mooch off of your neighbor's open wifi.
> I'm not saying I currently do that *cough* but if I were I would be saving
> a little bit of cash each month *cough*.

keith smith wrote:
 > Problem is if you are the "test" case you will spend tens of
 > thousands to clear your left if you argument is the prevailing one.
 > I tend to like your argument, I'm just not up for the hassle.

*sigh* That's all too likely, given the prevailing jackboot-mentality... 
If they *do* haul you off to court Jon, just get a lawyer who 
understands a) 802.11 and b) slipstreaming (called "drafting" here?)

I mean, by following in the wake of another vehicle, you're getting 
something for free: reduced air friction. And the guy in front punching 
the hole in the air at 85 is paying for it. But here's the kicker: he's 
paying for it regardless.

Same difference with 802.11, right? They're *advertising* the bugger as 
open. They don't pay a penny extra just because you're catching up on 
the news. Besides, many OSs (Mac, for example), jump on the strongest, 
OPEN wireless network. You can't necessarily help getting on the "wrong" 
wireless network. (I know for a fact my Dad wouldn't realise his iBook 
was using someone else's wireless network.)

also:

Harry McGregor wrote:
 > Yes, and no.  It is like the difference between breaking and entering,
 > and just entering (trespassing).

No, it's like the difference between being illegal entry and walking 
into any kind of public building. The door's wide open. It's *not* like 
a private building, because it appears, to the user, as if it's meant to 
be open: i.e. intentionally public.

Your point about the router implicitly granting permission through DHCP 
is a good un.

R.