tidepod12

32 ms·

301.
by tidepod12 7y ago
Have we all just completely forgotten the years of fighting for net neutrality? The very same net neutrality where we all have been arguing that sometimes even private companies shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily filter whatever they
302.
by tidepod12 7y ago
AFAIK this isn't necessarily true. The transplanted follicles will not suffer the same fate as your original follicles, so the "new" hair won't just "fall out". The thing about transplants is that, depending on
303.
by tidepod12 7y ago
In the UK, what you're doing is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act. I don't think the police are out scouring the streets for people stealing wifi, so you probably won't be prosecuted for it. But still, it is technically i
304.
by tidepod12 7y ago
If you knowingly and with intent use that network without paying, even when knowing that the owner of the network wants all users to pay, it absolutely is your fault. The airline could literally put zero restrictions on their network acce
305.
by tidepod12 7y ago
I'm a bit flabberghasted that so many commenters in this thread are apparently in favor of committing blatant theft.
306.
by tidepod12 7y ago
Following the law may not be a moral imperative, but let's not pretend like the author did anything moral here. He knowingly and with intent stole services from the airline. It not only was illegal, it's blatantly immoral.
307.
by tidepod12 7y ago
>If I have a WiFi connection, leaving it without a password is implicit permission to use it. If I have a server that provides HTTP without authentication, that is implicit permission to access the contents. Lol. I don't know where