Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

telecom.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 486 posts

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#131

Post by wkat4242 »

noduerme wrote: post #121
xwdv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule of thumb is you are still way more likely to be killed by other things before being killed with a firearm. It’s not really that bad. Once you graduate from school your risk of being shot dead dramatically lowers and other normal causes of death take the top spot.

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to el…

I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated.

These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks.

And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#132

Post by hattmall »

owenmarshall wrote: post #60
wyldfire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ... he didn't need a lawyer. He needed to threaten litigation but you don't need an attorney to do that for you.

This was related to a criminal case. Threatening any kind of litigation or trying to defend yourself without an attorney puts you in the category of pro se litigant , the territory of jailhouse appellants and sovereign citizens. Even if you are smart and right, the system has already decided you are crazy, stupid, or both. You’re screwed from the get go.

Except it literally worked in this case.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#133

Post by nojvek »

noduerme wrote: post #121
xwdv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule of thumb is you are still way more likely to be killed by other things before being killed with a firearm. It’s not really that bad. Once you graduate from school your risk of being shot dead dramatically lowers and other normal causes of death take the top spot.

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to el…

As someone who moved to the US and finds the gun culture absolutely bonkers, I get the gun culture and why they had it in the constitution.

I don’t get the obsession behind open carry though. What good is people walking around in shopping malls with large semi automatic rifles on their back?

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#134

Post by tzs »

Zuiii wrote: post #110
dylan604 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.

No, it can't be theft unless the service provider lost the channel being "stolen" to the "thief" which makes no sense. Things quickly become silly when we insist on using the wrong concept where it doesn't apply. Charges like disrupting business operations or unauthorized access I can see, but theft? nah.

It is defined as theft under the laws of several states. Here are links to a few states' theft of services statutes.

Pennsylvania: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.02...

Texas: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-31-04/

New York: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/165.15

Oregon: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#135

Post by diogenes4 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #89
thatoneguy wrote: post #31

I was a "broadband technician" around then and AT&T Broadband did not give AF if you were stealing cable or not. I only handled cable modem installs and quit after a year to go major in philosophy and because: - Getting quietly threatened once (with AR-15 up against the customer's front door) on a troubleshooting call that I wasn't able to leave until "the internet started working". - Having to increasingly go do cab…

The amount of incidents involving firearms is astonishing. I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals. I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people. I'm really a bit surprised to hear this. I did a similar job…

I just watched someone do a sale of a fully loaded glock for a zip during a smoke sesh. Loaded straight into fairly skinny jeans without checking the safety. Bear in mind that handguns are by far the largest contributors to domestic gun-related homicide (intentional and unintentional) and that most gun control safety targets "assault rifles" and other scary shapes. I don't think this is a nightmare we can exit any time in the near future even in the most ideal scenario.

About ten years ago, i was buying weed from a cop (i got the hookup through his highschool friend). He bragged that every one of the ten or so AR15s on the wall in his bedroom over his gravity bong and below the bullet holes was registered to a different person. Why he thought that might have interested or impressed me is something I still try to puzzle out on late nights.

Interestingly, same city for both events.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#136

Post by dylan604 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #101
dylan604 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once "heard a story" about a very smart white guy that was retired special forces--just to put this racial thing to bed. Anyway, this guy lived in a subdivision that did not get cable. The cable company said there were not enough subscribers to justify the expense of the construction to bring them service. So mister special forces takes it upon himself to string a cable himself, and then decided to bring cable to t…

Did this happen in the lower mainland?

Oklahoma

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#137

Post by dylan604 »

Zuiii wrote: post #110
dylan604 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.

No, it can't be theft unless the service provider lost the channel being "stolen" to the "thief" which makes no sense. Things quickly become silly when we insist on using the wrong concept where it doesn't apply. Charges like disrupting business operations or unauthorized access I can see, but theft? nah.

>No, it can't be theft

Survey says...XXX

Texas Penal Code Section 31.04 - Theft of Service

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31...

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#139

Post by zwirbl »

xormapmap wrote: post #123
blahedo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and adolescents in the US. 15%. [0] [0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754

That doesn't mean the death rate of children due to firearms is high, it could just mean there isn't really anything else that kills children i.e. they mostly have parents looking out for them, don't have to work dangerous jobs, and haven't lived long enough for lifestyle factors to take effect yet.

It does mean theres three kids shot dead for every one that drowns.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#140

Post by shkkmo »

acheron wrote: post #124
torstenvl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is deeply inappropriate. Engaging in ideological flamewar is against HN guidelines and is just plain rude to all of the HN folks who actually work in the field you're being casually dismissive of.

What a thread. Guy randomly claiming “the racism” with literally no evidence gets upvoted, while you who know what you’re talking about try pointing out that it’s nonsense and get downvoted and flagged. I know it’s an old guideline to not claim HN is turning into Reddit, and I used to agree with it, but at least since Reddit killed Apollo etc and drove people away a lot of them seem to have come here, so it may reall…

There was no claim of racism, there was speculation that was reasonably on topic and at least somewhat credible given the history of racial disparities in sentencing rules. Downvoting this speculation as low value is also fine since it doesn't really add any constructive value to the conversation.

The only thing here that is close to "deeply inappropriate" was the response asserting that this speculation constitutes a "flamewar" (which is not what that term means at all) rather than bothering to try to refute the speculation with any real information or data that would contribute to creating a constructive discussion.

Post reply on HN