So, girls are always statistics, then?

If you can't see that you're too close to the person in front of you, then you are an inattentive asshole driver. Just sayin'.

If you had god damned ara^H^H^Hcabbies trying to run you down all the time, you'd be racist too!!

DISCLOSURE: Neither racist nor from NY.

That solution covers the "do not need" while ignoring the "I object". Roll again.

If you own a car, you have an alarm on that car, you put The Club on that car, you lock that car, you keep that car in a locked garage, and you keep those keys on your person at all times; you know, every reasonable security measure; and that car is stolen and used in a crime or involved in an accident, you are not liable. In fact, you can to much less to secure that car (pretty much anything that doesn't involve leaving the keys in it or handing the keys over to someone else) and still not be held liable for the actions of another party who used your vehicle.

This is very similar to an internet connection, in that it can be secured or not secured, used with permission and used without permission, even used with or without your knowledge, and the rules of liability should be similar, as well.

To blow another large hole in your gun analogy, I'd like to point out that, in most jurisdiction within the US, if it can not be proven that you fired the gun, it must be proven that you willingly supplied the gun to whoever did fire it before you will be held liable for the results of that firing. [primary source: my father in law, credentials withheld due to active duty status (nonmilitary); secondary source: my coworker's stepfather, a recently retired cop; tertiary source: my coworker's mother, a recently retired police dispatcher] Even your analogy indicated that the "owner" of an internet connection should not be held liable for the use of that connection to commit an infringement unless, as is the case with a car or gun, it can be proven that they, or a party they explicitly authorized, were, in fact, the one who used that connection to commit said infringement. The laws governing liability for acts committed with firearms and vehicles do account for security, as well, in that they do place liability on the shoulders of the owner if a vehicle is left with the keys in the ignition or a gun is left sitting out in the open, or similar situations where parties not explicitly authorized by the owner may have easy access; the law places liability on the owner in those cases, and I agree that similar laws regarding internet connections should place liability on the "owner" of the connection when an ethernet port is left in an unsecured location (e.g. unlocked utility box on the side of the building) or a wireless router is left unsecured. The flip side of that is that, if steps are taken to secure the resource, just as with firearms and vehicles, liability should fall on the party who circumvented those measures and used the resource without the permission or knowledge of the "owner".

The law is already very clear on this, but for some reason people get confused when you throw in the phrase "on a computer". See: USPTO.

What percentage of guns can be taken from inside the home they're sitting in, locked up or not, without setting foot in that home? The analogy just doesn't fit, quit trying to force it.

When I'm using my gun, I know, beyond any doubt, that nobody else is; when I'm not using it, it's locked up securely. When I'm using my internet connection, I know I've taken reasonable steps to secure it and only allow authorized users, but I don't have the same level of assurance that those measures haven't been bypassed, and it's no more secure when I'm not using it than when I am. The number of possible users and means by which access can be gained makes all the difference.

An internet connection can easily be shared between multiple simultaneous users. When 5 people can aim and fire 1 gun at the same time, I'll agree with you.

4chan Profile for: Anonymous

Employer: /b/
Occupation: Legion
Hobbies: Not forgiving, not forgetting, being expected

That's where I stopped reading.

Offpissing. I think I found a new word that I like.

Yet, by your posts here, I can deduce that you assume I'm not familiar with mine. No wonder I would question that.

If you leave it at your desk most of the time, wouldn't something like, oh, I don't know... a less expensive and more powerful *desktop* be a better fit? Paired with something like Surface Pro, you have the same functionality you've got now.

I can see the argument for not wanting one, and I'm not saying everyone *should* want one. I'm just trying to make clear the arguments *for* wanting one, since those of you who don't can't seem to wrap your closed minds around why someone else would.

As for the digitizer, it has the all the features of the $2000 digitizer (albeit about half the size) I've been eyeballing, plus an entire PC built into it. If I'm looking at a $2000 digitizer, I obviously have a serious need for one, so why wouldn't I buy this?

I'll be sure to keep you updated, then. I don't use the Journal feature here that often, but I'll use it for this. It's a lower DPI than my 4.3" 720p phone and I don't have trouble using touch with desktop apps via AirDisplay on that, so I think we'll both be pleasantly surprised.

You said "laptops", not "smaller laptops", so your point was a bit unclear.

I know plenty of laptops have good 1080p screens. I'm using one right now. I mentioned that in my post. Thanks for your useless input, though.