Metropol

miss hellfire wrote:Hehehe... Sure it's not the Red wine?

Wait about fifty-five minutes for the answer, all about the wine, to be published on a well-known website near you!

tvmercia wrote:i know it isn't strictly fair to piggy back on other people's networks, but i can assure you the piggy backing consists of simple web browsing, rather than any bandwidth hogging downloads and it is not a long term situation - hence the reluctance to install a bt line etc.

There are three schools of thought to my mind on this:

1) If other people can't be arsed to secure their wireless networks and then go over their monthly cap or whatever because the rest of the street is piggy backing all day, then it serves them right and its finders keepers.

2) Other using people's networks is okay on a temporary basis (for example if your broadband connection is not working for whatever reason) and you only intend to sit on this roaming practice until your connection comes back and just general web browse in the meantime.

3) It's my network, why should anybody have access to it? Therefore I will secure it and let nobody but me on it as I'm paying £xx.99 a month for me, not Joe Public.

i have my own wireless network at home, having purchased all the equipment and paying the monthly bill. so i am not a complete freeloader, and, crucially, of course, i took the time of securing it. however i have the need to use a computer in another location which just happens to have 3 unsecured networks within radius - 2 of which have signal strengths of 35ish%.

Depending on the routers used in question, you'd be surprised how low the signal strength can go before the wireless connection is terminated by Windows.

having taken a laptop and wireless usb connector to the location the signal strength varies from 30 to 40% on the networks, and sometimes all 3 of the networks disappear. surely people don't turn their wireless routers off? and sometimes i can get disconnected several times within 10 minutes- then go for three quarters of an hour uninterrupted. high sided lorries or buses could not fit down the road, so i guess it cant be that.

Some routers can reduce the outgoing strength of their wireless transmissions automatically when it can see no need to be broadcasting. Usually they ramp up the strength again when a nearby antenna (usually in the same house) connects to it.

But having said that, it all depends on: 1) What lies between the source router and your aerial, 2) The router in question (some have great difficulty transmitting through very much at all), 3) Atmospheric conditions. Just like teletext is very sensitive to the quality of the TV signal (even a slight drop in quality scrambles the text), even wireless signals can be thrown off course by nature.

Hymagumba wrote:I've had my hair cut sicne the last one was taken so I shall be needing to get a new one when my camera returns from the repair place.

Repair! Again? You were sending it off to Ko-Dak in your lil What do you sound like video, is it still not fixed.

Bail wrote:Ko-Dak

I'm hope you is not skittin my accent biatch.

it's the same fault again - they're replacing it this time.

Not at all, Not at all. Same fault, iffy timer if I recall. Why not moan and get a newer model? Say it will do it again and you don't trust Ko-Dak.

Neil Jones wrote:2) Other using people's networks is okay on a temporary basis

From the Communications Act 2003 - ref:

125. Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services

(1) A person who-
(a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
(b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.

(2) It is not an offence under this section to obtain a service mentioned in section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48 ) (dishonestly obtaining a broadcasting or cable programme service provided from a place in the UK).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/ ... 473,00.htm

oh who cares?