SJS wrote:
begin quoting MattyJ as of Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:00PM -0700:
My what a can of worms I opened on this one. I have to jump back in here
and say that if my neighbor produced so little trash that it would
easily fit in my unused can space, I would have absolutely no problem
with him putting it there with or without my knowledge or permission! If
I'm walking down the street drinking a soda and I finish it, I will drop
it into the next person's can that I see, is that stealing?
That's not stealing at all. I purposely tried to frame it in the context
of somenone taking advantage of a situation to get something for free. My
hypothetical neighbor is trying to get something for free by not paying
for garbage collection, and if you want to subsidize that, then I guess
that's your right to foot his garbage collection bill.
The problem is that the trespass issue screws it up.
If person A goes on person B's property to fill up the trashcan before
person B can, there's a trespass issue, and that deviates from the wifi
situation.
If person A waits until person B's trashcan is on the curb, then there's
no harm, no foul, no problem -- but that doesn't quite match the
situation either.
If person B puts their trashcan on person A's property, and person A
fills up the trashcan before person B can do so, you get something a
lot closer (but still not a very good match).
Probably the best match so far, but you just didn't take it far enough.
After B sets trashcan on A's property, A puts a few things in B's
trashcan and sets it back onto B's property. But automagically, B's
trashcan comes back and A puts more in and sets it back again, and so on.
--
Ralph
--------------------
I'm willing to pay real money ... or US currency, whichever you prefer.
--Lan Barnes
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
