Well, the article says "the ten shaded countries are those in which more than 200 languages are in use," so it does look you would need to find another map to account for places where so many native languages have been killed off.
@Alex: Beats me. I don't think there is any universal method for determining what does or does not qualify. Like beauty and taste, it's an aesthetic--all relative, and all subjective.
(I still see latching on to an unsecured wireless signal as being distinctly different from tapping into a neighbor's cable or electricity, simply because unsecured wireless networks are by nature public and intentionally designed to be freely accessible.)
"(And take note that many people are unaware about wireless security.)"
"Of course its stealing, IF the person isn't knowingly sharing it."
These quotes show exactly why I consider using open access points to be a gray area. In a perfect world, people would understand what wireless routers do and how they work before setting up their networks, but too often, they don't have the first clue, and so aren't aware that the settings they use make their personal connection into a de facto free ISP.
In that perfect world, only the willing would leave their networks open, and those who weren't wouldn't.
I don't know, Von, I think it's more of a gray area than that. After all, they aren't exactly reaching over your fence, much less going into your house through an unlocked door. YOUR unsecured signal is in THEIR house (or car, or office, or at their picnic table, etc). I think it falls on the owners of connections to secure them--otherwise they are providing internet access to the public.
To push the analogy, it's as if you are playing music that you've purchased loudly enough for your neighbors to hear and enjoy it. You can't get mad at them for listening--if you didn't want them to listen, you'd turn down the volume. (Yes, I do understand that listening is passive and accessing the internet is active, and that there is a difference. Again, I just think that ethically, it's not clear cut.)
For the record, my wireless signal at home is secured, and when I'm out, I only use signals when the access is granted intentionally.
Like Juice and gryt say, our species' population growth is unsustainable and needs to slow, but saying that it needs to change doesn't equate to an endorsement of China's policies.
I'd be willing to wager that chimps possessing the requisite brain structures would find a way to speak, even if that speech didn't manifest itself using the same vocal mechanisms that humans use.
"The city of The Dalles, Ore.—familiar as the last stop on the Oregon Trail to anyone who played the eponymous computer game—is named for rock formations along the Columbia River."
"Of course its stealing, IF the person isn't knowingly sharing it."
These quotes show exactly why I consider using open access points to be a gray area. In a perfect world, people would understand what wireless routers do and how they work before setting up their networks, but too often, they don't have the first clue, and so aren't aware that the settings they use make their personal connection into a de facto free ISP.
In that perfect world, only the willing would leave their networks open, and those who weren't wouldn't.
To push the analogy, it's as if you are playing music that you've purchased loudly enough for your neighbors to hear and enjoy it. You can't get mad at them for listening--if you didn't want them to listen, you'd turn down the volume. (Yes, I do understand that listening is passive and accessing the internet is active, and that there is a difference. Again, I just think that ethically, it's not clear cut.)
For the record, my wireless signal at home is secured, and when I'm out, I only use signals when the access is granted intentionally.
"The city of The Dalles, Ore.—familiar as the last stop on the Oregon Trail to anyone who played the eponymous computer game—is named for rock formations along the Columbia River."