Eh dude, you know... I shouldn't have been such a dick at the end there. You have valid points. Not that I have had a change of opinion >:) I happen to see Great things happening if all open networks can be seen as free use (mesh networking, shared resources, to name a couple).
Peace man, maybe next time we won't break each others' balls so much...
Eh dude, you know... I shouldn't have been such a dick at the end there. You have valid points. Not that I have had a change of opinion >:) I happen to see Great things happening if all open networks can be seen as free use (mesh networking, shared resources, to name a couple).
Peace man, maybe next time we won't break each others' balls so much...
Man, you are really bad at this game. It isn't analogous because everyone who has a wireless router has the option to secure it. It is justification to use it because it is an open invitation, like a webserver or any other server/network in the entire history of computing. You knock, and if the server/network lets you in, this is construed as authorizing such access. What you are talking about is like putting a sign in your lawn that says "feel free to use our hose," and then calling someone who uses it a thief.
Second, I never said they should be made illegal, you fucking idiot. Oh my bad, I guess I misunderstood you... I don't know how that could be what with your angry, rambling, incoherent style of writing. That and you didn't have a point with it, just: "What if?" Well so what? Whatever the point of your outburst at the end there, it isn't pertinent to the question of whether accessing an open network is ethical.
I know someone who seems like they took some "stupid pills," or maybe more accurately "troll pills," today but it sure as hell ain't me. The funny thing is that you don't realize what little amount of argument you have, and how full of holes it is; the funny thing is you don't realize you've lost this argument.
P.S. Does calling me names make you feel better about your ignorance?
Yeah, sure, I'm the dumb one. LOL. You need to look up the definition of analogous. You're hypothetical situation doesn't correlate to the way wireless technology is used in the real world. Therefore, it is not analogous to any realistic situation. The other poster's example, while also unrealistic, is analogous because the activities within correlate to realistic situations regarding wireless.
And then you go on to use the argument that because open wireless networks have the potential to be used for illegal things... that using them should be made illegal. Brilliant. That doesn't have anything to do with whether using an open network is ethical or not.
I am not digging around, I have valid points that you don't care to address. I am not digging around at all. I've had the same points this whole thread. That you refuse to address. If you had some sort of logical retort to them, I would be happy to listen. But, this is how servers and networks have worked for practically their entire history. By not preventing access, you are granting said access. It is tantamount to putting a sign in your... of fuck it. I've said this already. If you want to have a discussion fine, but otherwise bugger the fuck off.
No, you're trying to say using someone's wifi is stealing when in fact it isn't. That's where we disagree. Of course stealing money from someone is wrong whether you break into their house or gain unauthorized access to their PayPal account.
I'll finish by saying that property is a convention, one where access is by default denied. I don't lock up my lawn furniture, or even my car. However, the convention regarding servers and networks has been that access is by default permitted. That's what you are missing. In general, you attempt to connect to a server/network and are either allowed access or denied. SERVERS/NETWORKS ARE NOT THE SAME AS CARS OR LAWN FURNITURE. And if I put up a sign that said "Feel free to use my car or lawn furniture," I wouldn't try to say someone who did so was stealing or trespassing because the sign "was only meant for me."
That is just ridiculous. The whole point is that there are certain ways you advertise servers and computer networks as open, i.e. you don't block access. Clearly, disregarding the intentions of your host by bypassing their security measures is not at all like that.
Sounds like I'm rattling you. Good. It's funny that you won't discuss this, just spout off worse and worse analogies. And now you are resorting to name calling. Nice!
You are calling me simple minded, while saying that water spilling out onto the sidewalk is somehow akin to broadcasting?! At least the handset one is a decent analogy. The difference though is that cordless phones are not intended to interface with others' phones, whereas wireless routers are intended to set up a wireless network which any computer with the proper vicinity and equipment can attempt to access. And if you don't want them to, secure your damn network! Sure, those phones are poorly designed. (Why not have a unique key for each phone?)
I say my previous hose analogies stand. And you don't have a retort to them do you?
Trespassing onto someone's private property to steal goods is very different from accessing a wireless signal that has been transmitted to your home and that you have used your laptop to ask permission for a DHCP lease. It's more analogous to asking your neighbor (authorization control) if you can use their hose. Wireless is more like the neighbor having a sign up in the front lawn saying "Feel free to use the hose." You are telling me they should expect neighbors to look at it and think the sign is only for the individuals who live in the residence?
Next you will tell me listening to the radio is illegal, because I haven't asked the local stations permission to listen to their broadcasts:\
Real life: you can secure your network.
Your example: security isn't "invented" ("Gee, who would have thought that if I am transmitting my wireless signal to the whole world, and for some reason everyone has wireless cards, it might get stolen? Gee whiz!")
So, for that reason and several others your story isn't analogous to the wireless we use everyday. Sure, it's an analogy, but not to contemporary wireless technology.
That it is unethical, not only to make him pay for your wireless access but No one's making him pay! He needs to put a damn password on his connection, if he doesn't want people to use it.
also to potentially be subject to the legal ramifications of your online activities Using someone's open wireless to surf or whatever is a lot different than using their wireless to commit illegal acts. You know, those are illegal. I hope you can see the difference there.
No one would assume that they are authorized to use someone's electricity, water, etc. There is no fucking DHCP server assigning you fucking hoses when you physically trespass into their yard. Sorry, bucko. You lose.
It is not a realistic scenario, no, but a good analogy. Whereas yours is unrealistic and not analogous to the situation at all. WEP/WPA certainly exist, and if someone is monopolizing the bandwidth available through your open AP, you have the option of securing your network.
I think you are being snarky, and I find it hard to believe that you've truly "mastered" all those fields, but I would find it hard to believe that you don't possess critical thinking skills after all that;)
True dat. The sooner you can look beyond your own "ego" and start looking at the world objectively, the better. Another couple of books I would recommend are the Tao Te Ching and of course Socrates. Also, a well rounded course of study in Maths, Theology/Mythology/Folklore (you don't have to believe but it puts the world's people in a more realistic perspective), Literature, The Arts, and of course Science and especially Computing, etc...
Oh man, that would be annoying if you had your account set up that way... that ain't default now is it?
"-1 Oldest First" all the way.
I have to disagree with you though. Complaining seems to exacerbate most problems. One is much better served either working on a solution to the current problem or accepting that you can't or won't do anything about it (you are free to pick either option in any situation). Seems like complaining for the sake of complaining is only a waste of time. Maybe that's just me, but it sure seems like the world needs fewer annoying complaints and more time spent working on solving problems...
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that brother!
Only rednecks do stupid things, of course. Everyone knows this ;)
You are seriously a delusional fuckass.
Dude, I don't even care about what your hypothetical situation is. IT IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO WIFI.
Eh dude, you know... I shouldn't have been such a dick at the end there. You have valid points. Not that I have had a change of opinion >:) I happen to see Great things happening if all open networks can be seen as free use (mesh networking, shared resources, to name a couple). Peace man, maybe next time we won't break each others' balls so much...
Eh dude, you know... I shouldn't have been such a dick at the end there. You have valid points. Not that I have had a change of opinion >:) I happen to see Great things happening if all open networks can be seen as free use (mesh networking, shared resources, to name a couple).
Peace man, maybe next time we won't break each others' balls so much...
I know someone who seems like they took some "stupid pills," or maybe more accurately "troll pills," today but it sure as hell ain't me. The funny thing is that you don't realize what little amount of argument you have, and how full of holes it is; the funny thing is you don't realize you've lost this argument.
P.S. Does calling me names make you feel better about your ignorance?
Yeah, sure, I'm the dumb one. LOL. You need to look up the definition of analogous. You're hypothetical situation doesn't correlate to the way wireless technology is used in the real world. Therefore, it is not analogous to any realistic situation. The other poster's example, while also unrealistic, is analogous because the activities within correlate to realistic situations regarding wireless.
And then you go on to use the argument that because open wireless networks have the potential to be used for illegal things... that using them should be made illegal. Brilliant. That doesn't have anything to do with whether using an open network is ethical or not.
I am not digging around, I have valid points that you don't care to address. I am not digging around at all. I've had the same points this whole thread. That you refuse to address. If you had some sort of logical retort to them, I would be happy to listen. But, this is how servers and networks have worked for practically their entire history. By not preventing access, you are granting said access. It is tantamount to putting a sign in your ... of fuck it. I've said this already. If you want to have a discussion fine, but otherwise bugger the fuck off.
No, you're trying to say using someone's wifi is stealing when in fact it isn't. That's where we disagree. Of course stealing money from someone is wrong whether you break into their house or gain unauthorized access to their PayPal account.
I'll finish by saying that property is a convention, one where access is by default denied. I don't lock up my lawn furniture, or even my car. However, the convention regarding servers and networks has been that access is by default permitted. That's what you are missing. In general, you attempt to connect to a server/network and are either allowed access or denied. SERVERS/NETWORKS ARE NOT THE SAME AS CARS OR LAWN FURNITURE. And if I put up a sign that said "Feel free to use my car or lawn furniture," I wouldn't try to say someone who did so was stealing or trespassing because the sign "was only meant for me."
That is just ridiculous. The whole point is that there are certain ways you advertise servers and computer networks as open, i.e. you don't block access. Clearly, disregarding the intentions of your host by bypassing their security measures is not at all like that.
Sounds like I'm rattling you. Good. It's funny that you won't discuss this, just spout off worse and worse analogies. And now you are resorting to name calling. Nice!
You are calling me simple minded, while saying that water spilling out onto the sidewalk is somehow akin to broadcasting?! At least the handset one is a decent analogy. The difference though is that cordless phones are not intended to interface with others' phones, whereas wireless routers are intended to set up a wireless network which any computer with the proper vicinity and equipment can attempt to access. And if you don't want them to, secure your damn network! Sure, those phones are poorly designed. (Why not have a unique key for each phone?)
I say my previous hose analogies stand. And you don't have a retort to them do you?
Trespassing onto someone's private property to steal goods is very different from accessing a wireless signal that has been transmitted to your home and that you have used your laptop to ask permission for a DHCP lease. It's more analogous to asking your neighbor (authorization control) if you can use their hose. Wireless is more like the neighbor having a sign up in the front lawn saying "Feel free to use the hose." You are telling me they should expect neighbors to look at it and think the sign is only for the individuals who live in the residence?
:\
Next you will tell me listening to the radio is illegal, because I haven't asked the local stations permission to listen to their broadcasts
Real life: you can secure your network.
Your example: security isn't "invented" ("Gee, who would have thought that if I am transmitting my wireless signal to the whole world, and for some reason everyone has wireless cards, it might get stolen? Gee whiz!")
So, for that reason and several others your story isn't analogous to the wireless we use everyday. Sure, it's an analogy, but not to contemporary wireless technology. That it is unethical, not only to make him pay for your wireless access but No one's making him pay! He needs to put a damn password on his connection, if he doesn't want people to use it. also to potentially be subject to the legal ramifications of your online activities Using someone's open wireless to surf or whatever is a lot different than using their wireless to commit illegal acts. You know, those are illegal. I hope you can see the difference there.
No one would assume that they are authorized to use someone's electricity, water, etc. There is no fucking DHCP server assigning you fucking hoses when you physically trespass into their yard. Sorry, bucko. You lose.
It is not a realistic scenario, no, but a good analogy. Whereas yours is unrealistic and not analogous to the situation at all. WEP/WPA certainly exist, and if someone is monopolizing the bandwidth available through your open AP, you have the option of securing your network.
:(
Now, take your flame/troll crap elsewhere
Mmm... good analogy, but the previous poster's was much better ;)
Aw, shit. Civ explains everything...
Uh, duh! Ever hear of the scientific method?
He's right. You are totally misunderstanding what he is saying...
I think you are being snarky, and I find it hard to believe that you've truly "mastered" all those fields, but I would find it hard to believe that you don't possess critical thinking skills after all that ;)
True dat. The sooner you can look beyond your own "ego" and start looking at the world objectively, the better. Another couple of books I would recommend are the Tao Te Ching and of course Socrates. Also, a well rounded course of study in Maths, Theology/Mythology/Folklore (you don't have to believe but it puts the world's people in a more realistic perspective), Literature, The Arts, and of course Science and especially Computing, etc...
Hee hee... you left out an important comma.
::Lights another batty::
ThiRsTY S3conD p05t!!!!!11!1!!
Oh man, that would be annoying if you had your account set up that way... that ain't default now is it?
"-1 Oldest First" all the way.
I have to disagree with you though. Complaining seems to exacerbate most problems. One is much better served either working on a solution to the current problem or accepting that you can't or won't do anything about it (you are free to pick either option in any situation). Seems like complaining for the sake of complaining is only a waste of time. Maybe that's just me, but it sure seems like the world needs fewer annoying complaints and more time spent working on solving problems...