"Do you want to live in a world where you must get consent from a human before doing anything?"
Not at all, and I hate straw men like that, dump the logical fallacies if you expect people to listen.
What I do want is a world where people ask ME for MY permission (my access point is not me, nor an authorized representative of me, nor a proxy for me, nor have I signed over power of attorney, so the AP doesn't count) before they use MY stuff.
Why is is that you people think that's too much to ask?
"if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? "
You name the access point "open for public use" or something similar. There's your sign.
"The sign is out there, but you're arguing that the sign is not valid"
What sign is that? Not being encrypted? That's not a sign that says "use me" it's a sign that says "not encrypted" and those aren't the same.
Here's my problem with this "open AP = permission" lie, that is, people trying that argument are assuming the most favorable possible scenario in regards to the ambiguity of the situation, that is, "if it's not actively preventing me, that means it's ok". That line of reasoning is nonsense, because not being prevented in no way implies permission to use.
So getting explicit permission from the owner doesn't fall under "personal responsibility" but not securing my network does?
"Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP."
No it isn't. I'm so tired of this crap from you people that I could scream, listen very carefully. Ready?
FAILING TO PREVENT YOU FROM ENTERING IS NOT THE SAME AS PERMISSION TO ENTER. Even worse, your claim that it is "actively inviting" other people to connect is just ridiculous. Again, NOT PREVENTING YOU FROM ENTERING IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO INVITING YOU IN.
It fascinates me that here on Slashdot, a place where logical fallacies like the one you're using usually get shot to hell, the people here are all too happy to generally ignore it.
""Hello, come connect to me!""
NO. WRONG. It is saying "I am in a state where connections are possible." Your attempt to once again pretend that is equivalent to "connecting to me is acceptable/encouraged" is transparent and still wrong.
"How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broadcasting an invitation to connect to an open network?"
Because the USER isn't broadcasting ANYTHING, the AP is, and what it's broadcasting isn't an "invitation to connect to an open network" it is simply THE OPERATING STATE OF THE AP.
Your assumption that the operating state of the AP is giving you the information you claim is YOUR failure, said information is not being transmitted.
The truth is, you're using something without permission. The AP does not have the ability to grant said permission, and repeating your fallacious argument doesn't change anything.
While I agree with everything you said, I can't help but feel that we're both wasting our time discussing this.
It's sad that people will go to such lengths to rationalize taking something they didn't pay for (and didn't ask the owner permission to use, that little tidbit always gets ignored) and try to make it seem like it was someone else's fault for not locking them out.
I mean, seriously, when you see arguments modded to +5 that say "it's legal because your access point gave me permission" you know that the discussion is going nowhere.
Rights are inherent. They can't be "taken away". So either you still have it, or it wasn't a right.
You decide which situation you want to admit to and thus be a liar, I'll wait.
"And you have no argument. Again."
Sorry, but "They had it and I don't, and I want it" isn't much of an argument either genius, and I destroyed your idiotic attempt to claim the entitlements you're whining about were rights.
So you have no argument, but you're also a liar. And even assuming I have no argument, that's still puts me ahead of you.
The problem is, and you're apparently very stupid not to realize this, I NEVER CLAIMED IN ANY WAY YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THOSE THINGS YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT. Go ahead slut, check. Re-read the posts you're too stupid to understand, and you'll realize it's true.
What I said, FROM THE BEGINNING is that whining like a bitch about it like you and others have make you appear entitled, which people find distasteful.
See, you were just too stupid to understand it, it was there the whole time. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for comprehension and less time blathering about what you want, you'd have avoided looking like a fucking moron. Again.
See now dumbass?
It's not "you shouldn't have them" it "whining like a 4 year old about not having them makes you look like a cunt".
"I want the exact same thing that the previous generation got. No more, no less."
You're a liar.
"Guess us black people shouldn't have demanded our "entitlement" to freedom, same as whites, right? "
I see, you really are stupid, I was just using it as an epithet, but you apparently are a moron. If you want what they had, "No more, no less." then you're going to get lynchings. Please give me your address so I can come over and give you what you want.
"So stupid you can't spell you?"
I would much rather that be what you choose to attack, as it makes it clear you can't refute anything else in my argument. OOOH you so got me, I made a typo.
Meanwhile, the best argument you can come up with doesn't even make sense and has been crushed by me repeatedly. I made a typo, and you're intellectually incapable if forwarding a coherent argument.
I'll take a typo all fucking day, as I can use spellcheck, sadly for you though, there's no "idiotic post check" to prevent you from displaying your stupidity in public.
"Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?"
Well, mostly because that's what science does.
"As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught."
No, it would benefit a scientist by allowing them to remain true to their ethics and principles.
"Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?"
I honestly couldn't care less. Drawing equivalence between my behavior and that of religious zealots has never been a concern for me, and how they choose to go about delivering their message has no bearing on how I deliver mine.
Science doesn't hide things because they're uncomfortable. Science doesn't avoid difficult questions because the answers may be unpleasant.
It sounds very much like you're advocating the same kind of half-truth and obfuscation based propaganda of the church, and I reject that garbage as vehemently as I am able.
So the answer to "Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?" is "Because those conflicts exist, and science isn't about hiding from things you don't like or can't deal with."
"I for one am very impressed at how many scientific "facts" get shot down by new evidence every week, at least in the area of cosmology(is cosmology the right term?)."
Name some AC. I realize I'm responding to an AC, who is most likely AC because they believe in fairy tales but don't want to admit it so you post AC with an observation of how many "facts" get shot down every week.
So now that we all know what the real deal is, name some of those "facts" AC. You talk about the importance of discerning between facts and theories, but I bet most of those "facts" you think were "facts" were never presented to you as anything other than theories, ESPECIALLY if they're regarding "cosmology".
Are you sure you're not intentionally confusing them in a weak attempt to make scientists, and science in general, appear wishy washy and willing to jump to conclusions?
"On August 9, 2005, the Board approved a draft of science curriculum standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution" and "intelligent design". This echoes a previous decision in Kansas. In 1999, the Board ruled that instruction about evolution, the age of the earth, and the origin of the universe was permitted, but not mandatory, and that those topics would not appear on state standardized tests. However, the Board reversed this decision February 14, 2001, ruling that instruction of all those topics was mandatory and that they would appear on standardized tests. On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe", [1] or what is known as "Methodological naturalism"
"You've heard the brewing haha. Four members of the Polk school board--Lofton, Kay Fields, Tim Harris and Hazel Sellers--were shocked, shocked!, when comments they made to a newspaper regarding the teaching of evolution ignited a firestorm of dismay and derision. What'd they say? Sample comment: "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum. If [evolution] is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." That's Lofton."
THAT makes it an issue.
"You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it"."
Nonsense. The purpose of this discussion isn't how to convince religious people that science disproves their religion, it's about how to "communicate" to a polarized audience. Communicate doesn't mean "convince".
You're not attempting to disprove anything, you're trying to disseminate accurate information in a way that a non scientist could understand.
"I use a special full spectrum light to keep me from going into involuntary hibernation in winter...It makes you wonder what biological basis there is for blue light to set circadian rhythm."
Not really, I was wondering how a bear could type with such big paws.
"Recently, other unconventional superconductors, not based on cuprate structure, have been discovered. Some have unusually high values of the critical temperature, Tc, and hence they are sometimes also called high-temperature superconductors. The record-high Tc at standard pressure,[3] 138 K, is held by a cuprate-perovskite material"
That works out to about -135 degrees Celsius, or -211 degrees Fahrenheit
"I wonder how many people who do not give away their auto mobiles after they die and no longer have any use for them are to blame for car theft. No need to steal a car if you can legally obtain one that has been donated for your use for free."
I fixed your post to make it more accurately reflect the situation.
It didn't change my karma one bit. It did, however, reinforce how badly I got into your head. It must suck to know you can't out debate me and you can't mod me away, so you have to sit there in anonymous shame knowing I crushed you.
"If that's entitlement, then god help us all for being so "entitled" as to demand equal treatment."
You're not demanding equal treatment moron. You're not demanding all the negatives, you're just bitching because you don't get all the positives.
Get it? I know you don't, but you need to try.
That's not equal treatment, and your inability to understand that goes a long way toward explaining why you have such an inappropriate sense of entitlement.
And he's a whiny. petulant brat with a grossly out of proportion sense of entitlement.
"If I saw my parents' generation reap the benefits of free education and dentistry, then stop paying for it when they got old, I'd be pissed too"
Please point to any post where I said being "pissed" about that is a problem? You don't seem to understand what "sense of entitlement" means.
"It's not entitlement to expect the same deal the previous generation got. "
Actually, that is EXACTLY what it means, and saying "nuh uh" repeatedly doesn't change that.
"If it is,"
Oh it is, but I thought you just said it wasn't? Make up your mind.
"then the behavior of the boomers is just rapacious, which makes entitlement downright civilized."
That's just stupid. Someone else gets something you don't, so acting like a brat is "civilized"? A spoiled brat might think so, which explains why you think that way.
"It's MY RIGHT to free healthcare. MY RIGHT to higher education. Just because you call it "entitlement" doesn't make it so, any more so than you're "entitled" to your rights."
That kind of thinking explains why you posted AC.
"Just because you call it "entitlement" doesn't make it so"
And just because you call it a right doesn't make it so.
"Any chance you could grow a brain before continuing?"
Any chance you're going to come up with an argument that isn't "I want it I want it I want it, I'm going to crybaby and call names until I get it WAHHHHHHHH!!!"?
"Getting the same as everyone else isn't a privilege dipshit."
Is that really how you want to do this? You get proven wrong about your obvious feelings of entitlement, going so far as to give a textbook definition of entitlement in your post, and now you're going to take issue with what a "privilege" is.
I don't think you could have demonstrated that you're a petulant brat with an inflated sense of entitlement any more effectively if you tried.
Slashdot Mirror
"Insofar as "public education" is financed by the government, no, I'm not sure that I am aware of that. "
No guy, you're parsing it wrong, because you're making a faulty assumption.
Public
education campaign.
Education campaign of the public.
For instance, PSAs from MADD, the Humane Society, or any other PRIVATE institution.
You assumed something that wasn't there. It's not hard to understand (usually...)
"Do you want to live in a world where you must get consent from a human before doing anything?"
Not at all, and I hate straw men like that, dump the logical fallacies if you expect people to listen.
What I do want is a world where people ask ME for MY permission (my access point is not me, nor an authorized representative of me, nor a proxy for me, nor have I signed over power of attorney, so the AP doesn't count) before they use MY stuff.
Why is is that you people think that's too much to ask?
You are aware that a public education campaign can exist without the government aren't you? Because your post makes it appear that you're not.
You're not allowed to resent any of those things, it makes you a racist.
We'll just pretend like your post never happened.
"if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? "
You name the access point "open for public use" or something similar. There's your sign.
"The sign is out there, but you're arguing that the sign is not valid"
What sign is that? Not being encrypted? That's not a sign that says "use me" it's a sign that says "not encrypted" and those aren't the same.
Here's my problem with this "open AP = permission" lie, that is, people trying that argument are assuming the most favorable possible scenario in regards to the ambiguity of the situation, that is, "if it's not actively preventing me, that means it's ok". That line of reasoning is nonsense, because not being prevented in no way implies permission to use.
"Personal responsibility:"
So getting explicit permission from the owner doesn't fall under "personal responsibility" but not securing my network does?
"Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP."
No it isn't. I'm so tired of this crap from you people that I could scream, listen very carefully. Ready?
FAILING TO PREVENT YOU FROM ENTERING IS NOT THE SAME AS PERMISSION TO ENTER. Even worse, your claim that it is "actively inviting" other people to connect is just ridiculous. Again, NOT PREVENTING YOU FROM ENTERING IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO INVITING YOU IN.
It fascinates me that here on Slashdot, a place where logical fallacies like the one you're using usually get shot to hell, the people here are all too happy to generally ignore it.
""Hello, come connect to me!""
NO. WRONG. It is saying "I am in a state where connections are possible." Your attempt to once again pretend that is equivalent to "connecting to me is acceptable/encouraged" is transparent and still wrong.
"How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broadcasting an invitation to connect to an open network?"
Because the USER isn't broadcasting ANYTHING, the AP is, and what it's broadcasting isn't an "invitation to connect to an open network" it is simply THE OPERATING STATE OF THE AP.
Your assumption that the operating state of the AP is giving you the information you claim is YOUR failure, said information is not being transmitted.
The truth is, you're using something without permission. The AP does not have the ability to grant said permission, and repeating your fallacious argument doesn't change anything.
While I agree with everything you said, I can't help but feel that we're both wasting our time discussing this.
It's sad that people will go to such lengths to rationalize taking something they didn't pay for (and didn't ask the owner permission to use, that little tidbit always gets ignored) and try to make it seem like it was someone else's fault for not locking them out.
I mean, seriously, when you see arguments modded to +5 that say "it's legal because your access point gave me permission" you know that the discussion is going nowhere.
"Now that right has been taken away."
Rights are inherent. They can't be "taken away". So either you still have it, or it wasn't a right.
You decide which situation you want to admit to and thus be a liar, I'll wait.
"And you have no argument. Again."
Sorry, but "They had it and I don't, and I want it" isn't much of an argument either genius, and I destroyed your idiotic attempt to claim the entitlements you're whining about were rights.
So you have no argument, but you're also a liar. And even assuming I have no argument, that's still puts me ahead of you.
The problem is, and you're apparently very stupid not to realize this, I NEVER CLAIMED IN ANY WAY YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THOSE THINGS YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT. Go ahead slut, check. Re-read the posts you're too stupid to understand, and you'll realize it's true.
What I said, FROM THE BEGINNING is that whining like a bitch about it like you and others have make you appear entitled, which people find distasteful.
See, you were just too stupid to understand it, it was there the whole time. Perhaps if you spent more time reading for comprehension and less time blathering about what you want, you'd have avoided looking like a fucking moron. Again.
See now dumbass?
It's not "you shouldn't have them" it "whining like a 4 year old about not having them makes you look like a cunt".
Which you do.
"I want the exact same thing that the previous generation got. No more, no less."
You're a liar.
"Guess us black people shouldn't have demanded our "entitlement" to freedom, same as whites, right? "
I see, you really are stupid, I was just using it as an epithet, but you apparently are a moron. If you want what they had, "No more, no less." then you're going to get lynchings. Please give me your address so I can come over and give you what you want.
"So stupid you can't spell you?"
I would much rather that be what you choose to attack, as it makes it clear you can't refute anything else in my argument. OOOH you so got me, I made a typo.
Meanwhile, the best argument you can come up with doesn't even make sense and has been crushed by me repeatedly. I made a typo, and you're intellectually incapable if forwarding a coherent argument.
I'll take a typo all fucking day, as I can use spellcheck, sadly for you though, there's no "idiotic post check" to prevent you from displaying your stupidity in public.
It's sad that losers like you get shut the fuck up in public, so have to resort to modding me down for no reason in private.
"Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?"
Well, mostly because that's what science does.
"As far as I can tell, this would only benefit the religious as a marker for what they don't have to believe in or allow taught."
No, it would benefit a scientist by allowing them to remain true to their ethics and principles.
"Turn it around the other way -- would the religious people allow a marker to be put on all their religious texts where it potentially disagreed with science? No?"
I honestly couldn't care less. Drawing equivalence between my behavior and that of religious zealots has never been a concern for me, and how they choose to go about delivering their message has no bearing on how I deliver mine.
Science doesn't hide things because they're uncomfortable. Science doesn't avoid difficult questions because the answers may be unpleasant.
It sounds very much like you're advocating the same kind of half-truth and obfuscation based propaganda of the church, and I reject that garbage as vehemently as I am able.
So the answer to "Why would it be in the interest of science to point out possible conflicts with non-scientific views?" is "Because those conflicts exist, and science isn't about hiding from things you don't like or can't deal with."
"I for one am very impressed at how many scientific "facts" get shot down by new evidence every week, at least in the area of cosmology(is cosmology the right term?)."
Name some AC. I realize I'm responding to an AC, who is most likely AC because they believe in fairy tales but don't want to admit it so you post AC with an observation of how many "facts" get shot down every week.
So now that we all know what the real deal is, name some of those "facts" AC. You talk about the importance of discerning between facts and theories, but I bet most of those "facts" you think were "facts" were never presented to you as anything other than theories, ESPECIALLY if they're regarding "cosmology".
Are you sure you're not intentionally confusing them in a weak attempt to make scientists, and science in general, appear wishy washy and willing to jump to conclusions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_Board_of_Education
"On August 9, 2005, the Board approved a draft of science curriculum standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution" and "intelligent design". This echoes a previous decision in Kansas. In 1999, the Board ruled that instruction about evolution, the age of the earth, and the origin of the universe was permitted, but not mandatory, and that those topics would not appear on state standardized tests. However, the Board reversed this decision February 14, 2001, ruling that instruction of all those topics was mandatory and that they would appear on standardized tests. On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe", [1] or what is known as "Methodological naturalism"
THAT makes it an issue.
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/evolution-of-a-controversy-school-board-members-say-no-mas/
"You've heard the brewing haha. Four members of the Polk school board--Lofton, Kay Fields, Tim Harris and Hazel Sellers--were shocked, shocked!, when comments they made to a newspaper regarding the teaching of evolution ignited a firestorm of dismay and derision. What'd they say? Sample comment: "If it ever comes to the board for a vote, I will vote against the teaching of evolution as part of the science curriculum. If [evolution] is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well." That's Lofton."
THAT makes it an issue.
"You can't argue facts with people who base their stance on dogma. They have no factual basis to disprove, and no matter how convincing or simple your argument, they can always respond "god did it"."
Nonsense. The purpose of this discussion isn't how to convince religious people that science disproves their religion, it's about how to "communicate" to a polarized audience. Communicate doesn't mean "convince".
You're not attempting to disprove anything, you're trying to disseminate accurate information in a way that a non scientist could understand.
"I use a special full spectrum light to keep me from going into involuntary hibernation in winter...It makes you wonder what biological basis there is for blue light to set circadian rhythm."
Not really, I was wondering how a bear could type with such big paws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductor#History_and_progress
"Recently, other unconventional superconductors, not based on cuprate structure, have been discovered. Some have unusually high values of the critical temperature, Tc, and hence they are sometimes also called high-temperature superconductors. The record-high Tc at standard pressure,[3] 138 K, is held by a cuprate-perovskite material"
That works out to about -135 degrees Celsius, or -211 degrees Fahrenheit
"On a related note..."
Where was that? I didn't see it in your post.
"I wonder how many people who do not give away their auto mobiles after they die and no longer have any use for them are to blame for car theft. No need to steal a car if you can legally obtain one that has been donated for your use for free."
I fixed your post to make it more accurately reflect the situation.
"My cousin went to school with a guy that this happened to."
Are you sure it wasn't your cousin's mother's sister's uncle?
As an organ donor, I have to wonder how much those of you who aren't organ donors are to blame for this.
How much of a market would there be if the organs were available as a result of donation?
It didn't change my karma one bit. It did, however, reinforce how badly I got into your head. It must suck to know you can't out debate me and you can't mod me away, so you have to sit there in anonymous shame knowing I crushed you.
"If that's entitlement, then god help us all for being so "entitled" as to demand equal treatment."
You're not demanding equal treatment moron. You're not demanding all the negatives, you're just bitching because you don't get all the positives.
Get it? I know you don't, but you need to try.
That's not equal treatment, and your inability to understand that goes a long way toward explaining why you have such an inappropriate sense of entitlement.
"He's right - you're an ass."
And he's a whiny. petulant brat with a grossly out of proportion sense of entitlement.
"If I saw my parents' generation reap the benefits of free education and dentistry, then stop paying for it when they got old, I'd be pissed too"
Please point to any post where I said being "pissed" about that is a problem? You don't seem to understand what "sense of entitlement" means.
"It's not entitlement to expect the same deal the previous generation got. "
Actually, that is EXACTLY what it means, and saying "nuh uh" repeatedly doesn't change that.
"If it is,"
Oh it is, but I thought you just said it wasn't? Make up your mind.
"then the behavior of the boomers is just rapacious, which makes entitlement downright civilized."
That's just stupid. Someone else gets something you don't, so acting like a brat is "civilized"? A spoiled brat might think so, which explains why you think that way.
"Here, "ex post facto" is the opinion of the un-credentialed Wikipedia author, not of the Supreme Court or any Justice appointed by the President"
Source? Other than your opinion?
Right, you have none.
"So the source that you cited does not support"
Wrong.
"Finally, the primary source for the Wikipedia article you've been resting your case on was"
HEY DUMBASS THERE'S MORE THAN ONE CASE CITED IN MY POST
"Are you Rush Limbaugh's fact-checker?"
Are you mentally retarded?
"It's MY RIGHT to free healthcare. MY RIGHT to higher education. Just because you call it "entitlement" doesn't make it so, any more so than you're "entitled" to your rights."
That kind of thinking explains why you posted AC.
"Just because you call it "entitlement" doesn't make it so"
And just because you call it a right doesn't make it so.
"Any chance you could grow a brain before continuing?"
Any chance you're going to come up with an argument that isn't "I want it I want it I want it, I'm going to crybaby and call names until I get it WAHHHHHHHH!!!"?
Um, if you're responding to my post, could you try taking your meds first, then try again?
If you're not responding to me, then why are you responding to me?
I really don't see what your point is, since ll you did was throw out straw men (look it up, you have no idea what it means) and insult people.
Any chance you could try again and leave the logical fallacies, insults, and total lack of coherent thought out?
"Getting the same as everyone else isn't a privilege dipshit."
Is that really how you want to do this? You get proven wrong about your obvious feelings of entitlement, going so far as to give a textbook definition of entitlement in your post, and now you're going to take issue with what a "privilege" is.
I don't think you could have demonstrated that you're a petulant brat with an inflated sense of entitlement any more effectively if you tried.