I think you can agree that slicing a connector in half is quite different from inventing a teleporter. If teleportation was as easy as slicing a door height-wise in two then it wouldn't deserve a patent either.
Sigh, I know you're tying to make it look like you are taking the high road by leaving with a few veiled insults but I am personally sick of hearing the arguments you made. I am not like that at all, I accept negative numbers no problem because they have a logical basis. You can derive negative numbers many ways starting from logical bases. I will not, however, accept that x=5 because if you stand on your head and squint it kind of looks like a 2. Not all claims are equal. Make a claim, show reason and I will assess it. "If you understood my point of view you'd get my reasoning" does not count. I have never failed to understand anyone's point of view. If you take disrespect from someone disagreeing with you or pointing out flaws in an argument that you freely entered into then that is your issue and not mine.
I was hoping it not to be a waste of time. I would have loved to see some reasoning that I hadn't seen before. Disagreement is constructive.
Your smug attitude does not help your case. I get your point and I know exactly what you are trying to say. You keep claiming that I "just don't get it" and that if I could just see other people's point of view then I would agree with you. Your issue is that I do understand your point of view and I am telling you that it is not rational and not self-consistent. Some things are just not subjective; you do not get to pick and choose beliefs and claim they are just as valid because you believe them.
So here I'll point out your newest ones:
If you know anything about this, you will realise that this is firstly, not always a valid means of arguing (the falacy being the one you made, thinking the two arguments are equal), and secondly crafted to offend("you're an idiot because you believe something I have artificially made sound idiotic").
There is no fallacy in assuming those arguments are equal. Logically and rationally they are equal. Two statements with no evidence other than spoken word. Some people find it offensive because their life revolves around that spoken word but that does not mean the two statements are not logically identical.
To point out that IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Your "no need for purpose" is just as much philosophy as any religious explanation of purpose. Again, please please read what I write and not what you'd like to see. Thanks.
Philosophy is not a trump card that gets you exempt from scrutiny or logic. "No need for purpose" is the null hypothesis; in order to show that there exists a purpose you need to have reason. It is not a philosophy, it is logic, mathematics and statistics. Although you would probably try to argue atheism is a religion as well.
Not quite (most of these explanations predict things will continue much as they are (possibly until some future event).
Now there's some grade A prediction there! "Things will keep going pretty much like they have been for the last thousands of years unless something else happens in the future". Maybe they could predict lotto numbers for me next? What do you think?
This where you fail to understand. I am saying there is more than one possible rational framework. These frameworks can be mutually exclusive, but that does not mean if you think you about it, you can't understand the other side. What if there are two or even infinite rational belief systems? Imagining there is only one is where I disagree with you. If you can demonstrate the ability to see more than one, then I can provide the example(s) you want. Do you see what I am getting at now?
Two rational frameworks of reality cannot be mutually exclusive, that fails even the most basic of logic. As I showed you with your own Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics scenario. There is no both are correct here, either there is a god or there is not. I get your point; I have since you first tried to make it. What you do not get is that I am telling you that I have never seen rational reasoning for the existence of a god. If I did then I would believe in a god.
Think about equivalent but different views of the universe. If both predict the current (or even future) state of affairs, you would probably argue for the use of Occam's razor. Which is fair enough, but from within each view, each adherent argues they already do. And they may be correct. Certainly while wrong most can be rational.
A religious person's predictions are, in modern days, usually powered by what science has discovered. This is because most of the things their religion has predicted has shown false. I mean, of course, other than "things are gonna keep going". If they are wrong then they almost certainly are not rational. This is exactly the reason for the scientific method. Scrutiny, discussion, debate. This is to find "irrationality" in others' findings and beliefs. The pink unicorns are not to offend, they're to show how irrational the argument is because it is an irrational argument.
Most religions, Judeo/Christianity included (I have been using that as a frame of reference because that is most common here), have their stories from one person's perspective. Example: Moses was given the 10 commandments alone. If they were so important why not announce the to the world personally?
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not created for the purpose of offending but to show that the logic behind godly claims can be used to make claims of anything at all. Finding a point offensive because it disagrees does not refute it or even mean that it should be offensive.
And I said that they can and have all been shown to be falsifiable or not sound. And I have heard of "first cause", I can also reason why it is a logical fallacy. A cursory wikipedia glance shows that I am not the only one to pick it apart.
The universe existing is all the proof that it needs to exist. The probability of the universe existing is exactly 1. There is no need for a purpose. Purpose, as you mean it, has no place in science, logic or proof. Why are you even bringing it up? Weren't you trying to belittle me early for confusing science and philosophy?
I was not equating newtonian or relativistic point of view to either of us. I was explaining that one is true (more true*) and the other is not. It can be shown that one is true where the other is false by observation and only one can be correct. If it was untestable then it would be a baseless assertion. Baseless assertions have no place in proof or in "truth".
None of those frameworks predict the world in the slightest. Either through the fact that sin/bad karma does not make bad things happen to you or past lives, satan, unicorns are not testable or predictable.
I have been trying to show why your assertions are irrational in a "this is just an internet forum" kind of way. I imagine that looks like I'm trying to refute an argument against god's existence because logically speaking they are pretty much the same thing. Stating that belief in God is rational is, to a logical mind, equivalent to belief in God (because why would someone not go with the rational belief?).
That is implied because the reason it is widely accepted is because it was established long ago. People tend to snicker and think the newer religions/sects are pretty wacky. Such as the mormons and rastafarians but these religions were created in the same way the established ones were, just newer. I have seen many long thought out reasons as to God's existence but never a self consistent one or one that stands scrutiny. You have never indicated one either.
"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).
Perhaps you missed my caveat? I put it there specifically because I knew you would claim there is no "proof" that magic doesn't exist. I listed the base assumptions that I would think lead to a theistic conclusion. I can't possibly think up every assumption you might find to lead to theism. And it is your burden as you claim the assumptions exist. Want another one I just thought of? "Life could not have started without God". We have seen the mechanisms that create the basis of life occur; no God required.
I understand the viewpoint you are trying to make quite well and I have encountered it many times before. Never make a claim that is testable or observable, hand wave about how someone, sometime made a good argument. Claim religion/god deal with topics outside science so therefore their assertions do not require evidence.
And the newtonian would be wrong. Testably wrong, reproduceably wrong and objectively wrong. They might be "close enough" that at a small scale their beliefs still work but they will never be "right". They've already been proven incorrect (I suppose I should thank you for that analogy).
But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.
Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?
You seem to be under the impression I am here to prove God(specifically the Judeo/Chistian God)? I am not(and never said I was), I am here to point out that belief in gods/God does not automatically imply irrationality. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing. If you wish to argue the existence of God, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I was only ever challenging the assertion that theistic belief doesn't imply irrationality. That a theistic conclusion means a logically flawed assumption somewhere in the mix. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing.
Electrons have been detected and visualized using scientific instruments. Which, in normal speech would be said: "scientists can see electrons". Which one of you was the smug one again?
The pink unicorns exist on the same scale as god exists: "someone said so".
Your argument is still "primitives made this up a long time ago so it must have evidence".
You haven't demonstrated anything; just deferred the problem. "A bunch of people believe this" is not logic and is not a valid argument. There does not have to be pink unicorn or invisible office worker apologists for the logical comparison to be sound.
Is creation not the base religious assumption? Miracles and magic have been disproven* as well. What other basic religious assumptions are there that haven't been shown false?
Proven false by my point of view or theirs absolutely does not make a difference in this topic. Point of view is not logic and it is not evidence. You use it to skirt the argument.
*by the scienfic method**
**Knew I'd have to put this or we'd be back at the beginning again.
Saying "I believe these scientists" is not the same as "This is fact and if anyone ever tries to change that I will start a war". People do not believe current scientific facts with the same fervour as religious "facts". Scientific studies are questioned by humans. That is the definition of peer review which is the base of the scientific method.
In a true scientists eye ID and evolution will not hold the same merit. There is evidence of evolution, there is none of ID. If there were some peer reviewed evidence of ID then "true" scientists would take it seriously enough to look into.
No one talks with caveats on everything they say but that does not mean those caveats are not there. Welcome to the ambiguous nature of natural language.
They are comparable statements from a logical standpoint. You having more of an emotional investment in one than the other does not affect logic.
I would like to see you debate that statement using something other than emotions. There being a god would certainly change the way we see the universe as there is currently no known mechanism for a god existing.
Scale of belief does not matter to a logical argument. Just because "God" was invented by a bunch of ignorant, violent primitives that proceeded to murder and subjugate anyone who did not believe does not make it a more logical argument.
Your argument seems to be mainly some hand wavy statement about how starting from different assumptions will lead you to different results (ignoring the fact that pretty much all base assumptions of religion have been proven false (creation myths etc.)). Followed by "You said this, but should have said this because I think that and therefore you're a troll and I'll just ignore the rest of your argument".
All those things that people have said "had" to be done by God/gods over the years and were proven to not be the work of God/gods I would personally count as evidence against. Humanity and religion both predate the concept of the Abrahamic god which I also count as evidence against it. There is quite a bit of evidence against the existence of gods. The problem comes from people that "believe in" tend to discount any contrary evidence using one logical fallacy or another.
You must have a fairly timid summer. Even up here in frigid Canada some days in summer are hot enough that just standing outside will make you break a sweat.
Not if it's a fast moving target, such as the smartphone market. And in the Android market it's not 23 misses and one good phone. It's a couple awesome phones, a bunch of varying good phones and a couple shitty phones. A good healthy bell curve to satisfy more market space.
But they are forbidding letting the user know they can do that. They are forbidding the user a nice, integrated with the application means of buying a book. So, yes, they are forbidding many means of buying a book. All that they possibly can, in fact.
Except in this case you get to ignore all but the best pellet from the buckshot like they don't even exist. The marksman can completely miss the shot but if just one of those pellets hits the target it can be taken and the rest ignored.
Which is perfectly apt in this case. The iphone is a one shot deal, take it or leave it. With Android you get to choose which one hits best. And there are many superior Android phones as that's the nature of choice.
"Normal" people claim to be geeky all the time. An example of this is the Harry Potter franchise; wizards are geeky and lame but the series is hugely popular. People claim/believe they are geeky because it makes them more a part of the franchise. Possibly also to appear as they "liked it before it was cool" which is always a hugely popular trend for trend followers.
Hipsters also often claim geek status even though they usually only have bad fashion sense in common.
Very simple really, Apple advertised it as a general purpose computing device. From the original announcement of it being OSX in your pocket to the "There's an app for that" slogan. Apple marketed the iphone as a computing device and it's perfectly natural for people to expect to receive a computing device.
Because someone had to do it first once accelerometers became cheap and small enough to fit into a phone. And someone did do it before Apple. This has been pointed out many times already. The Nokia N95 had both of these things and predates this patent. I guess the iphone shouldn't be able to use the accelerometer for this now being as Nokia "invented" it?
The hundreds of thousands of people that don't die every year from untested or fraudulent drugs that FDA regulations don't allow?
There seems to be a concerning amount of Americans that think that the only way to stop corporations from skirting regulations is to allow them to just do anything they desire from the start. The solution is, as it always has been, awareness and education. At least this way we have legal recourse to work with once enough of the population realizes what is going on.
If it was a found CD and throwing it in the car stereo trashed the car would you make the same argument? It's not like they tried to install a random CPU. They plugged in a plug and play device.
No, it's completely the user. Why shouldn't the OS trust what the user does who has physical access?
Because more than the user has physical access first of all. It's really not very hard to discreetly plug something in to a computer without the user noticing. Especially in a corporate environment.
If you found a sledgehammer on the ground, are you going to go smash a windshield to make sure it's solid?
Depending on the environment I find it in I may use it to smash a small rock or piece wood. Or something else that I thought would be harmless (the feelings of the rock and piece of wood aside). The fact of the matter is most people assume (and I think it is a mostly fair assumption) that plugging a usb stick into a computer will not do damage to the computer. I also don't think it is some huge sin to take a ~$15 device that already has a 99%+ chance of never being returned to its proper owner. Sure it would be great if no one ever lost anything, but people do and someone else might as well get to use it.
People looking to steal something don't say "Oh that poor old lady just forgot to close her door it would be unsportsmanlike to rob her" and then go crack into a bank vault. Instead they take that old lady for everything she has.
The polite, responsible thing to do would be to inform the vulnerable person about the problem. The issue here is that the computer security industry/community has been pointing these flaws out for over a decade and it hasn't made a single difference. No one is listening so some people are trying a different approach. No one listens when you say "Someone can hack your server and steal customer data." but they sure as hell get the point when someone steals the data.
I agree that what they did was illegal and wrong(ish) but I can also see why there are people getting frustrated when the powers-that-be don't listen until something bites them in the ass.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you can agree that slicing a connector in half is quite different from inventing a teleporter. If teleportation was as easy as slicing a door height-wise in two then it wouldn't deserve a patent either.
Yes, they fall out really easily. Definitely not something I would want making a connection that will interrupt service.
Sigh, I know you're tying to make it look like you are taking the high road by leaving with a few veiled insults but I am personally sick of hearing the arguments you made. I am not like that at all, I accept negative numbers no problem because they have a logical basis. You can derive negative numbers many ways starting from logical bases. I will not, however, accept that x=5 because if you stand on your head and squint it kind of looks like a 2. Not all claims are equal. Make a claim, show reason and I will assess it. "If you understood my point of view you'd get my reasoning" does not count. I have never failed to understand anyone's point of view. If you take disrespect from someone disagreeing with you or pointing out flaws in an argument that you freely entered into then that is your issue and not mine.
I was hoping it not to be a waste of time. I would have loved to see some reasoning that I hadn't seen before. Disagreement is constructive.
So here I'll point out your newest ones:
If you know anything about this, you will realise that this is firstly, not always a valid means of arguing (the falacy being the one you made, thinking the two arguments are equal), and secondly crafted to offend("you're an idiot because you believe something I have artificially made sound idiotic").
There is no fallacy in assuming those arguments are equal. Logically and rationally they are equal. Two statements with no evidence other than spoken word. Some people find it offensive because their life revolves around that spoken word but that does not mean the two statements are not logically identical.
To point out that IT IS PHILOSOPHY. Your "no need for purpose" is just as much philosophy as any religious explanation of purpose. Again, please please read what I write and not what you'd like to see. Thanks.
Philosophy is not a trump card that gets you exempt from scrutiny or logic. "No need for purpose" is the null hypothesis; in order to show that there exists a purpose you need to have reason. It is not a philosophy, it is logic, mathematics and statistics. Although you would probably try to argue atheism is a religion as well.
Not quite (most of these explanations predict things will continue much as they are (possibly until some future event).
Now there's some grade A prediction there! "Things will keep going pretty much like they have been for the last thousands of years unless something else happens in the future". Maybe they could predict lotto numbers for me next? What do you think?
This where you fail to understand. I am saying there is more than one possible rational framework. These frameworks can be mutually exclusive, but that does not mean if you think you about it, you can't understand the other side. What if there are two or even infinite rational belief systems? Imagining there is only one is where I disagree with you. If you can demonstrate the ability to see more than one, then I can provide the example(s) you want. Do you see what I am getting at now?
Two rational frameworks of reality cannot be mutually exclusive, that fails even the most basic of logic. As I showed you with your own Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics scenario. There is no both are correct here, either there is a god or there is not. I get your point; I have since you first tried to make it. What you do not get is that I am telling you that I have never seen rational reasoning for the existence of a god. If I did then I would believe in a god.
Think about equivalent but different views of the universe. If both predict the current (or even future) state of affairs, you would probably argue for the use of Occam's razor. Which is fair enough, but from within each view, each adherent argues they already do. And they may be correct. Certainly while wrong most can be rational.
A religious person's predictions are, in modern days, usually powered by what science has discovered. This is because most of the things their religion has predicted has shown false. I mean, of course, other than "things are gonna keep going". If they are wrong then they almost certainly are not rational. This is exactly the reason for the scientific method. Scrutiny, discussion, debate. This is to find "irrationality" in others' findings and beliefs. The pink unicorns are not to offend, they're to show how irrational the argument is because it is an irrational argument.
Most religions, Judeo/Christianity included (I have been using that as a frame of reference because that is most common here), have their stories from one person's perspective. Example: Moses was given the 10 commandments alone. If they were so important why not announce the to the world personally?
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Not created for the purpose of offending but to show that the logic behind godly claims can be used to make claims of anything at all. Finding a point offensive because it disagrees does not refute it or even mean that it should be offensive.
And I said that they can and have all been shown to be falsifiable or not sound. And I have heard of "first cause", I can also reason why it is a logical fallacy. A cursory wikipedia glance shows that I am not the only one to pick it apart.
The universe existing is all the proof that it needs to exist. The probability of the universe existing is exactly 1. There is no need for a purpose. Purpose, as you mean it, has no place in science, logic or proof. Why are you even bringing it up? Weren't you trying to belittle me early for confusing science and philosophy?
I was not equating newtonian or relativistic point of view to either of us. I was explaining that one is true (more true*) and the other is not. It can be shown that one is true where the other is false by observation and only one can be correct. If it was untestable then it would be a baseless assertion. Baseless assertions have no place in proof or in "truth".
None of those frameworks predict the world in the slightest. Either through the fact that sin/bad karma does not make bad things happen to you or past lives, satan, unicorns are not testable or predictable.
I have been trying to show why your assertions are irrational in a "this is just an internet forum" kind of way. I imagine that looks like I'm trying to refute an argument against god's existence because logically speaking they are pretty much the same thing. Stating that belief in God is rational is, to a logical mind, equivalent to belief in God (because why would someone not go with the rational belief?).
"God does not exist" is not crafted to offend one party of the debate if the topic is "the existence of God". If it is then any statement claiming God exists is equally crafted to offend non-believers (and I really don't think that's the case).
Perhaps you missed my caveat? I put it there specifically because I knew you would claim there is no "proof" that magic doesn't exist. I listed the base assumptions that I would think lead to a theistic conclusion. I can't possibly think up every assumption you might find to lead to theism. And it is your burden as you claim the assumptions exist. Want another one I just thought of? "Life could not have started without God". We have seen the mechanisms that create the basis of life occur; no God required.
I understand the viewpoint you are trying to make quite well and I have encountered it many times before. Never make a claim that is testable or observable, hand wave about how someone, sometime made a good argument. Claim religion/god deal with topics outside science so therefore their assertions do not require evidence.
And the newtonian would be wrong. Testably wrong, reproduceably wrong and objectively wrong. They might be "close enough" that at a small scale their beliefs still work but they will never be "right". They've already been proven incorrect (I suppose I should thank you for that analogy).
But I can assure you, a religious framework predicts the state of the world better than you'd think.
Excuse me? Care to explain what that even means?
You seem to be under the impression I am here to prove God(specifically the Judeo/Chistian God)? I am not(and never said I was), I am here to point out that belief in gods/God does not automatically imply irrationality. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing. If you wish to argue the existence of God, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I was only ever challenging the assertion that theistic belief doesn't imply irrationality. That a theistic conclusion means a logically flawed assumption somewhere in the mix. Your inability to see that is unsurprising, but disappointing.
Electrons have been detected and visualized using scientific instruments. Which, in normal speech would be said: "scientists can see electrons". Which one of you was the smug one again?
The pink unicorns exist on the same scale as god exists: "someone said so".
Your argument is still "primitives made this up a long time ago so it must have evidence".
You haven't demonstrated anything; just deferred the problem. "A bunch of people believe this" is not logic and is not a valid argument. There does not have to be pink unicorn or invisible office worker apologists for the logical comparison to be sound.
Is creation not the base religious assumption? Miracles and magic have been disproven* as well. What other basic religious assumptions are there that haven't been shown false?
Proven false by my point of view or theirs absolutely does not make a difference in this topic. Point of view is not logic and it is not evidence. You use it to skirt the argument.
*by the scienfic method**
**Knew I'd have to put this or we'd be back at the beginning again.
Saying "I believe these scientists" is not the same as "This is fact and if anyone ever tries to change that I will start a war". People do not believe current scientific facts with the same fervour as religious "facts". Scientific studies are questioned by humans. That is the definition of peer review which is the base of the scientific method.
In a true scientists eye ID and evolution will not hold the same merit. There is evidence of evolution, there is none of ID. If there were some peer reviewed evidence of ID then "true" scientists would take it seriously enough to look into.
No one talks with caveats on everything they say but that does not mean those caveats are not there. Welcome to the ambiguous nature of natural language.
They are comparable statements from a logical standpoint. You having more of an emotional investment in one than the other does not affect logic.
I would like to see you debate that statement using something other than emotions. There being a god would certainly change the way we see the universe as there is currently no known mechanism for a god existing.
Scale of belief does not matter to a logical argument. Just because "God" was invented by a bunch of ignorant, violent primitives that proceeded to murder and subjugate anyone who did not believe does not make it a more logical argument.
Your argument seems to be mainly some hand wavy statement about how starting from different assumptions will lead you to different results (ignoring the fact that pretty much all base assumptions of religion have been proven false (creation myths etc.)). Followed by "You said this, but should have said this because I think that and therefore you're a troll and I'll just ignore the rest of your argument".
All those things that people have said "had" to be done by God/gods over the years and were proven to not be the work of God/gods I would personally count as evidence against. Humanity and religion both predate the concept of the Abrahamic god which I also count as evidence against it. There is quite a bit of evidence against the existence of gods. The problem comes from people that "believe in" tend to discount any contrary evidence using one logical fallacy or another.
BSD has pretty much nothing to do with Calibre would be the main reason. GPL != GNU/Linux.
You must have a fairly timid summer. Even up here in frigid Canada some days in summer are hot enough that just standing outside will make you break a sweat.
Not if it's a fast moving target, such as the smartphone market. And in the Android market it's not 23 misses and one good phone. It's a couple awesome phones, a bunch of varying good phones and a couple shitty phones. A good healthy bell curve to satisfy more market space.
But they are forbidding letting the user know they can do that. They are forbidding the user a nice, integrated with the application means of buying a book. So, yes, they are forbidding many means of buying a book. All that they possibly can, in fact.
Except in this case you get to ignore all but the best pellet from the buckshot like they don't even exist. The marksman can completely miss the shot but if just one of those pellets hits the target it can be taken and the rest ignored.
Which is perfectly apt in this case. The iphone is a one shot deal, take it or leave it. With Android you get to choose which one hits best. And there are many superior Android phones as that's the nature of choice.
"Normal" people claim to be geeky all the time. An example of this is the Harry Potter franchise; wizards are geeky and lame but the series is hugely popular. People claim/believe they are geeky because it makes them more a part of the franchise. Possibly also to appear as they "liked it before it was cool" which is always a hugely popular trend for trend followers.
Hipsters also often claim geek status even though they usually only have bad fashion sense in common.
Actually, only 1) would be a solution because for this to be a proper analogy GM would be forbidding use of any other means of buying.
Very simple really, Apple advertised it as a general purpose computing device. From the original announcement of it being OSX in your pocket to the "There's an app for that" slogan. Apple marketed the iphone as a computing device and it's perfectly natural for people to expect to receive a computing device.
Because someone had to do it first once accelerometers became cheap and small enough to fit into a phone. And someone did do it before Apple. This has been pointed out many times already. The Nokia N95 had both of these things and predates this patent. I guess the iphone shouldn't be able to use the accelerometer for this now being as Nokia "invented" it?
The hundreds of thousands of people that don't die every year from untested or fraudulent drugs that FDA regulations don't allow?
There seems to be a concerning amount of Americans that think that the only way to stop corporations from skirting regulations is to allow them to just do anything they desire from the start. The solution is, as it always has been, awareness and education. At least this way we have legal recourse to work with once enough of the population realizes what is going on.
No, it's completely the user. Why shouldn't the OS trust what the user does who has physical access?
Because more than the user has physical access first of all. It's really not very hard to discreetly plug something in to a computer without the user noticing. Especially in a corporate environment.
If you found a sledgehammer on the ground, are you going to go smash a windshield to make sure it's solid?
Depending on the environment I find it in I may use it to smash a small rock or piece wood. Or something else that I thought would be harmless (the feelings of the rock and piece of wood aside). The fact of the matter is most people assume (and I think it is a mostly fair assumption) that plugging a usb stick into a computer will not do damage to the computer. I also don't think it is some huge sin to take a ~$15 device that already has a 99%+ chance of never being returned to its proper owner. Sure it would be great if no one ever lost anything, but people do and someone else might as well get to use it.
People looking to steal something don't say "Oh that poor old lady just forgot to close her door it would be unsportsmanlike to rob her" and then go crack into a bank vault. Instead they take that old lady for everything she has.
The polite, responsible thing to do would be to inform the vulnerable person about the problem. The issue here is that the computer security industry/community has been pointing these flaws out for over a decade and it hasn't made a single difference. No one is listening so some people are trying a different approach. No one listens when you say "Someone can hack your server and steal customer data." but they sure as hell get the point when someone steals the data.
I agree that what they did was illegal and wrong(ish) but I can also see why there are people getting frustrated when the powers-that-be don't listen until something bites them in the ass.
Finally a practical use for the kitten cannon!