So it's easy for conservatives to claim pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and attack government spending when it's been there for them their whole lives.
I think your confusing "conservatives" with "libertarians". I'm a fiscal conservative yet I support a number of public assistance programs. Certainly not all -- and certainly not the socialism which the far far left advocates.
So basically, what you did was erect a nice looking straw man, then attacked it. And I'm ignoring the other logical flaws in your argument. That's just the most obvious.
How is someone born into a poor family supposed to get enough money to pay for the education required to get the high paying jobs to become rich?
The same way I did. After high-school (which is free), attend JC (which is next to free). I'm not sure how other states operate, but ANYONE who completes a 2 year degree at a JC in California MUST be accepted to a cal-state university. Cal-states run about $4000-$5000 (including books) per year. Live cheap, rent a room, live in the dorms, walk, take buses AND work while going to school.
If one CANT work while going to school, guess what! Financial aid is easily available in the form of student loans and grants.
What about the people working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet?
(A) they are living over their means (B) they lack the skills necessary to make "2" or "3" low paying jobs in income from one job. (C) they are living in an area where the cost of living exceeds their income potential (see A)
Christ you shit me!!!
Your ability to reason certainly resembles something the GP may have left floating in his toilet.
I didn't think my post was particularly "insightful" myself. I don't think it reflects poorly on slashdot that it *WAS* modded as such -- but more for the poor quality of education in "most middle schools" and their failure to emphisize exactly what "science" is. It's shameful that this needs to be pointed out.
"Science" is NOT the same as "fact" or "truth". It is a METHOD -- a PROCEDURE one follows in an attempt explain some event or phenomenon. It should hardly be surprising that "Scientific" papers are mostly wrong. There may be only one "right" or "correct" theory for a given phenomenon -- but there are countless wrong ones.
I believe our country was founded to be neutral on religion. NOT areligious. I believe the establishment clause is to PREVENT a single faith becoming THE FAITH of the state. There should not be a BAN on anything 'religious' in all areas of the state. That's another of my pet gripes. The state should not pander to the athiests no more than it should pander to the Catholics, Hasidic Jews, Unitarians, Quakers, Hindu's, Buddists, Mormans or Hare Krishna's.
You're not posting as an AC, but you are also posting some funky myths that are just false. To suggest Adams wasn't a Christian is silly. He was a Unitarian. Yes, they do not believe in the 'trinity' -- nor that Christ *IS* God. They *DO* believe that Christ *IS* the SON of God. It's silly -- and more than a little disengenous of you to dismiss Unitarians as non-Christian.
I would strongly suggest you read more detailed materials -- not some web sites which selectivly quote out-of-context self-serving statements. You should also note that 6 (or was it 7?) of the 55 delegates to the constitutional convention were Reverends.
However, I believe we have some common ground. I do not for a second believe that our county was formed to be a CHRISTIAN nation -- but it was formed by Christians -- and our laws strongly influenced by Christianity. My gripe is with those who try to minimize this and re-write history.
At any rate, you are correct that most of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Christian, as was most of the electorate of the time
Something else that people who use the fallacious argument that most of the founders were diests/athiests often neglect to mention is that MANY of our founders were members of the clergy. 6 or 7, I believe.
And you seem to make the assumption that if a founder did not publicly proclaim his unbelief, he must have been a Christian.
I never indicated any such thing. Many of the private documents of our founders survive -- and much of that content has strong indicators as to our founders respective leanings regarding faith. Including strong suggestions that Franklin had a change of faith later in life. In his own autobiography, he proclaimed he was never without faith -- and his letters indicate that he was frequently questioning his beliefs. Great! That's healthy. But one thing needs to be observed: Franklin often proclaimed the virtue of Christian doctrine/teachings. Even the Deists were strongly influenced by Christian ethics. This cannot and should not be marginalized. To do so would be to attempt to re-write history.
Most of the names you list are, as you admit, questionable -- but those founding fathers who were instrumental in the formation of United States -- 55 delegates to the constitutional convention, how many were unquestionably deists? How many founders were there total?
You say there are some indications that Washington was a deist -- there are far more indications that he was very much a Christian. Further, there are also many private letters where Jefferson describes himself as a Christian of sorts.
Most of your argument seems to go on the assumption that if a partcular "founder" didn't wear his religion on his sleeve it was therefor in question. This is faulty reasoning.
Further, you dismiss all of Unitarianism as non-christian. This is grossly misleading. Many believe Christ is the son of god, but reject the trinity (i.e. Christ *IS* god).
All this obfuscates the original point that the founding fathers were NOT "mostly deists and atheists".
I'll leave a final note that many that we typically associate as deists (Jefferson and Franklin, for instance) later in life gave indications that they were otherwise -- or had re-evaluated their beliefs.
Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.
Considering the large number of Atheists and Deists that were amoung their ranks, I'd say the only reason they DIDN'T say it should be that way was because it wasn't a popular opinion. It still isn't.
No wonder you posted AC. You've no idea wtf you are talking about. The "large number" of atheists and deists umong our founding fathers? There were what? Like 3? Jefferson, Franklin and Wilson, off the top of my head. The rest were all Episcopalian, Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic, etc. Christian.
And to the best of my recollection, there were NO atheists.
As far as I can tell, IBM still sells workstations. We have about 20 ourselves (albeit, they are ~3 years old). Each of them (but one) have new power supplies. They all failed within the first 24 months. Sigh...
Why, nothing at all, as I configured portsentry to ignore such clever things as 'localhost', trusted IPs, and, yes, DNS...
But, yes, you MUST be careful with it... Your point is valid and I just glossed over it (it's slashdot, not a 'how-to'). Someone malicious with some insider knowledge of who your company corresponds with *COULD* cause some trouble. But that problem is small compaired to the protection and ease of set up offered by portsentry.
I would also suggest setting up a cron job to release routes after ~4 hours of blacklisting. I did that too...
There are other problems with portsentry -- in that it by DEFAULT binds to known exploitable ports -- meaning that you'll end up being a TARGET of script-kiddies if you dont change the defaults. I plot some random ports (like 20) with SSH somewhere in the middle. None of the ports are established 'exploits'...
Your points are valid, but for a small domain, running their own email server can be pretty appealing.
Most of the problems associated with an outage (power or network) can be handled with an MX backup service. It wont save you from a natural disaster that takes out your business, but it'll handle the 24-hour power failures...
Sometimes the "simple" answers are the best. Yes, run your own email server. It doesn't have to be E-Smith, you could run your own flavor of *nix. Set up Mailscanner/SpamAssassin/[Generic Virus Scanner] and your users will be fairly safe and happy.
You can also set up something like OpenWebMail and allow them to access email from the web. Even via HTTPS, if you like.
Further, if you have an INTERNET outage, your people IN OFFICE will still have access to their email accounts. That translates as no immidate "I cant access my email" whines. And if ARIN.net lists your company (or you) as the authority, you can PERSONALLY deal with any major ISP to resolve blacklistings. I've had RoadRunner, AOL and ATTWORLDNET blacklist a series of IPs within which our email server happens to reside -- each of those were resolved within 24 hours.
Important Notes:
Be sure (PRACTICE!) that you know how to back up and restore your system.
Unless they NEED shell access, point all users to/bin/false.
Shut off EVERY service you do not NEED.
Cheap/Easy IDS: Personally, I like portsentry + SSH on non-standard ports. Your system would need to be scanned to find your SSH server... and portsentry would ban IPs trying to scan. It's not 100%, but will keep out the script kiddies.
It doesn't matter... It's rated for players of 17 years of age and older. Plain an simple.
Not that plain and not that simple. It's more than an "AGE" limit -- but a guide which summarizes content as explained here
To take full advantage of the ESRB rating system, it's important to check both the rating symbol (on the front of the game box) and the content descriptors (on the back of the game box).
Its now my understand that the game DOES list "STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT". But perhaps the game should have received an "ADULT" rating...
From what I can see, Grandma's got enough to go to court if she wants without the case getting tossed out.
If thats the case, and her version of the game reflects what you state, then she really doesn't have much of a case.
Of course, reading the "rating guide", and being familiar with the "hot coffee mod" and what it lets you view, an "ADULT" rating might have been more appropriate here.
She may still have an argument -- a weak argument, but enough so it doesn't get tossed out of court.
I may be off here, and I'm asking because I'm unfamiliar with the games rating system.
Doesn't the rating system say WHY it got the rating? Say "M 17+ for Violence"?
Perhaps the Grandmother and her grandson's parents were "OK" with the violence but had serious objections about sexual content which they had no idea was accessable on the game. Even it you had to jump through hoops to get at the content...
Had the game said something about Sexual Content, I doubt this would be an issue.
Isn't there a rating for "ADULT" content? Wouldn't this qualify? Maybe she has a case...
How can anyone even hope to have a rational discussion with you when you are coming from such a hate-filled place withing yourself? You are beyond reason. You've some how managed to blame the US for the most ridicules things imaginable such as blaming 'Americanization' for increased theft in the world.
I don't want to just come out and declare that you're a whack-job hate-filled spouter of anti-American jingoism, but that shoe is looking mighty comfy on your foot, pal...
As long as I am forced to pay taxes to *protect* me and laws limit my rights to protect my items, then YES, I do expect (read the police who get paid to do this) somebody to protect my items.
What kind of hypocrite are you? One who is just so full of anti-american hatred that it blinds you to reason? Or are you just a complete and utter self obsorbed, 'nothing is my responsibility' hypocrite?
You whine that the US blames the victim and how great it is in other countries. Please tell me how other countries allow you greater 'liberty' to protect your items? What countries would allow you the "right", as you say, to "shoot" people "tagging" your property? Is this how "americanism" spreads to other countries and their rates of theft go up? Those "countries" take away the rights of the people to protect their stuff and shoot vandals?
Surely the US doesn't limit your right to lock your doors and close your windows, which you indicated you left wide open. Surely, the US doesn't limit your right to have an alarm? Surely the US doens't limit your right to take at least SOME reasonable precautions on securing your property. And surely it isn't your local community's responsibility to have an armed guard sit in your car or outside your home. I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet in other countries you dont see government supplied armed guards sitting in the privately owned cars of its plebs.
You are an interesting kind of american hater... Don't see too many who want the right to shoot graffiti vandals on sight -- or who advocate gun ownership of any kind.
Just out of mild curiosity, when you purchased insurance, did you bother telling them that you frequenty leave expensive items in the back seat of your car with the doors open and the windows down? Further, did you mention this when you filed a claim? If not, besides poor judgement, you may well have committed fraud.
I've got a link for you. Honestly. It's good advice given with genuine concern for your well being.
First, you saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Second, you citing personal experience and extrapolating that as a "universal truth" is piss-poor reasoning.
Your argument that "americanized" countries have increased rates of theft is so weak and based in hatred that it is beneath contempt. Your anti-american hate-speech is a strong indicator of reason held impotent.
Maybe one day you'll be able to take off your hate-glasses and see the world for what it is?
Being irritated at victims who left the car running, becomes "left the keys inside" becomes "left the door unlocked" is likely to become "didn't have an alarm system installed" when that becomes necessary for most people, then one will be expected to be carrying a pager to notify them their car is being stolen due to everyone ignoring the constant alarms, or not be taken seriously by the police. I don't want to end up with it being nearly illegal not to take martial arts courses.
I bow before the master of the "Slippery Slope" fallacy.
AND some nasty anti-American jingoism, too! Because theft certainly didn't exist and was unheard of before 1776, right? And those rapscallions like Washington, Adams and Morris were the snakes that introduced the "theft" apple to the inocent in the "garden", huh?
Maybe I should engage in a bit of jingoism myself and suggest that maybe the reason your nation isn't as prosperous as the US is because everybody there engages in the same faulty reasoning you demonstrate here. Hmmmmm?
Then again, maybe we can be grown-ups (read mature) and not engage in any type of jingoism. That, to me, is much more appealing.
Americans seem to have this ingrain belief that if it isn't locked down, you must want me to steal it. Bullshit.
That statement is bullshit.
You *DID* do something wrong. You didn't take reasonable measures to protect your property. Had you taken reasonable measures and it STILL was stolen, I doubt your insurance company would have made you feel like you did something wrong. The cops are just giving you a common sense lesson: If you make it easy for someone to steal something of yours, it's more likely to get stolen.
It's not a matter of blaming the victim -- but being annoyed that the victim didn't take reasonable measures to protect his/her property and NOW EVERYONE has to help pay for his/her mistake (in terms of local taxes for cops and increased premiums for insurance).
I'm sorry you had stuff stolen, but you should feel at least some shame for (due to your negligence) costing your community time/resources (read: money). Don't get me wrong, I'm not even REMOTELY attempting to mitigate the "wrongness" of someone stealing your stuff. In an ideal world, that person would get caught, get prosecuted, and you'd get your stuff back.
BTW, I take offence at your 'jab' at Americans -- as if it's a BAD thing to get annoyed or frustrated with negligence. You'll get your support from the local police and if you are properly insured, you'll get compensation -- but don't expect to hear any "poor baby"'s.
I dunno... I think a more appropriate analogy would be if one installed a huge arse window in the front of your house, then stuck a giant plasma TV in it and getting annoyed and frustrated when people stopped by and watched TV through you window.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's much better than the 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft' argument.
I dont want to bang on the "the guy had it coming" drum, but Dinon admitted he KNEW how to secure his wifi but declined because most of the people in his neighborhood are "older". That suggests to me, at least on this topic, that he wasn't acting like the sharpest knife in the drawer. But still, it's more than a little unsettling to have some 40-something guy sitting outside your house using your resources. While the article doesn't say he was a perv, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was -- and pulling kiddie porn or somesuch.
Are you incorrectly implying the word is not a legitimate one?
No, I am correctly implying that.
Before you start using words like correctly, you should fully be aware of their meaning.
Unshocked is a 'legitamate' word. As are many adjectives in the dictionary to which you add the "UN" prefix. Those are the rules of our language. English 101 stuff. Actually, more like high-school grammer.
English is a rich language and unless you want to review the 20 some odd volume Oxford Unabridged Dictionary (retails around $3000), you can review "websters" or "dictionary.com" (VERY abridged dictionaries) and get the root word and apply the prefix/suffix yourself and FOLLOW THE RULES.
With regards to the issues germane to the topic, it's difficult to follow your reasoning or take you seriously when you allow yourself to get caught up in some silly minutia over "word legitimacy". Especially when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically, what you did was erect a nice looking straw man, then attacked it. And I'm ignoring the other logical flaws in your argument. That's just the most obvious.
If one CANT work while going to school, guess what! Financial aid is easily available in the form of student loans and grants. (A) they are living over their means
(B) they lack the skills necessary to make "2" or "3" low paying jobs in income from one job.
(C) they are living in an area where the cost of living exceeds their income potential (see A)Your ability to reason certainly resembles something the GP may have left floating in his toilet.
I didn't think my post was particularly "insightful" myself. I don't think it reflects poorly on slashdot that it *WAS* modded as such -- but more for the poor quality of education in "most middle schools" and their failure to emphisize exactly what "science" is. It's shameful that this needs to be pointed out.
"Science" is NOT the same as "fact" or "truth". It is a METHOD -- a PROCEDURE one follows in an attempt explain some event or phenomenon. It should hardly be surprising that "Scientific" papers are mostly wrong. There may be only one "right" or "correct" theory for a given phenomenon -- but there are countless wrong ones.
I believe our country was founded to be neutral on religion. NOT areligious. I believe the establishment clause is to PREVENT a single faith becoming THE FAITH of the state. There should not be a BAN on anything 'religious' in all areas of the state. That's another of my pet gripes. The state should not pander to the athiests no more than it should pander to the Catholics, Hasidic Jews, Unitarians, Quakers, Hindu's, Buddists, Mormans or Hare Krishna's.
You're not posting as an AC, but you are also posting some funky myths that are just false. To suggest Adams wasn't a Christian is silly. He was a Unitarian. Yes, they do not believe in the 'trinity' -- nor that Christ *IS* God. They *DO* believe that Christ *IS* the SON of God. It's silly -- and more than a little disengenous of you to dismiss Unitarians as non-Christian.
I would strongly suggest you read more detailed materials -- not some web sites which selectivly quote out-of-context self-serving statements. You should also note that 6 (or was it 7?) of the 55 delegates to the constitutional convention were Reverends.
However, I believe we have some common ground. I do not for a second believe that our county was formed to be a CHRISTIAN nation -- but it was formed by Christians -- and our laws strongly influenced by Christianity. My gripe is with those who try to minimize this and re-write history.
Most of the names you list are, as you admit, questionable -- but those founding fathers who were instrumental in the formation of United States -- 55 delegates to the constitutional convention, how many were unquestionably deists? How many founders were there total?
You say there are some indications that Washington was a deist -- there are far more indications that he was very much a Christian. Further, there are also many private letters where Jefferson describes himself as a Christian of sorts.
Most of your argument seems to go on the assumption that if a partcular "founder" didn't wear his religion on his sleeve it was therefor in question. This is faulty reasoning.
Further, you dismiss all of Unitarianism as non-christian. This is grossly misleading. Many believe Christ is the son of god, but reject the trinity (i.e. Christ *IS* god).
All this obfuscates the original point that the founding fathers were NOT "mostly deists and atheists".
I'll leave a final note that many that we typically associate as deists (Jefferson and Franklin, for instance) later in life gave indications that they were otherwise -- or had re-evaluated their beliefs.
And to the best of my recollection, there were NO atheists.
Ug. Nevermind. I missed the "for consumer" part... My bad.
As far as I can tell, IBM still sells workstations. We have about 20 ourselves (albeit, they are ~3 years old). Each of them (but one) have new power supplies. They all failed within the first 24 months. Sigh...
Why, nothing at all, as I configured portsentry to ignore such clever things as 'localhost', trusted IPs, and, yes, DNS...
But, yes, you MUST be careful with it... Your point is valid and I just glossed over it (it's slashdot, not a 'how-to'). Someone malicious with some insider knowledge of who your company corresponds with *COULD* cause some trouble. But that problem is small compaired to the protection and ease of set up offered by portsentry.
I would also suggest setting up a cron job to release routes after ~4 hours of blacklisting. I did that too...
There are other problems with portsentry -- in that it by DEFAULT binds to known exploitable ports -- meaning that you'll end up being a TARGET of script-kiddies if you dont change the defaults. I plot some random ports (like 20) with SSH somewhere in the middle. None of the ports are established 'exploits'...
Your points are valid, but for a small domain, running their own email server can be pretty appealing.
Most of the problems associated with an outage (power or network) can be handled with an MX backup service. It wont save you from a natural disaster that takes out your business, but it'll handle the 24-hour power failures...
Sometimes the "simple" answers are the best. Yes, run your own email server. It doesn't have to be E-Smith, you could run your own flavor of *nix. Set up Mailscanner/SpamAssassin/[Generic Virus Scanner] and your users will be fairly safe and happy.
/bin/false.
You can also set up something like OpenWebMail and allow them to access email from the web. Even via HTTPS, if you like.
Further, if you have an INTERNET outage, your people IN OFFICE will still have access to their email accounts. That translates as no immidate "I cant access my email" whines. And if ARIN.net lists your company (or you) as the authority, you can PERSONALLY deal with any major ISP to resolve blacklistings. I've had RoadRunner, AOL and ATTWORLDNET blacklist a series of IPs within which our email server happens to reside -- each of those were resolved within 24 hours.
Important Notes:
Be sure (PRACTICE!) that you know how to back up and restore your system.
Unless they NEED shell access, point all users to
Shut off EVERY service you do not NEED.
Cheap/Easy IDS: Personally, I like portsentry + SSH on non-standard ports. Your system would need to be scanned to find your SSH server... and portsentry would ban IPs trying to scan. It's not 100%, but will keep out the script kiddies.
From what I can see, Grandma's got enough to go to court if she wants without the case getting tossed out.
If thats the case, and her version of the game reflects what you state, then she really doesn't have much of a case.
Of course, reading the "rating guide", and being familiar with the "hot coffee mod" and what it lets you view, an "ADULT" rating might have been more appropriate here.
She may still have an argument -- a weak argument, but enough so it doesn't get tossed out of court.
I'll answer my own question:
Run down on the ratings system.
Yup. If the "content descriptor" didn't include the fact that there was "sexual content", grandma's got a pretty good case.
But what are her real 'damages'?
I may be off here, and I'm asking because I'm unfamiliar with the games rating system.
Doesn't the rating system say WHY it got the rating? Say "M 17+ for Violence"?
Perhaps the Grandmother and her grandson's parents were "OK" with the violence but had serious objections about sexual content which they had no idea was accessable on the game. Even it you had to jump through hoops to get at the content...
Had the game said something about Sexual Content, I doubt this would be an issue.
Isn't there a rating for "ADULT" content? Wouldn't this qualify? Maybe she has a case...
How can anyone even hope to have a rational discussion with you when you are coming from such a hate-filled place withing yourself? You are beyond reason. You've some how managed to blame the US for the most ridicules things imaginable such as blaming 'Americanization' for increased theft in the world.
I don't want to just come out and declare that you're a whack-job hate-filled spouter of anti-American jingoism, but that shoe is looking mighty comfy on your foot, pal...
You whine that the US blames the victim and how great it is in other countries. Please tell me how other countries allow you greater 'liberty' to protect your items? What countries would allow you the "right", as you say, to "shoot" people "tagging" your property? Is this how "americanism" spreads to other countries and their rates of theft go up? Those "countries" take away the rights of the people to protect their stuff and shoot vandals?
Surely the US doesn't limit your right to lock your doors and close your windows, which you indicated you left wide open. Surely, the US doesn't limit your right to have an alarm? Surely the US doens't limit your right to take at least SOME reasonable precautions on securing your property. And surely it isn't your local community's responsibility to have an armed guard sit in your car or outside your home. I'm not 100% sure, but I'd bet in other countries you dont see government supplied armed guards sitting in the privately owned cars of its plebs.
You are an interesting kind of american hater... Don't see too many who want the right to shoot graffiti vandals on sight -- or who advocate gun ownership of any kind.
Just out of mild curiosity, when you purchased insurance, did you bother telling them that you frequenty leave expensive items in the back seat of your car with the doors open and the windows down? Further, did you mention this when you filed a claim? If not, besides poor judgement, you may well have committed fraud.
I've got a link for you. Honestly. It's good advice given with genuine concern for your well being.
First, you saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Second, you citing personal experience and extrapolating that as a "universal truth" is piss-poor reasoning.
Your argument that "americanized" countries have increased rates of theft is so weak and based in hatred that it is beneath contempt. Your anti-american hate-speech is a strong indicator of reason held impotent.
Maybe one day you'll be able to take off your hate-glasses and see the world for what it is?
AND some nasty anti-American jingoism, too! Because theft certainly didn't exist and was unheard of before 1776, right? And those rapscallions like Washington, Adams and Morris were the snakes that introduced the "theft" apple to the inocent in the "garden", huh?
Maybe I should engage in a bit of jingoism myself and suggest that maybe the reason your nation isn't as prosperous as the US is because everybody there engages in the same faulty reasoning you demonstrate here. Hmmmmm?
Then again, maybe we can be grown-ups (read mature) and not engage in any type of jingoism. That, to me, is much more appealing.
You *DID* do something wrong. You didn't take reasonable measures to protect your property. Had you taken reasonable measures and it STILL was stolen, I doubt your insurance company would have made you feel like you did something wrong. The cops are just giving you a common sense lesson: If you make it easy for someone to steal something of yours, it's more likely to get stolen.
It's not a matter of blaming the victim -- but being annoyed that the victim didn't take reasonable measures to protect his/her property and NOW EVERYONE has to help pay for his/her mistake (in terms of local taxes for cops and increased premiums for insurance).
I'm sorry you had stuff stolen, but you should feel at least some shame for (due to your negligence) costing your community time/resources (read: money). Don't get me wrong, I'm not even REMOTELY attempting to mitigate the "wrongness" of someone stealing your stuff. In an ideal world, that person would get caught, get prosecuted, and you'd get your stuff back.
BTW, I take offence at your 'jab' at Americans -- as if it's a BAD thing to get annoyed or frustrated with negligence. You'll get your support from the local police and if you are properly insured, you'll get compensation -- but don't expect to hear any "poor baby"'s.
I dunno... I think a more appropriate analogy would be if one installed a huge arse window in the front of your house, then stuck a giant plasma TV in it and getting annoyed and frustrated when people stopped by and watched TV through you window.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's much better than the 'It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft' argument.
I dont want to bang on the "the guy had it coming" drum, but Dinon admitted he KNEW how to secure his wifi but declined because most of the people in his neighborhood are "older". That suggests to me, at least on this topic, that he wasn't acting like the sharpest knife in the drawer. But still, it's more than a little unsettling to have some 40-something guy sitting outside your house using your resources. While the article doesn't say he was a perv, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was -- and pulling kiddie porn or somesuch.
Unshocked is a 'legitamate' word. As are many adjectives in the dictionary to which you add the "UN" prefix. Those are the rules of our language. English 101 stuff. Actually, more like high-school grammer.
English is a rich language and unless you want to review the 20 some odd volume Oxford Unabridged Dictionary (retails around $3000), you can review "websters" or "dictionary.com" (VERY abridged dictionaries) and get the root word and apply the prefix/suffix yourself and FOLLOW THE RULES.
With regards to the issues germane to the topic, it's difficult to follow your reasoning or take you seriously when you allow yourself to get caught up in some silly minutia over "word legitimacy". Especially when you show that you don't know what you are talking about.