The radio broadcasts are intended to be listened to. Browsing the net in private to read or look at porn is not the same as being the operator of a radio station.
It is illegal to see things, in some situations. E.g., if you trespass or climb up a ladder and look in someone's window, you're invading privacy. This is why people can, and have, sued google for taking photos of their private property.
At least where I live, people have a right to a certain level of, and expectation of privacy in some situations. I'd argue, as most reasonable people would, that it applies to wifi.
Why does everyone sound like a bunch of irritable, dimmwitted grandpas in this thread? The problem with violence in schools is related to poverty, trash parents and single mom parenting, (most in prison were single-mom parented) along with lead and cadmium poisoning and poor nutrition. Lead correlates to criminality. Vitamins help.
You don't need to spank to teach though. Spanking teaches to use violence instead of remediation. If you were torturing animals and couldn't learn to stop, you shouldn't be in charge of animals. Duh.
If you ever watch the Super Nanny you see children are usually unruly because their parents are retards, spanking or not. And spanking isn't even used to gain control. Also I think it's what they feed them too. I find spanking is usually a sign of a stupid parent that's out of control. Typically what you see in poor ghetto families. And from the track record, I don't think we should use ghetto tactics to rear our children.
You don't know that, it's speculative. Actually, people who engage in fights are more likely to have lower brain serotonin levels, moreover some people I think are addicted to being aggressive or have high testosterone levels. Fighting doesn't solve any problems or lower testosterone levels, it may raise them, at that point you've already went into a toxic mode. People who do that are going to keep doing it. They need other skills for coping with stress and their rage.
The article is equally speculative too:
"When you're exposed to violence day in and day out, it loses its emotional impact on you," Huesmann said. "Once you're emotionally numb to violence, it's much easier to engage in violence."
Walsh says. "The real impact is in shaping norms, shaping attitude. As those gradually shift, the differences start to show up in behavior."
It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password... I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will... Is that really so terribly unusual?
You were always one of those "special" kids, but we still love you.
I don't think steep angle is the problem. It's that we edit out things. Even when we meet people we do it. If someone is eating a steak, we don't scrutinize every strange and ugly contortion their faces make.
We do the same thing with pictures we've taken for the internet, we even advise our friends what photo or outfit they look best in. So, obviously when people finally meet you in person, there's going to be multiple angles, and a higher frame rate, so the problem is really that the internet isn't the equivalent of meeting someone in the real world.
But unfortunately, people are still vulnerable to falling for someone via this, mostly text-based medium, as evidenced by impersonators that cause people to empty their bank accounts, or teens to hang themselves. The chances they'd feel the same emotions in non-virtual person are slim.
One possible solution to reduce this 'deception' is to have a variety of pictures, in different lightings and settings. And to avoid being (self) deceived, look for photo variety, avoid online dating, and constantly remind yourself of this ugly paradox.
...requires that the driver smoke more weed then was used in the experiments!
Please link the study, as I've seen these studies and they are flawed and biased because of the dosing and the individuals chosen were exclusively pot-heads, I mean to the exclusion of adverse reactors, which effectively slants the study towards those experienced users who are guaranteed to tolerate it, and additionally they were given a choice of how high they WANTED to get for the study, no more than 3 joints, and you guessed it, they didn't smoke all three. Moreover, there was "safety concerns" that limited where the study took place. What safety concerns if is allegedly so safe.
This is effectively like giving a sober alcoholic the OPTION of three beers and then seeing if he's impaired, and assuming the drinking of those beers is optional and the outcome of the study would effect his future availability of alcohol. Oh yeah, and taking all the people who are way too drunk and excluding them.
There are flaws with this study: A drugs addictivness is dependent on a few things: The speed it passes the blood-brain barrier and attaches to the receptor, the firmness of that attachment, and the shortness of its half-life. Speedy and firm action causes a rapid and intense high, and short half-life causes rapid and intense withdraw.
In this study, the rats are given a supply of clean and opium-laced water, the latter of which, in addition to its bitterness, would probably cause more nausea then anything, so they'd probably opt for the clean water.
This would be like comparing the intense high of smoking verses that of nicotine gum. It would predict that people are less likely to become nicotine-addicted via gum. The same would be true for smoking crack vs. drinking water with cocaine in it. This also explains why cocaine and nicotine would be more addictive when smoked.
Additionally, the study's "results could not be exactly reproduced" so I don't know why he jumps immediately to the broad conclusion that drug-induced addiction is a myth.
And while promising and recent research shows that enriched environments help with brain disorders, the real world we live in is not such a utopia.
Heroin is nearly identical to opium. Crack is nearly identical to cocaine. Meth, LSD, Diphenhydramine, all of these general structures exist in nature and it's the origin of them. You're getting confused by the word drug, I meant illicit street drugs are mainly derived from nature, a lot of medications too, but the point: that doesn't make them OKAY or SAFE. So don't pop a cork pal. But Also, don't call them gardening and think you're a genius.
Big frigging deal. I'd imagine that some of that stuff oxidized or burned after you pulverize it and smoke it so I guess it then becomes unnatural and therefore fake and BAD. It doesn't matter whether or not it's natural or artificial is the point that you're avoiding. The question is How much abuse potential and harm does it cause to people and should they be trusted with it, just like natural plutonium.
LSD is structurally related to several hallucinogens that appear in ergot (it's origins) and other plants. That doesn't make it OKAY, in fact LSD is dangerous.
Baking cocaine with some baking soda makes it smokable. That's all. I wouldn't call that baking though. That was a joke out of the gardening comment but apparently it's so offensive to the sensitive sensibility of stoners.
It's truly amazing how far a bunch of retarded crack heads appealing to popularity will go to make drugs seem harmless by spreading bullshit and modderating any legitimate argument down.
It may be rare, but countries dig for it where ever they can and it's NATURAL radioactive and controlled. But what is more abundant and harmful? Lead, mercury, heroin, belladonna?
All drugs are plants, even highly deadly ones. The point is that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe and can't be outlawed. So put the naturalist fallacy to rest already.
Yeah, they're not making drugs. They're just gardening. That goes for heroin too. And making crack is just baking. And mining for plutonium is just digging and we can't outlaw that because it's totally natural.
The internet isn't your house. It's more like being outside or in a mall, or a conference room for discussion. And if you have a message board, you've opened yourself up to that, so you have to be prepared to handle people disagreeing with you, and I don't mean like a troll yourself, but I guess that's your option too. But if you're trying to run a business though, it'll just make you into a big jackass.
Exactly, because nothing caused you to have permission. You simply decided you wanted anonymous bandwidth and you stole it. The owner's mistake and the router's configuration simply permitted you to steal it with little effort. Your so-called interpretation of the law, "social norms," and "critical thinking" made you think it was inactionable, but all of that doesn't change the fact that your actions were wrong, and that's what I've been arguing.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and "correlation != causation" are just fancy terms for false dilemma, which I already called it when you said that you can only assume that you have permission... etc. etc.
And you still didn't explain why you're answering above to an e-mail I sent to slashdot. My e-mail reported that you're modstalking me, you're misrepresenting me above, and pointing to me in your sig, and you just responded that I shouldn't worry about your sig because it's not misrepresenting me. How is that response possible?
One explanation is that you are CmdrTaco, as approximately 1 minute after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" xTrACtO made the same fallacious quibble that you and asdfghjklqwertyuiop repeated ad nauseam. So call me wacky, but it looks like you're all the same person.
Check the time stamps fool. People can't moderate comments they don't see. Which also suggests you're guilty of moderating my comments. It's interesting that you disappeared after I fingered you and asked if you're the big taco.
Your faith in humanity rests on whether or not someone agrees that I said a bad word to you and not on the lack of humiliation you subject us and your future self to in having to read the nonsense you write?
Well, if that's all it takes, here's another faith boost: You are a dolphin molesting Nazi. Also you are very ugly and stupid. Now stop calling me anti-generous because that was enough faith-restoring charity to sustain you're flimsy version of humanity into the stratosphere. Or would you prefer your charity in the form of leaching the bandwidth and customers from ISPs, Robin Hood?
As for your sig, based on the fact that you've come in here calling me a "Paranoid fearmongering nutjob trying to outlaw generosity" and again link to my thread which has already been amended to all of your comments via your sig, it's clear what your intent is.
Moreover you are "misrepresenting" me: A defendant is found guilty of a crime in court when you demonstrate that their actions are unreasonable. That's what I was saying.
It sounds pretty unreasonable to me to say you can't tell if it's private or not because it's open so you can only assume that you have permission.
That sounds like a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is only acceptable when there is a consequence of being wrong, and in your case the consequence is to the owner and to you when you wrongfully assume permission, therefore your argument is backwards, as Without permission you can only assume that you don't have permission, lest you be criminally wrong and just plain morally wrong.
There is a gun, therefore the gun is loaded. It may not always be true but the consequence of being wrong makes it foolish to assume otherwise.
With anonymous leaching, you're subjecting yourself to prosecution when your assumptions are incorrect, and even if it wasn't the law or they don't catch you, you're wrong to use someone else's bandwidth when they don't intend you to, therefore you can only safely assume that you don't have permission.
You keep dodging that fact by changing the subject to what they should do to prevent that, of course they should do that, that's not permission and we're talking about what YOU should do. Don't change the subject.
You also claim there's zero harm. What constitutes harm when taking small bits of others' property in your eyes?
Now's your turn to insert and repeat irrelevant comments. And since you know far more than I about fallacies to be embarrassed, feel free to explain it all to us genius.
"As for my sig, I choose what goes there. I suggest you don't concern yourself with it, since it doesn't misrepresent you."
That's an interesting sentence being that I only accused you of that in an e-mail to someone else so it's almost as if you're quoting a private e-mail I sent to someone else.
The frequent unfunny jokes about homosexual rape in prison show that not only the conviction system is out of control, but the punishment system is as well.
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. This is also a joke.
For example, people don't dispute that alcohol and tobacco exact a toll on society. People drive drunk killing people, they act stupid, or do hideous things when drunk. And smoking causes cancer and it's obnoxious, disgusting and it costs people a fortune, both medically and through dependence.
So the way I see it, alcohol and tobacco need more restrictions.
So I can't throw my support behind more drug-related social problems. The only good I see from legalization is that the ills of tobacco and alcohol are no longer wildly disputed to sway opinions towards legalization. But then we still have a huge problem with said drugs anyway.
Unless we can find a way to stop people from driving drunk, smoking when they're pregnant or in the vicinity of me, or having children when they're reckless alcoholics, I'm not to fond of legalizing more drugs.
I'm glad I don't have to defend your position because it's a difficult one. The only thing I'd argue from your side is maybe that the prisons are over crowded with potheads, assuming that was true. That's about it.
The social convention is that you get permission to use peoples stuff first, especially when it's completely obvious where the boundary is, like a house on top of it, abutted by neighbors; or completely obvious that they failed to configure it, and completely obvious that wireless phones, keyboards, networks are tools invented for convenience - not for leach charity or because they value zero security. In your head however, it's okay because you want it. That's all that matters to you. That the alternative is undesirable to you doesn't make you any less of a stealer or a trespasser. That's wishful thinking, appeal to fear, and slippery slopes. That means again, that your point is irrelevant and fallacious. You narcissistically think you can super smart your way out of it by twisting the words and deceiving just like Bill Gates and Hans Reiser.
Again, we're not talking about a supermarket or business that has a financial interest in people frequenting their dot com and downloading files, we're talking about stealing wifi from your neighbors...explicitly authorize clients that it is not private... This is asking to come in and hearing a yes before proceeding.
I told you before: Fallacy of equivocation. An auto configuration of a computer isn't the equivalent to human authority. And remember, that lack of authority is the spirit of trespass.
More strawmen. I never said sharing any network or having a network unsecured should be criminal. I said that if you don't have HUMAN authority then leaching wifi should be criminal trespass of a computer network along with stealing bandwidth. Because that's what it is.
I'll also add that I shared networks of acquaintances twice, with explicit HUMAN permission, and in each instance I hogged bandwidth interfering with their access, and that was WITH permission. Without permission, I'm 100% sure that unlimited people are going to be abusing their neighbors wifi, especially where they do so anonymously. It's a fact that you wish to deny but it's blatantly obvious.
Again, Another obvious fact, or apparently to those of us grownups with frontal lobes: some people leave their doors and windows open accidentally or intentionally out of convenience. It's not permission for you to trespass and steal on their property. Don't bring up their recklessness as a two-wrongs non sequitur AGAIN. We're talking about the wrongness of trespass and stealing. Don't change the subject.
We're not talking about neighbors calling their networks "Pleaze_Use_Me" and putting their router on their lawn. We're talking about people who set up a network INSIDE their HOUSE so they can use their notebook as intended - conveniently wireless. That they fail to encase their house in lead or fail to secure their network doesn't mean they're all okay with everyone leaching.
Ad hominem. Nothing about my upbringing remotely involves this argument. My positions are independent, reasonable and sound.
I'm not sure what's more tragic, your regurgitation of my own insults, your failure to recognize that stealing property or electricity is a crime much the same as it should be for stealing network bandwidth, or that you tragically can't understand an analogy that proves that you have more than A dilemma, but rather a choice to act reasonably and responsibly, instead of blaming your victims for their many wrongs so you can feel better about violating them through stealing their wifi.
Unlike you though, I don't admonish them behind their back, or even to their faces. I just don't take advantage of them, like a responsible person. However, if I ever decided to take advantage, unlike you, I would know that it's trespass and stealing.
You're such a big fat loser, not only do you steal bandwidth and fail to win an untenable argument about how you "aren't stealing bandwidth" but you had to go and cyberstalk my comments down like the big loser that you are. I don't moderate your comments down even though you're a supreme retard. Don't you have some other cyber crimes you're neglecting, other than attacking people who make sense because you're a criminal?
And are you CmdrTaco? Because after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" someone named xtracto immediately posted his disingenuous opinion which mirrors yours and your name is el americano. All following a related theme. I never thought CmdrTaco would be so dense though, but than other than recognizing his name there, I forget he exists, so I could be wrong.
The spirit of trespass is being on someone's land without permission. You don't have to do damage to be in violation of that and to be charged punitive damages. In some instances, such as a conspicuous parking lot, or that vast national park that you apparently live on, you might be able to argue something about a lack of a sign, but that only means it's not actionable. It doesn't mean that you' weren't trespassing or doing something WRONG or that you didn't pretend to be unaware. You keep treating trespass law as if it only bears responsibilities upon the owner; it applies more to the trespasser.
When talking about obvious, private, residential homes, you can't make such a defense, especially for stealing wifi because you know better. It's completely unreasonable. Even if it was a business. I've already stated why: the typical owner isn't doing it for your sake; it's a convenience for their sake, or for a businesses patrons. It's not free as you claim, but it wouldn't matter either. Additionally, crimes can be committed with those networks, something their owners fear. Point: The vast majority of them don't want you there.
Using electricity, however small an amount of it, costs money. (It's amazing how you cling to untenable positions. You're really hurting yourself by doing it though.) Even if you could, punitive damages can apply even if there was no physical damage.
Hey, you said stealing and trespass only applies to physical things that could be done in the presence of a sign or fence. You also said nonsense about it being free, harmless and the user probably wouldn't notice, and it's avoidable, if the owner chooses.
Therefore my analogy holds and it shows that your position is absurd and wrong. Additionally I explained why all of those arguments were wrong and irrelevant but you can't grasp logic.
But now that you mention it, the utilities run through properties, and that doesn't make it okay for you to tap into them. Doing so would be stealing and possibly trespass on the electrical boxes. And those utilities can include networks and phone lines as well. Yes, you can trespass on a box or even a person, although they might call it assault. I know how you like to be pedantic to avoid the inexorable truth.
Here's a hint when crafting your false dilemmas and being a jackass in general:
If you don't like X, than Z.
You can insert variables like taxes, and then move to Russia. The point is to be a really gigantic anus. For maximum insult make it a two-wrongs fallacy.
You said If they don't want to be leached, they can change it, along with the signs and fence. That means that it's wrong for them not to. So make up your frigging mind. Again, it's a two-wrongs fallacy and false dilemma. I explained it several times but you're that stupid. Now you flop the statement into a vague and suggestive strawman. You're pathetic. Just recognize (two wrongs) that leaving a network open by mistake doesn't make it okay for you to leach it. I'll expound further: Some people after raping a woman say she could have avoided it if she wasn't out late, looking sexy, etc. How about NOT RAPE HER YOU FUCKING IDIOT. You have a choice TOO (not a dilemma). Eve
You're going by an ultra ultra strict strawman 'interpretation' of the law, legally actionable beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm talking about reality and the spirit of the law.
According to you, if I see a patch of grass near my house with an outlet, it wouldn't be stealing to plug things in there because electricity isn't a physicality. And it wouldn't be trespassing because there wasn't a fence and a sign. Especially if no one catches me. Baloney!The boundary is not the fence. It's the property.
Trespass to Land Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered may sue even if no actual harm is done....the tortfeasor [wrongdoer] must voluntarily go to a specific location, but need not be aware that he has entered the property of a particular person....
Actual damage is not necessarily a required element of a trespass to chattels claim.
You're using bandwidth that doesn't belong to you, therefore stealing it. The ISP knows this and doesn't want you doing that, they even put it in their contracts, and the majority of consumers feel the same way. And you are trespassing on a network without permission to accomplish that.
But even if 1, 2, and 3 were true, as I've pointed out already they are not, all of those points are irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant as to weather or not you're trespassing on a network and stealing bandwidth..
1. Harm can arise when the hacker uses a network to engage in crime or access things he shouldn't. And the owner doesn't have to notice you for you to be in the wrong and I don't mean some legal theory you have of what wrong is.
2. It's not free. That bandwidth can be throttled and leaches may cause the throttling of other users. Nickels and dimes tax systems collectively. But again, totally irrelevant. Even if this was true, it's not your property. The ISP and the renter can do whatever they want with their property, including waste it.
3. How old are you; 11? You keep clinging to the two wrongs fallacy. Just because something is 100% avoidable doesn't mean that you're not trespassing, stealing, or wrong.
Sure, I could become an expert in securing my foundation with large fences, barbed wire, and signs everywhere telling stupid people how NOT to be a parasite all over my property, but we shouldn't have to turn our domestic properties into ugly fortresses because you're a greedy sonofabitch who's only definition of wrong revolves around what people are trying to take what you've deemed "free stuff" away from you.
But if I unwittingly fail to do all of that, in the end, you're still in the wrong.
How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?
Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.
I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.
Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.
So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.
Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.
Perhaps, as is the case for statutory rape, there is no defense for distribution, but IANAL. nevertheless it's a little too harsh of a punishment for children. Especially since they're the alleged victimizer of themselves, and will probably suffer enough having to live with that humiliating mistake.
As for adults however, they should be prosecuted, but I don't know what to do with them afterwards. Perhaps they should build an offender ghetto.
Slashdot Mirror
The radio broadcasts are intended to be listened to. Browsing the net in private to read or look at porn is not the same as being the operator of a radio station.
It is illegal to see things, in some situations. E.g., if you trespass or climb up a ladder and look in someone's window, you're invading privacy. This is why people can, and have, sued google for taking photos of their private property.
At least where I live, people have a right to a certain level of, and expectation of privacy in some situations. I'd argue, as most reasonable people would, that it applies to wifi.
Why does everyone sound like a bunch of irritable, dimmwitted grandpas in this thread? The problem with violence in schools is related to poverty, trash parents and single mom parenting, (most in prison were single-mom parented) along with lead and cadmium poisoning and poor nutrition. Lead correlates to criminality. Vitamins help.
You don't need to spank to teach though. Spanking teaches to use violence instead of remediation. If you were torturing animals and couldn't learn to stop, you shouldn't be in charge of animals. Duh.
If you ever watch the Super Nanny you see children are usually unruly because their parents are retards, spanking or not. And spanking isn't even used to gain control. Also I think it's what they feed them too. I find spanking is usually a sign of a stupid parent that's out of control. Typically what you see in poor ghetto families. And from the track record, I don't think we should use ghetto tactics to rear our children.
You don't know that, it's speculative. Actually, people who engage in fights are more likely to have lower brain serotonin levels, moreover some people I think are addicted to being aggressive or have high testosterone levels. Fighting doesn't solve any problems or lower testosterone levels, it may raise them, at that point you've already went into a toxic mode. People who do that are going to keep doing it. They need other skills for coping with stress and their rage.
The article is equally speculative too:
many of them are probably under contracts with their governemtn obliging them to go back home for a set number of years after graduation
Which they no doubt comply with, Because obviously if they don't go back, their family gets tortured.
It just seems bizarre to me how many people think it's normal to give out their password... I've never revealed a password to anyone in my life and never will... Is that really so terribly unusual?
You were always one of those "special" kids, but we still love you.
I don't think steep angle is the problem. It's that we edit out things. Even when we meet people we do it. If someone is eating a steak, we don't scrutinize every strange and ugly contortion their faces make.
We do the same thing with pictures we've taken for the internet, we even advise our friends what photo or outfit they look best in. So, obviously when people finally meet you in person, there's going to be multiple angles, and a higher frame rate, so the problem is really that the internet isn't the equivalent of meeting someone in the real world.
But unfortunately, people are still vulnerable to falling for someone via this, mostly text-based medium, as evidenced by impersonators that cause people to empty their bank accounts, or teens to hang themselves. The chances they'd feel the same emotions in non-virtual person are slim.
One possible solution to reduce this 'deception' is to have a variety of pictures, in different lightings and settings. And to avoid being (self) deceived, look for photo variety, avoid online dating, and constantly remind yourself of this ugly paradox.
...requires that the driver smoke more weed then was used in the experiments!
Please link the study, as I've seen these studies and they are flawed and biased because of the dosing and the individuals chosen were exclusively pot-heads, I mean to the exclusion of adverse reactors, which effectively slants the study towards those experienced users who are guaranteed to tolerate it, and additionally they were given a choice of how high they WANTED to get for the study, no more than 3 joints, and you guessed it, they didn't smoke all three. Moreover, there was "safety concerns" that limited where the study took place. What safety concerns if is allegedly so safe.
This is effectively like giving a sober alcoholic the OPTION of three beers and then seeing if he's impaired, and assuming the drinking of those beers is optional and the outcome of the study would effect his future availability of alcohol. Oh yeah, and taking all the people who are way too drunk and excluding them.
There are flaws with this study: A drugs addictivness is dependent on a few things: The speed it passes the blood-brain barrier and attaches to the receptor, the firmness of that attachment, and the shortness of its half-life. Speedy and firm action causes a rapid and intense high, and short half-life causes rapid and intense withdraw.
In this study, the rats are given a supply of clean and opium-laced water, the latter of which, in addition to its bitterness, would probably cause more nausea then anything, so they'd probably opt for the clean water.
This would be like comparing the intense high of smoking verses that of nicotine gum. It would predict that people are less likely to become nicotine-addicted via gum. The same would be true for smoking crack vs. drinking water with cocaine in it. This also explains why cocaine and nicotine would be more addictive when smoked.
Additionally, the study's "results could not be exactly reproduced" so I don't know why he jumps immediately to the broad conclusion that drug-induced addiction is a myth.
And while promising and recent research shows that enriched environments help with brain disorders, the real world we live in is not such a utopia.
Heroin is nearly identical to opium. Crack is nearly identical to cocaine. Meth, LSD, Diphenhydramine, all of these general structures exist in nature and it's the origin of them. You're getting confused by the word drug, I meant illicit street drugs are mainly derived from nature, a lot of medications too, but the point: that doesn't make them OKAY or SAFE. So don't pop a cork pal. But Also, don't call them gardening and think you're a genius.
Big frigging deal. I'd imagine that some of that stuff oxidized or burned after you pulverize it and smoke it so I guess it then becomes unnatural and therefore fake and BAD. It doesn't matter whether or not it's natural or artificial is the point that you're avoiding. The question is How much abuse potential and harm does it cause to people and should they be trusted with it, just like natural plutonium.
LSD is structurally related to several hallucinogens that appear in ergot (it's origins) and other plants. That doesn't make it OKAY, in fact LSD is dangerous.
Baking cocaine with some baking soda makes it smokable. That's all. I wouldn't call that baking though. That was a joke out of the gardening comment but apparently it's so offensive to the sensitive sensibility of stoners.
It's truly amazing how far a bunch of retarded crack heads appealing to popularity will go to make drugs seem harmless by spreading bullshit and modderating any legitimate argument down.
It may be rare, but countries dig for it where ever they can and it's NATURAL radioactive and controlled. But what is more abundant and harmful? Lead, mercury, heroin, belladonna?
All drugs are plants, even highly deadly ones. The point is that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe and can't be outlawed. So put the naturalist fallacy to rest already.
Yeah, they're not making drugs. They're just gardening. That goes for heroin too. And making crack is just baking. And mining for plutonium is just digging and we can't outlaw that because it's totally natural.
The internet isn't your house. It's more like being outside or in a mall, or a conference room for discussion. And if you have a message board, you've opened yourself up to that, so you have to be prepared to handle people disagreeing with you, and I don't mean like a troll yourself, but I guess that's your option too. But if you're trying to run a business though, it'll just make you into a big jackass.
There's no assumption of causation.
Exactly, because nothing caused you to have permission. You simply decided you wanted anonymous bandwidth and you stole it. The owner's mistake and the router's configuration simply permitted you to steal it with little effort. Your so-called interpretation of the law, "social norms," and "critical thinking" made you think it was inactionable, but all of that doesn't change the fact that your actions were wrong, and that's what I've been arguing.
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" and "correlation != causation" are just fancy terms for false dilemma, which I already called it when you said that you can only assume that you have permission... etc. etc.
And you still didn't explain why you're answering above to an e-mail I sent to slashdot. My e-mail reported that you're modstalking me, you're misrepresenting me above, and pointing to me in your sig, and you just responded that I shouldn't worry about your sig because it's not misrepresenting me. How is that response possible?
One explanation is that you are CmdrTaco, as approximately 1 minute after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" xTrACtO made the same fallacious quibble that you and asdfghjklqwertyuiop repeated ad nauseam. So call me wacky, but it looks like you're all the same person.
Check the time stamps fool. People can't moderate comments they don't see. Which also suggests you're guilty of moderating my comments. It's interesting that you disappeared after I fingered you and asked if you're the big taco.
Your faith in humanity rests on whether or not someone agrees that I said a bad word to you and not on the lack of humiliation you subject us and your future self to in having to read the nonsense you write?
Well, if that's all it takes, here's another faith boost: You are a dolphin molesting Nazi. Also you are very ugly and stupid. Now stop calling me anti-generous because that was enough faith-restoring charity to sustain you're flimsy version of humanity into the stratosphere. Or would you prefer your charity in the form of leaching the bandwidth and customers from ISPs, Robin Hood?
As for your sig, based on the fact that you've come in here calling me a "Paranoid fearmongering nutjob trying to outlaw generosity" and again link to my thread which has already been amended to all of your comments via your sig, it's clear what your intent is.
Moreover you are "misrepresenting" me: A defendant is found guilty of a crime in court when you demonstrate that their actions are unreasonable. That's what I was saying.
It sounds pretty unreasonable to me to say you can't tell if it's private or not because it's open so you can only assume that you have permission.
That sounds like a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is only acceptable when there is a consequence of being wrong, and in your case the consequence is to the owner and to you when you wrongfully assume permission, therefore your argument is backwards, as Without permission you can only assume that you don't have permission, lest you be criminally wrong and just plain morally wrong.
There is a gun, therefore the gun is loaded. It may not always be true but the consequence of being wrong makes it foolish to assume otherwise.
With anonymous leaching, you're subjecting yourself to prosecution when your assumptions are incorrect, and even if it wasn't the law or they don't catch you, you're wrong to use someone else's bandwidth when they don't intend you to, therefore you can only safely assume that you don't have permission.
You keep dodging that fact by changing the subject to what they should do to prevent that, of course they should do that, that's not permission and we're talking about what YOU should do. Don't change the subject.
You also claim there's zero harm. What constitutes harm when taking small bits of others' property in your eyes?
Now's your turn to insert and repeat irrelevant comments. And since you know far more than I about fallacies to be embarrassed, feel free to explain it all to us genius.
"As for my sig, I choose what goes there. I suggest you don't concern yourself with it, since it doesn't misrepresent you."
That's an interesting sentence being that I only accused you of that in an e-mail to someone else so it's almost as if you're quoting a private e-mail I sent to someone else.
The frequent unfunny jokes about homosexual rape in prison show that not only the conviction system is out of control, but the punishment system is as well.
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. This is also a joke.
For example, people don't dispute that alcohol and tobacco exact a toll on society. People drive drunk killing people, they act stupid, or do hideous things when drunk. And smoking causes cancer and it's obnoxious, disgusting and it costs people a fortune, both medically and through dependence.
So the way I see it, alcohol and tobacco need more restrictions.
So I can't throw my support behind more drug-related social problems. The only good I see from legalization is that the ills of tobacco and alcohol are no longer wildly disputed to sway opinions towards legalization. But then we still have a huge problem with said drugs anyway.
Unless we can find a way to stop people from driving drunk, smoking when they're pregnant or in the vicinity of me, or having children when they're reckless alcoholics, I'm not to fond of legalizing more drugs.
I'm glad I don't have to defend your position because it's a difficult one. The only thing I'd argue from your side is maybe that the prisons are over crowded with potheads, assuming that was true. That's about it.
The social convention is that you get permission to use peoples stuff first, especially when it's completely obvious where the boundary is, like a house on top of it, abutted by neighbors; or completely obvious that they failed to configure it, and completely obvious that wireless phones, keyboards, networks are tools invented for convenience - not for leach charity or because they value zero security. In your head however, it's okay because you want it. That's all that matters to you. That the alternative is undesirable to you doesn't make you any less of a stealer or a trespasser. That's wishful thinking, appeal to fear, and slippery slopes. That means again, that your point is irrelevant and fallacious. You narcissistically think you can super smart your way out of it by twisting the words and deceiving just like Bill Gates and Hans Reiser.
Again, we're not talking about a supermarket or business that has a financial interest in people frequenting their dot com and downloading files, we're talking about stealing wifi from your neighbors. ..explicitly authorize clients that it is not private... This is asking to come in and hearing a yes before proceeding.
I told you before: Fallacy of equivocation. An auto configuration of a computer isn't the equivalent to human authority. And remember, that lack of authority is the spirit of trespass.
More strawmen. I never said sharing any network or having a network unsecured should be criminal. I said that if you don't have HUMAN authority then leaching wifi should be criminal trespass of a computer network along with stealing bandwidth. Because that's what it is.
I'll also add that I shared networks of acquaintances twice, with explicit HUMAN permission, and in each instance I hogged bandwidth interfering with their access, and that was WITH permission. Without permission, I'm 100% sure that unlimited people are going to be abusing their neighbors wifi, especially where they do so anonymously. It's a fact that you wish to deny but it's blatantly obvious.
Again, Another obvious fact, or apparently to those of us grownups with frontal lobes: some people leave their doors and windows open accidentally or intentionally out of convenience. It's not permission for you to trespass and steal on their property. Don't bring up their recklessness as a two-wrongs non sequitur AGAIN. We're talking about the wrongness of trespass and stealing. Don't change the subject.
We're not talking about neighbors calling their networks "Pleaze_Use_Me" and putting their router on their lawn. We're talking about people who set up a network INSIDE their HOUSE so they can use their notebook as intended - conveniently wireless. That they fail to encase their house in lead or fail to secure their network doesn't mean they're all okay with everyone leaching.
Ad hominem. Nothing about my upbringing remotely involves this argument. My positions are independent, reasonable and sound.
I'm not sure what's more tragic, your regurgitation of my own insults, your failure to recognize that stealing property or electricity is a crime much the same as it should be for stealing network bandwidth, or that you tragically can't understand an analogy that proves that you have more than A dilemma, but rather a choice to act reasonably and responsibly, instead of blaming your victims for their many wrongs so you can feel better about violating them through stealing their wifi.
Unlike you though, I don't admonish them behind their back, or even to their faces. I just don't take advantage of them, like a responsible person. However, if I ever decided to take advantage, unlike you, I would know that it's trespass and stealing.
Oh no, I called you names so I guess I'm wrong.
Yeah, let's see
You're such a big fat loser, not only do you steal bandwidth and fail to win an untenable argument about how you "aren't stealing bandwidth" but you had to go and cyberstalk my comments down like the big loser that you are. I don't moderate your comments down even though you're a supreme retard. Don't you have some other cyber crimes you're neglecting, other than attacking people who make sense because you're a criminal?
And are you CmdrTaco? Because after he posted "Confessions of a Wi-Fi Thief" someone named xtracto immediately posted his disingenuous opinion which mirrors yours and your name is el americano. All following a related theme. I never thought CmdrTaco would be so dense though, but than other than recognizing his name there, I forget he exists, so I could be wrong.
The spirit of trespass is being on someone's land without permission. You don't have to do damage to be in violation of that and to be charged punitive damages. In some instances, such as a conspicuous parking lot, or that vast national park that you apparently live on, you might be able to argue something about a lack of a sign, but that only means it's not actionable. It doesn't mean that you' weren't trespassing or doing something WRONG or that you didn't pretend to be unaware. You keep treating trespass law as if it only bears responsibilities upon the owner; it applies more to the trespasser.
When talking about obvious, private, residential homes, you can't make such a defense, especially for stealing wifi because you know better. It's completely unreasonable. Even if it was a business. I've already stated why: the typical owner isn't doing it for your sake; it's a convenience for their sake, or for a businesses patrons. It's not free as you claim, but it wouldn't matter either. Additionally, crimes can be committed with those networks, something their owners fear. Point: The vast majority of them don't want you there.
Using electricity, however small an amount of it, costs money. (It's amazing how you cling to untenable positions. You're really hurting yourself by doing it though.) Even if you could, punitive damages can apply even if there was no physical damage.
Hey, you said stealing and trespass only applies to physical things that could be done in the presence of a sign or fence. You also said nonsense about it being free, harmless and the user probably wouldn't notice, and it's avoidable, if the owner chooses.
Therefore my analogy holds and it shows that your position is absurd and wrong. Additionally I explained why all of those arguments were wrong and irrelevant but you can't grasp logic.
But now that you mention it, the utilities run through properties, and that doesn't make it okay for you to tap into them. Doing so would be stealing and possibly trespass on the electrical boxes. And those utilities can include networks and phone lines as well. Yes, you can trespass on a box or even a person, although they might call it assault. I know how you like to be pedantic to avoid the inexorable truth.
Here's a hint when crafting your false dilemmas and being a jackass in general:
If you don't like X, than Z.
You can insert variables like taxes, and then move to Russia. The point is to be a really gigantic anus. For maximum insult make it a two-wrongs fallacy.
You said If they don't want to be leached, they can change it, along with the signs and fence. That means that it's wrong for them not to. So make up your frigging mind. Again, it's a two-wrongs fallacy and false dilemma. I explained it several times but you're that stupid. Now you flop the statement into a vague and suggestive strawman. You're pathetic. Just recognize (two wrongs) that leaving a network open by mistake doesn't make it okay for you to leach it. I'll expound further: Some people after raping a woman say she could have avoided it if she wasn't out late, looking sexy, etc. How about NOT RAPE HER YOU FUCKING IDIOT. You have a choice TOO (not a dilemma). Eve
You're going by an ultra ultra strict strawman 'interpretation' of the law, legally actionable beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm talking about reality and the spirit of the law.
According to you, if I see a patch of grass near my house with an outlet, it wouldn't be stealing to plug things in there because electricity isn't a physicality. And it wouldn't be trespassing because there wasn't a fence and a sign. Especially if no one catches me. Baloney! The boundary is not the fence. It's the property.
You're using bandwidth that doesn't belong to you, therefore stealing it. The ISP knows this and doesn't want you doing that, they even put it in their contracts, and the majority of consumers feel the same way. And you are trespassing on a network without permission to accomplish that.
But even if 1, 2, and 3 were true, as I've pointed out already they are not, all of those points are irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant as to weather or not you're trespassing on a network and stealing bandwidth..
1. Harm can arise when the hacker uses a network to engage in crime or access things he shouldn't. And the owner doesn't have to notice you for you to be in the wrong and I don't mean some legal theory you have of what wrong is.
2. It's not free. That bandwidth can be throttled and leaches may cause the throttling of other users. Nickels and dimes tax systems collectively. But again, totally irrelevant. Even if this was true, it's not your property. The ISP and the renter can do whatever they want with their property, including waste it.
3. How old are you; 11? You keep clinging to the two wrongs fallacy. Just because something is 100% avoidable doesn't mean that you're not trespassing, stealing, or wrong.
Sure, I could become an expert in securing my foundation with large fences, barbed wire, and signs everywhere telling stupid people how NOT to be a parasite all over my property, but we shouldn't have to turn our domestic properties into ugly fortresses because you're a greedy sonofabitch who's only definition of wrong revolves around what people are trying to take what you've deemed "free stuff" away from you.
But if I unwittingly fail to do all of that, in the end, you're still in the wrong.
How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?
Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.
I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.
Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.
So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.
Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis
Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.
Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..
Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer
"Tolerance and dependence"
As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors
Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness
Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened
Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.
Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia
Because it's a false dilemma. You don't have to do both. Anyway, he said why already:
"It's possible for you to get high and have no impact on others, but it's also possible for you to get high and be a danger or detriment to society."
and I agree with him.
Perhaps, as is the case for statutory rape, there is no defense for distribution, but IANAL. nevertheless it's a little too harsh of a punishment for children. Especially since they're the alleged victimizer of themselves, and will probably suffer enough having to live with that humiliating mistake.
As for adults however, they should be prosecuted, but I don't know what to do with them afterwards. Perhaps they should build an offender ghetto.