Actually, something just occurred to me: a child can't consent. If they can't consent, how can they be found guilty for distribution. Oh, wait a minute.. they can be charged with distribution because it doesn't matter who's in the picture. But wouldn't they be tried as children instead of getting life?
Was a teen given a life sentence for taking pictures of themselves? I heard some teens were in trouble but not that they got life.
1. If by critical thinking you mean Slothful Induction. I don't need to prove with 100% accuracy that Using property without permission is stealing resources, trespassing on a network, and wrong. It's a reasonable assumption because:
2. my assumptions are valid by social standards of property, the spirit of the law, and completely reasonable under my scenarios.
I'm not making strict legal arguments. Legal defenses are a parade of lies and deception. I'm dealing with common sense and reasonable behavior. And I've been clear about that. Therefore your fifty-page-later revelation about your poor interpretation of some law in NY and what you claim to be implied consent are straw men. Because I was never arguing that it's not implied consent; simply that it was NOT consent. I also didn't say it was stealing under a subsection of some law somewhere. Although both arguments on your part are questionable.
3. When I said property I'm talking about the network, not it's hardware.
If someone wants to share their network with people, that's their choice. But that's not what we're talking about.
You're right, Einstein, I forgot the finer details of anonymous FTP. I also thought there was info somewhere about the FTP that could be gleamed from it, such as if you're allowed access or not, who's the admin, or some info at the file root. But then I was always making the assumptions we're talking about reasonable people that could tell that "NETGEAR" as a network name was probably not configured at all. But apparently we're talking about big free-loading genius hacker low-lifes like you who commit crimes and deny everything. Something to aspire to.
Nevertheless, anonymous FTP has to be explicitly set-up. So explicitly in fact, that my mom is not going to set up an anonymous FTP by mistake, which means the chances of an anonymous FTP accidentally existing, on even an average persons computer, are practically nil. Because average people aren't network administrators.
That's also why my mom isn't going to know if her network is secure. It's unreasonable for you to say "She has a choice to secure it or I have permission." It's a false dilemma because you have choices too, of waiting to ask her for permission first. That you don't proves your only interest is in stealing. And no one is forcing you to do that. You can get your own damn internet, leach. Implied Consent is a euphemism for Forced Consent. That's what you're doing to her and saying it's consent. Ambiguity, Equivocation.
If you're so smart about fallacies why do you make such egregious violations?
4. You're claiming "implied consent" like it's a legal defense that you have permission. That again is a strict legal term and I'm not interested in what the law says but what's logically reasonable and right.
Just because something is legally "allowed" doesn't mean it's right:
Implied Consent once meant that women consent to rape through marriage. Rape is not consent. And currently the law says it's legally right for cops to forcibly detain someone who's driving a car suspiciously, and forcibly test them for drugs. That means that when you're caught with a white powder, resist arrest and eat the evidence, they are going to bust your face open, and torture you until they get a blood sample. And for no other reason than that you got in a car. But in reality, that's not consent. You have no choice. Silence and force are not consent here.
Sure, from a legal standpoint it is: but that pdf you linked to didn't agree with this either. He said too many people are unaware of tech law and the contracts their clicking. But laws have always existed/been passed with people unaware. Even before the internet. That too many people don't understand what's legal has nothing to do with "Should we make trespass laws about intangible things yet?" Maybe Ignorance != Defense is wrong, but it didn
1. Using peoples' property without their permission is stealing. Period.
None of your links (and thanks for wasting my time) and nothing you have said, and I'm reasonably confident there's nothing you can say, that would change that fact. You're either tragically confused and selfish or you've got a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.
2. I don't care about one example of NY law. Just because something is/isn't legal somewhere doesn't mean it's right. See 1.
3. Anonymous FTPs are set up with a page of rules and regulations. They're not your average neighbors property that just says linksys.
Reasonable to share warez/MP3s? FTP/P2P is used to inflate plausible deniability to cover computer crimes. Perhaps 'implied consent' (what you're so fond of) should apply there too. Is it really fair to create a P2P network like Napster and pretend like 90% of what goes on there isn't crime, and if it was, you're powerless to stop it, so bear no responsibility?
I do believe artists and developers should be compensated, reasonably balanced against free market forces, adapting to new technology. But downloading music or software and paying nothing for it is stealing, however you justify that. Calling it anything else would be deception..but that's way off topic.
I believe you're wifi opinion is also deception. Maybe you're deceiving yourself, but that's just retarded. How can you make persuasive arguments when you can't even tell the difference?
Remember that people go wireless out of convenience to themselves, not because they're underworld altruists like you. And just because YOU claim to want to be leached doesn't mean that 100% do. Nor does it give you the right.
Wrongdoers often make this claim: There's nothing wrong with X; I want X done to me. Simply replace X with e-mail intercepts, eavesdropping, impersonation, stealing, etc. It's not your place or property to decide what other people want.
Wrongdoers also claim there's no victim and that's not for you to decide. It's for the owners of the property. They and their ISP aren't bestowed with endless network capacity to divvy out anonymously for the underworld leaches.
But get this: even though you're totally WRONG, whether or not someone is inconvenienced has nothing to do with it: IT'S MY PROPERTY. If I'm away on vacation you can't live in my house or use my network, no matter how crudely you think it's being wasted. It's not yours.
4. Implied consent. Well, maybe someone who abandons their car, keyed and open, is going to have some liability on their hands if someone drives their car. Implied consent legally means that the owner is potentially forced to bear some responsibility for their recklessness. It DOES NOT mean that you're being given TRUEpermission. That doesn't make it okay for you to steal it. You have to act responsibly too. Because stealing someone's car is wrong. See 1.
5. Feeble is when you cast baloney to see what sticks like it's a court room. If you don't "think it's OK to steal" then why do you do it? Using someone's wifi - when the vast majority of wifi is intended for the convenient un-tethering of their network for their own personal convenience - is stealing.
A computer network is property. It costs money to access and use that property. The ISP, and the majority of their customers, don't want you to be on their property. Just because
you are sending postcards, not sealed envelopes... I think it's absolutely absurd to think that when you give a private for-profit organization your correspondence, you don't expect them to try to make money off their own information (after all, they have as much right of ownership to the information of what crosses their network, and from where, as you do).
What? If I send a postcard, I'm not too excited about people reading it, but then I don't assume that a corporation is going to copy everything I send and claim ownership to it just because they handle it.
Why does a corporation have a right to the information in my postcards? That's like saying that amazon has rights and ownership of all books that they handle. Copyright infringement is a crime, and it's don't stop people completely from violating it, but I expect amazon and any other company to respect copyright. Those e-mails I write are mine just the same.
I hate opt-in discounts. It's like those grocery cards that you have to choose between them spying on you for a discount, or inflated prices. And then everyone lectures you about it if you don't. It's wrong.
Because we're supposed to be in a society that's built around rules that our papers and effects and privacy should not be infringed. People do care. Just because people are unaware or don't know how to encrypt their e-mail doesn't mean a company has a right to copy, read, sell and distribute it.
Well, not everyone agrees with you. Some states make it a crime to record police, or phone calls without informing all parties.
We don't have to take the bad with the good. We can change it. Why are you so gangbusters? You sound like and ad fanatic.
Creation of profiles allow vendors to... annoy us. My needs are not being targeted well at all. My need is for them to stop profiling and showing me irrelevant things I don't want to buy.
As for your If there's anonymity demand, it'll be filled comment later. I like privacy tools like that but they always seem to be short lived. There's no guarantee that because people want those things they'll just be there. Often people want things but they're forced to take garbage. It's a wishful thinking false dilemma.
I think the problem that's occurring here is that, as they say about the "Don't think of an elephant" paradox, you can't NOT think of the elephant in the room after you've become aware of it.
As for me, I'm not a walking stereotype either; asking for directions is so gay. What does this study say about humor?
Oh, please tell me when stealing is not always stealing? I'd love an explanation there. I'd also love an explanation as to when it's not wrong to use peoples property without their permission because they failed at network security, but unfortunately I'll never get one, as you've failed miserably at reasoning and now attempt to persuade me with your toddler mentality that if something isn't bolted down it now belongs to you, and two wrongs make a right.
The property is the network too. People have decided that we're going to live in a civilization and they've decided that there's an actual definition of reasonable behavior in that society and it doesn't include the asocial behavior that you promote.
That's why we make laws and pay for things to exist like super markets, cars, computers; and all the wireless phones, keyboards, peripherals and computer networks that society decided they wanted. They didn't all decide to want wireless phones, keyboards and networks because they all wanted to be eavesdropped, keylogged, or because they wanted to be network underworld altruists. They did it for convenience.
Great job again at trying to deny that it's stealing by saying the person deserves it because they're not a computer hacker like you. It may be taking candy from babies to you, but it's still stealing. Blaming the victim is classic for a criminal.
I know you're upset, but seriously, you people need to stop repeating the whole "correlation is not causation" thing like it's a magic bullet to deny causation. I doubt you even know how to establish causation.
Most children are emotionally unstable. They cyber-stalked her, seduced her, then harassed her, then told her the world would be better without her, and then shortly after she told her mom about it and then hung herself.
What more evidence do you need to establish causation? I'll tell you:
1. The first step is to have the correlation. Check.
2. The second step is to come up with the best theories:
Sure, I suppose some magical elves may have materialized right there in her room to tell her that in the future she'd be pure evil, and maybe it's possible that the invisible man hung her, but Occam's razor tells us otherwise, and that's the second step: Finding the most plausible explanation.
3. Then you test those theories. So I guess you could seduce and then cyber bully lots of teenagers and tell them "they are worthless and should commit suicide" to see how many of them do it, and then you've gotten pretty close to establishing that bullying children and telling them to kill themselves might cause them to do it.
But since we can't do that, morally, there are already several cases to look at and examine, including off-line. And most teens have been bullied and they report that suicide has crossed their minds and they are emotionally hurt by it. Conclusion: bullying, emotional abuse, and harassment is injurious to the underdeveloped minds of teens and can lead them to suicide.
Yeah, those stupid children. It was just the other day that I was making fun of an 8-year-old and made him cry. What a stupid crybaby living on borrowed time. And it's not like anyone would predict that an alcoholic would die or kill others. That never happens. This may seem callous but the world is just filled with a bunch of distorted people.
But seriously now, I was the subject of an elaborate smear campaign when I was in my teens and that kind of stuff can really screw with the mind of a teenager. I guess I was lucky there wasn't a monstrously evil webpage called myspace back then, as it seems that over the internet it's far easier to seduce and manipulate people.
All analogies have differences, the point is that if you recognize that doors are left open by accident and sometimes on purpose for those who are lazy, reckless, or overly trusting (that people won't tresspass), and you recognize that the same happens with networks - even more so because networks are complex abstractions that lay people don't understand, so third-parties configure them for convenience - then you can not conclude that you have permission without getting it from the owner first.
You either have permission or you don't. Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong. Not knowing doesn't mean you have permission. That other people are wrongfully unaware or reckless does not mean you have permission. That some hypothetical might permit you does not give you permission. It's not for you to decide what's a harm or 'zero' inconvenience; it's not your property.
There's really no getting around these points so the argument will go nowhere unless you call it what it is.
I think you have it completely backwards moron. That's like saying "I don't know if I'm allowed to enter this open door so I have to assume that I have permission without asking first.
People's wifi networks are typically open by mistake or convenience. A lot of people leave their doors open intentionally, it doesn't mean you have permission to use their property. It simply means the people who have permission to use it are convenienced.
You need to ask first. The fact that you don't ask but instead suggest that increasing numbers intentionally want everyone to anonymously leach their network, and plead ignorance like it's totally okay, shows that you're just interested in leaching covertly to hide your wrongdoing.
What's with all the bad ethics of people on slashdot? It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open. It's okay to steal stuff because someone else did it. Duh.
If something is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, it'll still be that way when you do it. That's where the "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" cliche came from.
I say I'm gay and then they blow me. Works every time.
Girls play the whole "I don't want sex" game too, and my reassurances don't seem to help though. But I can't really say that I'm 100% disinterested in girls, just mostly.
It reminds me of when a white person tells a black person how they have black friends and they're not racist. Maybe the reason is that in our subconscious it's all a bunch of sex and wicked stuff, so we feel guilty about it and start to reassure everyone that we're not gay or racist or kinky or whatever. But society fills our heads with paranoia about being gay and all the things that would lead one to believe that someone is gay, such as having a gay friend, not liking sports etc.
Maybe these guys aren't 'gay'. The way lie detectors work is from a baseline. But if you've just met someone and they keep telling you how straight they are it makes you wonder. That's all.
I'm not imposing any values on anyone. These people talk to me and they find it necessary to constantly remind me how ungay they are, out of nowhere. Sometimes they are secretly gay though, sometimes they are attractive but I'm not thinking about it, and other times they're totally ugly.
When they get like that I try to reassure them and I'm willing to be their friend just the same. But at the same time I can't promise anyone that I won't think about them sexually, and by them bringing it up subconsciously we're both thinking about it.
You can't convince someone with words that your intentions are good because it begs the question, i.e. it's circular logic. It doesn't mean that some won't fall for it though.
You are exactly right. And this brings up an awkward situation: I'm gay, and sometimes after talking with someone extensively online, the person finds it necessary to tell me about his girlfriend a lot and tell me that if we meet it's not a date and he doesn't want to have sex with me, and then I have to reassure him about it. So then I feel like we're both engaging in this form of lying, because we're both thinking about the topic of sex with each other. But I guess since they initially brought it up, they're totally gay. Thanks.
I think there's an alternate explanation to this: When people try to reassure us that we should trust them, our instincts tell us they're lying and that's because statistically they are. In the normal course of conversation, a person we can trust isn't going to volunteer how we have nothing to worry about before asking us to do something such as reveal information or purchase something. Doing bad to us shouldn't cross their mind. Therefore it sparks our suspicion, subconsciously.
If wifi is left open by accident and by it's nature permits individuals through it, much like a door being left open by accident where visible, it does not in and of itself translate into a right or permission by the owner for you to be using it, legally or morally, or by fallacious equivocation. What's the relevant difference for you to reject that? Reject it for a reason.
Everything about what you've said above is fallacious. Your problem is that you wouldn't recognize fallacious if it bit you in the ass, and that makes you sound like a sociopathic idiot.
Again, 'advertised' and 'sign' are ambiguous words synonymous with places of business. Just because there's a signal transmitted by a network does not mean it's the equivalent of a merchandiser advertising for the sale of goods through and by the frequenting of his property. Wouldn't you agree? Don't be unreasonable because you're trying to disagree with me so aggressively and so emotionally because you think it makes you win the argument. It doesn't. You need to stop equivocating all these words to mean what they don't.
A sign that gives me rights is the explicit permission given by the owner, not one anonymously placed without the owners permission where it would be completely unreasonable and selfish for me to assume grants me rights at my convenience because I wanted to steal wifi anonymously.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, something just occurred to me: a child can't consent. If they can't consent, how can they be found guilty for distribution. Oh, wait a minute.. they can be charged with distribution because it doesn't matter who's in the picture. But wouldn't they be tried as children instead of getting life?
Was a teen given a life sentence for taking pictures of themselves? I heard some teens were in trouble but not that they got life.
1. If by critical thinking you mean Slothful Induction. I don't need to prove with 100% accuracy that Using property without permission is stealing resources, trespassing on a network, and wrong. It's a reasonable assumption because:
2. my assumptions are valid by social standards of property, the spirit of the law, and completely reasonable under my scenarios.
I'm not making strict legal arguments. Legal defenses are a parade of lies and deception. I'm dealing with common sense and reasonable behavior. And I've been clear about that. Therefore your fifty-page-later revelation about your poor interpretation of some law in NY and what you claim to be implied consent are straw men. Because I was never arguing that it's not implied consent; simply that it was NOT consent. I also didn't say it was stealing under a subsection of some law somewhere. Although both arguments on your part are questionable.
3. When I said property I'm talking about the network, not it's hardware.
If someone wants to share their network with people, that's their choice. But that's not what we're talking about.
You're right, Einstein, I forgot the finer details of anonymous FTP. I also thought there was info somewhere about the FTP that could be gleamed from it, such as if you're allowed access or not, who's the admin, or some info at the file root. But then I was always making the assumptions we're talking about reasonable people that could tell that "NETGEAR" as a network name was probably not configured at all. But apparently we're talking about big free-loading genius hacker low-lifes like you who commit crimes and deny everything. Something to aspire to.
Nevertheless, anonymous FTP has to be explicitly set-up. So explicitly in fact, that my mom is not going to set up an anonymous FTP by mistake, which means the chances of an anonymous FTP accidentally existing, on even an average persons computer, are practically nil. Because average people aren't network administrators.
That's also why my mom isn't going to know if her network is secure. It's unreasonable for you to say "She has a choice to secure it or I have permission." It's a false dilemma because you have choices too, of waiting to ask her for permission first. That you don't proves your only interest is in stealing. And no one is forcing you to do that. You can get your own damn internet, leach. Implied Consent is a euphemism for Forced Consent. That's what you're doing to her and saying it's consent. Ambiguity, Equivocation.
If you're so smart about fallacies why do you make such egregious violations?
4. You're claiming "implied consent" like it's a legal defense that you have permission. That again is a strict legal term and I'm not interested in what the law says but what's logically reasonable and right.
Just because something is legally "allowed" doesn't mean it's right:
Implied Consent once meant that women consent to rape through marriage. Rape is not consent. And currently the law says it's legally right for cops to forcibly detain someone who's driving a car suspiciously, and forcibly test them for drugs. That means that when you're caught with a white powder, resist arrest and eat the evidence, they are going to bust your face open, and torture you until they get a blood sample. And for no other reason than that you got in a car. But in reality, that's not consent. You have no choice. Silence and force are not consent here.
Sure, from a legal standpoint it is: but that pdf you linked to didn't agree with this either. He said too many people are unaware of tech law and the contracts their clicking. But laws have always existed/been passed with people unaware. Even before the internet. That too many people don't understand what's legal has nothing to do with "Should we make trespass laws about intangible things yet?" Maybe Ignorance != Defense is wrong, but it didn
1. Using peoples' property without their permission is stealing. Period.
None of your links (and thanks for wasting my time) and nothing you have said, and I'm reasonably confident there's nothing you can say, that would change that fact. You're either tragically confused and selfish or you've got a terminal case of cognitive dissonance.
2. I don't care about one example of NY law. Just because something is/isn't legal somewhere doesn't mean it's right. See 1.
3. Anonymous FTPs are set up with a page of rules and regulations. They're not your average neighbors property that just says linksys.
Reasonable to share warez/MP3s? FTP/P2P is used to inflate plausible deniability to cover computer crimes. Perhaps 'implied consent' (what you're so fond of) should apply there too. Is it really fair to create a P2P network like Napster and pretend like 90% of what goes on there isn't crime, and if it was, you're powerless to stop it, so bear no responsibility?
I do believe artists and developers should be compensated, reasonably balanced against free market forces, adapting to new technology. But downloading music or software and paying nothing for it is stealing, however you justify that. Calling it anything else would be deception..but that's way off topic.
I believe you're wifi opinion is also deception. Maybe you're deceiving yourself, but that's just retarded. How can you make persuasive arguments when you can't even tell the difference?
Remember that people go wireless out of convenience to themselves, not because they're underworld altruists like you. And just because YOU claim to want to be leached doesn't mean that 100% do. Nor does it give you the right.
Wrongdoers often make this claim: There's nothing wrong with X; I want X done to me. Simply replace X with e-mail intercepts, eavesdropping, impersonation, stealing, etc. It's not your place or property to decide what other people want.
Wrongdoers also claim there's no victim and that's not for you to decide. It's for the owners of the property. They and their ISP aren't bestowed with endless network capacity to divvy out anonymously for the underworld leaches.
But get this: even though you're totally WRONG, whether or not someone is inconvenienced has nothing to do with it: IT'S MY PROPERTY. If I'm away on vacation you can't live in my house or use my network, no matter how crudely you think it's being wasted. It's not yours.
4. Implied consent. Well, maybe someone who abandons their car, keyed and open, is going to have some liability on their hands if someone drives their car. Implied consent legally means that the owner is potentially forced to bear some responsibility for their recklessness. It DOES NOT mean that you're being given TRUE permission. That doesn't make it okay for you to steal it. You have to act responsibly too. Because stealing someone's car is wrong. See 1.
5. Feeble is when you cast baloney to see what sticks like it's a court room. If you don't "think it's OK to steal" then why do you do it? Using someone's wifi - when the vast majority of wifi is intended for the convenient un-tethering of their network for their own personal convenience - is stealing.
A computer network is property. It costs money to access and use that property. The ISP, and the majority of their customers, don't want you to be on their property. Just because
What? If I send a postcard, I'm not too excited about people reading it, but then I don't assume that a corporation is going to copy everything I send and claim ownership to it just because they handle it.
Why does a corporation have a right to the information in my postcards? That's like saying that amazon has rights and ownership of all books that they handle. Copyright infringement is a crime, and it's don't stop people completely from violating it, but I expect amazon and any other company to respect copyright. Those e-mails I write are mine just the same.
I hate opt-in discounts. It's like those grocery cards that you have to choose between them spying on you for a discount, or inflated prices. And then everyone lectures you about it if you don't. It's wrong.
Yeah, I always clear my cookies when I close windows. Especially in a torrent, as nothing spoils an evening more than wet cookies.
No, that's why the ISP wants it. I don't want it. Try not with the double speak why don't you.
Because we're supposed to be in a society that's built around rules that our papers and effects and privacy should not be infringed. People do care. Just because people are unaware or don't know how to encrypt their e-mail doesn't mean a company has a right to copy, read, sell and distribute it.
Well, not everyone agrees with you. Some states make it a crime to record police, or phone calls without informing all parties.
We don't have to take the bad with the good. We can change it. Why are you so gangbusters? You sound like and ad fanatic.
Creation of profiles allow vendors to... annoy us. My needs are not being targeted well at all. My need is for them to stop profiling and showing me irrelevant things I don't want to buy.
As for your If there's anonymity demand, it'll be filled comment later. I like privacy tools like that but they always seem to be short lived. There's no guarantee that because people want those things they'll just be there. Often people want things but they're forced to take garbage. It's a wishful thinking false dilemma.
They give me oral, hahaha.
I think the problem that's occurring here is that, as they say about the "Don't think of an elephant" paradox, you can't NOT think of the elephant in the room after you've become aware of it.
As for me, I'm not a walking stereotype either; asking for directions is so gay. What does this study say about humor?
Oh, please tell me when stealing is not always stealing? I'd love an explanation there. I'd also love an explanation as to when it's not wrong to use peoples property without their permission because they failed at network security, but unfortunately I'll never get one, as you've failed miserably at reasoning and now attempt to persuade me with your toddler mentality that if something isn't bolted down it now belongs to you, and two wrongs make a right.
The property is the network too. People have decided that we're going to live in a civilization and they've decided that there's an actual definition of reasonable behavior in that society and it doesn't include the asocial behavior that you promote.
That's why we make laws and pay for things to exist like super markets, cars, computers; and all the wireless phones, keyboards, peripherals and computer networks that society decided they wanted. They didn't all decide to want wireless phones, keyboards and networks because they all wanted to be eavesdropped, keylogged, or because they wanted to be network underworld altruists. They did it for convenience.
Great job again at trying to deny that it's stealing by saying the person deserves it because they're not a computer hacker like you. It may be taking candy from babies to you, but it's still stealing. Blaming the victim is classic for a criminal.
I know you're upset, but seriously, you people need to stop repeating the whole "correlation is not causation" thing like it's a magic bullet to deny causation. I doubt you even know how to establish causation.
Most children are emotionally unstable. They cyber-stalked her, seduced her, then harassed her, then told her the world would be better without her, and then shortly after she told her mom about it and then hung herself.
What more evidence do you need to establish causation? I'll tell you:
1. The first step is to have the correlation. Check.
2. The second step is to come up with the best theories:
Sure, I suppose some magical elves may have materialized right there in her room to tell her that in the future she'd be pure evil, and maybe it's possible that the invisible man hung her, but Occam's razor tells us otherwise, and that's the second step: Finding the most plausible explanation.
3. Then you test those theories. So I guess you could seduce and then cyber bully lots of teenagers and tell them "they are worthless and should commit suicide" to see how many of them do it, and then you've gotten pretty close to establishing that bullying children and telling them to kill themselves might cause them to do it.
But since we can't do that, morally, there are already several cases to look at and examine, including off-line. And most teens have been bullied and they report that suicide has crossed their minds and they are emotionally hurt by it. Conclusion: bullying, emotional abuse, and harassment is injurious to the underdeveloped minds of teens and can lead them to suicide.
Case closed.
Yeah, those stupid children. It was just the other day that I was making fun of an 8-year-old and made him cry. What a stupid crybaby living on borrowed time. And it's not like anyone would predict that an alcoholic would die or kill others. That never happens. This may seem callous but the world is just filled with a bunch of distorted people.
But seriously now, I was the subject of an elaborate smear campaign when I was in my teens and that kind of stuff can really screw with the mind of a teenager. I guess I was lucky there wasn't a monstrously evil webpage called myspace back then, as it seems that over the internet it's far easier to seduce and manipulate people.
All analogies have differences, the point is that if you recognize that doors are left open by accident and sometimes on purpose for those who are lazy, reckless, or overly trusting (that people won't tresspass), and you recognize that the same happens with networks - even more so because networks are complex abstractions that lay people don't understand, so third-parties configure them for convenience - then you can not conclude that you have permission without getting it from the owner first.
You either have permission or you don't. Using and frequenting someone's property without their permission is trespassing, stealing and wrong. Not knowing doesn't mean you have permission. That other people are wrongfully unaware or reckless does not mean you have permission. That some hypothetical might permit you does not give you permission. It's not for you to decide what's a harm or 'zero' inconvenience; it's not your property.
There's really no getting around these points so the argument will go nowhere unless you call it what it is.
I think you have it completely backwards moron. That's like saying "I don't know if I'm allowed to enter this open door so I have to assume that I have permission without asking first.
People's wifi networks are typically open by mistake or convenience. A lot of people leave their doors open intentionally, it doesn't mean you have permission to use their property. It simply means the people who have permission to use it are convenienced.
You need to ask first. The fact that you don't ask but instead suggest that increasing numbers intentionally want everyone to anonymously leach their network, and plead ignorance like it's totally okay, shows that you're just interested in leaching covertly to hide your wrongdoing.
You have a great criminal mind-set.
1. I'm not calling everything stealing; just the use of your neighbors wifi just because it happens to be open.
2. I wouldn't make the same assumptions about wifi because it's not simply a water fountain on public property.
3. I'm talking about where the owner did not intend, and most of them don't, hence stealing, trespassing, and wrong.
If you want to leach wifi, go ahead. Just don't come on here and call it anything but what it really is.
What's with all the bad ethics of people on slashdot? It's okay to steal wifi because the network door was left open. It's okay to steal stuff because someone else did it. Duh.
If something is morally, ethically, and legally wrong, it'll still be that way when you do it. That's where the "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" cliche came from.
I say I'm gay and then they blow me. Works every time.
Girls play the whole "I don't want sex" game too, and my reassurances don't seem to help though. But I can't really say that I'm 100% disinterested in girls, just mostly.
It reminds me of when a white person tells a black person how they have black friends and they're not racist. Maybe the reason is that in our subconscious it's all a bunch of sex and wicked stuff, so we feel guilty about it and start to reassure everyone that we're not gay or racist or kinky or whatever. But society fills our heads with paranoia about being gay and all the things that would lead one to believe that someone is gay, such as having a gay friend, not liking sports etc.
Maybe these guys aren't 'gay'. The way lie detectors work is from a baseline. But if you've just met someone and they keep telling you how straight they are it makes you wonder. That's all.
I'm not imposing any values on anyone. These people talk to me and they find it necessary to constantly remind me how ungay they are, out of nowhere. Sometimes they are secretly gay though, sometimes they are attractive but I'm not thinking about it, and other times they're totally ugly.
When they get like that I try to reassure them and I'm willing to be their friend just the same. But at the same time I can't promise anyone that I won't think about them sexually, and by them bringing it up subconsciously we're both thinking about it.
You can't convince someone with words that your intentions are good because it begs the question, i.e. it's circular logic. It doesn't mean that some won't fall for it though.
"Do no evil" is an imperative, and suggests a code to follow
But that they have to think about it means they're struggling with it already.
You are exactly right. And this brings up an awkward situation: I'm gay, and sometimes after talking with someone extensively online, the person finds it necessary to tell me about his girlfriend a lot and tell me that if we meet it's not a date and he doesn't want to have sex with me, and then I have to reassure him about it. So then I feel like we're both engaging in this form of lying, because we're both thinking about the topic of sex with each other. But I guess since they initially brought it up, they're totally gay. Thanks.
I think there's an alternate explanation to this: When people try to reassure us that we should trust them, our instincts tell us they're lying and that's because statistically they are. In the normal course of conversation, a person we can trust isn't going to volunteer how we have nothing to worry about before asking us to do something such as reveal information or purchase something. Doing bad to us shouldn't cross their mind. Therefore it sparks our suspicion, subconsciously.
You defeat sloth through repetition.
If wifi is left open by accident and by it's nature permits individuals through it, much like a door being left open by accident where visible, it does not in and of itself translate into a right or permission by the owner for you to be using it, legally or morally, or by fallacious equivocation. What's the relevant difference for you to reject that? Reject it for a reason.
Everything about what you've said above is fallacious. Your problem is that you wouldn't recognize fallacious if it bit you in the ass, and that makes you sound like a sociopathic idiot.
Again, 'advertised' and 'sign' are ambiguous words synonymous with places of business. Just because there's a signal transmitted by a network does not mean it's the equivalent of a merchandiser advertising for the sale of goods through and by the frequenting of his property. Wouldn't you agree? Don't be unreasonable because you're trying to disagree with me so aggressively and so emotionally because you think it makes you win the argument. It doesn't. You need to stop equivocating all these words to mean what they don't.
A sign that gives me rights is the explicit permission given by the owner, not one anonymously placed without the owners permission where it would be completely unreasonable and selfish for me to assume grants me rights at my convenience because I wanted to steal wifi anonymously.
You have the mind of a 4-year-old and a criminal.
Or a "Libraries of Congress" analogy.