Hey now, it's one thing to not report a small amount of money or a phone call. It's another thing entirely to have a secret swiss bank account or to be bouncing your calls all over the planet for free by hacking the entire phone system and selling free calls to your friends. If you're so doing that you'd better expect you're being spied on.
Of course, this is easy for me to say, being sighted and having never hacked the phone system. Although, when I was little, I do remember someone mentioning *69 and I tried *?? feeling all 1337, and I used to dial random 800 numbers to see what I'd get, so I guess with his knowledge it was probably tempting. But come on.
In some states it's illegal to record a phone call without informing that the call is being monitored and it seems you can't even record cops these days. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't record a call or a cop when they're doing something equally egregious. I just wouldn't tell anyone about it. In this instance I'm not really shocked that the phone company tried to track him without a warrant. I can't really blame them and I'm not sure it's even wrong, morally.
This is not a two wrongs thing - if they had a warrant or not - it would have been totally justified to spy on him. Complaining about the lack of a warrant is just a technicality. He was in the wrong hacking the phone system and selling free calls to his friends. If you want to turn your phone into a toaster, go ahead, but he was hacking the phone network. Those two wrongs are like apples and oranges.
I looked up "regulate" too, and there are several definitions. But that's just one fragment of a sentence of an entire body of texts that collectively suggest it's referring to individuals.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I've seen this argued from both sides and the logical conclusion from a variety of quotes is that it's an individual right.
"The right of the people" is mentioned several times and it's referring to all individuals.
Amendment I
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No, you're talking about a store analogy that I've rejected. I'm talking about the actual network, and you repeatedly say that it's giving you permission to use it because it's open. It's not any more permission than a door's openness permits you through it would translate into the owner giving you permission to be there. The entire argument relies on a permissional equivocation. That means you're describing something with words that have different meanings in different contexts and erroneously applying alternate meanings.
Here's examples where you've equivocated.
Z34107: I'm guessing he didn't configure it at all, let alone intentionally configure his device that way. A misconfigured router is not an open invitation to a private network.
You: He has a router. The router is configured open. Therefore, he has his router configured open....the whole question of the owner's intention is completely irrelevant...
Again: I never said they were intentionally giving permission - just that they were giving permission and that's all that matters.
The above is not arguing, it's deceptions and fallacy. You're being fallacious. If you understood any of that you'd produce sound arguments. You're not going to persuade here with nonsense.
I was using that legal example to illustrate that You, and Not the wifi network, are liable because you have a responsibility to not break the law. Stealing wifi is a crime, even if the router is configured open.
I reject the store analogy because 1. Most open WiFi networks are not advertised stores that have an incentive to get people to do business on, patronize, frequent, etc.. and 2. Most open WiFi networks are left open by mistake. They do not have a sign on them, but if they did, I'd argue much like with the store, you should still not rely on anonymous signs as permission as the owner may still not have meant it, and if he didn't, you're breaking the law. And however irresponsible, the unaware network owner is not breaking the law, and if he was, it doesn't make you any less liable. It's not a defense.
But within your store argument: If I went into an empty store, I'd say "Hello? Hello?" I would NOT go "Oooh yay; FREE STUFF!! and I wouldn't try things and be there. But then we've established you have the shifty mind of a criminal, so I can see why you'd do that stuff. Moreover, the clerk can't supervise your presence, so to put it your way, No One would leave a store unattended.
How exactly does a random person putting a sign on a car he does not own apply to open networks?
Easily, the third-party manufacturer opened the network by default. You're the one who said it's okay to use someone's car if they accidentally gave you permission and you drive the speed limit. How does someone accidentally give you permission to drive their car anonymously? That whole concept doesn't even make sense to me, but it seemed to make sense to you when you remembered to uphold this charade.
I do acknowledge that a clerk can't tell me to leave if he's not in the store. That isn't my problem - it is his, and it doesn't make me wrong to be there.
No, it's your problem and it is wrong for you to be there. You seem to be incapable of responsibility like an antisocial.
I'm not allowed to argue ignorance of the fact that the owner is miscommunicating his intention? That's what I'd be arguing.
You are not allowed to argue that, as a WiFi network that is open by default, is not the owner giving you permission to use it. When it's a crime, you can't argue that some people (like you allegedly) give anonymous permission so you have to anonymously assume all people do. It's the other way around.
It would not work in court either. especially if you were being prosecuted for tresspassing and said "It was completely open; it's his fault." That's not a defense.
Slashdot is not my neighbors' wifi.
I'm not saying that all signs must be ignored. I'm sa
That a door is open and permits you entrance does not mean that you have a legal permit to be there. The same applies to a network. Any arguments as such are fallacies of equivocation.
If someone puts a sign on my house that says "Free Stuff; do what you like" with the door open and you decide to help yourself even though no one's home, you would be truly naive to think it's okay to enter and take everything. Even if a door is completely open you can be found guilty of Breaking and Entering or Trespassing.
Why is it necessary for you to argue what doing business means and every other fine detail? Trading money or goods or getting free samples is what's meant by business but that or the sign doesn't make it okay for you to be there. The presence of clerks does. It's common sense.
If you are going to admit that the store is not open for business because there's a lack of a clerk then what the hell are you doing in there removing merchandise? You have no business in there then. That's trespassing and theft. A sign in the absence of a clerk does not mean you have permission.
Open for business because the door was open with a sign, yet absent a clerk is not analogous to an unsecured network. I reject your argument so make a better one.
As for your criminal liability:
Let's say the clerk was murdered in the back, and there's a "Free" suitcase filled with cocaine. You throw it in your trunk and drive off. You get pulled over. You can't argue Mistake of Fact here because you should have looked in the suitcase and you should have checked to see if everything was legitimate, just as with a network. The fact that you didn't when you have every right and responsibility to verify legitimacy proves that you are in possession of cocaine. You could even make it $1000 from the safe and conceal it in a box of something else. The same would apply. Ignorance is not an excuse here.
First a car can be used if permission is accidentally given to you (you need that for your principle to stand up) but then it can't. Fails your principle therefore you are wrong. Then a store can be entered and merchandise can be taken unless the clerk or sign tells you otherwise yet the clerk is absent to tell you otherwise but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, so I present an alternate example of an average building with the door open. That means we've moved on by the way.
A) anyone can put any sign on any car they want - there is no indication whatsoever that the owner put the sign there himself, and B) keys in an ignition is not an expression of permission to take a car.
The same follows for the majority of open networks. You've failed to prove your point or stick to your principle and you keep doing so, which indicates that you neither believe what you are saying or know how to argue honestly or cohesively. You're on the defensive so you're agreeing and disagreeing according to emotion and not truth. The truth is that you don't get adequate permission and you don't really care.
There are only limited situations that would permit you to argue Mistake Of Fact, and this isn't one of them. You can't argue ignorance when using networks that you admit are left open by mistake. You not only are allowed to get permission, you have a responsibility to do so. The fact that you don't proves that you know and don't care if you're doing something wrong.
* When we encounter these impersonal forms of permission we HAVE to be able to assume that they are true because it is impractical to directly seek personal permission directly from the owner all the time.
Okay, and what if a sign said my property is open, take my car, my property, give me AIDS, kill my dog, shoot my wife, rape my daughter, slit my throat, and leach my internet.
We just have to assume all of those signs are placed there intentionally and by the owner and that they bestow rights upon us. We have no other choice and we're not guilty. And you don't want me to call you an imbecile?
As one should assume with orphaned game material, if the inclusion of the Hot Coffee material into the game would have pushed the ESRB rating from "Mature" to "Adult", even if it's as small as a one-year age difference, then a wrong has occurred. However, that wrong was negligible and few care. The population is already bombarded with more realistic sex depictions on TV.
But Take-Two was wrong in first attempting to deny it was in the game (albeit inactive), then later trying to justify it with a lot of excuses. They should have simply apologized right away, and offered a replacement, then maybe people wouldn't have made a big issue about it, like Hillary when she was trying to win over republicans.
If you really think you've answered anything effectively then you need to go back to logic school or get your sociopathic head examined.
The only thing you've presented are pathetic fallacies.
Permission to be in a store is not exclusively dictated by the absence of a clerks authority or signage. In fact it's more the opposite. A clerk would need to be present to oversee the store, sign or not, as common sense dictates, a store with merchandise and valuables that could be stolen would not be left unattended. This is all thanks to dishonest people like yourself. But do tell me how an empty store and a sign are going to conduct business and decide when you've over-stayed your welcome. And don't forget to tell your sign to lock up at night and secure the perimeter. You imbecile.
Equivocation: Open network = Open Store, Open Privilege, etc.. Even when a store is mysteriously empty you assume that it's okay to enter and do business. Fine. Then much like a network, make it a plain building with an open door. It's not permission to enter. You would be trespassing. I would think so, but then I'm not a psychopath like you.
You even said earlier that you could drive a car if you were accidentally given permission but than later recanted that when I described a car that said "Free" and had the keys in the ignition. Why? Because you figured out it could have been a mistake. That's the whole issue you've been trying so desperately to avoid. That many networks are open by mistake. But by avoiding that you create absurd conclusions that signs and computers and cars are sentient and capable of making and discerning those who should be granted legal privileges to property and not their human owners.
Do you really think that "The Sign" or "The computer said it was okay." is going to stand up in court when the owner says you stole their car or trespassed on their network?
False Dilemma: A network is being broadcast as open therefore I have absolutely no choice but to assume that it must be 100% okay and right and justifiable for me to use it at no fault. Like Duh, I had absolutely no responsibility or clue that someone might not want anonymous people browsing their network. It's not like someone could use it to commit cyber crimes or anything wrong or sensational like that.
Well do you assume that anybody wants an unopened access point, or do you assume like a disingenuous idiot that all open access points are intentional? The majority of them are open by default because a third party decided for the owner, of which a majority are incapable of administering. That you can't tell the difference without asking the owner doesn't make it okay or rational for you to assume that it's okay for you to use it.
But if "giving permission is not necessarily the same as the THOUGHT to give permission." then you agree they shouldn't be treated the same. Therefore you are wrong.
All this WiFi stealing has melted the part of your brain that's not supposed to be filled with baloney.
I'm glad all you selfless hackers put computers in charge of humans. Just don't blame me when my honey pot sends you to jail. Blame my computer. That way I can get back to surfing the internet unimpeded.
I would assume I might be trespassing as soon as I find an absence of a clerk in a typical store. Therefore, I would be dishonest if I declared a Mistake of Fact.
You are being slothful and pedantic and avoiding the logic that, Again: Common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously. That goes for you and the owner. Especially in the case of property that could be used to commit a crime, such as cars and computer networks.
A computer that has been configured open by a third party or manufacturer does not mean that you have permission to use it by the owner.
"I don't assume that because nobody wants HIV."
Why would you assume that nobody wants HIV or for you to drive their abandoned car but in the case where you want to use other peoples' networks, networks that can be used to commit serious crimes that could destroy their life, you conveniently fail to assume that nobody wants you using their network?
Willful ignorance, not mistake of fact.
A network that is 'open' is not 'open' in the sense that you have been granted a right to use the network any more than an empty building with the doors open grant you the right to be inside of it.
You can continue to filibuster but you're trespassing and you're wrong. You are either an idiot, a sociopath, or quite possibly a troll.
As ostentatiously hard as it may be for you to understand, even if a store owner was so negligent as to leave his store open with a mistakenly placed item on the "Free Sample" stand which you decide to help yourself to, the owner would still have every right to not only be angry but to prosecute you for "Breaking and Entering" and/or theft.
Just because someone else is being negligent does not mean you now have permission to use their property and be faultless.
Their intention is not irrelevant. If you were to stumble upon an unlocked car with the keys in it with a sign that broadcast "Free Car" it would be highly unwise of you to take advantage of that so called opportunity. The owner may not have placed the sign on the car or had the intention of others driving it, which would mean that you're stealing.
Moreover, even if their intentions were true, you would be equally liable for driving it. What if something went wrong, you were drunk, or you were to kill someone? Is it insured? Is it stolen? Do you truly have permission? You'd better find out, otherwise you are a complete idiot and criminal.
Again, common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously. That goes for you and the owner. Especially in the case of property that could be used to commit a crime.
Someone being irresponsible does not translate into a situation that's okay or justified to take advantage of.
The mentality that you exhibit is akin to the erroneous belief that if someone wants sex, it's okay to give them HIV; which also lends itself to the belief that if they truly wanted it, it's okay to shoot them, or to eat them.
If someone informed you that the network you're driving is not intended for you, they could call the police and have you arrested. It doesn't matter how reckless the security is on that network. Using a network without explicit permission is not only criminal, it's wrong.
A network that is broadcast and open does not translate into open and offered to you. You are equivocating.
It's not a "completely unnecessary piece of skin." It's loaded with neurons. People without a foreskin are less sensitive. It may also serve to combat infection by promoting natural flora. It hasn't been statistically proven to cause significantly more cervical cancer, but cutting off your penis entirely would reduce the risk of getting penis warts. So would cutting out the cervix. That doesn't make it okay, or any less of a mutilation.
What's with your complete and irrational hatred of the foreskin? Did they laugh at you in the locker room?
Not a valid analogy - a car being open is not in and of itself a sign of permission.
Your analogies are not valid because putting a sign on a door and having a computer are two different scenarios. Common sense dictates that a store is open when the lights are on, the door open, employees and possibly customers wandering about.
Common sense also dictates that not all open networks are intentionally so. Having a computer does not make you a network security expert. Computers generally come open with exploits. It doesn't give you permission, and you know that but you're being willfully ignorant.
Aren't you going to acknowledge that you don't steal broadband with the victims in front of you? Obviously because you know they'd probably be upset if you told them, as you don't have permission.
Technically what you are doing is stealing and lying about it. Just as if a store was left unlocked it does not mean that you were "given permission" to take whatever you wanted.
Come on now, it's not like the person with the public network is intentionally giving you permission. It's not like you're going to go up to him and say, "Thanks for letting me share your network" because you obviously know he didn't intentionally give you permission.
And you're completely wrong if you think accidentally leaving cars opened gives permission to drive it.
Well, I understand the upset with the lack of queue profiles, but having to keep track of 5-star ratings and recommendations for each individual profile seems like asking too much, unless those evaluations lead to some revenue, but I guess they don't.
The reason he's annoyed is those comments are incendiary. You create a false dilemma (America love it or leave it) that makes your only choices to choose nothing or something they don't want and tell the person to get stuffed. The whole point is that those options suck and consumers are upset and they have every right to complain. That's the way the market place is supposed to work. If you don't like the way we do things here, you're free to move to Russia.
And a business can't do anything it wants to if there's a financial incentive to. Otherwise they'd be pimpin'.
That hemoglobin is a common feature of animals could also be explained that once it evolved that way, it allowed for bigger organisms and it stayed that way. Just as that all mammals undulate in one direction because of the spine and gravity after they left the water. Hence why whales undulate vertically and not horizontally as in the case of fish. Why would this magic designer conform to evolution so precisely? The answer is that life runs itself and it has for so long that it's impossible and insane for you to be making these claims that you make.
The reason you see hemoglobin and the same directional spine undulation and teeth and lungs and all the hallmarks of mammals is that species evolve gradually to their environment. God doesn't simply replace a spine and a circulatory system of a dog because he's inventing an animal that's going to swim like it's a car engine. You can argue that he's running evolution if you'd like, but you can't argue against evolution. It's blatantly obvious.
A cell just evolved in the watchful eye of a laboratory all by itself. There wasn't a cell factory or magician involved. The cell is self splitting, self replicating. An airplane is not. This is a well known fact that no one disputes. Looking at the genes of these cells shows that they've all changed after replicating, looking at the fossil record shows that species change over time, just as in the cell. There is no hard evidence that these species were manufactured by a factory. There needn't be as living things self replicate.
Blah blah, you think that science makes it okay to have no values. What the hell do Nazis have to do with science or anything? Your comments are loaded, incoherent and strange.
Atheists can't make a non-relativistic moral argument? What does that mean? You have to have god to have morals or something?
But at some point you're jumping to extraordinary lengths to believe something so extraordinary. Generally in extraordinary situations you don't bend logic and rationality to believe the most supernatural explanation. That makes you a crackpot. The bible is loaded with contradictions, such as wording that suggested the earth as flat with the sun revolving around it. It makes more sense to me that the bible was contrived by lay people of the time, hence why it reads as such and is wrong.
People who have no history of mental illness have psychotic reactions to weed, just as, conversely, people who have no history of Parkinsonism develop tremors on anti-psychotics. Of course, that doesn't stop you and drug companies from calling them susceptible or "already genetically predisposed" as if it's their fault when they develop a permanent tremor or heart attack and not the drugs. Which is like saying people who have a susceptibility to PTSD/Flashbacks will get it after a car accident or war, therefore trauma is completely safe to the brain. Mind you, no one has found the schizophrenia gene or proven what you miraculously believe without evidence.
The brain is a delicate balance of neurotransmitters that are responsible for consciousness, movement and everything else human. When you introduce foreign substances directly into it, you can alter it, permanently, leading to addiction, depression, anxiety, psychosis, Parkinsonism, etc.
People who use PCP become schizophrenic. People who use china white become Parkinsonized, Michael J Fox. Therefore brain disorders are not exclusively caused by genes. They can be induced by drugs.
Failure of ONE Prohibition is no excuse to do nothing in light of the inherent dangers of drug addiction and the many and varied toxic effects drugs have on the brain. Drug abuse, rape, murder and crime are all problems that are not completely eradicated by prohibition but they certainly are not helped by a lack of prohibition.
And no, I don't believe it's your right to become a drugging vegetable riding my highways and me having to support you and your kind via welfare when you're disabled because you're an idiot who posts and believes that kind of nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, put t' kettle on!
And pass me the zinc fingers. Mmmm! They're delicious.
More specifically, you can't be a Lifelock customer if you advertise your SSN. The service doesn't work as advertised.
Another sobering lesson for naive young college kids would be to sign them up for credit cards and let them go bankrupt.
Hey now, it's one thing to not report a small amount of money or a phone call. It's another thing entirely to have a secret swiss bank account or to be bouncing your calls all over the planet for free by hacking the entire phone system and selling free calls to your friends. If you're so doing that you'd better expect you're being spied on.
Of course, this is easy for me to say, being sighted and having never hacked the phone system. Although, when I was little, I do remember someone mentioning *69 and I tried *?? feeling all 1337, and I used to dial random 800 numbers to see what I'd get, so I guess with his knowledge it was probably tempting. But come on.
In some states it's illegal to record a phone call without informing that the call is being monitored and it seems you can't even record cops these days. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't record a call or a cop when they're doing something equally egregious. I just wouldn't tell anyone about it. In this instance I'm not really shocked that the phone company tried to track him without a warrant. I can't really blame them and I'm not sure it's even wrong, morally.
This is not a two wrongs thing - if they had a warrant or not - it would have been totally justified to spy on him. Complaining about the lack of a warrant is just a technicality. He was in the wrong hacking the phone system and selling free calls to his friends. If you want to turn your phone into a toaster, go ahead, but he was hacking the phone network. Those two wrongs are like apples and oranges.
I looked up "regulate" too, and there are several definitions. But that's just one fragment of a sentence of an entire body of texts that collectively suggest it's referring to individuals.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I've seen this argued from both sides and the logical conclusion from a variety of quotes is that it's an individual right.
"The right of the people" is mentioned several times and it's referring to all individuals.
Amendment I ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble... Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.No, you're talking about a store analogy that I've rejected. I'm talking about the actual network, and you repeatedly say that it's giving you permission to use it because it's open. It's not any more permission than a door's openness permits you through it would translate into the owner giving you permission to be there. The entire argument relies on a permissional equivocation. That means you're describing something with words that have different meanings in different contexts and erroneously applying alternate meanings.
Here's examples where you've equivocated.
The above is not arguing, it's deceptions and fallacy. You're being fallacious. If you understood any of that you'd produce sound arguments. You're not going to persuade here with nonsense.
I was using that legal example to illustrate that You, and Not the wifi network, are liable because you have a responsibility to not break the law. Stealing wifi is a crime, even if the router is configured open.
I reject the store analogy because 1. Most open WiFi networks are not advertised stores that have an incentive to get people to do business on, patronize, frequent, etc.. and 2. Most open WiFi networks are left open by mistake. They do not have a sign on them, but if they did, I'd argue much like with the store, you should still not rely on anonymous signs as permission as the owner may still not have meant it, and if he didn't, you're breaking the law. And however irresponsible, the unaware network owner is not breaking the law, and if he was, it doesn't make you any less liable. It's not a defense.
But within your store argument: If I went into an empty store, I'd say "Hello? Hello?" I would NOT go "Oooh yay; FREE STUFF!! and I wouldn't try things and be there. But then we've established you have the shifty mind of a criminal, so I can see why you'd do that stuff. Moreover, the clerk can't supervise your presence, so to put it your way, No One would leave a store unattended.
How exactly does a random person putting a sign on a car he does not own apply to open networks?
Easily, the third-party manufacturer opened the network by default. You're the one who said it's okay to use someone's car if they accidentally gave you permission and you drive the speed limit. How does someone accidentally give you permission to drive their car anonymously? That whole concept doesn't even make sense to me, but it seemed to make sense to you when you remembered to uphold this charade.
I do acknowledge that a clerk can't tell me to leave if he's not in the store. That isn't my problem - it is his, and it doesn't make me wrong to be there.
No, it's your problem and it is wrong for you to be there. You seem to be incapable of responsibility like an antisocial.
I'm not allowed to argue ignorance of the fact that the owner is miscommunicating his intention? That's what I'd be arguing.
You are not allowed to argue that, as a WiFi network that is open by default, is not the owner giving you permission to use it. When it's a crime, you can't argue that some people (like you allegedly) give anonymous permission so you have to anonymously assume all people do. It's the other way around.
It would not work in court either. especially if you were being prosecuted for tresspassing and said "It was completely open; it's his fault." That's not a defense.
Slashdot is not my neighbors' wifi.
I'm not saying that all signs must be ignored. I'm sa
That a door is open and permits you entrance does not mean that you have a legal permit to be there. The same applies to a network. Any arguments as such are fallacies of equivocation.
If someone puts a sign on my house that says "Free Stuff; do what you like" with the door open and you decide to help yourself even though no one's home, you would be truly naive to think it's okay to enter and take everything. Even if a door is completely open you can be found guilty of Breaking and Entering or Trespassing.
Why is it necessary for you to argue what doing business means and every other fine detail? Trading money or goods or getting free samples is what's meant by business but that or the sign doesn't make it okay for you to be there. The presence of clerks does. It's common sense.
If you are going to admit that the store is not open for business because there's a lack of a clerk then what the hell are you doing in there removing merchandise? You have no business in there then. That's trespassing and theft. A sign in the absence of a clerk does not mean you have permission.
Open for business because the door was open with a sign, yet absent a clerk is not analogous to an unsecured network. I reject your argument so make a better one.
As for your criminal liability:
Let's say the clerk was murdered in the back, and there's a "Free" suitcase filled with cocaine. You throw it in your trunk and drive off. You get pulled over. You can't argue Mistake of Fact here because you should have looked in the suitcase and you should have checked to see if everything was legitimate, just as with a network. The fact that you didn't when you have every right and responsibility to verify legitimacy proves that you are in possession of cocaine. You could even make it $1000 from the safe and conceal it in a box of something else. The same would apply. Ignorance is not an excuse here.
First a car can be used if permission is accidentally given to you (you need that for your principle to stand up) but then it can't. Fails your principle therefore you are wrong. Then a store can be entered and merchandise can be taken unless the clerk or sign tells you otherwise yet the clerk is absent to tell you otherwise but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this, so I present an alternate example of an average building with the door open. That means we've moved on by the way.
A) anyone can put any sign on any car they want - there is no indication whatsoever that the owner put the sign there himself, and B) keys in an ignition is not an expression of permission to take a car.
The same follows for the majority of open networks. You've failed to prove your point or stick to your principle and you keep doing so, which indicates that you neither believe what you are saying or know how to argue honestly or cohesively. You're on the defensive so you're agreeing and disagreeing according to emotion and not truth. The truth is that you don't get adequate permission and you don't really care.
There are only limited situations that would permit you to argue Mistake Of Fact, and this isn't one of them. You can't argue ignorance when using networks that you admit are left open by mistake. You not only are allowed to get permission, you have a responsibility to do so. The fact that you don't proves that you know and don't care if you're doing something wrong.
* When we encounter these impersonal forms of permission we HAVE to be able to assume that they are true because it is impractical to directly seek personal permission directly from the owner all the time.
Okay, and what if a sign said my property is open, take my car, my property, give me AIDS, kill my dog, shoot my wife, rape my daughter, slit my throat, and leach my internet.
We just have to assume all of those signs are placed there intentionally and by the owner and that they bestow rights upon us. We have no other choice and we're not guilty. And you don't want me to call you an imbecile?
It shouldn't stand u
As one should assume with orphaned game material, if the inclusion of the Hot Coffee material into the game would have pushed the ESRB rating from "Mature" to "Adult", even if it's as small as a one-year age difference, then a wrong has occurred. However, that wrong was negligible and few care. The population is already bombarded with more realistic sex depictions on TV.
But Take-Two was wrong in first attempting to deny it was in the game (albeit inactive), then later trying to justify it with a lot of excuses. They should have simply apologized right away, and offered a replacement, then maybe people wouldn't have made a big issue about it, like Hillary when she was trying to win over republicans.
If you really think you've answered anything effectively then you need to go back to logic school or get your sociopathic head examined.
The only thing you've presented are pathetic fallacies.
Permission to be in a store is not exclusively dictated by the absence of a clerks authority or signage. In fact it's more the opposite. A clerk would need to be present to oversee the store, sign or not, as common sense dictates, a store with merchandise and valuables that could be stolen would not be left unattended. This is all thanks to dishonest people like yourself. But do tell me how an empty store and a sign are going to conduct business and decide when you've over-stayed your welcome. And don't forget to tell your sign to lock up at night and secure the perimeter. You imbecile.
Equivocation: Open network = Open Store, Open Privilege, etc.. Even when a store is mysteriously empty you assume that it's okay to enter and do business. Fine. Then much like a network, make it a plain building with an open door. It's not permission to enter. You would be trespassing. I would think so, but then I'm not a psychopath like you.
You even said earlier that you could drive a car if you were accidentally given permission but than later recanted that when I described a car that said "Free" and had the keys in the ignition. Why? Because you figured out it could have been a mistake. That's the whole issue you've been trying so desperately to avoid. That many networks are open by mistake. But by avoiding that you create absurd conclusions that signs and computers and cars are sentient and capable of making and discerning those who should be granted legal privileges to property and not their human owners.
Do you really think that "The Sign" or "The computer said it was okay." is going to stand up in court when the owner says you stole their car or trespassed on their network?
False Dilemma: A network is being broadcast as open therefore I have absolutely no choice but to assume that it must be 100% okay and right and justifiable for me to use it at no fault. Like Duh, I had absolutely no responsibility or clue that someone might not want anonymous people browsing their network. It's not like someone could use it to commit cyber crimes or anything wrong or sensational like that.
Well do you assume that anybody wants an unopened access point, or do you assume like a disingenuous idiot that all open access points are intentional? The majority of them are open by default because a third party decided for the owner, of which a majority are incapable of administering. That you can't tell the difference without asking the owner doesn't make it okay or rational for you to assume that it's okay for you to use it.
But if "giving permission is not necessarily the same as the THOUGHT to give permission." then you agree they shouldn't be treated the same. Therefore you are wrong.
All this WiFi stealing has melted the part of your brain that's not supposed to be filled with baloney.
You're a liar and a thief.
I'm glad all you selfless hackers put computers in charge of humans. Just don't blame me when my honey pot sends you to jail. Blame my computer. That way I can get back to surfing the internet unimpeded.
I would assume I might be trespassing as soon as I find an absence of a clerk in a typical store. Therefore, I would be dishonest if I declared a Mistake of Fact.
You are being slothful and pedantic and avoiding the logic that, Again: Common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously. That goes for you and the owner. Especially in the case of property that could be used to commit a crime, such as cars and computer networks.
A computer that has been configured open by a third party or manufacturer does not mean that you have permission to use it by the owner.
"I don't assume that because nobody wants HIV."
Why would you assume that nobody wants HIV or for you to drive their abandoned car but in the case where you want to use other peoples' networks, networks that can be used to commit serious crimes that could destroy their life, you conveniently fail to assume that nobody wants you using their network?
Willful ignorance, not mistake of fact.
A network that is 'open' is not 'open' in the sense that you have been granted a right to use the network any more than an empty building with the doors open grant you the right to be inside of it.
You can continue to filibuster but you're trespassing and you're wrong. You are either an idiot, a sociopath, or quite possibly a troll.
As ostentatiously hard as it may be for you to understand, even if a store owner was so negligent as to leave his store open with a mistakenly placed item on the "Free Sample" stand which you decide to help yourself to, the owner would still have every right to not only be angry but to prosecute you for "Breaking and Entering" and/or theft.
Just because someone else is being negligent does not mean you now have permission to use their property and be faultless.
Their intention is not irrelevant. If you were to stumble upon an unlocked car with the keys in it with a sign that broadcast "Free Car" it would be highly unwise of you to take advantage of that so called opportunity. The owner may not have placed the sign on the car or had the intention of others driving it, which would mean that you're stealing.
Moreover, even if their intentions were true, you would be equally liable for driving it. What if something went wrong, you were drunk, or you were to kill someone? Is it insured? Is it stolen? Do you truly have permission? You'd better find out, otherwise you are a complete idiot and criminal.
Again, common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously. That goes for you and the owner. Especially in the case of property that could be used to commit a crime.
Someone being irresponsible does not translate into a situation that's okay or justified to take advantage of.
The mentality that you exhibit is akin to the erroneous belief that if someone wants sex, it's okay to give them HIV; which also lends itself to the belief that if they truly wanted it, it's okay to shoot them, or to eat them.
If someone informed you that the network you're driving is not intended for you, they could call the police and have you arrested. It doesn't matter how reckless the security is on that network. Using a network without explicit permission is not only criminal, it's wrong.
A network that is broadcast and open does not translate into open and offered to you. You are equivocating.
I prefer cat gestures. They not only pass acid they exceed usability guidelines.
It's not a "completely unnecessary piece of skin." It's loaded with neurons. People without a foreskin are less sensitive. It may also serve to combat infection by promoting natural flora. It hasn't been statistically proven to cause significantly more cervical cancer, but cutting off your penis entirely would reduce the risk of getting penis warts. So would cutting out the cervix. That doesn't make it okay, or any less of a mutilation.
What's with your complete and irrational hatred of the foreskin? Did they laugh at you in the locker room?
Not a valid analogy - a car being open is not in and of itself a sign of permission.
Your analogies are not valid because putting a sign on a door and having a computer are two different scenarios. Common sense dictates that a store is open when the lights are on, the door open, employees and possibly customers wandering about.
Common sense also dictates that not all open networks are intentionally so. Having a computer does not make you a network security expert. Computers generally come open with exploits. It doesn't give you permission, and you know that but you're being willfully ignorant.
Aren't you going to acknowledge that you don't steal broadband with the victims in front of you? Obviously because you know they'd probably be upset if you told them, as you don't have permission.
Technically what you are doing is stealing and lying about it. Just as if a store was left unlocked it does not mean that you were "given permission" to take whatever you wanted.
Come on now, it's not like the person with the public network is intentionally giving you permission. It's not like you're going to go up to him and say, "Thanks for letting me share your network" because you obviously know he didn't intentionally give you permission. And you're completely wrong if you think accidentally leaving cars opened gives permission to drive it.
Also, to improve your experience, we're getting rid of the New Suggestions too.
Well, I understand the upset with the lack of queue profiles, but having to keep track of 5-star ratings and recommendations for each individual profile seems like asking too much, unless those evaluations lead to some revenue, but I guess they don't.
The reason he's annoyed is those comments are incendiary. You create a false dilemma (America love it or leave it) that makes your only choices to choose nothing or something they don't want and tell the person to get stuffed. The whole point is that those options suck and consumers are upset and they have every right to complain. That's the way the market place is supposed to work. If you don't like the way we do things here, you're free to move to Russia.
And a business can't do anything it wants to if there's a financial incentive to. Otherwise they'd be pimpin'.
That hemoglobin is a common feature of animals could also be explained that once it evolved that way, it allowed for bigger organisms and it stayed that way. Just as that all mammals undulate in one direction because of the spine and gravity after they left the water. Hence why whales undulate vertically and not horizontally as in the case of fish. Why would this magic designer conform to evolution so precisely? The answer is that life runs itself and it has for so long that it's impossible and insane for you to be making these claims that you make.
The reason you see hemoglobin and the same directional spine undulation and teeth and lungs and all the hallmarks of mammals is that species evolve gradually to their environment. God doesn't simply replace a spine and a circulatory system of a dog because he's inventing an animal that's going to swim like it's a car engine. You can argue that he's running evolution if you'd like, but you can't argue against evolution. It's blatantly obvious.
A cell just evolved in the watchful eye of a laboratory all by itself. There wasn't a cell factory or magician involved. The cell is self splitting, self replicating. An airplane is not. This is a well known fact that no one disputes. Looking at the genes of these cells shows that they've all changed after replicating, looking at the fossil record shows that species change over time, just as in the cell. There is no hard evidence that these species were manufactured by a factory. There needn't be as living things self replicate.
Blah blah, you think that science makes it okay to have no values. What the hell do Nazis have to do with science or anything? Your comments are loaded, incoherent and strange.
Atheists can't make a non-relativistic moral argument? What does that mean? You have to have god to have morals or something?
You're stupid.
But at some point you're jumping to extraordinary lengths to believe something so extraordinary. Generally in extraordinary situations you don't bend logic and rationality to believe the most supernatural explanation. That makes you a crackpot. The bible is loaded with contradictions, such as wording that suggested the earth as flat with the sun revolving around it. It makes more sense to me that the bible was contrived by lay people of the time, hence why it reads as such and is wrong.
Wow, what a drug radical.
People who have no history of mental illness have psychotic reactions to weed, just as, conversely, people who have no history of Parkinsonism develop tremors on anti-psychotics. Of course, that doesn't stop you and drug companies from calling them susceptible or "already genetically predisposed" as if it's their fault when they develop a permanent tremor or heart attack and not the drugs. Which is like saying people who have a susceptibility to PTSD/Flashbacks will get it after a car accident or war, therefore trauma is completely safe to the brain. Mind you, no one has found the schizophrenia gene or proven what you miraculously believe without evidence.
The brain is a delicate balance of neurotransmitters that are responsible for consciousness, movement and everything else human. When you introduce foreign substances directly into it, you can alter it, permanently, leading to addiction, depression, anxiety, psychosis, Parkinsonism, etc.
People who use PCP become schizophrenic. People who use china white become Parkinsonized, Michael J Fox. Therefore brain disorders are not exclusively caused by genes. They can be induced by drugs.
Failure of ONE Prohibition is no excuse to do nothing in light of the inherent dangers of drug addiction and the many and varied toxic effects drugs have on the brain. Drug abuse, rape, murder and crime are all problems that are not completely eradicated by prohibition but they certainly are not helped by a lack of prohibition.
And no, I don't believe it's your right to become a drugging vegetable riding my highways and me having to support you and your kind via welfare when you're disabled because you're an idiot who posts and believes that kind of nonsense.