Read Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery. I mean it. Right now, if you want to become a better person, you should start calling bookstores and find one that carries it, then buy it and read it. In those pages will you find the difference between science and religion, and the reason you should believe in the future discoveries of science.
That I believe all biological life on earth evolves constantly.
It doesn't. Life is mostly stable, but evolves rapidly in short periods when its environment changes. It's generally referred to as punctuated equilibrium.
hypothisized, with no hard facts to back up either one.
Are you denying the existence of the cosmic background microwave radiation? Do you not think that redshift exists, or that all galazies are diverging? If so, please post your reasons for denying these realities. Also, your post seemed to think the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth are the same thing. Write more clearly.
I was in college when I was 18. Doesn't matter that you're 18 or even about to graduate HS though; I've seen PLENTY of kids come out of HS (barely) and still can't think beyond a 5th grade level. You're another example of that. Graduating HS doesn't really mean anything anymore, since most high schools are a joke.
You think I don't know that? I just got out of high school - you'd be pretty safe in assuming I know how stupid most high schoolers are. And yet, you still used a grade level to describe my reasoning abilities.
I realize you don't understand this yet, but this is slashdot. I type fast to try and get my message out. But its simply not with the time to find all the mistakes in my post. For you I know, there isn't anything else to do. That's ok, in a few years, after living on your own (assuming you can handle it... I'm not so sure) you'll realize this.
I don't have to go through my posts to find errors, because I don't write things like "hippocrate" the first time around, dumbass. If it had been a typo or reversed letters, I'd understand, but you grossly misspelled a word in the same post that you told me big words probably scare me... you see the problem?
If you say its the victims fault that they were raped, that means its NOT the rapists fault. How will carrying a knife help if you are snuck up on? Its not always possible to defend yourself, yet you in all cases blame the victim.. and now that you've been called out, you're trying to back pedel.
So, what's it like living in a binary world? Is it fun knowing that all the blame for anything can be put on one person, and never has to be shared? Maybe I'll try it sometime.
Let me clarify my position: If you don't even try to protect yourself, whatever happens to you is at least half your fault. If you do try to protect yourself, whatever happens is mostly the criminal's fault (but there aren't many things a gun wouldn't protect you against unless you're extremely stupid and do something like piss off a street gang).
I don't support govermnet 'raising of children.'
And I don't "rationalize away any semblence of personal responsibility". So now we've both made false assumptions based on age.
You claim personal responsiblity, yet if someone isn't responsible and ends up without food, you then claim I'm being selfish. Hmm, nice thinking there. Its the victims fault if she is raped, but someone that gambled away their life, well its not there fault at all is it!
That is why I think you're lying about being lower-middle class. You think all poor, homeless, and hungry people gambled their lives away. No uncontrollable circumstances whatsoever.
Oh and learn to spell "understand!"
You are *really*really* annoying, you know that? Learn to spell pedal and learn to differentiate between there, their, and they're, THEN you can make fun of my typos. You notice that my mistakes are typos and yours are basic lack of knowledge? You should probably read more often.
Your exact words: "If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences." So even in the case of gang rape, according to this statement, its the victims fault. Again, more back peddeling.
See above about partial responsibility.
because you choose not to work for a living
You think unemployment is a choice??? Christ, I hate you.
you feel entitled to someone else's luxury
And you'd stand by and let a starving person die because you wouldn't even give him anything from your surplus. What is fucking WRONG with you?
They never taught you about rationalization did they? It basically means that you know something is wrong, but try to justify it in some way. See, the problem is that it doesn't matter how much or how little someone has, its still wrong to steal. Nevermind that you CAN'T steal wifi from a rich perso
I'm not contradicting myself. First, I never said it was ok to infringe someone else's copyright. Second, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Its a seperate, distinct entity. For one, theft is criminal, copyright infringement is civil (historically). All I said was that its not right for you to take from the person who owns the wireless network just because he may be breaking some other law. Anyone with any intelligence knew that is exactly what I meant; your retard logic is trying to paint me as some kind of hippocrate, which is amusing, because its pretty obvious I'm not. I'll make it very clear to you what I meant: Two wrongs do not make a right. I hope your 5th grade understanding can at least comprehend that.
I'm not going to try to talk to you about that anymore; it's hopeless. But I have to ask: you were in 5th grade when you were 18?
Its ok though, I know big words probably scare you.
...says the guy who can't spell hypocrite.
Again, take a logic course. No one has a right to rape another person. You're excusing the rapists from THEIR personal responsibility to not harm someone else. Even if everyone protects themselves, there will be violent crimes. I'm pretty sure the two Israeli soldiers were armed and knew how to defend themselves, yet they were still taken. Its not always possible to defend yourself. Its a shame you never bumped into the BTK Killer; you may change your mind about warped world view. No one has a right to harm another, unless they are defending themselves from harm. Clearly a rapist or serial killer isn't defending themselves, since they instiaged the attack. So what about the four year old girl being raped by her father? Is that her fault too?
I didn't say that rapists have a right to rape, only that people need to defend themselves. Which is possible - controlling your life by carrying a knife, or controlling someone else's life by finding out who's about to rape someone?
just because you can never be 100% rid of a problem, you conclude you should not do anything about it.
Yes, you're right. People protecting themselves would not be doing anything at all about the problem. My bad.
Ahh. The generation that rationalizes away any semblence of personal responsibility and believes in entitlement. I guess I can almost understand you're thinking; you've never actually been in the real world where you have to work for everything you need and then have someone else damage your car or house, just because they felt like it. (Oddly enough, those doing the damaging are almost all in your age bracket..hmm..) How does your mom feel she raised a thief and likely worse? I bet she'll be glad that you're gone, and hopes you'll never return. Its amazing how different generations only 10 years apart are; I had some silly ideas too, but I never tried to justify stealing or blame the rape victim.
Ahh. The generation that doesn't beilieve in personal responsibility and relies on the government to raise their children. I can almost uderstand your thinking; you've never actually been in a situation where you needed to defend youself, or needed to feed a starving family. How does your mom feel she raised a selfish dick who would stand by and not give a dying person the basic necesseties of life? And it IS also the rapist's fault, but the rape victim shares equal responsibiliy except in extreme cases like gang rape.
Since this thread started about wireless network connections, I'd have to say it seems resonable to assume YOU believe a Lexus is a "need" and not a want, since you don't NEED a wireless network connection at all (or a laptop). Yet that's what you're trying to justify, stealing someone else's wireless bandwidth and claiming you NEED it.
That doesn't even make sense... Internet access is a want, and if I'm not hurting anyone and want it badly, I will use it. Your reasoning sucks; I'd advise you to read more.
oh, and copyrighit infrinment ISN'T the same as stealing
I agree, but you're contradicting yourself, just like I warned you not to. If you're sharing even a single MP3 file, you're allowing other people to download it - unless not a single person whom your file eventually reaches would have bought the music if it were unavailable for free, you're depriving the artist of money - and even.05 cents is inexcusable theft deserving of death, right? Gosh, it's a real shame you feel so entitled to free music - I hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
By the way, I download music too. But I don't make myself feel better about myself by denying it's theft - I'm glad to deprive the RIAA's lawyers and middle managers of money.
By that logic, because someone stole something from someone anywhere, its now a-ok for me to steal something from someone.
Christ, take a logic class, or read a fucking book or something. I didn't say it was OK to steal in-use bandwidth because it was probably being used to steal, I was just warning you not to contradict yourself, but you did anyway.
Got ya. So if a woman is raped, its her fault, because she didn't protect herself by carrying a gun or taking self defense courses. Same goes for some kid that is murdered by a serial killer. That's some world you want to live in.
Yes. I know it's hard for you to grasp personal responsibility, but that would be a good world. If I were walking through a dark alley late at night and got assraped because I didn't grab even a swiss army knife to protect myself, it would be my own damn fault. There are two possible worlds in which nobody gets raped - one in which everyone protects themselves (and their children), and one in which there are no rapists. Go ahead, try to get rid of every present and future rapist, I dare you. Let me know if you succeed.
when some entitled, inconsiderate asshole dents my car with his door
How did you jump from "stealing bread to feed a starving family" to someone denting your car door? Is that how your value system works?
Please, hang yourself before you decide to move out of your mothers basement. I'm sure she's sick of providing everything for her worthless 35 yr old son.
Well shit, not much time left to hang myself then. I'm 18, and I'm moving out in two weeks. I think she can make it until then.
By the way, your original use of your favorite word "entitled" in this thread was in response to my saying "if I had a need I'd take what I needed". Do you feel people aren't entitled to the basic necessities of life, or do you consider a Lexus a "need" instead of a "want" like everyone else?
Nope. That was spread by mass media during all their OMG HAXXX0RZZ!!!! binges. About the only thing that would stop a hacker helping the enemy is hurting one of his friends, and that's not likely to be a problem.
Not true. Black hats do anything they want to entertain themselves, with no regard to the law. They'd gladly take jobs doing what they do for fun. They're not like evil villains in the movies, who do bad things because they're bad people deep down inside, and need a good-looking hero to go kill them.
Its very odd someone would advocate somethign they themselves would not do. I suspect you're a liar.
I didn't say I would not do it, I said I've never needed to but would if I did need to. And I don't care if you think I'm a liar.
Second, those same people CAN very easily use their connection to full capacity; all it takes is one large download. Finally, STEALING IS STEALING.
What large files would these dumbasses who are too stupid to enable security download? Linux distributions? No, we both know it would be music and movies. I'd advise you to drop that argument lest you become self-contradictory.
Maybe the user doesn't want his wireless connection slowed down due to encryption or other security measures. Did you ever stop to think about that? Encryption can suck as much as 30% of your speed. That's not insignficant.
If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences.
There are enough ligitimate ways to earn money to buy food that you don't need to steal. 'If you find a need, you'll take what you need' is entitlement. You believe that YOU are entitled to have what others have earned. The fact that you convience yourself that you need it more than someone else is just rationalization so that you don't feel bad about it later.
Spoken like a true member of the upper class. Go back to your gated community, fat cat.
Those of us that are freeloaders attach a negative connontation to the word. I guess it makes sense that people which ARE freeloaders see nothing wrong with it. Can't acknowledge what you're doing is wrong after all, can you?
I'm not a freeloader; I have a job. I contribute to society. I don't attach to people's wireless networks or drive their cars off my front lawn. But I have no problem with people who freeload - if they can get something for free, why pay? I feel more contempt for the spineless people who give freeloaders free things against their will.
Because, as all worthless freeloaders refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as 'free.' First, you're assuming that you're not interfering with his calls. Do you know he wasn't using it for sure? With a cordless phone you could tell, but just connecting to a wireless network, you don't know if he's downloading something or not, do you? Even if you're slowing him down 0.5kbs, you're interfering. Also, you assume he has unlimited internet. For all you know, he's on a pay per hour dialup connection. There's a signficant number of people where this is true. Finally, it costs electricity to run the AP, the router, etc and that usage goes up when the device is being used. So you're actually costing him money. Not much perhaps, but stealing a 25 cent piece of candy is still stealing, is it not?
If I were attached to someone elses's wireless network and noticed I had low bandwidth, I'd realize he was using it to its full capacity and I'd disconnect. But how many people too stupid to check the "enable security" checkbox use their internet connections to full capacity? As to your 25 cent piece of candy, 10 cents per kilowatt-hour *.005 kilowatts * 1 hour =.05 cents. Are there people who honestly would miss.05 cents?
An unsecured AP isn't faulty though is it? Security is an option.. one the user may not even know about. If you found your neighbor had a fault base, would you tell him and not use his line, or would you use it without him knowing? No need to answer, I know what you'd choose.
The AP isn't faulty, the user is. Whose fault is it if he doesn't even read the 2-page quick start guide? And I wouldn't use a faulty base station - that was just an analogy. I thought we agreed that with a phone it'd be impossible to not interfere with his calls, and he'd most likely get charged for them.
I'll choose to do with my property what I want. And when you break in, I'll be sure you get whats coming to you, which is jail time.
If you can't even be bothered locking your shit up, why would you put forth the effort to lock me up? (assuming I screwed up and left evidence)
Its pretty clear what kind of person you are, now that the truth is out; an entitled asshole that believes everyone owes him (otherwise you'd see that you have no right at all to what someone else has worked for and earned). You don't limit yourself to using unsecured wireless; you have no problem stealing anything.
I am an asshole, yes, but I don't believe everyone owes me. If I find the need, I'll take what I need, but that hasn't happened so far. But you seem like the "don't steal my bread to feed your starving family" type, so...
I can only hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
Nice bit of rationalization there, don't you think? Why stop with a running, unattended car on your property? What about such a car anywhere? Indeed, why add in running and / or unattended? I know the thought bothers you, but its stealing, no matter where the car is, or what state its in.
Well, if we went beyond running, unattended cars on my property, we'd be outside the bounds of the analogy - I wouldn't support trespass with the intent of using a wireless AP.
interesting that you pick such a negative term to describe people using others' wireless wihtout asking
I don't hear any negative connotation to the word. That's just you.
You discover your cordless phone can talk to the base station of your neighbors cordless phone; is it now ethical to use HIS landline to make calls?
If I don't interfere with any of his calls and his phone company allows him unlimited calls, why the hell not? I apply all these situations to myself. If I found myself with a faulty base station, I'd take it back and get a different one - if my neighbor never interfered with my calls and I didn't get charged extra, then what's the problem?
but in my computer ethics class, we decided it was unethical to break into someone elses system, even if they did something stupid (like leave it unlocked)
So don't break into someone else's system. See what I care. I share no such ethic, so you better lock your shit up.
If they leave it on my property, running and unattended, they don't deserve a car. If I left my car running on someone's property, I wouldn't expect them to leave it alone. It's not even a good analogy anyway. Wifi access can be used sinultaneously by freeloaders and legitimate users, a car can't.
Well, perhaps I am a bit pessimistic. I went to a high school with 7 intelligent people in my class. I spent most of my junior year calmly discussing politics with people all over the spectrum, as well as many uninitiated, and very few of them understood the issues. Even when they tried, they just couldn't. I really hope my class isn't a representative sample of the US population.
By the way, props on being a high school teacher. I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.
I wish it were like your soapbox speech says. But the Bush administration's policies are neither right nor left, they're just wrong. I have trouble discussing them without wanting to find a small furry animal to kick in the ribs. Examples:
I can disagree rationally with people who want taxing and spending, and I agree with people who want less taxing and less spending. But people who support an indefinitely increasing national debt because the rich aren't paying taxes anymore? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best fiscal policy?
I can disagree rationally with people who want prayers read in public school. I agree with people who want no religion in public schools. But people who want to force everyone to sit and listen to their creationist horseshit? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best way to educate our children?
I can disagree rationally with people who want a (moderately) interventionist foreign policy, and I agree with people who want an isolationist foreign policy. But people who lie (and the people who chose to ignore those numerous lies) to go to war with Iraq just to get Republicans reelected? How can I rationally discuss with people like that?
You're too generous in your use of the word "think". The GP supports Bush in his war against terror. That alone points to him being too stupid to think anything about the election - if he can't comprehend that TWAT creates terrorists, how could he comprehend the possibility of election fraud? It's just beyond his means. Too bad natural selection doesn't work anymore, because he needs to die.
Zango Messenger is a straightforward universal instant messaging (IM) application that lets you communicate with anyone using AIM, ICQ, MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger - from one simple interface, but has the added side-effect of installing insidious spyware clients that clog up systems and keep you from actually enjoying your PC. However, this can be counteracted by using such programs as Spybot Search & Destroy and Lavasoft's AdAware.
Zango Messenger is a new direction for instant messaging: it doesn't contain all the "bloat" that other instant messengers have. No radio stations, no games, no greeting cards, no weather, but plenty of spyware.
Why did Zango take this direction? One word: Money and ad exposure.
So why muddy the waters with extra features you probably will never use and just take up space on your PC? With a download size of only 250K, and metric tonnes of spyware there's no comparable instant messaging product that comes close to Zango Messenger's exceptionally misleading footprint.
Unfortunately, such a client is not suitable for most users, except perhaps for those who would like their brand new PC to emulate a Commodore 64.
Er... read that comment a bit more closely. It was left by someone not from the company who added some sarcasm to the advertisement text left by the company. How could you honestly confuse that?
The discussion isn't about legality, it's about ethics. It would be illegal to drive in someone's car, even if they left it running on your front lawn. But I wouldn't think it's unethical - if I did that, I would fully expect it to be gone when I got back.
That's not even the problem. Plurality voting creates a two-party system. Remember So Long, and Thanks for All The Fish? If the people didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. It doesn't matter even if a third party does displace one of the two main parties. The two-party system will remain.
All third parties represent the interests of far more people than actually vote for them. People don't vote for third party candidates because they think their votes don't matter. The sad part is that they're right.
Slashdot Mirror
They set the salaries.
Not if the payroll is electronic, and the techies don't want them to.
Read Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery. I mean it. Right now, if you want to become a better person, you should start calling bookstores and find one that carries it, then buy it and read it. In those pages will you find the difference between science and religion, and the reason you should believe in the future discoveries of science.
That I believe all biological life on earth evolves constantly.
It doesn't. Life is mostly stable, but evolves rapidly in short periods when its environment changes. It's generally referred to as punctuated equilibrium.
hypothisized, with no hard facts to back up either one.
Are you denying the existence of the cosmic background microwave radiation? Do you not think that redshift exists, or that all galazies are diverging? If so, please post your reasons for denying these realities. Also, your post seemed to think the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth are the same thing. Write more clearly.
...
Are you serious?
Are you FUCKING serious?
I was in college when I was 18. Doesn't matter that you're 18 or even about to graduate HS though; I've seen PLENTY of kids come out of HS (barely) and still can't think beyond a 5th grade level. You're another example of that. Graduating HS doesn't really mean anything anymore, since most high schools are a joke.
You think I don't know that? I just got out of high school - you'd be pretty safe in assuming I know how stupid most high schoolers are. And yet, you still used a grade level to describe my reasoning abilities.
I realize you don't understand this yet, but this is slashdot. I type fast to try and get my message out. But its simply not with the time to find all the mistakes in my post. For you I know, there isn't anything else to do. That's ok, in a few years, after living on your own (assuming you can handle it... I'm not so sure) you'll realize this.
I don't have to go through my posts to find errors, because I don't write things like "hippocrate" the first time around, dumbass. If it had been a typo or reversed letters, I'd understand, but you grossly misspelled a word in the same post that you told me big words probably scare me... you see the problem?
If you say its the victims fault that they were raped, that means its NOT the rapists fault. How will carrying a knife help if you are snuck up on? Its not always possible to defend yourself, yet you in all cases blame the victim.. and now that you've been called out, you're trying to back pedel.
So, what's it like living in a binary world? Is it fun knowing that all the blame for anything can be put on one person, and never has to be shared? Maybe I'll try it sometime.
Let me clarify my position: If you don't even try to protect yourself, whatever happens to you is at least half your fault. If you do try to protect yourself, whatever happens is mostly the criminal's fault (but there aren't many things a gun wouldn't protect you against unless you're extremely stupid and do something like piss off a street gang).
I don't support govermnet 'raising of children.'
And I don't "rationalize away any semblence of personal responsibility". So now we've both made false assumptions based on age.
You claim personal responsiblity, yet if someone isn't responsible and ends up without food, you then claim I'm being selfish. Hmm, nice thinking there. Its the victims fault if she is raped, but someone that gambled away their life, well its not there fault at all is it!
That is why I think you're lying about being lower-middle class. You think all poor, homeless, and hungry people gambled their lives away. No uncontrollable circumstances whatsoever.
Oh and learn to spell "understand!"
You are *really*really* annoying, you know that? Learn to spell pedal and learn to differentiate between there, their, and they're, THEN you can make fun of my typos. You notice that my mistakes are typos and yours are basic lack of knowledge? You should probably read more often.
Your exact words: "If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences." So even in the case of gang rape, according to this statement, its the victims fault. Again, more back peddeling.
See above about partial responsibility.
because you choose not to work for a living
You think unemployment is a choice??? Christ, I hate you.
you feel entitled to someone else's luxury
And you'd stand by and let a starving person die because you wouldn't even give him anything from your surplus. What is fucking WRONG with you?
They never taught you about rationalization did they? It basically means that you know something is wrong, but try to justify it in some way. See, the problem is that it doesn't matter how much or how little someone has, its still wrong to steal. Nevermind that you CAN'T steal wifi from a rich perso
I'm not contradicting myself. First, I never said it was ok to infringe someone else's copyright. Second, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Its a seperate, distinct entity. For one, theft is criminal, copyright infringement is civil (historically). All I said was that its not right for you to take from the person who owns the wireless network just because he may be breaking some other law. Anyone with any intelligence knew that is exactly what I meant; your retard logic is trying to paint me as some kind of hippocrate, which is amusing, because its pretty obvious I'm not. I'll make it very clear to you what I meant: Two wrongs do not make a right. I hope your 5th grade understanding can at least comprehend that.
...says the guy who can't spell hypocrite.
I'm not going to try to talk to you about that anymore; it's hopeless. But I have to ask: you were in 5th grade when you were 18?
Its ok though, I know big words probably scare you.
Again, take a logic course. No one has a right to rape another person. You're excusing the rapists from THEIR personal responsibility to not harm someone else. Even if everyone protects themselves, there will be violent crimes. I'm pretty sure the two Israeli soldiers were armed and knew how to defend themselves, yet they were still taken. Its not always possible to defend yourself. Its a shame you never bumped into the BTK Killer; you may change your mind about warped world view. No one has a right to harm another, unless they are defending themselves from harm. Clearly a rapist or serial killer isn't defending themselves, since they instiaged the attack. So what about the four year old girl being raped by her father? Is that her fault too?
I didn't say that rapists have a right to rape, only that people need to defend themselves. Which is possible - controlling your life by carrying a knife, or controlling someone else's life by finding out who's about to rape someone?
just because you can never be 100% rid of a problem, you conclude you should not do anything about it.
Yes, you're right. People protecting themselves would not be doing anything at all about the problem. My bad.
Ahh. The generation that rationalizes away any semblence of personal responsibility and believes in entitlement. I guess I can almost understand you're thinking; you've never actually been in the real world where you have to work for everything you need and then have someone else damage your car or house, just because they felt like it. (Oddly enough, those doing the damaging are almost all in your age bracket..hmm..) How does your mom feel she raised a thief and likely worse? I bet she'll be glad that you're gone, and hopes you'll never return. Its amazing how different generations only 10 years apart are; I had some silly ideas too, but I never tried to justify stealing or blame the rape victim.
Ahh. The generation that doesn't beilieve in personal responsibility and relies on the government to raise their children. I can almost uderstand your thinking; you've never actually been in a situation where you needed to defend youself, or needed to feed a starving family. How does your mom feel she raised a selfish dick who would stand by and not give a dying person the basic necesseties of life? And it IS also the rapist's fault, but the rape victim shares equal responsibiliy except in extreme cases like gang rape.
Since this thread started about wireless network connections, I'd have to say it seems resonable to assume YOU believe a Lexus is a "need" and not a want, since you don't NEED a wireless network connection at all (or a laptop). Yet that's what you're trying to justify, stealing someone else's wireless bandwidth and claiming you NEED it.
That doesn't even make sense... Internet access is a want, and if I'm not hurting anyone and want it badly, I will use it. Your reasoning sucks; I'd advise you to read more.
FWIW, I do
Oh, shut up. We all know you only lurked for a few weeks before you registered. Don't try to pretend you've been here since 1997.
oh, and copyrighit infrinment ISN'T the same as stealing
.05 cents is inexcusable theft deserving of death, right? Gosh, it's a real shame you feel so entitled to free music - I hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
I agree, but you're contradicting yourself, just like I warned you not to. If you're sharing even a single MP3 file, you're allowing other people to download it - unless not a single person whom your file eventually reaches would have bought the music if it were unavailable for free, you're depriving the artist of money - and even
By the way, I download music too. But I don't make myself feel better about myself by denying it's theft - I'm glad to deprive the RIAA's lawyers and middle managers of money.
By that logic, because someone stole something from someone anywhere, its now a-ok for me to steal something from someone.
Christ, take a logic class, or read a fucking book or something. I didn't say it was OK to steal in-use bandwidth because it was probably being used to steal, I was just warning you not to contradict yourself, but you did anyway.
Got ya. So if a woman is raped, its her fault, because she didn't protect herself by carrying a gun or taking self defense courses. Same goes for some kid that is murdered by a serial killer. That's some world you want to live in.
Yes. I know it's hard for you to grasp personal responsibility, but that would be a good world. If I were walking through a dark alley late at night and got assraped because I didn't grab even a swiss army knife to protect myself, it would be my own damn fault. There are two possible worlds in which nobody gets raped - one in which everyone protects themselves (and their children), and one in which there are no rapists. Go ahead, try to get rid of every present and future rapist, I dare you. Let me know if you succeed.
when some entitled, inconsiderate asshole dents my car with his door
How did you jump from "stealing bread to feed a starving family" to someone denting your car door? Is that how your value system works?
Please, hang yourself before you decide to move out of your mothers basement. I'm sure she's sick of providing everything for her worthless 35 yr old son.
Well shit, not much time left to hang myself then. I'm 18, and I'm moving out in two weeks. I think she can make it until then.
By the way, your original use of your favorite word "entitled" in this thread was in response to my saying "if I had a need I'd take what I needed". Do you feel people aren't entitled to the basic necessities of life, or do you consider a Lexus a "need" instead of a "want" like everyone else?
Nope. That was spread by mass media during all their OMG HAXXX0RZZ!!!! binges. About the only thing that would stop a hacker helping the enemy is hurting one of his friends, and that's not likely to be a problem.
you pish poor example of a black hat.
Not true. Black hats do anything they want to entertain themselves, with no regard to the law. They'd gladly take jobs doing what they do for fun. They're not like evil villains in the movies, who do bad things because they're bad people deep down inside, and need a good-looking hero to go kill them.
Its very odd someone would advocate somethign they themselves would not do. I suspect you're a liar.
I didn't say I would not do it, I said I've never needed to but would if I did need to. And I don't care if you think I'm a liar.
Second, those same people CAN very easily use their connection to full capacity; all it takes is one large download. Finally, STEALING IS STEALING.
What large files would these dumbasses who are too stupid to enable security download? Linux distributions? No, we both know it would be music and movies. I'd advise you to drop that argument lest you become self-contradictory.
Maybe the user doesn't want his wireless connection slowed down due to encryption or other security measures. Did you ever stop to think about that? Encryption can suck as much as 30% of your speed. That's not insignficant.
If you make a conscious decision not to protect yourself, for any reason, you accept the consequences.
There are enough ligitimate ways to earn money to buy food that you don't need to steal. 'If you find a need, you'll take what you need' is entitlement. You believe that YOU are entitled to have what others have earned. The fact that you convience yourself that you need it more than someone else is just rationalization so that you don't feel bad about it later.
Spoken like a true member of the upper class. Go back to your gated community, fat cat.
Those of us that are freeloaders attach a negative connontation to the word. I guess it makes sense that people which ARE freeloaders see nothing wrong with it. Can't acknowledge what you're doing is wrong after all, can you?
.005 kilowatts * 1 hour = .05 cents. Are there people who honestly would miss .05 cents?
...
I'm not a freeloader; I have a job. I contribute to society. I don't attach to people's wireless networks or drive their cars off my front lawn. But I have no problem with people who freeload - if they can get something for free, why pay? I feel more contempt for the spineless people who give freeloaders free things against their will.
Because, as all worthless freeloaders refuse to acknowledge, there is no such thing as 'free.' First, you're assuming that you're not interfering with his calls. Do you know he wasn't using it for sure? With a cordless phone you could tell, but just connecting to a wireless network, you don't know if he's downloading something or not, do you? Even if you're slowing him down 0.5kbs, you're interfering. Also, you assume he has unlimited internet. For all you know, he's on a pay per hour dialup connection. There's a signficant number of people where this is true. Finally, it costs electricity to run the AP, the router, etc and that usage goes up when the device is being used. So you're actually costing him money. Not much perhaps, but stealing a 25 cent piece of candy is still stealing, is it not?
If I were attached to someone elses's wireless network and noticed I had low bandwidth, I'd realize he was using it to its full capacity and I'd disconnect. But how many people too stupid to check the "enable security" checkbox use their internet connections to full capacity? As to your 25 cent piece of candy, 10 cents per kilowatt-hour *
An unsecured AP isn't faulty though is it? Security is an option.. one the user may not even know about. If you found your neighbor had a fault base, would you tell him and not use his line, or would you use it without him knowing? No need to answer, I know what you'd choose.
The AP isn't faulty, the user is. Whose fault is it if he doesn't even read the 2-page quick start guide? And I wouldn't use a faulty base station - that was just an analogy. I thought we agreed that with a phone it'd be impossible to not interfere with his calls, and he'd most likely get charged for them.
I'll choose to do with my property what I want. And when you break in, I'll be sure you get whats coming to you, which is jail time.
If you can't even be bothered locking your shit up, why would you put forth the effort to lock me up? (assuming I screwed up and left evidence)
Its pretty clear what kind of person you are, now that the truth is out; an entitled asshole that believes everyone owes him (otherwise you'd see that you have no right at all to what someone else has worked for and earned). You don't limit yourself to using unsecured wireless; you have no problem stealing anything.
I am an asshole, yes, but I don't believe everyone owes me. If I find the need, I'll take what I need, but that hasn't happened so far. But you seem like the "don't steal my bread to feed your starving family" type, so
I can only hope you'll end up with a bullet between your eyes.
I doubt I'd mind; this world is pretty crappy.
Nice bit of rationalization there, don't you think? Why stop with a running, unattended car on your property? What about such a car anywhere? Indeed, why add in running and / or unattended? I know the thought bothers you, but its stealing, no matter where the car is, or what state its in.
Well, if we went beyond running, unattended cars on my property, we'd be outside the bounds of the analogy - I wouldn't support trespass with the intent of using a wireless AP.
interesting that you pick such a negative term to describe people using others' wireless wihtout asking
I don't hear any negative connotation to the word. That's just you.
You discover your cordless phone can talk to the base station of your neighbors cordless phone; is it now ethical to use HIS landline to make calls?
If I don't interfere with any of his calls and his phone company allows him unlimited calls, why the hell not? I apply all these situations to myself. If I found myself with a faulty base station, I'd take it back and get a different one - if my neighbor never interfered with my calls and I didn't get charged extra, then what's the problem?
but in my computer ethics class, we decided it was unethical to break into someone elses system, even if they did something stupid (like leave it unlocked)
So don't break into someone else's system. See what I care. I share no such ethic, so you better lock your shit up.
If they leave it on my property, running and unattended, they don't deserve a car. If I left my car running on someone's property, I wouldn't expect them to leave it alone. It's not even a good analogy anyway. Wifi access can be used sinultaneously by freeloaders and legitimate users, a car can't.
Well, perhaps I am a bit pessimistic. I went to a high school with 7 intelligent people in my class. I spent most of my junior year calmly discussing politics with people all over the spectrum, as well as many uninitiated, and very few of them understood the issues. Even when they tried, they just couldn't. I really hope my class isn't a representative sample of the US population.
By the way, props on being a high school teacher. I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.
I wish it were like your soapbox speech says. But the Bush administration's policies are neither right nor left, they're just wrong. I have trouble discussing them without wanting to find a small furry animal to kick in the ribs. Examples:
I can disagree rationally with people who want taxing and spending, and I agree with people who want less taxing and less spending. But people who support an indefinitely increasing national debt because the rich aren't paying taxes anymore? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best fiscal policy?
I can disagree rationally with people who want prayers read in public school. I agree with people who want no religion in public schools. But people who want to force everyone to sit and listen to their creationist horseshit? How can I rationally discuss with people who honestly think that's the best way to educate our children?
I can disagree rationally with people who want a (moderately) interventionist foreign policy, and I agree with people who want an isolationist foreign policy. But people who lie (and the people who chose to ignore those numerous lies) to go to war with Iraq just to get Republicans reelected? How can I rationally discuss with people like that?
You're too generous in your use of the word "think". The GP supports Bush in his war against terror. That alone points to him being too stupid to think anything about the election - if he can't comprehend that TWAT creates terrorists, how could he comprehend the possibility of election fraud? It's just beyond his means. Too bad natural selection doesn't work anymore, because he needs to die.
And the two captured Israeli soldiers are still in enemy hands, if not dead.
Really? 450+ Lebanese CIVILIANS *are* dead.
My guess is that... etc.
God, I wish that were just a guess.
"some comment to the bottom", huh?
Yep. Did that to me too. Maybe playing some guitar will cheer me up. If not, I might go beat stupid people with bats.
Er... read that comment a bit more closely. It was left by someone not from the company who added some sarcasm to the advertisement text left by the company. How could you honestly confuse that?
The discussion isn't about legality, it's about ethics. It would be illegal to drive in someone's car, even if they left it running on your front lawn. But I wouldn't think it's unethical - if I did that, I would fully expect it to be gone when I got back.
That's not even the problem. Plurality voting creates a two-party system. Remember So Long, and Thanks for All The Fish? If the people didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. It doesn't matter even if a third party does displace one of the two main parties. The two-party system will remain.
All third parties represent the interests of far more people than actually vote for them. People don't vote for third party candidates because they think their votes don't matter. The sad part is that they're right.