By that definition, me running an unsecured wireless network and you accessing it is "authorization", however, the truth of the matter is you are trespassing on my real property.
I'm not trespassing on your real property when I'm on a public road in front of your house using your wireless signals which extend off your property. In fact, if I'm your next-door neighbor and your wireless signals reach to my property, there's a stronger argument that you are trespassing on my real property by allowing your electromagnetic signals to enter my property.
If I leave my back gate open, and you walk in, you are still trespassing.
The 'physical access' metaphor is a useful shortcut in some circumstances, but extending it to questions of ethics and morals is stretching the metaphor too far. The metaphor may do more harm than good by making it so easy to confuse and conflate the two concepts.
well, most people choose to avoid divulging that theyre high tech criminals on a television show. just an idea...
Why bother? We're all criminals now, aren't we? That's what modern law is for.
On the other topic, if they really are former hackers, their employers must have been disappointed when their new employees showed up and no longer cared to know how their systems worked.
So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs? What are the distribution formalities required for that kind of thing? It sounds like a giant ball of baling wire stuck in a thresher. I'm tempted to let it alone.
Somehow you fail to realize that Flash videos don't work unless Flash Player is installed. There is no conceptual difference between requiring Flash to be installed and requiring a codec pack to be installed.
If some level of extra browser support is going to be required, an open standard is far superior to proprietary junk like Flash.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The purpose of central government is regulation; because that is where power can be utilized in a non-biased fashion.
They'll still detect the (pseudo-)randomness, and they will assume that because it appears random, it must be encrypted. After all, most people don't have random bytes written all over their hard drives, do they?
You're right, I'd have a much better road if it was paid for voluntarily. Not that that's relevant. Even if your false assumptions were true and taxation were somehow magically necessary for road creation, that would not change the nature of theft. Theft is theft, regardless of what the stolen goods are used for and regardless of any perceived benefit flowing from it.
Dubai of course isn't the only place, there are others, like Lichtenstein, and (at least in the 90s if you were Jewish) Israel. These are popular places for organized crime organizations to launder money. He says, "The only credible reasons for their growth and success is the fact that many corporations in the licit economy use them for the exact same reasons [as the criminals] (especially tax evasion).
In other words, theft evasion is legitimate. Theft evasion is right. Theft evasion is something all people and companies should engage in. Theft evasion should be considered a moral virtue.
Believe it or not, taxes are evil. All taxation is theft. Anything that allows governments to steal money and profit from crimes is a bad thing, full stop.
Aryabhata writes in with news that should chill the hearts of decent people everywhere: one of the last bastions of strong banking secrecy, Switzerland, is bowing to international pressure
My paragraphs were refuting the assumptions you actually made. You've spent quite a few posts proving and re-proving that you have nothing meaningful to say and no ability to back up your earlier statements. I don't expect any type of meaningful reply, of course, but I would suggest you put some thought to your assumptions.
That's your new bright idea? If you actually believe that idea is somehow connected to the rest of this conversation, do explain. Remember, the subject is government forcing companies not to employ certain groups of people; versus private companies voluntarily ending business arrangements. How do you get to "if be [sic] refuses to do business with anybody who employs Libertarians, that's wrong" from that?
You are arguing that a company terminating an arrangement it has with another party and a third party (the government) forcibly ending an arrangement between two other parties are equivalent. That is absurdity.
Now you're changing the subject. We were talking about your idea that it would be OK if Obama forced employers to fire their employees.
But I suppose you quoted me because you do not understand the quoted text, so think of it this way: Your employer does not have an absolute right to your labor. His right to your labor depends on your willingness to work for him. If he forces you to work beyond the terms of any contract between you and against your will, that is slavery. Likewise, you do not have an absolute right to a job with that employer. Your right to that job depends on the employer's willingness to hire you and allow you to keep the position. If you use the resources of the employer and continue to "work" for him and take "payment" beyond the terms of any contract between you and against his will, you are guilty of trespass and theft.
From the perspective of a third party, such as a government, both rights are absolute. If you and an employer and in mutual agreement that you shall work for him, there is no one else who has the right to interfere with that relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
Saving your own money? Definitely not abuse.
By that definition, me running an unsecured wireless network and you accessing it is "authorization", however, the truth of the matter is you are trespassing on my real property.
I'm not trespassing on your real property when I'm on a public road in front of your house using your wireless signals which extend off your property. In fact, if I'm your next-door neighbor and your wireless signals reach to my property, there's a stronger argument that you are trespassing on my real property by allowing your electromagnetic signals to enter my property.
If I leave my back gate open, and you walk in, you are still trespassing.
The 'physical access' metaphor is a useful shortcut in some circumstances, but extending it to questions of ethics and morals is stretching the metaphor too far. The metaphor may do more harm than good by making it so easy to confuse and conflate the two concepts.
"But green light means 'go', right??"
I agree. Anyone who breaks/broke/will break into a closed/open system without authorization...
Ah, but an open system is authorization.
well, most people choose to avoid divulging that theyre high tech criminals on a television show. just an idea...
Why bother? We're all criminals now, aren't we? That's what modern law is for.
On the other topic, if they really are former hackers, their employers must have been disappointed when their new employees showed up and no longer cared to know how their systems worked.
CNet has a series of interviews with former hackers
If they're only former hackers, then they're useless as security consultants.
Suffering? Lego and Verizon are the oppressors, as are any who claim "intellectual property rights" against innocent victims.
So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs? What are the distribution formalities required for that kind of thing? It sounds like a giant ball of baling wire stuck in a thresher. I'm tempted to let it alone.
Somehow you fail to realize that Flash videos don't work unless Flash Player is installed. There is no conceptual difference between requiring Flash to be installed and requiring a codec pack to be installed. If some level of extra browser support is going to be required, an open standard is far superior to proprietary junk like Flash.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The purpose of central government is regulation; because that is where power can be utilized in a non-biased fashion.
Do you realize what you wrote there?
No, that's why (along with many other reasons) we should abolish government.
They'll still detect the (pseudo-)randomness, and they will assume that because it appears random, it must be encrypted. After all, most people don't have random bytes written all over their hard drives, do they?
Oh no!
You're right, I'd have a much better road if it was paid for voluntarily. Not that that's relevant. Even if your false assumptions were true and taxation were somehow magically necessary for road creation, that would not change the nature of theft. Theft is theft, regardless of what the stolen goods are used for and regardless of any perceived benefit flowing from it.
Dubai of course isn't the only place, there are others, like Lichtenstein, and (at least in the 90s if you were Jewish) Israel. These are popular places for organized crime organizations to launder money. He says, "The only credible reasons for their growth and success is the fact that many corporations in the licit economy use them for the exact same reasons [as the criminals] (especially tax evasion).
In other words, theft evasion is legitimate. Theft evasion is right. Theft evasion is something all people and companies should engage in. Theft evasion should be considered a moral virtue.
Remember, any dictator can create "legal" search warrants. Not all "legal" search warrants are moral or ethical.
Believe it or not, taxes are evil. All taxation is theft. Anything that allows governments to steal money and profit from crimes is a bad thing, full stop.
Aryabhata writes in with news that should chill the hearts of decent people everywhere: one of the last bastions of strong banking secrecy, Switzerland, is bowing to international pressure
Fixed that for you, you scumbag statist.
My paragraphs were refuting the assumptions you actually made. You've spent quite a few posts proving and re-proving that you have nothing meaningful to say and no ability to back up your earlier statements. I don't expect any type of meaningful reply, of course, but I would suggest you put some thought to your assumptions.
No, you are assuming implications which do not exist. Therefore, I did not expect you to be able to logically explain them.
That's your new bright idea? If you actually believe that idea is somehow connected to the rest of this conversation, do explain. Remember, the subject is government forcing companies not to employ certain groups of people; versus private companies voluntarily ending business arrangements. How do you get to "if be [sic] refuses to do business with anybody who employs Libertarians, that's wrong" from that?
You are arguing that a company terminating an arrangement it has with another party and a third party (the government) forcibly ending an arrangement between two other parties are equivalent. That is absurdity.
But I suppose you quoted me because you do not understand the quoted text, so think of it this way: Your employer does not have an absolute right to your labor. His right to your labor depends on your willingness to work for him. If he forces you to work beyond the terms of any contract between you and against your will, that is slavery. Likewise, you do not have an absolute right to a job with that employer. Your right to that job depends on the employer's willingness to hire you and allow you to keep the position. If you use the resources of the employer and continue to "work" for him and take "payment" beyond the terms of any contract between you and against his will, you are guilty of trespass and theft.
From the perspective of a third party, such as a government, both rights are absolute. If you and an employer and in mutual agreement that you shall work for him, there is no one else who has the right to interfere with that relationship.
No I didn't. You're the first one who mentioned the idea. Why?
How in the world would that be OK?
I should by the inherent right of our freedoms be able to post my opinion about it.
Yes, and your doctor should by the inherent right of our freedoms be able to refrain from treating you.