Yup. But for whatever reason people don't get as defensive when I use that word instead of 'stealing'.

Maybe they're like me and zone out while daydreaming about one of the tastiest ways to prepaire eggs. Mmm... poached eggs over an english muffin... *drools*

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I prefer eggs over easy myself. You know that golden crust you get when you fry an egg? I love that. And with eggs over easy, you get it on both sides. The hard part is making sure the yolk doesn't break or completely solidify. Hmm, liquid yolk, creamy golden goodness. "drool, drool."

__________________

"sunny side up" or "over easy" are my two favorites. But poached is up there. I'm not a fan of scrambled eggs or omlettes.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I agree, that is just cruel and unnatural thing to do to an egg. I do like quich though, or at least the way I make it, which is technically a Alsacienne. But there is so much other stuff stuffed in a quiche, eggs are more an ingredient, the same way we don't call eating a cake eating flour.

__________________

Bold mine.
Yes. I completely agree with Nicolas on this.

If someone is on a monthly bandwidth limit, Unauthorized use,
of the owner's WAP, could result in serious financial cost, to the owner of the WAP.


--Dennis

__________________
________________________________________
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. -- Niels Bohr --

Ipsa scientia potestas est. ~ Knowledge itself is power.---- Bacon
--------
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit.


Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- mike alexander --

That said, my wifi has some basic security. Quite noticeable, as I regularly get messages that an anonymous user with IP bla.bla.bla.bla is trying to access my preccccioussss and will be kicked automatically in 5 4 3 2 1

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Yes, but it's worth pointing out that when you access somebody else's internet, you don't know whether or not they're on a bandwidth limit. So it's wrong in general to access without permission, not just if they are on a limit.

And if they are unlimited, "sharing" their internet access is like "sharing" somebody else's "All you can eat" purchase at a buffet restaurant. It ain't right.

And it's kind of interesting that so much of the focus has been on the wireless part of it. That's really just doorway - the real issue is that you're utilizing somebody else's cable/DSL/whatever physical internet connection.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

I was told emphatically at a restaurant that that's "over medium"
But using the same connection is another way of limiting bandwidth, no connection is infinite. And if it takes them twice as long to download something, isn't that a "cost"?
Didn't we already have this thread?

Well, according to Wikipedia, your right. Thanks, I learned something.

__________________

Lest we forget the other costs of internet, part of the monthly bill is used to pay for people who support the service. If they budget based on discret users who pay a lower rate because everyone is paying a low rate instead of a few paying a high rate, then it throws off their calculations and can hurt their budget, result in budget cuts, layoffs, less money for improvements in infrastructure and less spending that goes into the economy in general.

If that doesn't convince you, then recall that taxes on service are often based on flat fees instead of on bandwidth. When you steal service you are comitting the crime of tax evasion. The government has men with guns that make sure they get paid. If there's no better reason than "might makes right", then there you go.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

You're forgetting here that the company has to pay for upstream bandwidth just as you have to pay them, and by putting more people on your line you're incurring an additional expense for the company without paying extra for it.
That's why all ISP's have restrictions on who can use it, unless you explicitly pay for a connection that you may resell which will cost more.
If they didn't, would you think that it would be fair that all the users who don't share should pay so you can?

And then there's accountability for what's put through the connection.
You as the one paying is the one responsible for its use, if you allow your neighbor access through your system and he uses it for illegal purposes, you'll have two lawsuit to go through, one where you are held responsible for the damages, which you will lose because you have already signed a contract where you accept all responsibility and one against him where you try to get him to pay and you won't be sure you can win that one.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

If a provider offers unlimited access for a flat fee then they're probably going to lose money on some customers. They make it up by gaining more normal customers who are attracted to the offer of unlimited usage without having to watch a connect time clock or byte transfer counter. If this arrangement isn't working out for the provider then they can stop offering it and charge more for heavy usage. Trying to make sure that the computers on a wireless network all belong to the same person seems like a hopeless task. If they want the benefits of being able to offer unlimited access then they're going to have to put up with the drawbacks. It's not up to the taxpayers to pay their government to make the drawbacks illegal, provide a court system to try offenders, and finance prisons to house the guilty while the provider rakes in the big profits. If a business plan can't work without special legislation then they can do something else. Why should I have to pay extra taxes for their incompetence?

I'm not using someone else's wireless network and don't plan to even if one were available, but I don't see why my taxes have to support their faulty business plan.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Sorry if the above post seems political. I'm not against all laws and law enforcement but there must be some limits to what the taxpayer can be expected to protect. If some merchant puts his stuff on his sidewalk with a box in which people can put their payments for the items that they take and then goes home, it's still stealing to take something without paying but it seems excessive to expect the police to guard his stuff. The Internet providers can charge by usage and aren't doing it. Wireless network owners can secure their networks but aren't doing it. If someone can take care of his own security then why should I pay to have it done for him? If someone is using reasonable security and someone else hacks in, then it's time for the police.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

I see so if it's easy to steal it's ok?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It's not OK, but if it's easy for someone to prevent the theft then the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay someone to protect his stuff for him.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Right, so are you saying that if you think you can get away with it then it's fair game?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

No, that's not anything like what I said.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

will an administrator delete this thread for me. i dont know how. too much conflict. and a guy called me a thief. in my ignorance. so wrong. please?

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

No, we'll leave the thread. Others may learn something from it.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

oh well.
but i found out my uncles body shop is the unsecured network. its past the baseball field infront of my house.
now that its family im stealing my internet from. does it still seem so illegal? because i know when i asked they said yes its alright like any kind caring person would. (status of "family" helps or friend)
does it seem so wrong now that the other person doesnt care?


Merry Christmas.

~altered~

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

Altered. Who would have guessed. Does it seem wrong still? Well, it doesn't change the fact that you didn't know who the connection belonged to when you used it.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

and it never changed the fact that i was ignorant about it being illegal.

touche

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

Yes, and ignorance of the law does not make it any more or less legal.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

but its still all the justification i need to know in myself im not a thief.

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

Whatever it takes I guess.

For what it is worth, the legality of the issue is separate from the ethics of it.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

i agree.

__________________
"The purpose of life is not just to be happy; the purpose of life is to be useful, to be responsible, to be compassionate. It is, above all to matter, to count, to stand for something, to have made some difference that you lived at all."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein-

The taxpayers don't have to come into it - I think that was just an example. The bottom line is that the amount the ISP provider charges each customer is based on the number of paying customers they have.

When you add a non-paying customer, one of two things happen. Either you're increasing the ISP's cost of doing business without increasing the number of paying customers, which means the amount each paying customer has to pay goes up or you're simply increasing the number of customers without increasing the ISP's cost of doing business, which means the amount each paying customer has to pay should go down, but doesn't.

Either way, the people who do pay have to pay more than they ought to. And that's why it's unethical and why it's illegal.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

It doesn't matter if it's illegal unless the law is enforced and enforcing laws cost taxpayer money. Since the providers and wireless owners can deal with it themselves there's no need to make everyone pay for it. The providers can charge their heavy users more money and the wireless owners can secure their networks.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Even with your uncle's permission, both you and he are violating your uncle's service contract. Contractual violations are against the law. The law would consider this to be "stealing." In addition, it would uphold your uncle's ISP termination of your uncle's contract under these circumstances. If that happened (and I have seen it happen) your uncle would be without internet service and whatever else came with the contract (cable TV, phone service, etc.).

Is that really what you want?

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.