bigbadbear
New member
I would rob a store but only a bad one run by bad people .
Preferably foreigners .
Or maybe a video store because of the irony.
I use a lot of bandwidth, but am tired of paying...
- Thread starter bigbadbear
- Start date
I would rob a store but only a bad one run by bad people .
Preferably foreigners .
Or maybe a video store because of the irony.
revenge_taker05
New member
I find it amusing that "you pirate so therefore you have no input on morality or legal issues" is being used as an argument here. You pirate as well. Would you not say that murder is wrong? Stealing a car? Kidnapping a child? The world is not separated into the black and white of criminal activity, while one person may shoplift a loaf of bread, that doesn't mean they'll proceed to rob a bank.
In short, I simply made an observation that taking morality advice from someone who's discussed doing something quite immoral in this thread is ridiculous. Squirm around it how you will, the truth still stands.
And that's really what it comes down to. If you think there are no degrees to criminals, and anyone who's done anything wrong in their life has no concept of morality, you have an interesting view on the world.
ca_aok said:
Sorry to hear your service is so lousy there.
There are some big differences between our services- 1. Nobody pays for overages. If they did, they would secure their connections immediately. 2. Nobody gets cut off. In fact, the DSL option (phone co.) does not cap their service. 3. The only people who get kicked off of Concast use in excess of 250GB/mo. Concast says that only 1% of the population use that much. So, if they are accurate, I have a 1% chance of effecting someone's connection.
As for limiting their speed, I would be leeching via a wireless connection. That is ALWAYS slower than line speed AND far less than the 2MB/s speed available.
I also realize that if I effect someone too much, they will protect their wireless. Why would I want to kill my host?
Actually, many people in this area, including businesses...intentionally leave their lines open. That way people CAN travel across a city and use their wireless devices. The more people who leave them open, the better for the end user.
Justified.
You got to watch home many ip's your using as it will look as if your sharing your account.
When I used to run my trojan backdoor loader, I would install utorrent in the background and of course have remote gui setup.
Some people would have better speeds than some of the seed boxes offered around here lol....
The IP question is an interesting one...
I don't entirely know how an address is assigned. Interestingly enough, last month my personal meter showed I was over by ~100GB. However, when I checked the meter on Concast's site, I was fine. :01:
Apparently, my wireless has been grabbing from my neighbors anyway.
I don't have any interest in installing anything in my neighbors' backdoor. :blink:
Edit-...and how is my plan any different than the 100's of thousands of ipod touch users walking/driving around using unsecured connections?
sexyeyes12
New member
Although this thread has not gone as I had expected, I find it quite fascinating that there is a near-perfect consensus of people posting who believe it is morally wrong for me to grab this 2.4ghz radio frequency that is floating in the air around me.
It is of no consequence that the company I would no longer be paying is actually a frequent opponent to this community. Even those who are giving me the "out" of paying another company (phone co.), believe I should be paying somebody.
How about this...
Instead of paying Concast, I leech no more than 60GB/mo and divide that among 6 different open connections (10 GB ea) AND I donate that money to...take your pick:
1. An orphanage
2. Children's Leukemia research
3. A homeless shelter
4. A fund that helps poor families receive a computer and internet access
Would any of these causes absolve me from my moral deficit? Or should this money ABSOLUTELY go to AN ISP?
It is of no consequence that the company I would no longer be paying is actually a frequent opponent to this community. Even those who are giving me the "out" of paying another company (phone co.), believe I should be paying somebody.
How about this...
Instead of paying Concast, I leech no more than 60GB/mo and divide that among 6 different open connections (10 GB ea) AND I donate that money to...take your pick:
1. An orphanage
2. Children's Leukemia research
3. A homeless shelter
4. A fund that helps poor families receive a computer and internet access
Would any of these causes absolve me from my moral deficit? Or should this money ABSOLUTELY go to AN ISP?
As I've come to notice these morality threads are all pointless as it is completley opinionated according to each individual.
This as tokeman has suggested, is indeed a thread about where the line is drawn....
In the case at hand... Megabyteme if you find it justifiable and are aware of the consequences...
Then I say go ahead....
ωєєzу вαву..♥
New member
I pay about $75 a month for my internet. Concast is the "best" option, but they seem to be leading the ISPs against BT users. That is the vast majority of my use, ofc.
I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.
So, I've been doing some reading about 2.4ghz antennas, cables, load balancing (fail safe redundancy), etc. and I believe I could find a number of open connections, unsecured connections, and not-so-secure :naughty: connections. I don't intend to use large amounts from any one source, BTW. That is why I am looking into the amplification- to boost range and number of sources.
It seems to me that individuals are FAR better off being able to access open connections (lots of gadgets depend on them, honestly), and it is only a myth perpetuated by ISPs that people are STEALING bandwidth.
So, what are your thoughts? Anyone strongly against a soon-to-be "bandwidth thief"?
I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.
So, I've been doing some reading about 2.4ghz antennas, cables, load balancing (fail safe redundancy), etc. and I believe I could find a number of open connections, unsecured connections, and not-so-secure :naughty: connections. I don't intend to use large amounts from any one source, BTW. That is why I am looking into the amplification- to boost range and number of sources.
It seems to me that individuals are FAR better off being able to access open connections (lots of gadgets depend on them, honestly), and it is only a myth perpetuated by ISPs that people are STEALING bandwidth.
So, what are your thoughts? Anyone strongly against a soon-to-be "bandwidth thief"?
i think you are mistaken in thinking you can somehow hook up an antenna and receive signals from all over the place... that is a one-sided system... where you would have a big transmitter and could send signals very far...
the people you are trying to connect to dont have big transmitters... they have very tiny ones which is all they need to get internet in their small sq footage area.
you will see some wireless antennas that can transmit up to 1.5 miles... ya thats great if you have another one just like that on the other end that can transmit back 1.5 miles...
the people you are trying to connect to dont have big transmitters... they have very tiny ones which is all they need to get internet in their small sq footage area.
you will see some wireless antennas that can transmit up to 1.5 miles... ya thats great if you have another one just like that on the other end that can transmit back 1.5 miles...
Youichi Uehara
New member
Upon further reflection, there may be working, alternative methods after all... :naughty:
If anyone wants to discuss various shades of computer-based gray-areas, I'll be happy to continue. I appreciate all of the lively discussions I've had here today! :happy:
If anyone wants to discuss various shades of computer-based gray-areas, I'll be happy to continue. I appreciate all of the lively discussions I've had here today! :happy:
I believe someone when they claim they torrent b/c they cannot afford to pay, they just want shit for free, or something alone the line. But when someone claim they cannot (or will not) pay b/c industries are against "internet freedom" it makes me -> :lol:
With comcast you have a 250gb limit between pay periods (1 months)..
I have ran over 250gb a few times and they didn't say anything,
I have a few friends who use over 500 gb a month and just ignores the letters they send... lol
If you want to do it the "correct" way buy business class from them.
As their is no apparent limit....
I have ran over 250gb a few times and they didn't say anything,
I have a few friends who use over 500 gb a month and just ignores the letters they send... lol
If you want to do it the "correct" way buy business class from them.
As their is no apparent limit....
imported_nobody
New member
Under the circumstances where I live, I don't think that those conditions would be too hard to meet, however, I don't want to just wrap this up in nice little bow and say, see, "the orphans win, and nobody gets hurt..." What's the fun in that? :shifty:
So people can pick from these options...
1) I help the orphans, or whatever. And I use neighbors connections as I stated.
2) I meet the above conditions regarding "no victims" (as heiska stated). But I don't donate anything.
edit-
3) The ABSOLUTE best use for money and morality is to pay an ISP.
Please guide my moral compass, fellow pirates.
As a side note...TVCY, I don't think you are helping me "win anyone over". Actually, if you keep it up, we'll probably both get deported, or something. :lol:
Further edit- Raban, the dish is essentially an ear. I would receive the signal through that. Sending back may be more difficult, but an additional $105 will get me a 1 watt (that's above "legal" FCC broadcasting limits on 2.4ghz) amp.
bar_mar_mar
New member
ill say it just one more time. Mod your modem, screw Comcrap in da butt, save your neighbor's bandwidth, send the money from the bill to the little kids with flies all up on their boogers fund. its a win-win-win situation.
"JUST SMILE"
New member
:lol:
IMO it'd be okay only if:
- the owner of the connection wouldn't receive any C&D letters.
- you would leech your stuff when the owner of the connection is not using it.
- the owner of the connection would never reach his/her cap even though you're using it.
The same thing concerns "illegal" p2p: I'd never ever buy any of the shit I download; nobody loses anything.
Damn I need to get my hands on one of those bad boys....
Fake mac address's on a free service that isn't registered.... damn
And you can continuously change the mac... Which in turn changes your ip.
I would be using rapidshare for all my flac lol, switching ip's between files.
I'm pretty strongly against this sort of thing, especially given that as a filesharer you're using a crapload of bandwidth and most people generally have bandwidth caps. As for using "only a bit from each source", unless you're lucky and living in a specific area there will only be a few Unsecured/WEP/WPA-TKIP connections that you can actually crack, discounting WPA2 and AES as rather hopeless 
Basically you're forcing someone else to not only foot the bill for your downloading habits, but you're also forcing legal responsibility onto them if you ever get caught. And if they also have small bandwidth caps, you're making that even smaller for them.
Basically you're forcing someone else to not only foot the bill for your downloading habits, but you're also forcing legal responsibility onto them if you ever get caught. And if they also have small bandwidth caps, you're making that even smaller for them.