Tracy R Reed([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 06:56:02PM -0700: > DJA wrote: > >Why does everyone like to characterize it as stealing? > > EXACTLY. And this is why we keep getting into bogus analogies. This > isn't stealing. It may or may not be right but it isn't stealing. We > need a new word. Just like copyright infringement is not "theft" no > matter how the *AA might like to frame it. It may or may not be moral > but theft isn't the right word for it. The words we use in discussing > these issues affects how we reason about them. Just look at pro-life vs > pro-choice or any other sort of propaganda. This is a good example of > the Shapir-Worf Hypothesis which says our language affects our thought. > If you use something that someone else paid for and has every right to use, and *you* decide that just because you *can* use it, that you *should*, then characterizing it as stealing is at least mostly accurate! Is it possible to come up with a word for this other than theft? Of course! Who cares, though? When you look up <new_word> in the dictionary, it will describe it as the act of stealing bandwidth. The analogies and vocabulary may not perfectly fit, but they are not completely inaccurate, either.
This isn't like the air in your yard, because people don't *pay* for air. It isn't like light from your window, because it doesn't impact the owner's use of the light. It's not like sneaking into the theater because you have to go onto their premises. It's not like a using a car because it's not tangible... Oh look, it's not like *anything* anymore. I find the argument that "their bandwidth is getting all over my property" to be truly ridiculous. First, we assume that only one person can be wrong. Second, we implicitly invoke one of the cruddier analogies by implying the _neighbor_ did something wrong because his RF trespassed. Third, we act indignant as if it were possible to stop the RF at the property line, and that the neighbor was only being stupid and intrusive by not doing so. Now finally we can just use it and feel self-righteous about it. After all, it's the only response available to us (which is the only part we really cared about, anyway). Isn't it sad? If it *is* truly offensive that someone's bandwidth is getting on you and yours, how about if you keep your wifi within *your* property boundaries first? After that, *then* tell them that you want them to keep their RF on their property. If the neighbor's bandwidth is encrypted and unusable, is that /more/ offensive? or /less/? I'm sorry that the intangible nature of RF bandwidth is so troublesome. This is, after all, why we resort to analogies in the first place. If you want to illustrate what is wrong with commandeering an intangible to someone who doesn't get it, you have to resort to using analogies that illustrate what is wrong with it. Invalidating an argument because it doesn't completely match is just a way of squinting so that you can't see the illustrative part that *does* match. By the way, it's not "Shapir-Whorf", it's "Sapir-Whorf". This is not an example, though. Quite the opposite. This debate involves new technology, and mulling over the related concepts. Only the expression of those concepts is limited by language. The fact that we employ analogies and metaphors, or that we want to create new terminology, is evidence of that. Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
