You know that most Linux systems don't support sshfs, because they don't have and SFTP server, right?

You know lots of Linux/Unix/*BSD systems don't have an X server, right? (Actually the majority of them don't)

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the definition of the word "help".

" a(2) depends on what "authorized" means."

No. That is the whole point. There is no question what 'authorized' means in an internet context. In an internet context 'authorized' means that an auth system has been used. Unauthorized use means that they circumvented the auth system. If there is no auth system to circumvent, it is literaly impossible to use the system in an unauthorized fashion.

If the lawmakers don't know that they are unqualified to make the law. In any case, the law they wrote is quite clear, even if they are too ignorant to know what they wrote. We can't start saying "The lawmaker meant this even though he wrote that". The reasons for this should be clear.

"If you have to go out of your way to find it, it's not public."

You must be new to the internet. Seriously. I don't just have to go out of my way to find stuff on the Internet, I have to go out of my way to find things in the grocery store too. Is Google a hacking tool now (hint: by your absurd definition it is, as it turns up content that isn't linked to directly or indirectly from the home page)

" If you break in because of lousy security, it's still not public."

What the hell does that have to do with this case. Which part of: "He didn't break into any systems" are you having problems understanding. To hear you tell it, if I have a URL: summer.mysite.com and I change the summer to winter to see if there is publicly available content there I just hacked their friggin system and broke in if they didn't have a link to it, or if I had to "go out of may to find it."

You literally have no idea how the Internet works, so stop thinking you can apply laws to it. You have no ability to interpret any law regarding the Internet, because you have no idea what basic terms mean.

The fact that you think an unprotected system hooked to the internet can be considered "secure/private by decree" would be laughable if it weren't such a dangerous form of ignorance.

"I'm really uncomfortable with how the internet works."

FTFY

No. You are arguing against basic principles of the Internet. How he found it is completely irrelevant.

" It's not like the end point he found was big P public"

That statement literally makes no sense whatever, and brings to the forefront and amplifies your complete lack of understanding of the situation. The minute we start saying that what is an isn't publicly available varies on the whim of the company the whole system breaks. I can create a publicly facing website and allow people to access it, then one day just announce that it is now misuse of my site to access it and report everone I don't like for "Hacking / Unauthorized Use". If he didn't circumvent an auth system, which he didn't, then he accessed information that the company made public. That's how the Internet works. Maybe they made it public out of incompetence or just a mistake, but they made it publicly available none the less.

So now you are saying that they usually don't get the ful strain right, and vaccinate for the wrong strains, unless you get enough of other people's snot on you?

"So the intelligence test questions are rather "Do you have an increased risk for catching infectuous diseases (e.g. working in healthcare or resale being in close contact with varying, large groups of people)?" "

Really? So if I have an increased risk of exposure, my chances of a vaccine for the wrong strain protecting me increases, then? I didn't know that, and I can now see that you have outwitted me!

" Now if you argue that an unvaccinated child puts your vaccinated child at risk, aren't you whining that you don't believe the vaccine conferred immunity to your child?"

This is the one thing I totally missed, and I'm a bit emberassed about it, but in my defense it was a really tough day yesterday.

The fact that you have been marked troll for 100% proving that any idiot who worries that some unvaccinated kid will "kill" their vaccinated one.

Seriously, if there is anybody left on Slashdot that prefers irrefutable logic over ridiculous conjecture, please mod this guy (Gordon Smith) to 5 where his post belongs.

Can they figure out how to create a Slashdot account and log in? Maybe you should get them to help you if they can!

You beat me to the punch. That was the first thing I thought. It's not like they even think of themselves as terrorists. (Either the US governement or Al Queda)

"Not to argue your fundamental point, but AFAICT they haven't been lying for years they've been saying nothing for years. "

As you just pointed out, apparently unwittingly, they have been lying for years.

You pretty much just nailed exactly my thought process. The flu vaccine is an excellent example. It's almost an intelligence test. I can ask "did you get a flu shot" and if the answer is yes I can just about guarantee they are of moderate or less intelligence.

I don't care about Jenny McCarthy. Sure, she's not too bright, but anyone who listened to her and dies is probably just giving a nod to Darwin.

"I also question that they're "very, very smart" if they are willingly putting their children at risk of death by not vaccinating them."

The "very, very smart" people realize what a ridiculous claim it is that their children are likely to die if they don't get them vaccinated. Yes, it is true that the reason why it is such a small chance is because of vaccinations, but very smart people realize all of that, and then make their own choice. One very intelligent choice is to recognize this and opt not to vaccinate.

On a related note, where is the evidence that thousands and thousands of children are dying in droves due to not being vaccinated? Did Jenny's kids die and I missed it or something?