In fact "virtually every" can be considered "virtually incorrect". Seeing you discuss it as a "gross exhaggeration" and not blowing it off as a total troll made me realize that maybe some people have a perspective that only consumer devices connect to the Internet. And for those people I would just like to point out that the majority of the infrastructure that consumer devices are browsing is connected to the Internet over a physical medium (with a great number still on a base to broad setup).

However there are also a good deal of devices I don't think people usually realize are connected to the Internet with some multi-channel comms in there.
-Your cable set top box may be connected. These are ever increasing in popularity, as it is the perfect place to stick a little DOCSIS modem.
-Lots of gamers wouldn't be caught dead running their consoles over WiFi.
-Home security systems frequently traverse broadband over a direct/intermediary DOCSIS modem with cellular backup.
-Traffic signals and street lights in many municipalities are controlled via the MAN and can be accessed directly from / have direct access to the Internet.
-The same goes for red light cameras.
-To a similar effect, in the private sector, there are tons of CCTV systems that have a recorder which provides Internet access.
-Al Gore. (I probably made that up.)
-And to those who don't work in office buildings, let's not forget that there are still thousands of computers sitting under desks.

So while wireless technology has really taken off, we shouldn't write off just how many devices connect to the Internet over a Copper/Fiber interface.

If you are referring to ISP meaning the corporation, I see the same. But if you investigate individual markets you will likely find even many of the large corporations have coverage gaps for leasing certain equipment. And for some reason wifi routers seem to be one of those pieces of equipment.

Thanks for the intelligent response though. I definitely agree (assuming you are implying this) that in today's day of age most ISPs should take advantage of that easy money. After all, 5 bucks a month on a $40-60 item with a MTBF of 2 years is insane profit.

(And just so some pedantic person doesn't walk on our kind conversation, yes... ISPs provide routes to all of their customers in good standing. And most have routers built into their CPE gateway devices.)

I am a different asshole. That is why I answered the question of the person who you chose to mock in an effort to feel significant.
Feel free to taunt all you want. My constitution is too great for somethig so insignificant to alter.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. But there are certainly stupid responses. Try and figure out which yours is.

Recently many major ISPs have started to provide them as part of the contract.
I can vouch that Verizon and Comcast both provide wireless routers in at least some of their markets.

But to your point and the dismay of many who seem to know it all, there are still quite a few companies (and one of the above) I can also say the opposite for.
Not all markets are the same and I know in some Comcast markets they do not provide a wireless router without an additional charge.
I know ATT and Brighthouse do not offer a wireless router at all in some of their markets.
As well, Verizon's hardware offerings will vary depending upon market (but I have not found one where the equipment is not offered for at least an additional fee).

So I guess the sweeping statements that almost all major ISPs provide wireless routers is true.
But there is a cavaet that it only applies to specific markets.

(Yes, I know this first hand and not via anecdotes. Full disclosure, I probably work in this industry.)

So by compromising that one account you know of all the other accounts the user has? This is a tired tale of security from a non-hacker perspective.

Just a quick observation...
But many people who "fight the middle grounds" are so far off from center that they don't see the "middle grounds" as anywhere near the middle.
People seem to be increasingly color blind (in my country, the USA) only able to see black and white/right and wrong.
For science this is a boon, but for politics it seems to be a bane.
And I think that is mainly because science is completely objective, whilst politics is morally subjective depending upon one's master-slave perspective.
But who am I other than another sad soul sorry to see my civil liberties being trampled by criminals and looking for some explanation as to why we can't seem to come up with any common sense measures to combat them.

one that didn't suck so hard and that other options didn't break so easily.

Scott, if you read this, I support you. And what the heck, I will still support you in this even if you don't read my comment.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Just because we do something "emotionally unpleasant" does not mean we were not motivated by a self-interest.
Other people's direct interests can be our indirect self-interests.
This is an argument nearly as old as civilization and no matter what people want the situation to be, nobody has ever given a valid example of altruism.
George Price actually gave all he could to prove this wrong, and ended up realizing that just attempting to prove altruism was true concept negated his ability to perform an altruistic act.

Quote: So following your logic, it seems that I had no choice in the matter that was not rooted in selfishness.

You hit the nail on the head. There are no selfless actions.

How you choose to apply that lesson to free will is another argument altogether.
I am simply stating there are no truly selfless actions, therefore altruism (selflessness) does not exist.
And to add to it, I firmly believe most people mistake benevolence for altruism.

This is a very depressing topic. I was distraught when I first figured it out. Then I read some Nietzsche and found that altruism doesn't need to exist to be content. Now that I no longer look to impossible ideals as a way to live my life, I am actually much happier. But I assume many people will feel the way I did when I first realized this and be rather lost. Hopefully though, it will eventually set you free to live as beasts were intended. Just do the best you can from your perspective and understand you can't save the world.

Believing it is the right thing to do would leave you feeling guilty if you had not done it, because then you not have done the right thing.
Therefore there is a selfish motivation to do what you consider right, even if you do not consciously comprehend you are doing this to advance yourself or state of well being.

As many others have done, you have mistaken benevolence for altruism.

Quote:"Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.

You desired he leave your porch. You committed an action to obtain a good that you desired. Not altruistic.

Self-satisfaction negates selflessness which is the definition of altruism.
Even if you do what you consider good because it makes you feel good, you are still being selfish.
I think you may be mistaking benevolence for altruism.

Benevolence exists and I attempt to be as benevolent as possible because it makes me feel good to help other people.
But that does not make me altruistic; it makes me very, very selfish to help others.
Altruism is an abstract ideal man created to describe an impossible situation.

And, as a side note, it makes me sad to see that people are approaching philosophy so subjectively.
There is an objective science behind philosophy.