If a guy working at a store takes the reciepts to the Casino instead of depositing them, but wins, then returns the money in the morning, are you arguing that he did nothing wrong?
No. I am not arguing for consequentialism ( http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=551666&secid=.-&hh=1 ). The act of taking the receipts was wrong because at the time, the man was taking them with no intention of replacing them. Only because he won was he able to return the money. If he had lost, he would not have been able to do so. An action is not moral simply because it did not result in harmful consequences (attempted but unsuccessful murder, for example)
The case of borrowing without permission is a bit different. There was no intention of taking the object permanently or damaging it in any way. I'm still not sure if this is moral or immoral. Intuition leads me to believe it is immoral, but my intuition is not enough for me to feel confident that this is true.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
