I agree with you that they shouldn't be, and they certainly shouldn't have the able to claim human rights like "free speech" (which instantly makes them inelligible to make campaign contributions - ever consider that all those pro-corporate/anti-people contributions are ipso facto anti-the-employees-of-the-company ?). But right now, they are legally speaking - a person , and a human one.
So how exactly will you license the pictures from the monkeys ? Pay them in bananas ? How will you make them understand what they are paying for ?
If nothing else there is a massive degree of cultural background needed to even understand the concept.
In the case of your three year old - the law has a mechanism to deal with that- you are his ipso facto proxy on all contracts and can negotiate on his behalf until he is an adult.
Who would be the proxy for the monkeys ? If they can hold copyright - then how would one negotiate with them or appoint somebody to negotiate on their behalf ?
We have no (current) legal mechanism to answer these questions.
None yet, but it's what you're dealing with if you discuss it today. There is hardly a city in the world with less than a million people.
>>it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology
>Yes. That's future tense. No it isn't, In fact It's future PERFECT tense. Meaning it's a current state (which implies it's been like that in the past) and will remain so. Perfect tenses are used to indicate the continuation of what is described. Nothing in my statement made it "okay in the past" - your inability to understand basic English grammar is not my problem.
>Yes, actually, as retaliation if Iran were to launch nukes at Israel. Really ? Nuclear retaliation would be okay you say ? You realize that the only effect it would have is massive and unstoppable escalation. Instead of having to deal with a few nuclear bombs - we would be dealing with a nuclear world war. Instant midnight on the doomsday clock. For that matter - the only thing that makes your action "better" in your book is that it's retalliation. "He did it first !"... what are you ? 3 years old ?
This is just like my favorite response to conspiracy theorists. "Isn't it odd how people will attribute to the government the ability to hide great secrets, when they can't even run a post-office efficiently".
In fact, governmental efficient definitely varies by sector. Intelligence services are notoriously good at keeping secrets, military is notoriously good at killing people, and tax departments are notoriously efficient at collection (they usually the best run departments in any government). There is no contradiction there. This doesn't mean conspiracy theorists are always (or even often) right - but the particular argument makes no sense. But you can't have it both ways for the same people in the same week. Or are you suggesting Israeli military was brilliant, but Israeli intelligence was horrible ? Really, you think Mossad was inefficient ? They may well be one of the most efficient intelligence services in the world.
You know not all African countries are ruled by dictators right ? You know there are hunger problems even in some of the successful democracies. South Africa is about the best off out of the continent - and in this country if we stopped our social wellfare payments (20% of the population subsidizing the other 80%) we'd have massive starvation. 30% of our people couldn't eat tomorrow without that money which comes out of my taxes. A lot of people here complain about taxes, heck I complain when I see it being wasted and stolen by corrupt politicians, but I don't mind paying it - because if I didn't... *quick maths* about 20 million people die of starvation in a week. I may as well drop a nuclear bomb on my own country.
Leaking it is a crime - especially if you are a military member sworn to protect it - but obtaining it is not. That's why Manning is prosecuted but Wikileaks is not a banned organisation, it's also why they are not prosecuting the editors of all those newspapers who published the data for wikileaks.
Nope, there isn't. US Supreme court long-standing decision states that leaking classified information is illegal (regardless of how it was accessed) but once leaked obtaining and even publishing it is a protected by the first amendment of your constitution. This is why newspapers can print classified stuff that wikileaks obtained. The government can't even directly act against wikileaks (much as they want to)- only against those who do the leaking because obtaining and/or publishing classified or other sensitive information is not illegal.
Moral Equivalence you say... wait are you seriously suggesting that there is any kind of variation in how bad it is to vaporize a few million people - mostly civilians ? Sorry - yes they ARE equivalent, no matter who did it to who or why - it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology - and there is no moral variation on that.
The only reason the USA got away with it is because they could pretty honestly say that they had no idea of the true effect before they did it (if they had- they'd never have signed so much away in that cooperation deal with Russia - they THOUGHT they would need them). The second one lacks even THAT bit of moral salvation.
By your logic, there must be cases today where dropping a nuke would be okay because the droppers are sufficiently "good" and the government of the country it's droppped on sufficiently bad that all those innocent civilians dying one of the most painful deaths known to man is acceptable ? Can you seriously believe that ? You know the trouble with that right ? Every single country in the world that HAS nukes is by definition warlike - and they ALL think they are the one with the morally superior position. You think so, France thinks so - but Iran and Israel BOTH think THEY are the ones acting in the morally superior way, and believe me North Korea thinks they are morally superior over you - just as you think you are over them.
If there is any concept that you can actually USE nukes and remain morally superior - that the very use wouldn't by default be worse than whatever you were at war against, then frankly who gets to decide which morality is right ? The one with the most nukes ? Fat lot of good that does by the time that debate is over, Africa will be a world power by virtue of being the only place with any population left and that's only because right now nobody else gives enough of a damn about the place to bother launching one our way.
Oh it could be - notably the money spent by governments in the USA and Europe when they pay farmers to burn their crops in order to keep the supply down.
The food supplies burned every year in the USA alone could feed all the hungry in Africa ten times over.
But they'll never think "rather than destroy it to limit supply, lets give the excess to people who couldn't afford to buy it anyway".
Governments literally buying massive degrees of excess food production to destroy it while millions starve to death.
That's the problem with the global market - it's imposing anti-protectionism on Africa (I should know - I LIVE in Africa) while being utterly protectionist itself. Now a very capitalist friend of mine argues the problem is that African countries aren't unregulated enough, their markets aren't "business friendly" enough so nobody wants to take the risk of buying and shipping the food there to sell it (then the demand would go up and there won't be a need to subsidize crop destruction). Problem with that is - most of the hungry in Africa are not starving because there aren't food available to buy - some African countries (notably South Africa, Zambia and formerly Zimbabwe) are net exporters of food producing more than we can use. There's far less than what's needed (which drives the local price up a lot- but that should only make it MORE attractive to be a supplier in) - but there is food. The people who starve can't even afford the cheapest foods. They don't have little money, they have NO money. You can't sell anything to somebody who has no money at all- and they are the majority. The only way to feed them is for free, because even one penny for a years food is still more than they actually HAVE.
>Innovation is apparently improved battery life and a 3d display?
Since clearly the parent loves these features- yes it is. Bringing to market features that customers want is a pretty good definition of "innovation". Nintendo began the 3D display thing - and I predicted it would come to smartphones 2 years ago in an SF story I wrote - and I am not surprised to see it come to pass. I expect in the near future we'll be docking our smartphones in our desks to full-size keyboards and screens when we're not on the move (much like we do with laptops now) and they will almost entirely replace all other forms of mobile computing. And those dock screens are likely to be 3D as well.
The logical next generation is a laptop that fits in your pocket, and can make phone calls as well - and Android is closer to that than apple and likely to get there first. And at that point we'll see market changes- there will be more and more models targeted at the non-consumer computer users of today - because programmers need to work on their PCs to program - and all those IT workers out there are a lucrative market. Some company will cash in on it with a a version that reveals enough of the underlying Linux to become the Linux desktop of the future.
Okay so the last bit is less than certain - but the reality is that these things are important innovations. Who would use a laptop today with a 1/2-hour battery ? If phones are to compete there, they need the battery capabilities to really become pocket-computers. Dual-core processors are another step in that direction, so are ever better multimedia capabilities (like that 3D camera) and getting beyond the small-screen constraints even when NOT docked - eyes-only 3D is a good step in that direction.
Paragraph 1: The Israeli army was too efficient to fail in an attack.
Paragraph 2: The Isreali army was not efficient enough to identify friendly targets.
That's pretty much a summary of your post.. am I the only one seeing the rather major contradiction ?
Those two paragraphs can't both be true.
A much more likely scenario is: The Israeli army at that stage was so inefficient not only did it repeatedly strike friendly targets - when it did it failed at the attacks.
As somebody from Africa I must say: Can you guarantee that everybody who sits in the white house with nuclear launch codes, now and in the future, won't start nuking countries if they refuse to pass laws demanded by US companies ?
You've had a history of removing democratically elected leaders around the world if those leaders put the development of their own people ahead of corporate profits and replacing them with dictators that would do as you say. In the case of Panama you actually had a CIA agent become the official ruler of the country to get your way.
You gave the nuclear launch codes to G.W. Bush... TWICE !
Iran has a risk of acting insane in the name of Islam. You have a HISTORY of acting insane in the name of the great god Profit.
Why should the world trust you more than them ?
Oh - and unlike Iran - you HAVE in fact used nukes in war before (twice), in fact you're the only country in the world that has done so - EVER. Oh... and also unlike Iran - you don't have the potential to develop nuclear power, you ARE a nuclear power you have enough of the damn things stockpiled to turn the entire planet into a glass parking lot.
Sorry, but speaking as somebody who is not a citizen of either country - I trust neither of you, and I trust the USA less than Iran.
Oh, and my country WAS a nuclear power in the 1980s, we chose to dismantle our nuclear capability ourselves (without any pressure to do so from outside) purely because we were opposed to the concept of continuing to stockpile bombs that we had no conceivable scenario of ever using.
I would take your logic a step further. If a major virus hit in Asia tomorrow representing a major threat to any countries it reached - you would want your CDC doing all in their power to assist in finding a prevention/cure while it's still only in those other countries. You would want them to stop it - saving lives there as well as reducing risk to yourself. You would certainly want the redcross and doctors without borders and similar organisations doing all in their power to stem the tide before it reached you. Now if you later learn that the virus was actually a biological weapon developed by the pentagon to launch on countries that supported terrorists - you would not afterwards be calling DwB and RC evil for fighting (and perhaps curing/inoculating against) it would you ? Cyberthreats have a much lower risk to human life that's true (though stuxnet proved that virusses could be targetted at computer-controlled machinery and designed to break them - what if the next stuxnet specifically hits heart-lung machines in private hospitals ?) you may or may not agree with private hospitals - but you'd not want a lot of sick people being murdered would you ?
Much as I'm in favor of market regulation - a security company choosing to ignore politics and fight the threat - that's their JOB - I cannot fault them for that.
Brain scan testing and other tests have shown that dogs have far higher stress levels than their wild counterparts - not fear stress, worry. Dogs have been shown to have a sense of time, a sense of themselves as being within time - and a sense of belonging and self. Wolves and foxes don't - but wolves and foxes raised in captivity do.
In one set of tests it was shown how "solve the puzzle" behavior could be triggered in some species of shrimp, remove the puzzle and the shrimp who had come to "enjoy" it - would reject the reward.
Everything in modern neuroscience says our "consciousness" is largely NOT biological - our brains aren't all that special (despite being weight for weight something we have a lot off). What makes us human is interacting with other human beings. The constant challenges we set for each other drives us all onward, we speak and learn to understand, we lie and learn to detect liars...
Animals which interact with humans learn to think more and more like humans - we inspire "mind" like consciousness because what you need to get there is NOT a lot of brains - but the right kind of stimulation of the brain you have. Now how far you can GO on that path is influenced by your amount of brains, which is probably why we evolved so much of it.
All this is very relevant to your point of view - because it means everything we know about brains and minds now suggest the only reason dogs aren't building computers is because they haven't been living with human long ENOUGH.
Because it means EVERY living being with any brain at all is potentially conscious to at least a significant fraction of our abilities -and should that occur their descendents could evolve to match or even exceed us.
In short... since our brains are not what makes us special... we are NOT special, we just DO something special. Well every animal does SOMETHING special that's the very essence of evolutionary survival. And our trick has turned out to be very easy to copy.
>The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
Unfortunately - it's also the same question we ask of people who are batshit insane and/or just plain wrong.
Now what are the odds you are in the former category ? Slim to none. That said you can hugely improve those odds if (like everything in your list of examples) the arguments in favor of your suggestion are logically strong, and the arguments against them (e.g. in favor of the status quo) are logically weak. So you ought to evaluate a suggestion by the strength of the arguments for and against it - the number of people making each side's arguments is completely useless information (and in fact - it's consideration is a fallacy).
Mussolini did NOT say that. He did love the phrase and tried to claim credit for it, but it wasn't his. The phrase was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile in the Encyclopedia Italiana much earlier.
All corporations are chaotic/evil aligned - by their very nature. US law prohibits them from placing ANY consideration above personal gain - and they frequently file the law in the same category, breaking it when they think they can get away with it (or the penalties are less than the profit they can make) - buying laws when they feel it will suit them.
Open-Source developers are in fact mostly neutral-neutral. They don't actively promote the law, nor do they seek to change or circumvent it - they just don't care about it (they are the ones who say "open source is convenient for removing the problem of worrying about legal stuff") and they take the same approach to social matters. Open Source developers develop under open licenses for pragmatic convenience or gain - not for the good of others. They are not harming others, nor are they hurting them - hence they are neutral.
Free Software is actually a bit tricky, switching between lawful good and chaotic good. Most free software developers believe in a chaotic good ideal, but nonetheless operate in a legal manner - though they (without breaking it) subvert the law to their own ends (that's what copyleft is - and Stallman has described it as such) They are thus almost certainly much more chaotic good than anything else. Their closest political likeness is socialist-libertarians or left-anarchist. Basically free software takes a Noam Chomsky/Catalan approach to the world.
Lulsec ? Their not chaotic evil, they are chaotic neutral at best.
â-Lawful characters are absolutely obedient to laws and authority, they believe in order above all and never question the status quo. The most difficult thing for a lawful character to ever do would be to question his superiors. Knights would almost always play lawful characters. â-Neutral characters pragmatists. They see the law as useful and needed, but not as something to admire or revere â" they will question laws and work to end bad laws. If authority is wrong they will question it, but they won't actively lead a rebellion except as a last resort. Many classes fall in this area, a typical wizard for example will often be neutral. â-Chaotic characters are actively opposed to all forms of law and authority and will actively and deliberately ignore rules and work against authority whenever they want to.
Those who buy laws are decidedly NOT lawful !
â-Good characters are primarily concerned with the welfare of others. They are selfless about working to defend the weak, feed the hungry and all their actions are governed by intensely caring attitudes toward others. Almost all healing classes are aligned as good. â-Neutral characters are unconcerned with other people's welfare â" they won't go out of their way to help others, but they don't actively try to harm them either (unless the gain is very good) They care about their own success and believe that the success and happiness of ever other member of society is their own responsibility. â-Evil characters are selfish and care only for their own advancement and needs. They will actively and readily harm others to get their way. If somebody has something an evil character wants, they will take it, even if they have to kill the other person to get it.
Black Hat Hacktivism ? Interesting suggestion... and we know there have been some in the past, we also know that there have been very little of that - ever (despite the movie perception that it's almost all hacking).
OP's point was that there WERE no Anthrax attacks. Not a single one. There was a major anthrax scare in the USA after 9/11 but there was never any actual attacks. There were however many, many hoax attacks. Envelopes with white powder sent to public recipients claiming to be anthrax. For all the reasons hoaxes are spread. Lulz, genuine attempts to sow panic, kids trying to get a day out of school. We have no real list of which were which and how much of what really occurred, what we do know is that not a single one of those "anthrax attacks" wewre genuine, they were all hoaxes, and that is what makes them False Flag attacks - yet - despite being hoaxes they led to major legal and economic change.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you mean to tell me 36th term abortions aren't legal in Canada ? So much for the liberal panacea... :P
Pay a visit to a certain Mrs Bieber in Canada and beg her to have an abortion ?
Actually according to the law - they are.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be, and they certainly shouldn't have the able to claim human rights like "free speech" (which instantly makes them inelligible to make campaign contributions - ever consider that all those pro-corporate/anti-people contributions are ipso facto anti-the-employees-of-the-company ?). But right now, they are legally speaking - a person , and a human one.
So how exactly will you license the pictures from the monkeys ? Pay them in bananas ? How will you make them understand what they are paying for ?
If nothing else there is a massive degree of cultural background needed to even understand the concept.
In the case of your three year old - the law has a mechanism to deal with that- you are his ipso facto proxy on all contracts and can negotiate on his behalf until he is an adult.
Who would be the proxy for the monkeys ? If they can hold copyright - then how would one negotiate with them or appoint somebody to negotiate on their behalf ?
We have no (current) legal mechanism to answer these questions.
>Which nuclear bombs killed a few million people?
None yet, but it's what you're dealing with if you discuss it today. There is hardly a city in the world with less than a million people.
>>it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology
>Yes. That's future tense.
No it isn't, In fact It's future PERFECT tense. Meaning it's a current state (which implies it's been like that in the past) and will remain so. Perfect tenses are used to indicate the continuation of what is described. Nothing in my statement made it "okay in the past" - your inability to understand basic English grammar is not my problem.
>Yes, actually, as retaliation if Iran were to launch nukes at Israel. ... what are you ? 3 years old ?
Really ? Nuclear retaliation would be okay you say ? You realize that the only effect it would have is massive and unstoppable escalation. Instead of having to deal with a few nuclear bombs - we would be dealing with a nuclear world war. Instant midnight on the doomsday clock.
For that matter - the only thing that makes your action "better" in your book is that it's retalliation. "He did it first !"
This is just like my favorite response to conspiracy theorists. "Isn't it odd how people will attribute to the government the ability to hide great secrets, when they can't even run a post-office efficiently".
In fact, governmental efficient definitely varies by sector. Intelligence services are notoriously good at keeping secrets, military is notoriously good at killing people, and tax departments are notoriously efficient at collection (they usually the best run departments in any government).
There is no contradiction there. This doesn't mean conspiracy theorists are always (or even often) right - but the particular argument makes no sense.
But you can't have it both ways for the same people in the same week. Or are you suggesting Israeli military was brilliant, but Israeli intelligence was horrible ? Really, you think Mossad was inefficient ? They may well be one of the most efficient intelligence services in the world.
You know not all African countries are ruled by dictators right ? You know there are hunger problems even in some of the successful democracies.
South Africa is about the best off out of the continent - and in this country if we stopped our social wellfare payments (20% of the population subsidizing the other 80%) we'd have massive starvation. 30% of our people couldn't eat tomorrow without that money which comes out of my taxes.
A lot of people here complain about taxes, heck I complain when I see it being wasted and stolen by corrupt politicians, but I don't mind paying it - because if I didn't... *quick maths* about 20 million people die of starvation in a week. I may as well drop a nuclear bomb on my own country.
Leaking it is a crime - especially if you are a military member sworn to protect it - but obtaining it is not.
That's why Manning is prosecuted but Wikileaks is not a banned organisation, it's also why they are not prosecuting the editors of all those newspapers who published the data for wikileaks.
Nope, there isn't.
US Supreme court long-standing decision states that leaking classified information is illegal (regardless of how it was accessed) but once leaked obtaining and even publishing it is a protected by the first amendment of your constitution.
This is why newspapers can print classified stuff that wikileaks obtained. The government can't even directly act against wikileaks (much as they want to)- only against those who do the leaking because obtaining and/or publishing classified or other sensitive information is not illegal.
Moral Equivalence you say... wait are you seriously suggesting that there is any kind of variation in how bad it is to vaporize a few million people - mostly civilians ?
Sorry - yes they ARE equivalent, no matter who did it to who or why - it's always going to be just about the most evil thing anybody can do in the world with current technology - and there is no moral variation on that.
The only reason the USA got away with it is because they could pretty honestly say that they had no idea of the true effect before they did it (if they had- they'd never have signed so much away in that cooperation deal with Russia - they THOUGHT they would need them). The second one lacks even THAT bit of moral salvation.
By your logic, there must be cases today where dropping a nuke would be okay because the droppers are sufficiently "good" and the government of the country it's droppped on sufficiently bad that all those innocent civilians dying one of the most painful deaths known to man is acceptable ? Can you seriously believe that ?
You know the trouble with that right ? Every single country in the world that HAS nukes is by definition warlike - and they ALL think they are the one with the morally superior position. You think so, France thinks so - but Iran and Israel BOTH think THEY are the ones acting in the morally superior way, and believe me North Korea thinks they are morally superior over you - just as you think you are over them.
If there is any concept that you can actually USE nukes and remain morally superior - that the very use wouldn't by default be worse than whatever you were at war against, then frankly who gets to decide which morality is right ? The one with the most nukes ?
Fat lot of good that does by the time that debate is over, Africa will be a world power by virtue of being the only place with any population left and that's only because right now nobody else gives enough of a damn about the place to bother launching one our way.
Oh it could be - notably the money spent by governments in the USA and Europe when they pay farmers to burn their crops in order to keep the supply down.
The food supplies burned every year in the USA alone could feed all the hungry in Africa ten times over.
But they'll never think "rather than destroy it to limit supply, lets give the excess to people who couldn't afford to buy it anyway".
Governments literally buying massive degrees of excess food production to destroy it while millions starve to death.
That's the problem with the global market - it's imposing anti-protectionism on Africa (I should know - I LIVE in Africa) while being utterly protectionist itself.
Now a very capitalist friend of mine argues the problem is that African countries aren't unregulated enough, their markets aren't "business friendly" enough so nobody wants to take the risk of buying and shipping the food there to sell it (then the demand would go up and there won't be a need to subsidize crop destruction).
Problem with that is - most of the hungry in Africa are not starving because there aren't food available to buy - some African countries (notably South Africa, Zambia and formerly Zimbabwe) are net exporters of food producing more than we can use.
There's far less than what's needed (which drives the local price up a lot- but that should only make it MORE attractive to be a supplier in) - but there is food.
The people who starve can't even afford the cheapest foods. They don't have little money, they have NO money.
You can't sell anything to somebody who has no money at all- and they are the majority. The only way to feed them is for free, because even one penny for a years food is still more than they actually HAVE.
>Innovation is apparently improved battery life and a 3d display?
Since clearly the parent loves these features- yes it is. Bringing to market features that customers want is a pretty good definition of "innovation".
Nintendo began the 3D display thing - and I predicted it would come to smartphones 2 years ago in an SF story I wrote - and I am not surprised to see it come to pass. I expect in the near future we'll be docking our smartphones in our desks to full-size keyboards and screens when we're not on the move (much like we do with laptops now) and they will almost entirely replace all other forms of mobile computing.
And those dock screens are likely to be 3D as well.
The logical next generation is a laptop that fits in your pocket, and can make phone calls as well - and Android is closer to that than apple and likely to get there first.
And at that point we'll see market changes- there will be more and more models targeted at the non-consumer computer users of today - because programmers need to work on their PCs to program - and all those IT workers out there are a lucrative market. Some company will cash in on it with a a version that reveals enough of the underlying Linux to become the Linux desktop of the future.
Okay so the last bit is less than certain - but the reality is that these things are important innovations. Who would use a laptop today with a 1/2-hour battery ? If phones are to compete there, they need the battery capabilities to really become pocket-computers. Dual-core processors are another step in that direction, so are ever better multimedia capabilities (like that 3D camera) and getting beyond the small-screen constraints even when NOT docked - eyes-only 3D is a good step in that direction.
Paragraph 1: The Israeli army was too efficient to fail in an attack.
Paragraph 2: The Isreali army was not efficient enough to identify friendly targets.
That's pretty much a summary of your post.. am I the only one seeing the rather major contradiction ?
Those two paragraphs can't both be true.
A much more likely scenario is:
The Israeli army at that stage was so inefficient not only did it repeatedly strike friendly targets - when it did it failed at the attacks.
As somebody from Africa I must say:
Can you guarantee that everybody who sits in the white house with nuclear launch codes, now and in the future, won't start nuking countries if they refuse to pass laws demanded by US companies ?
You've had a history of removing democratically elected leaders around the world if those leaders put the development of their own people ahead of corporate profits and replacing them with dictators that would do as you say. In the case of Panama you actually had a CIA agent become the official ruler of the country to get your way.
You gave the nuclear launch codes to G.W. Bush... TWICE !
Iran has a risk of acting insane in the name of Islam. You have a HISTORY of acting insane in the name of the great god Profit.
Why should the world trust you more than them ?
Oh - and unlike Iran - you HAVE in fact used nukes in war before (twice), in fact you're the only country in the world that has done so - EVER. ... and also unlike Iran - you don't have the potential to develop nuclear power, you ARE a nuclear power you have enough of the damn things stockpiled to turn the entire planet into a glass parking lot.
Oh
Sorry, but speaking as somebody who is not a citizen of either country - I trust neither of you, and I trust the USA less than Iran.
Oh, and my country WAS a nuclear power in the 1980s, we chose to dismantle our nuclear capability ourselves (without any pressure to do so from outside) purely because we were opposed to the concept of continuing to stockpile bombs that we had no conceivable scenario of ever using.
I would take your logic a step further.
If a major virus hit in Asia tomorrow representing a major threat to any countries it reached - you would want your CDC doing all in their power to assist in finding a prevention/cure while it's still only in those other countries. You would want them to stop it - saving lives there as well as reducing risk to yourself.
You would certainly want the redcross and doctors without borders and similar organisations doing all in their power to stem the tide before it reached you.
Now if you later learn that the virus was actually a biological weapon developed by the pentagon to launch on countries that supported terrorists - you would not afterwards be calling DwB and RC evil for fighting (and perhaps curing/inoculating against) it would you ? Cyberthreats have a much lower risk to human life that's true (though stuxnet proved that virusses could be targetted at computer-controlled machinery and designed to break them - what if the next stuxnet specifically hits heart-lung machines in private hospitals ?) you may or may not agree with private hospitals - but you'd not want a lot of sick people being murdered would you ?
Much as I'm in favor of market regulation - a security company choosing to ignore politics and fight the threat - that's their JOB - I cannot fault them for that.
Brain scan testing and other tests have shown that dogs have far higher stress levels than their wild counterparts - not fear stress, worry.
Dogs have been shown to have a sense of time, a sense of themselves as being within time - and a sense of belonging and self. Wolves and foxes don't - but wolves and foxes raised in captivity do.
In one set of tests it was shown how "solve the puzzle" behavior could be triggered in some species of shrimp, remove the puzzle and the shrimp who had come to "enjoy" it - would reject the reward.
Everything in modern neuroscience says our "consciousness" is largely NOT biological - our brains aren't all that special (despite being weight for weight something we have a lot off). What makes us human is interacting with other human beings.
The constant challenges we set for each other drives us all onward, we speak and learn to understand, we lie and learn to detect liars...
Animals which interact with humans learn to think more and more like humans - we inspire "mind" like consciousness because what you need to get there is NOT a lot of brains - but the right kind of stimulation of the brain you have.
Now how far you can GO on that path is influenced by your amount of brains, which is probably why we evolved so much of it.
All this is very relevant to your point of view - because it means everything we know about brains and minds now suggest the only reason dogs aren't building computers is because they haven't been living with human long ENOUGH.
Because it means EVERY living being with any brain at all is potentially conscious to at least a significant fraction of our abilities -and should that occur their descendents could evolve to match or even exceed us.
In short... since our brains are not what makes us special... we are NOT special, we just DO something special. Well every animal does SOMETHING special that's the very essence of evolutionary survival.
And our trick has turned out to be very easy to copy.
>The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
Unfortunately - it's also the same question we ask of people who are batshit insane and/or just plain wrong.
Now what are the odds you are in the former category ? Slim to none.
That said you can hugely improve those odds if (like everything in your list of examples) the arguments in favor of your suggestion are logically strong, and the arguments against them (e.g. in favor of the status quo) are logically weak.
So you ought to evaluate a suggestion by the strength of the arguments for and against it - the number of people making each side's arguments is completely useless information (and in fact - it's consideration is a fallacy).
Xenocide according to Orson Scott Card.
You don't credit a quote to somebody when there is documented history that he tried to steal credit for something somebody else said first.
Mussolini did NOT say that. He did love the phrase and tried to claim credit for it, but it wasn't his.
The phrase was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile in the Encyclopedia Italiana much earlier.
making a resume...
All corporations are chaotic/evil aligned - by their very nature. US law prohibits them from placing ANY consideration above personal gain - and they frequently file the law in the same category, breaking it when they think they can get away with it (or the penalties are less than the profit they can make) - buying laws when they feel it will suit them.
Open-Source developers are in fact mostly neutral-neutral. They don't actively promote the law, nor do they seek to change or circumvent it - they just don't care about it (they are the ones who say "open source is convenient for removing the problem of worrying about legal stuff") and they take the same approach to social matters. Open Source developers develop under open licenses for pragmatic convenience or gain - not for the good of others. They are not harming others, nor are they hurting them - hence they are neutral.
Free Software is actually a bit tricky, switching between lawful good and chaotic good. Most free software developers believe in a chaotic good ideal, but nonetheless operate in a legal manner - though they (without breaking it) subvert the law to their own ends (that's what copyleft is - and Stallman has described it as such)
They are thus almost certainly much more chaotic good than anything else.
Their closest political likeness is socialist-libertarians or left-anarchist. Basically free software takes a Noam Chomsky/Catalan approach to the world.
Lulsec ? Their not chaotic evil, they are chaotic neutral at best.
You don't understand character alignments !
â-Lawful characters are absolutely obedient to laws and authority, they believe in order above all and never question the status quo. The most difficult thing for a lawful character to ever do would be to question his superiors. Knights would almost always play lawful characters.
â-Neutral characters pragmatists. They see the law as useful and needed, but not as something to admire or revere â" they will question laws and work to end bad laws. If authority is wrong they will question it, but they won't actively lead a rebellion except as a last resort. Many classes fall in this area, a typical wizard for example will often be neutral.
â-Chaotic characters are actively opposed to all forms of law and authority and will actively and deliberately ignore rules and work against authority whenever they want to.
Those who buy laws are decidedly NOT lawful !
â-Good characters are primarily concerned with the welfare of others. They are selfless about working to defend the weak, feed the hungry and all their actions are governed by intensely caring attitudes toward others. Almost all healing classes are aligned as good.
â-Neutral characters are unconcerned with other people's welfare â" they won't go out of their way to help others, but they don't actively try to harm them either (unless the gain is very good) They care about their own success and believe that the success and happiness of ever other member of society is their own responsibility.
â-Evil characters are selfish and care only for their own advancement and needs. They will actively and readily harm others to get their way. If somebody has something an evil character wants, they will take it, even if they have to kill the other person to get it.
Black Hat Hacktivism ? Interesting suggestion... and we know there have been some in the past, we also know that there have been very little of that - ever (despite the movie perception that it's almost all hacking).
OP's point was that there WERE no Anthrax attacks. Not a single one. There was a major anthrax scare in the USA after 9/11 but there was never any actual attacks.
There were however many, many hoax attacks. Envelopes with white powder sent to public recipients claiming to be anthrax. For all the reasons hoaxes are spread. Lulz, genuine attempts to sow panic, kids trying to get a day out of school.
We have no real list of which were which and how much of what really occurred, what we do know is that not a single one of those "anthrax attacks" wewre genuine, they were all hoaxes, and that is what makes them False Flag attacks - yet - despite being hoaxes they led to major legal and economic change.