Biological Evolution has been proven, but the Theory of Evolution has yet to have any concrete scientific proof, hence why it is described as a theory.
Incorrect.
It has been demonstrated and verified many times. And it has NEVER been falsified. Not even once.
It is a "theory" ONLY in the scientific sense. Which does not mean the same thing that you seem to believe it does.
Mutations in nature and a laboratory do not change the underlying fact it is still the same form of life as it was before, just with different traits.
And that is EXACTLY what "evolution" is. Any other result would disprove evolution.
A dog cannot give birth to a cat... according to evolution.
Yet the Creationists keep claiming that evolution is false because a dog cannot give birth to a cat.
someone 'analyzed' another password list for correlations and found nothing of inherit value to security of than 'people are a problem'.
People are the weakest link in any security program. But does that make them the "problem" or does it mean that we're approaching security from the wrong angle?
Passwords suck. People are not capable of memorizing enough entropy to provide more than one or two decent passwords.
So do not focus on "strong" passwords as your only defense against attack.
One approach is to encourage "weak" passwords (word.number.word) that users can write down... but then focus on monitoring and login delays so that any attack will be detected before it even has a one in ten million chance of success.
Thank you for registering at slashdot. Your password is kitten6apple. Please write it down. If you wish to change it, click HERE. There will be a 10 second delay enforced between login attempts and a 10 minute delay after 3 failed login attempts.
There. As long as they don't store the passwords in the clear (or as hashes without including a random salt) you should be fairly "secure". At least "secure" enough for a "social networking" site.
For your bank or other financial institution, you'd want a second, non-Internet-based, channel for verification of transactions. Such as an automated call to your phone.
People are not the "problem". People's limitations SHOULD be part of the design specifications for the security program.
When you buy a DVD, can you watch it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a book, can you loan it to friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a CD, can you listen to it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
I'm sorry, but the license on the microwave doesn't allow other people to eat any of the food I heat up in it. And while I'm eating these nachos, I'll watch this DVD that can only be played in this DVD player attached to this TV.
Oops. The TV fell down and broke and it is out of warranty. Looks like I will have to buy all my DVD's again.
Yeah, that might be the wet dream of the execs at the movie studios. But real people don't see a problem with sharing things that you've just put down cash for.
And still legible instead of having been ripped at sometime over the years.
While almost every other company can send you the unlocking code for the products if you cannot find it, Microsoft is one of the few companies that refuses to keep such information readily accessible in THEIR databases.
But they want you to go through hoops to be able to download updates.
Before I switched to Linux, I used to use a lot of shareware that I paid for. Their customer service was incredible.
Particularly when compared to Microsoft's.
The shareware authors would keep your unlocking code on file forever. If you skipped a version or two they would STILL offer you a discount on their newest product.
Why does Microsoft refuse to provide the same level of service?
With Ubuntu, I can even LEGALLY download the install CD for the next version (and all previous versions). If the person needing the Windows help only has a copy of the "retail" install CD... but the unlocking code is for the "OEM" version... what the fuck?!? Who's idiot idea was THAT? It's the SAME OPERATING SYSTEM.
And don't bother telling me about how I can hack out my own "install with any unlocking code" CD. I know how to do that AND slipstream the service packs and such. I'm pointing out that Microsoft CHOOSES to make the task FAR more difficult for the average person than there is any need for.
The average H1-B person might expect to be paid $7 per hour for a job that they are already trained at. Its simple economics, if you were looking for a systems administrator for a Red Hat server, do you want the 23 year old thats fresh out of college that expects $80K a year, or the 30 year old experienced sysadmin that is certified and expects only $70K per year.
And yet the executives of those companies using that logic don't seem to apply it to themselves.
That's because it doesn't work.
The foreign workers don't expect to be paid as much because they DO expect to save most of it and then return home where the cost of living is significantly lower.
Now, if the companies want to play that game, then fine. They should be required to move their offices to India or wherever.
Instead, they want to "game" the system by paying to cheap labour rates of India, but enjoying all the benefits of the USofA. Meanwhile they're hiding their assets in the Cayman Islands and such.
Why should the American citizens support their government allowing such behaviour? It's just a race to the bottom.
Your argument assumes foreign workers are going to spend more money domestically.
Sorry if I had phrased that like that. My point was that putting money into US citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder gets more taxes generated for the government than putting the same OR LESS money into foreign workers.
I argue that foreign workers will live extremely frugal in the US while sending the bulk of their earnings back to their home country.
That has also been my experience. They come here, live as cheaply as possible, save their money (good so far, right?) and then start their own business back home when they return.
During good economic times and high employment, that doesn't impact the economy very much.
During bad economic times, you're sending money away from the US economy... and taking jobs from US workers... and increasing the tax burden on the other workers to pay for unemployment benefits of those workers... and so forth. The government collects fewer taxes, but ends up with spending more on the unemployed. It's a double hit.
You claim that in the free market would these banks would fail, yet you want to introduce more regulation to make sure no banks get big enough in order for the market to let them fail.
There is no "Free Market" as originally described. The people with the money can get politicians to write laws protecting them.
But they keep quoting the "Free Market" when it is advantageous to their position to pretend that it exists.
It does not exist.
So just don't pretend that it does any more and ignore those people who use it to justify their abuses and just make it impossible for any SINGLE organization to get so big that the government has to rescue it.
It's all about privatizing profits while socializing losses.
The best way to get the most taxes is to push the most money through the economy at the fastest rate. The more times a dollar is spent on taxable items/services IN THIS COUNTRY the more taxes the government collects.
Spending less money on foreign workers is not a good way to accomplish that.
Giving $2 billion in bailout funds to a bank so they can give it to their "top 10" executives as "bonuses" results in different spending patterns than sharing $2 billion in cash amongst all the US citizens making less than $30K a year.
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
It's funny, but it's also true.
on
Less Is Moore
·
· Score: 1
A previous company I worked for would lease their workstations for 3 years. That did mean that they were constantly paying for computers... and rolling out new boxes.
But there weren't many problems with the HARDWARE during those 3 years.
As they started keeping the workstations longer, there were more problems with the hardware AND there were problems with replacing the hardware that broke. Which was leading to a non-uniform desktop environment. It's more difficult to support 100 different machines with 100 different makes / models, etc than it is to support 100 identical machines.
Yes, the cases you stated are true, it is unethical to steal to feed a starving child because need is not the highest good. It is ethical to sell a gun to someone knowing that it will be used to kill an innocent child...
Yep. That's what I said your philosophy would state.
It took a while to get you to the point where you actually admitted it.
Now, who else would claim that such actions were "ethical"? Not a priest. Not a rabbi. Not a Buddhist. Not many people. Just Randians and sociopaths.
Yes. No crime has been committed. You claim I am spinning, but you have provided no reason why this is unethical.
So, by your "philosophy" it is ethical to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that it will be used to kill an innocent child.
But it is unethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.
That's it. It is simply stated and simply refuted.
And that is the problem with all you Randians. You cannot face the philosophy that you claim to believe in. Instead you have to try to hide behind questioning other ethical systems. Who cares if someone else would find some action ethical or not? You cannot face your own philosophy.
And that is also the flaw with Rand's philosophy in the first place. She attempts to divorce actions from consequences and objects from origins. With her, it doesn't matter how you acquired the property as long as in the next instant you do not force another "trader" to deal with you.
Again, by your "philosophy" it is ethical to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that it will be used to kill an innocent child.
But it is unethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.
No, I am rejecting your argument that a definition of "ethical" is untrue by reason of her being the one who defined it.
Spin it however you want to. Since it is easy to demonstrate that her philosophy results in unethical behavior being "defined" as "ethical" it doesn't matter what you say.
Yes if the gang member was a legitimate trader. This sale would be unlikely to happen if the seller realized that the guy was going to shoot his baker, it would not be to his benefit. The buying of the gun does not hurt anyone though. Besides, gang members can not be differentiated from anyone else, its not like they have horns and a pitchfork.
Again, you can try to spin it however you want. But the facts remain.
By your definition, it would be "ethical" for a person to sell a gang member a gun KNOWING that the gun was bought with the intention to and would be used to kill an innocent person.
You are saying that it is unethical and immoral for men to take responsibility for their own actions.
No I did not. I have never said that.
There is no limit on ethical. Just because action A is unethical does NOT mean that action B cannot also be unethical.
It is unreasonable to expect the seller to know the future actions of the buyer.
Now you are trying to dodge in semantics because you see the flaws in your "logic".
I can make it even clearer for you.
By your "logic" (and her philosophy) and you have admitted it, it is ETHICAL for person A to sell a gun to person B even if person B told person A that he intended to use the gun to kill an innocent child. Because both parties were "traders" who were not coerced in the exchange and mutually benefited.
Yet it would be UNETHICAL for person C to initiate aggressive action against person D to reclaim land that person D's father took from person C's father through aggression initiated by person D's father.
As I said before, that's an awfully convenient "philosophy" of "ethics" there.
How does the act of defining something negate its truth?
If you have to ask that then this discussion is already over.
You are accepting that her philosophy is "truth".
Mutual benefit occurs when both parties enter the contract willingly and exchange goods, money, or services at an agreed upon rate. Each party receives something of more value than what they lost. If they didn't then they obviously shouldn't have entered into the contract.
So selling guns to gang members is ethical.
So growing, processing, shipping and distributing cocaine is ethical.
So a king taxing a serf almost all of his production for the privilege of living on a plot of land is ethical.
The unethical behavior of the alcoholic or reckless driver is solely their responsibility, not the responsibility of the seller.
Which is a rather narrow and awfully convenient definition of "ethical".
More so because it would be "unethical" for the less advantaged party to claim the more advantaged party's advantage through the same means that the more advantaged party's ancestors acquired those advantages. Example, the serf would be "unethical" for attempting to overthrow the king.
No, selling guns to people who you know are going to use them to kill innocent people is only "ethical" in YOUR philosophy.
The words that best describes that behaviour in the real world are "unethical" and "immoral". Not "ethical".
Why exactly is it that because somebody calls themselves a 'trader' that they therefore get a free pass from any sort of ethical considerations?
Because her books were written by her to show the superiority of her beliefs. So anything that SHE wants to advance HER plot/characters is defined as "ethical" by HER.
And, as with most authors like that, she never explores the ramifications of her theories. Things just sort of work out for her hero characters... because that's just the way the world works in her books.
In essence, she decides that for her world view to work... actions A, B and C must be "ethical"... and actions X, Y and Z must be "unethical". Otherwise the heroes in her books would be overrun by the non-heroes. It's consistent once you've already bought into the belief system.
Since any hacked camera will NOT make a sound... will the cops randomly demand that people with camera-capable devices "demonstrate" that they click when a picture is taken? Since they will NOT be able to tell if someone was actually taking a picture or just seeing if they could frame the shot.
Excuse me sir. I see you're talking on your cell phone. I will ask you to take a picture of me so that I may ascertain whether your phone is "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" compliant.
Let me give you an example. Say you have a prisoner behind bars. They do not have the same freedom that you have. However, this same prisoner has stated he will kill you just for self gratification. Knowing this, would you still grant him freedom from prison?
That is the price of living in a Free society.
Otherwise anyone can be held indefinitely because someone in the government can claim that they said the forbidden words.
If you have served the time for the crime, you get out.
That does not mean that the cops have to completely ignore you until AFTER you've committed another crime.
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
Huh? Why not? Why couldn't we put trade embargoes on them?
You might want to note that we didn't invade Germany during WWII because of what he was doing to his own people. We did it because he invaded other countries.
By your reasoning Iran, even with nuclear power, is carrying out the will of it's people during it's genocidal cleansings of various minorities inside it's borders. But they chose once to start this. Now they'd chose, in a heartbeat, to end it, but they can't.
And don't we have trade restrictions with Iran?
The problem with your reasoning is that it quickly results in the USofA being the "policeman of the world" and our country cannot AFFORD that.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
I think that you need to read up on some history.
If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple.
But you never ask the question WHY the majority of voters in Egypt would WANT to elect them.
It doesn't matter if you outlaw one political party. If the majority of the people have the same beliefs as that political party, then they will, eventually, become the government.
Bad idea. Would you approve of an openly pro-NAMBLA campaign in the US? One that would include lots of photographs of NAMBlA-sactioned activities showing how decent and wonderful it can be for your son to develop a sexual relationship with an older man? OK, thought not.
You thought wrong. As long as the pictures did not run afoul of pornography laws. It's like making the FBI's job that much easier. The pedophiles are self identifying themselves and announcing their meetings. Let them run!
How about a church sect that uses the Bible to "prove" the superiority of whites over blacks and wants to use cable public access time to preach their message? With their charitable works getting lots of mainstream coverage about all the good they are doing for the (white) community. Maybe a charity fundraiser where they auction off some black people.
And exactly how are they going to do that without running afoul of anti-slavery laws?
Just because you are a political group does NOT mean that you get to re-write the existing laws.
And you might want to look up David Duke and his campaign.
A little closer to what is going on in Egypt would be if new political party came out with an clearly religious platform that included banning all religions that did not include homosexuals. With the message that by not including homosexuals these other religons were "bad for the country and must be eradicated". Burn down a few Catholic churches and Islamic mosques as a symbol of the "new order".
Seriously. You need to learn about this thing we call "law". Just because you are a political party does NOT mean that you get to ignore existing laws. IF you get elected (because a MAJORITY of the voters feel the SAME WAY YOU DO) only THEN can you start re-writing laws.
Until then, you can advocate whatever you want... but you still have to obey the same laws that everyone else does.
Look at what the situation would have been had everyone survived and made it to graduation.
Your best pilots decided to perform an illegal maneuver... in front of their COMMANDING OFFICERS... and their families... and whatever media is broadcasting the event... and any undergraduates attending... and so forth.
Yes, let us just flaunt our immunity to Star Fleet regulations.
Even the BEST scenario should have resulted in all of them facing disciplinary charges and then being kicked out.
And the "best" pilots didn't realize that? And the Wesley couldn't conceive of it with his massive brain?
Duty means disobeying legitimate rules about legitimate dangers and lying about it... but it's okay because someone else will take the blame and you will be forgiven and all will be forgotten. Where's the honor or duty in that?
I'm still wondering why the various banks don't offer reloadable cards for their customers. Why wander around with your ENTIRE credit limit in your wallet?
And for debit cards, your ENTIRE checking account balance.
Instead, allow the user to transfer the amount that he thinks he will need to a secondary card. That way, if anything compromises that card, the MOST they can get is whatever he put on that card.
As for online purchases, how about one-use card numbers? Just go to the bank site, put in how much you want to pay and the bank will give you a one use number for that amount. Then the maximum you lose if the online site is fake is that specific amount. They never get the real numbers to your real accounts.
Do you believe that there is any difference between the best Presidents we've had and the worst?
If you say "yes", then change is possible.
If you say "no", then change is not possible.
I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.
Slashdot Mirror
Submitting fake invoices did NOT originate in Nigeria any more than the "419" (aka "The Spanish Prisoner") scam did.
These scams have been around for YEARS.
It's just sensationalism to mention Nigeria in the article.
Incorrect.
It has been demonstrated and verified many times. And it has NEVER been falsified. Not even once.
It is a "theory" ONLY in the scientific sense. Which does not mean the same thing that you seem to believe it does.
And that is EXACTLY what "evolution" is. Any other result would disprove evolution.
A dog cannot give birth to a cat ... according to evolution.
Yet the Creationists keep claiming that evolution is false because a dog cannot give birth to a cat.
People are the weakest link in any security program. But does that make them the "problem" or does it mean that we're approaching security from the wrong angle?
Passwords suck. People are not capable of memorizing enough entropy to provide more than one or two decent passwords.
So do not focus on "strong" passwords as your only defense against attack.
One approach is to encourage "weak" passwords (word.number.word) that users can write down ... but then focus on monitoring and login delays so that any attack will be detected before it even has a one in ten million chance of success.
Thank you for registering at slashdot. Your password is kitten6apple. Please write it down. If you wish to change it, click HERE. There will be a 10 second delay enforced between login attempts and a 10 minute delay after 3 failed login attempts.
There. As long as they don't store the passwords in the clear (or as hashes without including a random salt) you should be fairly "secure". At least "secure" enough for a "social networking" site.
For your bank or other financial institution, you'd want a second, non-Internet-based, channel for verification of transactions. Such as an automated call to your phone.
People are not the "problem". People's limitations SHOULD be part of the design specifications for the security program.
When you buy a DVD, can you watch it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a book, can you loan it to friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a CD, can you listen to it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
I'm sorry, but the license on the microwave doesn't allow other people to eat any of the food I heat up in it. And while I'm eating these nachos, I'll watch this DVD that can only be played in this DVD player attached to this TV.
Oops. The TV fell down and broke and it is out of warranty. Looks like I will have to buy all my DVD's again.
Yeah, that might be the wet dream of the execs at the movie studios. But real people don't see a problem with sharing things that you've just put down cash for.
And still legible instead of having been ripped at sometime over the years.
While almost every other company can send you the unlocking code for the products if you cannot find it, Microsoft is one of the few companies that refuses to keep such information readily accessible in THEIR databases.
But they want you to go through hoops to be able to download updates.
Before I switched to Linux, I used to use a lot of shareware that I paid for. Their customer service was incredible.
Particularly when compared to Microsoft's.
The shareware authors would keep your unlocking code on file forever. If you skipped a version or two they would STILL offer you a discount on their newest product.
Why does Microsoft refuse to provide the same level of service?
With Ubuntu, I can even LEGALLY download the install CD for the next version (and all previous versions). If the person needing the Windows help only has a copy of the "retail" install CD ... but the unlocking code is for the "OEM" version ... what the fuck?!? Who's idiot idea was THAT? It's the SAME OPERATING SYSTEM.
And don't bother telling me about how I can hack out my own "install with any unlocking code" CD. I know how to do that AND slipstream the service packs and such. I'm pointing out that Microsoft CHOOSES to make the task FAR more difficult for the average person than there is any need for.
And yet the executives of those companies using that logic don't seem to apply it to themselves.
That's because it doesn't work.
The foreign workers don't expect to be paid as much because they DO expect to save most of it and then return home where the cost of living is significantly lower.
Now, if the companies want to play that game, then fine. They should be required to move their offices to India or wherever.
Instead, they want to "game" the system by paying to cheap labour rates of India, but enjoying all the benefits of the USofA. Meanwhile they're hiding their assets in the Cayman Islands and such.
Why should the American citizens support their government allowing such behaviour? It's just a race to the bottom.
Sorry if I had phrased that like that. My point was that putting money into US citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder gets more taxes generated for the government than putting the same OR LESS money into foreign workers.
That has also been my experience. They come here, live as cheaply as possible, save their money (good so far, right?) and then start their own business back home when they return.
During good economic times and high employment, that doesn't impact the economy very much.
During bad economic times, you're sending money away from the US economy ... and taking jobs from US workers ... and increasing the tax burden on the other workers to pay for unemployment benefits of those workers ... and so forth. The government collects fewer taxes, but ends up with spending more on the unemployed. It's a double hit.
There is no "Free Market" as originally described. The people with the money can get politicians to write laws protecting them.
But they keep quoting the "Free Market" when it is advantageous to their position to pretend that it exists.
It does not exist.
So just don't pretend that it does any more and ignore those people who use it to justify their abuses and just make it impossible for any SINGLE organization to get so big that the government has to rescue it.
It's all about privatizing profits while socializing losses.
The government runs on taxes.
The best way to get the most taxes is to push the most money through the economy at the fastest rate. The more times a dollar is spent on taxable items/services IN THIS COUNTRY the more taxes the government collects.
Spending less money on foreign workers is not a good way to accomplish that.
Giving $2 billion in bailout funds to a bank so they can give it to their "top 10" executives as "bonuses" results in different spending patterns than sharing $2 billion in cash amongst all the US citizens making less than $30K a year.
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
A previous company I worked for would lease their workstations for 3 years. That did mean that they were constantly paying for computers ... and rolling out new boxes.
But there weren't many problems with the HARDWARE during those 3 years.
As they started keeping the workstations longer, there were more problems with the hardware AND there were problems with replacing the hardware that broke. Which was leading to a non-uniform desktop environment. It's more difficult to support 100 different machines with 100 different makes / models, etc than it is to support 100 identical machines.
Yep. That's what I said your philosophy would state.
It took a while to get you to the point where you actually admitted it.
Now, who else would claim that such actions were "ethical"? Not a priest. Not a rabbi. Not a Buddhist. Not many people. Just Randians and sociopaths.
So, by your "philosophy" it is ethical to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that it will be used to kill an innocent child.
But it is unethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.
That's it. It is simply stated and simply refuted.
And that is the problem with all you Randians. You cannot face the philosophy that you claim to believe in. Instead you have to try to hide behind questioning other ethical systems. Who cares if someone else would find some action ethical or not? You cannot face your own philosophy.
And that is also the flaw with Rand's philosophy in the first place. She attempts to divorce actions from consequences and objects from origins. With her, it doesn't matter how you acquired the property as long as in the next instant you do not force another "trader" to deal with you.
Again, by your "philosophy" it is ethical to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that it will be used to kill an innocent child.
But it is unethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child.
Spin it however you want to. Since it is easy to demonstrate that her philosophy results in unethical behavior being "defined" as "ethical" it doesn't matter what you say.
Again, you can try to spin it however you want. But the facts remain.
By your definition, it would be "ethical" for a person to sell a gang member a gun KNOWING that the gun was bought with the intention to and would be used to kill an innocent person.
No I did not. I have never said that.
There is no limit on ethical. Just because action A is unethical does NOT mean that action B cannot also be unethical.
Now you are trying to dodge in semantics because you see the flaws in your "logic".
I can make it even clearer for you.
By your "logic" (and her philosophy) and you have admitted it, it is ETHICAL for person A to sell a gun to person B even if person B told person A that he intended to use the gun to kill an innocent child. Because both parties were "traders" who were not coerced in the exchange and mutually benefited.
Yet it would be UNETHICAL for person C to initiate aggressive action against person D to reclaim land that person D's father took from person C's father through aggression initiated by person D's father.
As I said before, that's an awfully convenient "philosophy" of "ethics" there.
If you have to ask that then this discussion is already over.
You are accepting that her philosophy is "truth".
So selling guns to gang members is ethical.
So growing, processing, shipping and distributing cocaine is ethical.
So a king taxing a serf almost all of his production for the privilege of living on a plot of land is ethical.
Which is a rather narrow and awfully convenient definition of "ethical".
More so because it would be "unethical" for the less advantaged party to claim the more advantaged party's advantage through the same means that the more advantaged party's ancestors acquired those advantages. Example, the serf would be "unethical" for attempting to overthrow the king.
No, selling guns to people who you know are going to use them to kill innocent people is only "ethical" in YOUR philosophy.
The words that best describes that behaviour in the real world are "unethical" and "immoral". Not "ethical".
The problem with that (and most of her philosophy) is that she is the one defining "mutual benefit" and "ethical".
Is selling alcohol "ethical"?
Because her books were written by her to show the superiority of her beliefs. So anything that SHE wants to advance HER plot/characters is defined as "ethical" by HER.
And, as with most authors like that, she never explores the ramifications of her theories. Things just sort of work out for her hero characters ... because that's just the way the world works in her books.
In essence, she decides that for her world view to work ... actions A, B and C must be "ethical" ... and actions X, Y and Z must be "unethical". Otherwise the heroes in her books would be overrun by the non-heroes. It's consistent once you've already bought into the belief system.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AtlasShruggedMeanwhile, contrast the "reality" described in that book with the current news.
Since any hacked camera will NOT make a sound ... will the cops randomly demand that people with camera-capable devices "demonstrate" that they click when a picture is taken? Since they will NOT be able to tell if someone was actually taking a picture or just seeing if they could frame the shot.
Excuse me sir. I see you're talking on your cell phone. I will ask you to take a picture of me so that I may ascertain whether your phone is "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" compliant.
That is the price of living in a Free society.
Otherwise anyone can be held indefinitely because someone in the government can claim that they said the forbidden words.
If you have served the time for the crime, you get out.
That does not mean that the cops have to completely ignore you until AFTER you've committed another crime.
Huh? Why not? Why couldn't we put trade embargoes on them?
You might want to note that we didn't invade Germany during WWII because of what he was doing to his own people. We did it because he invaded other countries.
And don't we have trade restrictions with Iran?
The problem with your reasoning is that it quickly results in the USofA being the "policeman of the world" and our country cannot AFFORD that.
I think that you need to read up on some history.
But you never ask the question WHY the majority of voters in Egypt would WANT to elect them.
It doesn't matter if you outlaw one political party. If the majority of the people have the same beliefs as that political party, then they will, eventually, become the government.
You thought wrong. As long as the pictures did not run afoul of pornography laws. It's like making the FBI's job that much easier. The pedophiles are self identifying themselves and announcing their meetings. Let them run!
And exactly how are they going to do that without running afoul of anti-slavery laws?
Just because you are a political group does NOT mean that you get to re-write the existing laws.
And you might want to look up David Duke and his campaign.
Seriously. You need to learn about this thing we call "law". Just because you are a political party does NOT mean that you get to ignore existing laws. IF you get elected (because a MAJORITY of the voters feel the SAME WAY YOU DO) only THEN can you start re-writing laws.
Until then, you can advocate whatever you want ... but you still have to obey the same laws that everyone else does.
Look at what the situation would have been had everyone survived and made it to graduation.
Your best pilots decided to perform an illegal maneuver ... in front of their COMMANDING OFFICERS ... and their families ... and whatever media is broadcasting the event ... and any undergraduates attending ... and so forth.
Yes, let us just flaunt our immunity to Star Fleet regulations.
Even the BEST scenario should have resulted in all of them facing disciplinary charges and then being kicked out.
And the "best" pilots didn't realize that? And the Wesley couldn't conceive of it with his massive brain?
The entire episode makes no sense. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop
Duty means disobeying legitimate rules about legitimate dangers and lying about it ... but it's okay because someone else will take the blame and you will be forgiven and all will be forgotten. Where's the honor or duty in that?
I'm still wondering why the various banks don't offer reloadable cards for their customers. Why wander around with your ENTIRE credit limit in your wallet?
And for debit cards, your ENTIRE checking account balance.
Instead, allow the user to transfer the amount that he thinks he will need to a secondary card. That way, if anything compromises that card, the MOST they can get is whatever he put on that card.
As for online purchases, how about one-use card numbers? Just go to the bank site, put in how much you want to pay and the bank will give you a one use number for that amount. Then the maximum you lose if the online site is fake is that specific amount. They never get the real numbers to your real accounts.
Do you believe that there is any difference between the best Presidents we've had and the worst?
If you say "yes", then change is possible.
If you say "no", then change is not possible.
I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.