All the linux systems floating around for years and years and years, and no one has gotten a proper linux virus to propagate. You know why that is? Uncle joe can install his porno software (not really aware of what that would be, but for the argument), and still have relatively secure computing because of the WAY LINUX IS DESIGNED, USED, AND MAINTAINED!!!!
In my experience 100% of the people I have volunteered to install Linux on their systems not only continue to use linux for years afterwords, bring me their new computers they buy with windows installed and ask me to remove it.
Among others:
dozens of first time to almost completely computer illiterate people. Lots of people that have been using windows for years and are fed up with the crap, especially after most linux distros had more in common with windows xp than vista had in common with windows xp. At least half dozen people over 60. Lots and lots of teenagers. Not to mention everyone that works in my office never seen a linux computer before they walked through the door, and now have them at home.
So, these arguments are for the ignorant that have not used a major distro in the last couple years.
It is a wired war against the wireless.
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
It comes down to treasure. You can not win a wired war against the wireless. People have been writing variations of this crap ever since the first crossbow was invented. Nothing has significantly changed.
No, it cost them literally a few dollars and perhaps as much as the lives of one or two of their people to win a battle (i.e. road side bomb, blowing up hotel, crashing an airplane ). It cost us billions of dollars in hardware and manpower, and often hundreds of both military and civilian lives just to stop one. Most importantly, they determine when and how the battle if fought, in spite of the white house and pentagons best PR efforts to tell you the battle is in the mountains around Afghanistan or Pakistan. They can simply deny us any time they like the ability to engage them, and relocate the battle field to a place and time better suited them.
Now, the technology that they are trying to implement is simply a reaction to that battle field. We are the British still standing shoulder to shoulder to be picked off from the guys behind the trees. They figure if they can remove the human body from the battle field, they can do what the enemy is doing. It is a day late, a dollar and a war short. Yea, the body count will be reduced, but that does not win the war. Not engaging open armed conflict is the only way to win such a war. In order to match the enemy, you have to not present the target (in both terms of resources and lives). This is a war more suited to cold war tactics of intelligence and espionage, than to tanks and planes.
The U.S. wars in the middle east are political theater not military theater, and the enemy is winning.
They just don't get it. Every time they touch something in open source, they try to turn it in to some sort of MS want-a-be crap and sneak in some back door attempt to charge for what is freely available without adding any real value to it (in fact, often removing the value from it).
I have been looking at their stock for months trying to figure out a compelling reason to buy it based on their buisness strategy, that some other competitor could not just crush them for free (other than they might be a target for a buy out). Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
I think this is waist of time and money. If the previous site did not have exactly your type of content, and was not optimized for your market, then why pay big bucks for it?
I might buy a domain because it is exactly what I would need (i.e. it is exactly a product name), but in that case I would have the trademark over it and would not be entertaining them anyway. Small, reasonable offer even then is all I would go for. Domains really do not have that much value, even if they are short and old.
If you buy a similar domain, but not exact domain, add the search engine optimization then it is worth more. I might buy out a competitor's domain that is closing their doors or something.
So, I guess my point is, how do the search engines view that domain?
First, most of the overclocking taboo today is just marketing gimic.
Yea, you can fry out your processor being stupid with it, but the vast majority of people will be able to OC their processors in a very stable way for long periods with no problems. Chances are unless they are doing really crazy crap, the processor will be outdated (like by the time it got out of the box) before it looses any life from an OC.
The AMD black edition for example. Yea, AMD does not endorse it but they are actively marketing a processor for overclocking. The MB makers are providing all the tools including on many motherboards the auto features that stop newbies from burning it out. point and click over clocking, with an edge of danger to get people to do it without really doing it.
I even buy my low end workstations at my office with the intent of overclocking them when they start to reach their end of life. Gives me another year out of them, when I would have replaced them anyway. At that point I got nothing to loose. Well, at least it gives me something cool to do with them before retiring them to spare parts.
There is something a bit disturbing in the threads related to passwords. Everyone talks like they have just one or two monolithic administrator / root passwords for a network of even moderate size.
I am curious. How many passwords do you have on your networks?
I run a relatively small network, but put different passwords whenever possible on diffrent systems. Yes, some passwords have more rights than others, but no one password is the complete "keys to the castle".
Just having one root password systems wide is like the administrator version of writing your password on a post-it next to your monitor. If someone can crack that password (or find it by accident), then they own everything. Do you really use the same password on a web server exposed to the internet, as a file server in the back office?
Make them work for it. If one system falls for whatever reason, they still need to crack their way in to the next system. Security with depth and layers.
By the way I learned to do this the hard way. When administrating several systems at once with multiple terminals open, I discovered that once in a while you might loose focus and execute the wrong command on the wrong system. Beyond security, it might just protect you from yourself.
The problem has not changed all that much since 1956. In fact, it has not changed that much since 1856 or 1756 for that matter, and one of the strong points of the paper is that he presents a unified system to patch (mostly) the holes in philosophy going back as early as Aristotle. All that in a few hundred pages.
By the way Sellers was updating and expanding on that paper until his death (very small part of his total works), and numerous fields are still debating his papers today (inside and outside Philosophy). I have never heard any of the big guns in Philosophy of AI or Language mention that they considered it dated in any respect.
Sorry, the kids line was intended to be humorous (everyone off on different tangent), not condescending.
Yes, I am a Philosopher and have been at this for better part of 15 years. Not frustrated they don't get credit (Philosophers are use to that), I am frustrated that the other fields insist on reinventing the wheal.
Let me put this all another way.
I would ask everyone on slashdot to please give a detailed account of what you did the day after you where born (you likly spent your first day sleeping mostly)?
Then tell me that consciousness has nothing to do with language and culture.
It for that very reason there has been an explosion in the number of publications, besides Universities that pay bonuses for getting published to their professors. The solution in the last few years has been to increase the number of journals, rather than make everyone fight over fewer spaces for publication.
The dirty secret of academia is that getting a book published is a relatively easy trick, getting in to good academic journal is a lot of work with the mountain of articles that are submitted. Just being one of the reviewers of an article is considered a feather in the cap, because it gets your name in print.
Big industry all those dusty magazines that no one ever reads sitting in the back of University libraries. Most are so obscure they will only be read by a dozen or so specialist.
Kids, kids, try this for some Sunday reading to get at what I mean by my analogy of it being a "software" and "networking" problem (man you guys can take crap way to literally): EMPIRICISM AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND by Wilfrid Sellars http://www.ditext.com/sellars/epm.html
Surprisingly his writings are best digested by those that have not had their brains tainted by too much study in things like Philosophy, Neurology, and the likes. Perhaps it will inspire someone that knows how to plug in the right wire to come up with an implementation. Call it one of the best road maps we have to date of getting to hard AI (without reinventing the wheal). It likly will not hurt anyone to chase down the 5,000 or so books and problems in Philosophy he mentions, but you can get by without them.
Here however is a short bit of the problem as I see it. "Consciousness", even if it can be generated by dumb luck through "emergence" (we call this a philosophical weasel word) is more than a mere state or property of brain/computer (in isolation). It has a whole rat's nest of linguistic and cultural conditions that have to be met for it to be "Consciousness" (with the big C), not just a simulation of something with consciousness (small c here). Essentially Consciousness does not just happen in the vacuum of a lab.
Obviously, and to my original point, this not one of those subject that can not be done justice to in a one hit wonder headline on slashdot. It is scientific trolling with overly sensational headlines on slashdot that gets all the computer geeks scifi fantasy panties in an uproar. There was likly over a 1,000,000 papers published last month in AI, linguistics, philosophy, neurology, and related fields on the same subject that could have been spun the same way if a slashdot poster had stumbled across them on the internet.
We get this AI crap on slashdot once a week after someone found a new way to plug the square wires in to the round hole. Plug away, because it is not going to make a bit difference. Modeling the brain is not the problem people, or at least it is not the big problem.
You don't get AI ( consciousness ) without culture, and you do not get culture without language (more exactly not much difference between them). Let me put it another way the slash crew can understand: it is a software problem not a hardware problem. Perhaps even better put with the mantra 'the network is the computer'. Our consciousness has very little to do with our brain (well, at least the part that counts).
Philosophers have been hard at this for the better part of the last 1,000 years. Focusing this particular issue seriously for the last couple hundred as science has developed. Would it not strike you as odd that in all that time (covering most of the great thinkers) we would not have dedicated a moment or two to kicking around this possibility in Philosophy of mind, AI, or Language.
This is pop philosophy dressed up as science and then dressed up again as philosophy by summaries to the summaries. Read the paper. It is not all that ground breaking, or anywhere near even a warmed over new lead that tells us something new about consciousness.
yea, I guess what I am getting at is not so much the license as the development model / lack of community driven development. I would say however that the Mysql license is a bit fuzzy at best.
I do believe that commercial involvement and extension is often a good thing in open source, if not vital to success. It is more a matter of health of a technology. Both the current discussion of the future of Mysql and related debates about Java are symptoms of the insecurity among the users regarding the future proofing of important technology such as these.
It is something that has grown to be such a fundamental element on the web, that really does need more of a full community / public control. Hopefully, one of the forks will do that.
I believe more of an Apache (or similar) like community and partnership would be a good thing for Mysql where we can all sleep at night having a clear idea of where it is going, and more importantly that it is not going away.
What happens if say Oracle just pulls the plug (not likly)?
I have over 100 databases (not even sure how many) currently running Mysql. It would be economically devastating for my buisness, and I am small fry. I can adapt relatively easily, but it would still be an investment of time and money to do so.
When I think of DAL, I am thinking about apps such as a CMS that had it's own library of SQL optimized for a selection of popular databases. Yea, generic ones will likly work, but for most large web apps I would prefer the application have its own customized abstraction layer optimized for each database (a few choices would be nice, not everyone in existance).
The open source ones that come to mind are things like phpbb or perhaps joomla. So many of the php based open source projects give very few choices, because the sql is spread all over the place, especially in the mods, plugins, and whatever. Only recently have you started to see them at least put a leash on where they are located and standardize their use.
The LAMP stack was always fundamentally flawed because the 'M' was not really an open source public project, where everything else was. We need to replace the M with a true open source project, and I hope the best project wins.
What everyone failed to do, that they should have done years ago, as a standard was build database abstraction layers. I know people will argue about performance bla, bla, bla but I don't buy that. We should have been doing it for years, exactly for this reason. Instead everyone was lazy, picked MYSQL because it was free/cheap/easy to learn.
Now, hopefully get off our lazy collective asses and build in database abstraction layers in to our web apps the way we should have from the start, or replace the 'M' with something really open source and public that does not belong to a company.
My only hope is that Oracle might do the right thing and cut it loose as a fully open source project to develop to its fully potential.
The problem with sun is that their policies and buisness plan has gone any which way the wind blows, and against the wind for so many years no one trust them.
I learned java years back, even though I am not Java programmer, and walked away from it. I went back to try and use it some time later, and most of what I thought learned in useless now because sun has been messing with it in so many ways that it is just not worth bothering with. I can not trust the technology. It is flaky, because the company is flaky.
By comparison, my C and C++ and other languages make sense still. Yea, there are new coding standards, libraries, and so on but the fundamentals still work even many years later.
Sun did the same thing with their user level apps. When I make a decision for enterprise level technology implementation for the long term, Sun is one of the last companies that come to mind because of their track record with changing course so radically.
I hope Oracle sorts it out, or at least puts that dog out of all of our misery with both barrels and picks the corpse clean for the useful bits.
That is exactly the problem with sun. They do have useful bits, but nothing coherent from lack of leadership. Being bought out was the best thing that could have happened to save the useful technology they did produce.
Probono does mean he takes on the case, and gets the tax deductions from it. It also likly means he gets to collect the big money from turning around and suing them in a civil claim afterwords.
The press alone on this will likly mean millions of dollars more a year to his firm forever regardless if he wins or looses.
I know a lot of attorneys that started out doing pro-bono type stuff, that have directly translated in to millions over the years for them and their firm (most built their firms that way).
I know a few others that never really got rich from it, but never really intended to get rich from it either. Unfortunately the most notable attorney I know to do this was my father, for which my mother was always willing to remind him of that fact (I can still hear my mother, "you ethical SOB...").
What has fundamentally changed? Humans have been making bad decisions about who to kill in a war for thousands of years. I just hope the fucking robots are better at it than we where.
At least they will solve the problem of the guys with PTSD going postal 10 years after bombing the wrong village and killing even more people.
Slashdot Mirror
have you ever used linux?
Really?
All the linux systems floating around for years and years and years, and no one has gotten a proper linux virus to propagate. You know why that is? Uncle joe can install his porno software (not really aware of what that would be, but for the argument), and still have relatively secure computing because of the WAY LINUX IS DESIGNED, USED, AND MAINTAINED!!!!
In my experience 100% of the people I have volunteered to install Linux on their systems not only continue to use linux for years afterwords, bring me their new computers they buy with windows installed and ask me to remove it.
Among others:
dozens of first time to almost completely computer illiterate people.
Lots of people that have been using windows for years and are fed up with the crap, especially after most linux distros had more in common with windows xp than vista had in common with windows xp.
At least half dozen people over 60.
Lots and lots of teenagers.
Not to mention everyone that works in my office never seen a linux computer before they walked through the door, and now have them at home.
So, these arguments are for the ignorant that have not used a major distro in the last couple years.
It comes down to treasure. You can not win a wired war against the wireless. People have been writing variations of this crap ever since the first crossbow was invented. Nothing has significantly changed.
No, it cost them literally a few dollars and perhaps as much as the lives of one or two of their people to win a battle (i.e. road side bomb, blowing up hotel, crashing an airplane ). It cost us billions of dollars in hardware and manpower, and often hundreds of both military and civilian lives just to stop one. Most importantly, they determine when and how the battle if fought, in spite of the white house and pentagons best PR efforts to tell you the battle is in the mountains around Afghanistan or Pakistan. They can simply deny us any time they like the ability to engage them, and relocate the battle field to a place and time better suited them.
Now, the technology that they are trying to implement is simply a reaction to that battle field. We are the British still standing shoulder to shoulder to be picked off from the guys behind the trees. They figure if they can remove the human body from the battle field, they can do what the enemy is doing. It is a day late, a dollar and a war short. Yea, the body count will be reduced, but that does not win the war. Not engaging open armed conflict is the only way to win such a war. In order to match the enemy, you have to not present the target (in both terms of resources and lives). This is a war more suited to cold war tactics of intelligence and espionage, than to tanks and planes.
The U.S. wars in the middle east are political theater not military theater, and the enemy is winning.
They just don't get it. Every time they touch something in open source, they try to turn it in to some sort of MS want-a-be crap and sneak in some back door attempt to charge for what is freely available without adding any real value to it (in fact, often removing the value from it).
I have been looking at their stock for months trying to figure out a compelling reason to buy it based on their buisness strategy, that some other competitor could not just crush them for free (other than they might be a target for a buy out). Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
That is the point. You will then know for sure you found the enemy.
I think this is waist of time and money. If the previous site did not have exactly your type of content, and was not optimized for your market, then why pay big bucks for it?
I might buy a domain because it is exactly what I would need (i.e. it is exactly a product name), but in that case I would have the trademark over it and would not be entertaining them anyway. Small, reasonable offer even then is all I would go for. Domains really do not have that much value, even if they are short and old.
If you buy a similar domain, but not exact domain, add the search engine optimization then it is worth more. I might buy out a competitor's domain that is closing their doors or something.
So, I guess my point is, how do the search engines view that domain?
First, most of the overclocking taboo today is just marketing gimic.
Yea, you can fry out your processor being stupid with it, but the vast majority of people will be able to OC their processors in a very stable way for long periods with no problems. Chances are unless they are doing really crazy crap, the processor will be outdated (like by the time it got out of the box) before it looses any life from an OC.
The AMD black edition for example. Yea, AMD does not endorse it but they are actively marketing a processor for overclocking. The MB makers are providing all the tools including on many motherboards the auto features that stop newbies from burning it out. point and click over clocking, with an edge of danger to get people to do it without really doing it.
I even buy my low end workstations at my office with the intent of overclocking them when they start to reach their end of life. Gives me another year out of them, when I would have replaced them anyway. At that point I got nothing to loose. Well, at least it gives me something cool to do with them before retiring them to spare parts.
There is something a bit disturbing in the threads related to passwords. Everyone talks like they have just one or two monolithic administrator / root passwords for a network of even moderate size.
I am curious. How many passwords do you have on your networks?
I run a relatively small network, but put different passwords whenever possible on diffrent systems. Yes, some passwords have more rights than others, but no one password is the complete "keys to the castle".
Just having one root password systems wide is like the administrator version of writing your password on a post-it next to your monitor. If someone can crack that password (or find it by accident), then they own everything. Do you really use the same password on a web server exposed to the internet, as a file server in the back office?
Make them work for it. If one system falls for whatever reason, they still need to crack their way in to the next system. Security with depth and layers.
By the way I learned to do this the hard way. When administrating several systems at once with multiple terminals open, I discovered that once in a while you might loose focus and execute the wrong command on the wrong system. Beyond security, it might just protect you from yourself.
Here is a nice book review that puts his relevance today in context (although the review is a bit lacking) this month:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue72/72fernandez.htm
The problem has not changed all that much since 1956. In fact, it has not changed that much since 1856 or 1756 for that matter, and one of the strong points of the paper is that he presents a unified system to patch (mostly) the holes in philosophy going back as early as Aristotle. All that in a few hundred pages.
By the way Sellers was updating and expanding on that paper until his death (very small part of his total works), and numerous fields are still debating his papers today (inside and outside Philosophy). I have never heard any of the big guns in Philosophy of AI or Language mention that they considered it dated in any respect.
Sorry, the kids line was intended to be humorous (everyone off on different tangent), not condescending.
Yes, I am a Philosopher and have been at this for better part of 15 years. Not frustrated they don't get credit (Philosophers are use to that), I am frustrated that the other fields insist on reinventing the wheal.
Let me put this all another way.
I would ask everyone on slashdot to please give a detailed account of what you did the day after you where born (you likly spent your first day sleeping mostly)?
Then tell me that consciousness has nothing to do with language and culture.
It for that very reason there has been an explosion in the number of publications, besides Universities that pay bonuses for getting published to their professors. The solution in the last few years has been to increase the number of journals, rather than make everyone fight over fewer spaces for publication.
The dirty secret of academia is that getting a book published is a relatively easy trick, getting in to good academic journal is a lot of work with the mountain of articles that are submitted. Just being one of the reviewers of an article is considered a feather in the cap, because it gets your name in print.
Big industry all those dusty magazines that no one ever reads sitting in the back of University libraries. Most are so obscure they will only be read by a dozen or so specialist.
Kids, kids, try this for some Sunday reading to get at what I mean by my analogy of it being a "software" and "networking" problem (man you guys can take crap way to literally):
EMPIRICISM AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND by Wilfrid Sellars
http://www.ditext.com/sellars/epm.html
Surprisingly his writings are best digested by those that have not had their brains tainted by too much study in things like Philosophy, Neurology, and the likes. Perhaps it will inspire someone that knows how to plug in the right wire to come up with an implementation. Call it one of the best road maps we have to date of getting to hard AI (without reinventing the wheal). It likly will not hurt anyone to chase down the 5,000 or so books and problems in Philosophy he mentions, but you can get by without them.
Here however is a short bit of the problem as I see it. "Consciousness", even if it can be generated by dumb luck through "emergence" (we call this a philosophical weasel word) is more than a mere state or property of brain/computer (in isolation). It has a whole rat's nest of linguistic and cultural conditions that have to be met for it to be "Consciousness" (with the big C), not just a simulation of something with consciousness (small c here). Essentially Consciousness does not just happen in the vacuum of a lab.
Obviously, and to my original point, this not one of those subject that can not be done justice to in a one hit wonder headline on slashdot. It is scientific trolling with overly sensational headlines on slashdot that gets all the computer geeks scifi fantasy panties in an uproar. There was likly over a 1,000,000 papers published last month in AI, linguistics, philosophy, neurology, and related fields on the same subject that could have been spun the same way if a slashdot poster had stumbled across them on the internet.
We get this AI crap on slashdot once a week after someone found a new way to plug the square wires in to the round hole. Plug away, because it is not going to make a bit difference. Modeling the brain is not the problem people, or at least it is not the big problem.
You don't get AI ( consciousness ) without culture, and you do not get culture without language (more exactly not much difference between them). Let me put it another way the slash crew can understand: it is a software problem not a hardware problem. Perhaps even better put with the mantra 'the network is the computer'. Our consciousness has very little to do with our brain (well, at least the part that counts).
Philosophers have been hard at this for the better part of the last 1,000 years. Focusing this particular issue seriously for the last couple hundred as science has developed. Would it not strike you as odd that in all that time (covering most of the great thinkers) we would not have dedicated a moment or two to kicking around this possibility in Philosophy of mind, AI, or Language.
This is pop philosophy dressed up as science and then dressed up again as philosophy by summaries to the summaries. Read the paper. It is not all that ground breaking, or anywhere near even a warmed over new lead that tells us something new about consciousness.
Or recompile the module for my kernel.
Leave it to the government to publish data that Google can not read.
Have you ever had anyone mention the library of congress web site as a great resource for example?
yea, I guess what I am getting at is not so much the license as the development model / lack of community driven development. I would say however that the Mysql license is a bit fuzzy at best.
I do believe that commercial involvement and extension is often a good thing in open source, if not vital to success. It is more a matter of health of a technology. Both the current discussion of the future of Mysql and related debates about Java are symptoms of the insecurity among the users regarding the future proofing of important technology such as these.
It is something that has grown to be such a fundamental element on the web, that really does need more of a full community / public control. Hopefully, one of the forks will do that.
I believe more of an Apache (or similar) like community and partnership would be a good thing for Mysql where we can all sleep at night having a clear idea of where it is going, and more importantly that it is not going away.
What happens if say Oracle just pulls the plug (not likly)?
I have over 100 databases (not even sure how many) currently running Mysql. It would be economically devastating for my buisness, and I am small fry. I can adapt relatively easily, but it would still be an investment of time and money to do so.
When I think of DAL, I am thinking about apps such as a CMS that had it's own library of SQL optimized for a selection of popular databases. Yea, generic ones will likly work, but for most large web apps I would prefer the application have its own customized abstraction layer optimized for each database (a few choices would be nice, not everyone in existance).
The open source ones that come to mind are things like phpbb or perhaps joomla. So many of the php based open source projects give very few choices, because the sql is spread all over the place, especially in the mods, plugins, and whatever. Only recently have you started to see them at least put a leash on where they are located and standardize their use.
The LAMP stack was always fundamentally flawed because the 'M' was not really an open source public project, where everything else was. We need to replace the M with a true open source project, and I hope the best project wins.
What everyone failed to do, that they should have done years ago, as a standard was build database abstraction layers. I know people will argue about performance bla, bla, bla but I don't buy that. We should have been doing it for years, exactly for this reason. Instead everyone was lazy, picked MYSQL because it was free/cheap/easy to learn.
Now, hopefully get off our lazy collective asses and build in database abstraction layers in to our web apps the way we should have from the start, or replace the 'M' with something really open source and public that does not belong to a company.
My only hope is that Oracle might do the right thing and cut it loose as a fully open source project to develop to its fully potential.
The problem with sun is that their policies and buisness plan has gone any which way the wind blows, and against the wind for so many years no one trust them.
I learned java years back, even though I am not Java programmer, and walked away from it. I went back to try and use it some time later, and most of what I thought learned in useless now because sun has been messing with it in so many ways that it is just not worth bothering with. I can not trust the technology. It is flaky, because the company is flaky.
By comparison, my C and C++ and other languages make sense still. Yea, there are new coding standards, libraries, and so on but the fundamentals still work even many years later.
Sun did the same thing with their user level apps. When I make a decision for enterprise level technology implementation for the long term, Sun is one of the last companies that come to mind because of their track record with changing course so radically.
I hope Oracle sorts it out, or at least puts that dog out of all of our misery with both barrels and picks the corpse clean for the useful bits.
That is exactly the problem with sun. They do have useful bits, but nothing coherent from lack of leadership. Being bought out was the best thing that could have happened to save the useful technology they did produce.
My father, an attorney for many years had variation on that.
A good lawyer goes to court and gets their client off. A great lawyer makes sure the client never goes to court in the first place.
Probono does mean he takes on the case, and gets the tax deductions from it. It also likly means he gets to collect the big money from turning around and suing them in a civil claim afterwords.
The press alone on this will likly mean millions of dollars more a year to his firm forever regardless if he wins or looses.
I know a lot of attorneys that started out doing pro-bono type stuff, that have directly translated in to millions over the years for them and their firm (most built their firms that way).
I know a few others that never really got rich from it, but never really intended to get rich from it either. Unfortunately the most notable attorney I know to do this was my father, for which my mother was always willing to remind him of that fact (I can still hear my mother, "you ethical SOB ...").
What has fundamentally changed? Humans have been making bad decisions about who to kill in a war for thousands of years. I just hope the fucking robots are better at it than we where.
At least they will solve the problem of the guys with PTSD going postal 10 years after bombing the wrong village and killing even more people.