Because, if the last 50 years are any example to follow, simply doing things for backwards 3rd world countries results in two things: 1) our efforts being turned against us, ie any aid sent gets monopolized by the warlords and used against the people they intend to help (ie watering an army) 2) assisting people in such a manner merely embitters them against us. look at all the welfare-recipient government-haters (and haters of everyone "not like them" because - despite funding their welfare - they "don't understand")
OP was mostly correct, but his definition was too broad.
See, "government" in a socialistic scheme does (or rather, doesn't) do as he said.
DARPA, if you recall, was a military initiative. Militaries have created some of the most fantastic technologies throughout history, and are the exception.
there's also a spat of censorship cries going on over a bunch of videos of soldiers in Iraq and the associated groups getting banned/deleted/whatever they do. which is probably just due to a broken rating and offensiveness system and terrorists abusing the system, but thats neither here nor there.
It's kinda interesting, and somewhat related, so I'll mention it.
Part of the reason I still smoke is because of hte network it provides. Where and when else can I freely converse with everyone from middle or upper managers, all the way down to the cleaning crew? (Having a company which has 'set smoke breaks' is nice, in this respect.)
Granted, I might die 10 years earlier as a result, but I don't really give a fuck about that.
I agree with you, but... that's not the way the world works. (Understandable, as you're in academics, so I'll let it slide.)
As a coder, it wouldn't matter if you spent your whole day finger-painitng on your basement cube wall - provided the sales team manages to sell their product image (NOT the product). In a slightly exagerated sense, it only matters that you're on payroll and they can say "we've got X number of programmers working on this project, it should be done by June!" or something like that.
Yeah, they need to actually produce a product if they don't want to be sued into non-existence (or simply go bankrupt), but that product doesn't have to be very good, or actually be half of what the sales team said it would be. They've already got the clients' money - why would they give a damn about anything else, except for the possibility of acquiring more of that money?
I've not seen it, and I wasn't too impressed with the premise. However, my wife saw an episode and she said she was horrified how gore-filled the show was. Just grotesque stuff like heads being rotated around backwards - things you'd find in a horror movie - and on prime time television, none the less. That's pretty sick and wrong, in my opinion.
You're forgetting the sound - primarily the music. Music is what makes or breaks a film. It can make a mediocre film good, a boring film epic, a great film bad, a sad film scary, or a scary film funny. Music can completely alter one's perception of the filmed material, emotionally and even intellectually.
For instance, look at the (arguably) best composer in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, John Williams. Let's look at some of the greatest films, and indeed the greatest Trilogies of all time: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Superman, Jurrasic Park, Harry Potter - and a couple others I can't immediately think of. Then, if you look at the single, non-sequeled films he's composed for, the picture becomes much more full: Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Far and Away, Amistad, JFK, The Patriot, War of the Worlds... all very successful, popular, or well-done films, largely on their own merit sans-music, but not without the influence of the music itslef.
If you doubt me, look at the Star Wars special features (ie 'the making of' stuff). They've got some scenes sans music, just with some camp "laser" special effects. It's difficult to watch without imagining John William's soundtrack playing in the background, and the cheezy sound affects help. Now imagine the whole film wiht some cheezy late-70s disco or something like that - which, IIRC, was what Lucas was originally going ot have. Good movie worthy of a sequel? I think not.
I don't know about that. Several years ago, the movies were really starting to disappoint me, but this year and the end of last really came out with a lot of good (and in the case of this year, promising) films. If not necessarily IMDB "8 out of 10" films, then most certainly entertaining films none the less. Hollywood seems to be figuring out how to create movies which are entertaining for all ages and genders - again, like they used to. I'm thinking of stuff like the Pirates of the Carribean films.
As for television? Well, let's just say I've historically not watched much of anything, except for Law and Order and L&O:SVU, and only then on rare occasions. Now? Well, for the last three weeks I've been religiously watching Jericho, as I did Lost. Both are/were great shows, but unfortunately due to how they string you along with each episode, they can only last so long before they start getting either "crazy" as Lost did, or become soap-opera-like. Fortunately, I think Jericho has the ability to maintain this 'string you along' attitude indefinately due to the situation into which the characters are thrust.
As for Lucas, I think he's doomed as a TV producer. He's just a shitty director and writer. I hope he's only involved in the production side of things - then maybe they'll have a chance. He's always been fortunate, except for the second Trilogy, to be arround talented people who fix his problems for him. Maybe his luck will return.
It would appear to me (from my limited viewing of the show) that he approaches it from a fairly Jeffersonian liberal perspective. In other words, both the Dems and Reps are (as he said) "hurting America". They're both terribly divergent from the ideal.
I do enjoy it, but being one of those "Jefferson liberals" who likes to see fiscal responsibility and a lack of government meddling, and thinks the government shouldn't have anything to do with what you're doing at home provided nobody othre than yourslef is being harmed, I still see a slight liberal slant to the show.
a) the land can not sustain life b) the land is not disireable to live on c) you're assuming that everyone can tollerate living in an urban jungle without losing their mind and going on a stabbing rampage
If you're able to read English as a first language - and not Spanish or Arabic - this should piss you off. Birth rates aren't at the level of replacement, let alone growth, and legal immigration is scant. The majority of that growth is coming from illegal immigration and their native-born offspring.
It's also a large part of the reason why our medical programs are in big trouble.
While there certainly is an economy of scale involved, the price of these units does not demonstrate that it is "earth friendly". If the windmill only has a 20-year lifespan (shit, I was working on a windmill from the 1920s last week which still worked - why can't they build things that are that durable?) and costs that much, it's not economically friendly - if, for no other reason, due to what you had to do to get that $, and what will be done with that $.
There were a couple shareware and platform games which did this to me in my youth:
- Counter-Strike, at LAN parties - Rock'n'Roll Racing on SNES or Genesis - Comet Blasters! - a shareware a friend downloaded from AOL back in '96 or so - TANKS! - the old-school DOS game - a game I can't recall which was similar to Comet Blasters! in that it had tanks and helocopters - kinda a vs. mode version of "Jackal" for the NES, if you remember that one. - Rampage! for the NES
I should note that these were also some of my favorite games.
The appeal of standardized testing is simply that: they get standardized results.
Your confliction comes from a fraudulent assumption. You assume the goal of public education is to educate; it isn't. It is to turn out minimally- and uniformally-educated people who are able to follow directions. Quantity over quality.
I don't know what the guidelines are for the essay on the SAT, as I never took the SAT - and they didn't have the essay section on the exam when I took it, anyway.
However, having attempted to read several of the students' essays, I am simply astounded by the lack of quality in the writing. The word choice is awkward, and the sentence structure is often semantically or grammatically incorrect.
Do they not teach grammar - word choice and sentence structure - in high school any longer? I graduated in 2000. I attended 3 different hihg schools, graduating in 3 years; only one of those years did I have any instruction on grammar (thank god for that), and it was a private school.
I imagine that part of the reason these essays are so horrible is related to two factors which might provide a partial excuse for the students: one, the time constraints, and two, the fact that the SATs are done on paper and not computer. These two constraints tie into each other to no small degree.
Time constraints can, on their own, put a crimp in a person's ability to write a sufficient amount, on paper, simply due to the phyiscal limitations of one's hand getting cramped, particularly when the person is unaccustomed to lengthy handwritting. Add to the fact that typing on a computer allows for substantial on-the-fly revisional abilities - mid-word, mid-sentence, and mid-paragraph - makes it all the more difficult.
Just the same, those essays appear to be significantly inferior.
On the bright side, it makes me feel less skeptical of the people in my college upper-level creative writing course several years back: their writing was atrocious, but at least it wasn't that sub-par.
What this tells us, if anything, is that software will always have vulnerabilities, and that the number of vulnerabilities found seems to be proportional to the popularity of the software amongst non-technical users (and thus, the majority of software users).
Now, it can be implied that it indicates poor software development and overall poor software quality coming out of the Mozilla Foundation. But I think this would simply be conjecture. While it is certainly statistically true, there's a larger picture to look at.
Internet Explorer has been mostly static now for years; it hasn't seen any major development until recently (and that software isn't even what's being looked at here). Firefox, on the other hand, has been improving - adding new features, fixing complaints, and generally trying to come up with a better product. This is going to result in a higher number of security-problematic pieces of code - face it, people aren't perfect, and the only way to mitigate (not eliminate!) this realistically is to slow development to a standstill. Even then there would not be a guaranteed reduction in vulnerabilities, partially due to chance and oversight, and partially due to the large repository of existing code which it would have to interact with.
Furthermore, Firefox and Mozilla are just edging into the public consciousness, whereas Internet Explorer has had a technological hedgemony on the desktop as the browser now for almost a decade (in various versions). This means it's going to start receiving more scrutiny, both from malicious, malevolent folks, as well as from the benevolent security professionals. A higher detection rate is a natural result of this.
It's a double-edged sword. More detections are being made, resulting in more vulnerable systems. This is a natural state in computing, as computing innately involves security these days. There will always be risk involved. The significant thing to look at is how quickly these problems are being resolved, and how many how resurgent problems (ie, they weren't properly resolved). I would argue that the presented statistical information is irrelevant without further, more indepth analysis in this regard.
accountants deal with linear, organized structures all day. 'computery' stuff is both abstract and structured.
anyway, i said "for the most part"... most certainly not the rule. i've known many a bright female computer person.
in fact, the ones who were bright were usually brighter than the majority of the guys. but that might also say something about the state of IT/CS schooling circa 1999 - 2002.
Reminds me of when I was cheating (although not on univerrity) I made a cheating-not and wrote it smaller and smaller and that a few times. I perfected that cheatingnote so often that by the time I needed it, I didn't anymore. So the joke was on me, instead of making a cheating-note, I was actually learning and probably spend more time on it this way then when I would have 'learned' it the regular way.
i've done that since a history teacher in high school allowed us a single side of a 3x5 (or whatever the standard size) index card for notes for an entire semester. you'd write as small as you could on a notebook sheet of paper, reduce and figure out what was mos timportant, redo, etc. until you remembered all the fairly trivial things - as you decided "if I can remember it, I won't need to write it down". eventually you get your note card, and then you rewrite it so its legible. by the time you're done, all your notecard has are short abbreviations with dates, numbers, and other pertinent data in CSV, and you've essentially memorized which event belonged to which section of the index card, allowing you to figure out what you had to do.
i've used that method of studying ever since. it's very effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in some part, this "lack of integrity" has something to do with paper losing almost all cultural significance. In days of yore, "writing" consumed paper, and getting a good printed copy of something usually took substantial effort. Even then, the result was mediocre by modern standards (if I handed in half the papers my parents did in college - one a MCL from Duke's Nursing school in '81 - they'd be handed back as "sloppy" due to the occasional whiteout). Or, at least, in terms of appearance. If you plagarized someone else's paper - their finished work - there was much, much more effort which was being effectively stolen by copying the paper. You werne't just stealing content much of the time, you were stealing painstaking arrangement, formating, etc.
Nowadays, you can do all that stuff seamlessly with a word editor, with negligible effort. You don't have to go to a print shop to get copies, and you don't have to retype a whole damn page if you want to get a blemish-free copy. YOu can print as many identical copies on paper as you want or, if you wish, distribute it to millions of people online via something like Wikipedia - and nobody thinks much of it.
the 'spur of the moment' exams which you refer to are more difficult for women in fields like this because, for the most part, they need to devote a much greater amount of time on a topic to grasp it to the same level as an intellectually mediocre man.
likewise, men can't usually begin to understand the social complexity of women. this is why women make excellent politicians*, entertainers, educators, and other "people persons" where such abilities are necessary and valued.
(thankfully, men have been logical enough to see this as a bad thing, and hvae largely kept them out of it for most of history.)
I have never seen an engineer working underneath anyone other than another engineer, unless it's the head of a department (and even then, they've got enough engineering background to be intimately familiar enough with the topic to not make the engineers treat them like 3rd graders).
Only the cheaters are lazy. The people who cheat the cheaters get away scot free.
And your gf isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, is she? I mean, a teacher - someone who's been through college herself - can't recognize the basic functionality of computing software? Or do education majors play with blocks all day, as the stereotype goes?
So how about embezzelment, corporate fraud, politician dishonesty and political dirty money, and various other such things - should those also be encouraged (through lack of discouragement - people will naturally try and take the road of least resistance) because they're "going to happen"?
Slashdot Mirror
Because, if the last 50 years are any example to follow, simply doing things for backwards 3rd world countries results in two things:
1) our efforts being turned against us, ie any aid sent gets monopolized by the warlords and used against the people they intend to help (ie watering an army)
2) assisting people in such a manner merely embitters them against us. look at all the welfare-recipient government-haters (and haters of everyone "not like them" because - despite funding their welfare - they "don't understand")
OP was mostly correct, but his definition was too broad.
See, "government" in a socialistic scheme does (or rather, doesn't) do as he said.
DARPA, if you recall, was a military initiative. Militaries have created some of the most fantastic technologies throughout history, and are the exception.
nevermind that - though that's important.
there's also a spat of censorship cries going on over a bunch of videos of soldiers in Iraq and the associated groups getting banned/deleted/whatever they do. which is probably just due to a broken rating and offensiveness system and terrorists abusing the system, but thats neither here nor there.
That's exactly the idea.
MS wants to be the sole authority on what can and can not play on a Windows machine. They're trying to turn it into an appliance, ala XBOX360.
It's kinda interesting, and somewhat related, so I'll mention it.
Part of the reason I still smoke is because of hte network it provides. Where and when else can I freely converse with everyone from middle or upper managers, all the way down to the cleaning crew? (Having a company which has 'set smoke breaks' is nice, in this respect.)
Granted, I might die 10 years earlier as a result, but I don't really give a fuck about that.
I agree with you, but... that's not the way the world works. (Understandable, as you're in academics, so I'll let it slide.)
As a coder, it wouldn't matter if you spent your whole day finger-painitng on your basement cube wall - provided the sales team manages to sell their product image (NOT the product). In a slightly exagerated sense, it only matters that you're on payroll and they can say "we've got X number of programmers working on this project, it should be done by June!" or something like that.
Yeah, they need to actually produce a product if they don't want to be sued into non-existence (or simply go bankrupt), but that product doesn't have to be very good, or actually be half of what the sales team said it would be. They've already got the clients' money - why would they give a damn about anything else, except for the possibility of acquiring more of that money?
I've not seen it, and I wasn't too impressed with the premise. However, my wife saw an episode and she said she was horrified how gore-filled the show was. Just grotesque stuff like heads being rotated around backwards - things you'd find in a horror movie - and on prime time television, none the less. That's pretty sick and wrong, in my opinion.
You're forgetting the sound - primarily the music. Music is what makes or breaks a film. It can make a mediocre film good, a boring film epic, a great film bad, a sad film scary, or a scary film funny. Music can completely alter one's perception of the filmed material, emotionally and even intellectually.
For instance, look at the (arguably) best composer in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, John Williams. Let's look at some of the greatest films, and indeed the greatest Trilogies of all time: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Superman, Jurrasic Park, Harry Potter - and a couple others I can't immediately think of. Then, if you look at the single, non-sequeled films he's composed for, the picture becomes much more full: Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Far and Away, Amistad, JFK, The Patriot, War of the Worlds... all very successful, popular, or well-done films, largely on their own merit sans-music, but not without the influence of the music itslef.
If you doubt me, look at the Star Wars special features (ie 'the making of' stuff). They've got some scenes sans music, just with some camp "laser" special effects. It's difficult to watch without imagining John William's soundtrack playing in the background, and the cheezy sound affects help. Now imagine the whole film wiht some cheezy late-70s disco or something like that - which, IIRC, was what Lucas was originally going ot have. Good movie worthy of a sequel? I think not.
I don't know about that. Several years ago, the movies were really starting to disappoint me, but this year and the end of last really came out with a lot of good (and in the case of this year, promising) films. If not necessarily IMDB "8 out of 10" films, then most certainly entertaining films none the less. Hollywood seems to be figuring out how to create movies which are entertaining for all ages and genders - again, like they used to. I'm thinking of stuff like the Pirates of the Carribean films.
As for television? Well, let's just say I've historically not watched much of anything, except for Law and Order and L&O:SVU, and only then on rare occasions. Now? Well, for the last three weeks I've been religiously watching Jericho, as I did Lost. Both are/were great shows, but unfortunately due to how they string you along with each episode, they can only last so long before they start getting either "crazy" as Lost did, or become soap-opera-like. Fortunately, I think Jericho has the ability to maintain this 'string you along' attitude indefinately due to the situation into which the characters are thrust.
As for Lucas, I think he's doomed as a TV producer. He's just a shitty director and writer. I hope he's only involved in the production side of things - then maybe they'll have a chance. He's always been fortunate, except for the second Trilogy, to be arround talented people who fix his problems for him. Maybe his luck will return.
It would appear to me (from my limited viewing of the show) that he approaches it from a fairly Jeffersonian liberal perspective. In other words, both the Dems and Reps are (as he said) "hurting America". They're both terribly divergent from the ideal.
I do enjoy it, but being one of those "Jefferson liberals" who likes to see fiscal responsibility and a lack of government meddling, and thinks the government shouldn't have anything to do with what you're doing at home provided nobody othre than yourslef is being harmed, I still see a slight liberal slant to the show.
A large part of this is because:
a) the land can not sustain life
b) the land is not disireable to live on
c) you're assuming that everyone can tollerate living in an urban jungle without losing their mind and going on a stabbing rampage
If you're able to read English as a first language - and not Spanish or Arabic - this should piss you off. Birth rates aren't at the level of replacement, let alone growth, and legal immigration is scant. The majority of that growth is coming from illegal immigration and their native-born offspring.
It's also a large part of the reason why our medical programs are in big trouble.
You're not understanding how this works.
While there certainly is an economy of scale involved, the price of these units does not demonstrate that it is "earth friendly". If the windmill only has a 20-year lifespan (shit, I was working on a windmill from the 1920s last week which still worked - why can't they build things that are that durable?) and costs that much, it's not economically friendly - if, for no other reason, due to what you had to do to get that $, and what will be done with that $.
There were a couple shareware and platform games which did this to me in my youth:
- Counter-Strike, at LAN parties
- Rock'n'Roll Racing on SNES or Genesis
- Comet Blasters! - a shareware a friend downloaded from AOL back in '96 or so
- TANKS! - the old-school DOS game
- a game I can't recall which was similar to Comet Blasters! in that it had tanks and helocopters - kinda a vs. mode version of "Jackal" for the NES, if you remember that one.
- Rampage! for the NES
I should note that these were also some of my favorite games.
The appeal of standardized testing is simply that: they get standardized results.
Your confliction comes from a fraudulent assumption. You assume the goal of public education is to educate; it isn't. It is to turn out minimally- and uniformally-educated people who are able to follow directions. Quantity over quality.
I don't know what the guidelines are for the essay on the SAT, as I never took the SAT - and they didn't have the essay section on the exam when I took it, anyway.
However, having attempted to read several of the students' essays, I am simply astounded by the lack of quality in the writing. The word choice is awkward, and the sentence structure is often semantically or grammatically incorrect.
Do they not teach grammar - word choice and sentence structure - in high school any longer? I graduated in 2000. I attended 3 different hihg schools, graduating in 3 years; only one of those years did I have any instruction on grammar (thank god for that), and it was a private school.
I imagine that part of the reason these essays are so horrible is related to two factors which might provide a partial excuse for the students: one, the time constraints, and two, the fact that the SATs are done on paper and not computer. These two constraints tie into each other to no small degree.
Time constraints can, on their own, put a crimp in a person's ability to write a sufficient amount, on paper, simply due to the phyiscal limitations of one's hand getting cramped, particularly when the person is unaccustomed to lengthy handwritting. Add to the fact that typing on a computer allows for substantial on-the-fly revisional abilities - mid-word, mid-sentence, and mid-paragraph - makes it all the more difficult.
Just the same, those essays appear to be significantly inferior.
On the bright side, it makes me feel less skeptical of the people in my college upper-level creative writing course several years back: their writing was atrocious, but at least it wasn't that sub-par.
I imagine it helps to run and operate a porn site. You're probably close to half way there already.
What this tells us, if anything, is that software will always have vulnerabilities, and that the number of vulnerabilities found seems to be proportional to the popularity of the software amongst non-technical users (and thus, the majority of software users).
Now, it can be implied that it indicates poor software development and overall poor software quality coming out of the Mozilla Foundation. But I think this would simply be conjecture. While it is certainly statistically true, there's a larger picture to look at.
Internet Explorer has been mostly static now for years; it hasn't seen any major development until recently (and that software isn't even what's being looked at here). Firefox, on the other hand, has been improving - adding new features, fixing complaints, and generally trying to come up with a better product. This is going to result in a higher number of security-problematic pieces of code - face it, people aren't perfect, and the only way to mitigate (not eliminate!) this realistically is to slow development to a standstill. Even then there would not be a guaranteed reduction in vulnerabilities, partially due to chance and oversight, and partially due to the large repository of existing code which it would have to interact with.
Furthermore, Firefox and Mozilla are just edging into the public consciousness, whereas Internet Explorer has had a technological hedgemony on the desktop as the browser now for almost a decade (in various versions). This means it's going to start receiving more scrutiny, both from malicious, malevolent folks, as well as from the benevolent security professionals. A higher detection rate is a natural result of this.
It's a double-edged sword. More detections are being made, resulting in more vulnerable systems. This is a natural state in computing, as computing innately involves security these days. There will always be risk involved. The significant thing to look at is how quickly these problems are being resolved, and how many how resurgent problems (ie, they weren't properly resolved). I would argue that the presented statistical information is irrelevant without further, more indepth analysis in this regard.
accountants deal with linear, organized structures all day. 'computery' stuff is both abstract and structured.
anyway, i said "for the most part"... most certainly not the rule. i've known many a bright female computer person.
in fact, the ones who were bright were usually brighter than the majority of the guys. but that might also say something about the state of IT/CS schooling circa 1999 - 2002.
Reminds me of when I was cheating (although not on univerrity) I made a cheating-not and wrote it smaller and smaller and that a few times. I perfected that cheatingnote so often that by the time I needed it, I didn't anymore. So the joke was on me, instead of making a cheating-note, I was actually learning and probably spend more time on it this way then when I would have 'learned' it the regular way.
i've done that since a history teacher in high school allowed us a single side of a 3x5 (or whatever the standard size) index card for notes for an entire semester. you'd write as small as you could on a notebook sheet of paper, reduce and figure out what was mos timportant, redo, etc. until you remembered all the fairly trivial things - as you decided "if I can remember it, I won't need to write it down". eventually you get your note card, and then you rewrite it so its legible. by the time you're done, all your notecard has are short abbreviations with dates, numbers, and other pertinent data in CSV, and you've essentially memorized which event belonged to which section of the index card, allowing you to figure out what you had to do.
i've used that method of studying ever since. it's very effective.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in some part, this "lack of integrity" has something to do with paper losing almost all cultural significance. In days of yore, "writing" consumed paper, and getting a good printed copy of something usually took substantial effort. Even then, the result was mediocre by modern standards (if I handed in half the papers my parents did in college - one a MCL from Duke's Nursing school in '81 - they'd be handed back as "sloppy" due to the occasional whiteout). Or, at least, in terms of appearance. If you plagarized someone else's paper - their finished work - there was much, much more effort which was being effectively stolen by copying the paper. You werne't just stealing content much of the time, you were stealing painstaking arrangement, formating, etc.
Nowadays, you can do all that stuff seamlessly with a word editor, with negligible effort. You don't have to go to a print shop to get copies, and you don't have to retype a whole damn page if you want to get a blemish-free copy. YOu can print as many identical copies on paper as you want or, if you wish, distribute it to millions of people online via something like Wikipedia - and nobody thinks much of it.
the 'spur of the moment' exams which you refer to are more difficult for women in fields like this because, for the most part, they need to devote a much greater amount of time on a topic to grasp it to the same level as an intellectually mediocre man.
likewise, men can't usually begin to understand the social complexity of women. this is why women make excellent politicians*, entertainers, educators, and other "people persons" where such abilities are necessary and valued.
(thankfully, men have been logical enough to see this as a bad thing, and hvae largely kept them out of it for most of history.)
I have never seen an engineer working underneath anyone other than another engineer, unless it's the head of a department (and even then, they've got enough engineering background to be intimately familiar enough with the topic to not make the engineers treat them like 3rd graders).
Only the cheaters are lazy. The people who cheat the cheaters get away scot free.
And your gf isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, is she? I mean, a teacher - someone who's been through college herself - can't recognize the basic functionality of computing software? Or do education majors play with blocks all day, as the stereotype goes?
So how about embezzelment, corporate fraud, politician dishonesty and political dirty money, and various other such things - should those also be encouraged (through lack of discouragement - people will naturally try and take the road of least resistance) because they're "going to happen"?