This is true, but does not go against the article. The guy in the article says that you are more likely to die from an asteriod collision than you are from a terrorist on a plane. (Paraphrased)
I think it is a matter of scale - we spend billions preventing terrorism, how much do we spend on asteriods? Perhaps we should be looking to the sky more often!
This is the wrong way of looking at it in my opinion. We are here on Earth to learn how to be respectible beings in the afterlife. We will be alive for say 100 years. We will be in the afterlife forever. From that perspective, the "bad" things that happen here are less important - what is important is to learn from them.
An example: Isn't it cruel that High School teachers allow some kids to fail tests? Shouldn't they sit over the kids shoulder, and point out mistakes before the grade is given?
Another, and all the fathers and mothers can attest to this: Your kid is playing on the couch, and you see that she is going to fall if she keeps bouncing like that. You tell her. She ignores you and keeps bouncing. You let her fall, get a little owie, and then say - "See, you need to listen, daddy knows things that you don't. Let me kiss it better."
Pain is a necessary part of learning. I believe that the people that have advanced humanity the most tend to be those that have endured the most pain. I know that the pain I have experienced has taught me a lot, and helped me to understand things I could not have understood before.
Just a comment, since this was such an interesting discussion - as I see it, God never turns his face away from us, he merely allows us to turn from him (free agency and all that).
As I have lived my life, I have found that the "commandments," "sins," and "restrictions" all have our benefit in mind. In my belief, God is our father - not Grandpa, or Judge, but father. When you are a father, you tell your children what you believe the best way to act is for them. But then you get out of their way, and let them fall on their face. This life is a time to prepare for "real life," which will happen after we all die. That's why bad things happen - because bad things let us learn and grow.
Applying this to homosexuality, I believe that there is a reason behind this request/command. I am not sure what it is (perhaps resurected bodies do not experience homosexuality, or something, I don't know), but all of my experiences leads me to believe that there is a reason.
That said, remember that someone else's challenges are merely different than your own. Everyone is faced with problems, and everyone must try for their own happiness!
no holes in UNIX because UNIX is no more than the kernel is bunk...
Agreed. The whole point of Unix security is that any program should not be able to give the user more permissions than they start with. Any program that fails that test causes Unix to fail it as well, because the Kernel gives the program too much control.
Saying it doesn't count is like saying you want to exclude car crashes where the tires failed from your vehicle safety evaluation. Yes, it makes the number smaller, but it covers up serious security problems!
It would be interesting if they could do that - but it sounds tricky. One problem with scaling up systems that use solid fuel (hybrids or solids) is that the combustion chamber must be large enough to contain the entire fuel supply (the same problem pressure fed rockets have). That has been shown to be very difficult (more difficult than using liquid engines).
So I'm not sure that this will lead to easy to build rockets, but still very interesting.
The real problem (apart from the aforementioned reentry difficulties) is propellant mass fraction. The very best chemical engines require a 7:1 mass fraction: For each 1 kg of vehicle you need 7 kg of fuel. This is determined by the performance of the engine (called Isp, mainly determined by the energy density of the fuel being burned).
That's why NASA uses hydrogen, even though it is a total pain. Using more ordinary fuels (like kerosene, for example) take you quickly to 20:1 mass ratios.
The kicker is that SS1's engines would have a 400:1 mass ratio to orbit. That just wasn't even being looked at during design - it would take a new frame (with large propellant tanks), a new engine (higher Isp, almost certainly liquid fueled), and new re-entry method (the heating is 10 times higher).
So a new rocket is required. (I believe they are currently working on it, though!)
The problems for a business case are even worse than you say... the first one to orbit will pay astronomical costs and face astronomical risks. The second one will pay far less, and face much lower risks.
That's why no one will invest in it right now - your first competitor is guaranteed to blow you away. The only money available right now is emotional spending, not real investment.
It is true though - since these races are so close, the overall view must be that they are about equal in capabilities. Or seen another way, equally pathetic.
The key here is cost per watt. Currently, the cheap forms of solar power give around 5%, while the expensive forms give 30%. That means for an equal cost per watt, the cheap version needs to be less than 1/6 the cost. Right now, the sweet spot seems to be in the 10-15% range, where the power delivered per dollar is maximized.
The reason everyone is working on higher efficiencies is that it is very hard to make the inefficient stuff any cheaper. There's just not any more room for economies of scale, etc. At the high end, you have more money to spend per square meter, so economies are easier.
For a concrete example, say that competing energy sources cost $1/watt. At 5% efficiency, that means that you only have about $25 per square meter of stuff. Its hard to imagine something that cheap being very useful. At 30% efficiency, you can now spend $150 per square meter - much more likely to be possible.
So that's why most people are working on efficiency.
...what if the (presumably worst-case scenario) of 40% of current rainfall in 70 years...
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is wrong, through. You don't know what effect global warming will have. It is incorrect to assume that it will be bad or good. We need to learn more, be able to really predict the true outcome!
For example, rain is one of the pumps nature uses to get heat out of the ground (well, water) and into the air. It is highly likely that if temperatures increase, rain will increase as well - possibly solving current water shortage problems (though causing other problems, certainly). The tropics have a lot of rain, almost every day in fact. Global warming may make our planet into a paradise! We don't know!
That's my only point, we don't know what we are doing.
This sort of gets to my point - we don't know enough to even attempt a fix. I do agree that we should look for better energy sources, but we should not do so if it means restraining our growth. Looking back through the history of Earth, it seems that there are many stabilizing influences at work. Your example of the atmosphere soaking up water. Another one: If "global warming" goes as far as expected, the high humidity of the air will lead to better heat transfer around the planet. In previous dramatically hotter climates, what we know is that the tropics stayed about the same, but Norway became a lot more pleasant.
Perhaps global warming would be a good thing! Perhaps not. I'm just saying that we don't know, and so killing ourselves (or even restricting our growth of capabilities) to change something we don't understand is not a good idea. Far better to deal with the concrete "symptoms", as someone else called it. When we really understand the disease, then we can try to fix it.
For an example of why it is bad to treat a problem you have no clue about: More people died from leeches during the middle ages than were cured by them.
Personally, I still say that reguardless of global warming it is better to continue on and deal with problems as they arise. If we throw away our technology, as some would seem to prefer, and we are wrong - we die, because we have insuficient resources to live in a rapidly changing world. On the other hand, if we keep expanding our capabilities and resources, we can survive anything that comes through our resources. Even if we have to leave Earth!
As a concrete example of this - the article talks about the sea level, and how a possible change of 20 meters will destroy hundreds of millions of homes, start wars, etc. OK, possibly, if we didn't do anything. But what do you want to bet that New York would pay the Dutch for there expertise in building walls to keep water out?
These problems have solutions! Building water walls around every human city would be cheaper than a sudden switch of power sources.
Actually in the studies I have read funding has only a very minor influence. The number one influence is parents, and nothing really comes close to that. A truely exceptional teacher can have an effect, but really parents are the problem and the solution.
Maybe we should start regulating and licensing parents...
Very interesting - notice that all the countries included are actually the same (as in no statistically significant difference). The 95% confidence interval is far larger than the difference between first and last place. In order words, the US places lower in random noise!
What a load of BS! Let me tell you how the world really works: (hint, no one is trying to pull you down, they are trying to pull themselves UP)
Conservatives really want cheap labor..
This is the exact opposite of what conservatives want. The price of labor is set by supply and demand, not by evil overlords. There are two reasons for cheap labor - too much supply and/or not enough demand. Both these things are bad for everyone, including conservatives. If labor is cheap, you should be starting a business to employ the cheap labor. It helps you (assuming you are successful), it helps your employees (even though they will grumble about pay soon enough), and it helps everyone else (you are providing a service that didn't exist previously).
The poor education will make us and keep us poor...
This is a real problem, but your attitude is compounding it. We need educated people, because starting new businesses is hard! That is the only way to improve the quality of life for everyone, and you are vilifying the entrepenors that can help. By doing that, you make your friends and contacts less likely to start their own businesses, contributing to the problem. If you don't like how people run businesses, start your own. You will quickly learn to respect those that have suceeded. Please try this (but realize that your first 2-3 companies will fail, make sure that you personally learn and don't die with them). Do not attack people that have been sucessful. Imitate them! If you don't like certain aspects, change that but if you attack you limit your friends and companions to failures.
They have to go all the way to India to save money now... with no health benefits
Obviously, my answer is build a company. Use the current cheap labor, drive the prices up yourself via the demand mechanism! In a perfect world (where Indians spoke perfect English and worked our hours), all US jobs would be outsourced to India - and everyone in the US would have full-time employment in those relatively few jobs that cannot be outsourced. The way out is up, not by dragging the few successful business owners down!
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 1
...you are a homophobe.
I understand your confusion on this, but this is not true. My 2 best friends are gay, and it saddens me that they are not given the same legal rights as I am. In fact, I fight for them receiving those rights when possible. In this case, to me that means getting the state out of the marriage business.
...it simply means that 120M people are wrong.
Wow! The arogrance in that statement is incredible! Do you realize that you are talking about half the population being disenfranchised by your beliefs? Why does a gay activist's desires overrule half the population? It does not harm someone to not call what they are doing a marriage. It harms them only when they are prevented from doing something others can. The harm that churches see in diluting the meaning of marriage is simple: they lose a capability to be clear in doctrine. For example - the bible says marriage is ordained of god (of some such thing). It also says that praticing homosexuality is an abomination. OK, now if marriage is extended to mean both homosexual marriage and hetrosexual marriage people will read the new definition into the previously written doctrine and be misslead. You may not see that as an issue, but 120,000,000 others do. The majority should prevail. The only allowable reason for the majority not to prevail is in the case of harm to others. Civil Unions address that aspect of the problem, or if not, some other solution needs to be proposed. Saying that the feelings of 120,000,000 people are irrelevant because it may hurt the feelings of several million others is not going to help. The interesting thing is that pretty much everyone wants true equality - even for smaller groups like open homosexuals, blacks, Nazis, or bible-thumping wackos.
...We don't mind what they do, but we don't want blacks to 'marry'
Well, first let me make sure you know that this is not how (at least I) feel. I believe quite strongly that homosexuals practicing homosexuality are harming themselves, similar to drug use, alcohol use, tabaco use, premarital sex, etc. I also believe that they must be allowed to choose for themselves, and not be condemed for that choice (at least by me...).
But anyway, to answer your analogy - the true analogy would be to say: "We don't mind what they do, but we don't wants blacks to say they are white." Of course, that is a little silly to say... and in this day and age it is hard to tell blacks from whites anyway because of all the interracial marriages, so I guess you could say anything...
Let's say you have a race of beings (call them GODs), that have basically become omnipowerful. They have kids. Since they are omniscient, they realize that having omnipotent kids is a Bad Idea (TM). So they create a planet for them to learn on (call it Earth). They let the kids basically run free, experiencing a "life" that will teach them how to control themselves, how to make good decisions, etc. Of course, anything that happens on the planet doesn't really matter (think of it as a very sophisticated game), because only what you learn from it will make any difference after you become a GOD. Once a kid dies, have them observe (call them spirits). Why would a loving parent do this? Why do we spank our kids, and not let them wath TV all day? (Besides, from personal experience I know that painful experiences teach you far more.)
Anyway, assuming all that - how would you make the planet? Might you just take a snapshot of your existing planet, say right before the GOD speicies really started mucking about?
By the way, we are getting close to the next system reset.
What is interesting is that here in the US (well, Chicago at least) we have had the coldest summer in a long time.
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 1
Even if the whole issue with these people is not wanting a shift in the vernacular, it's a pretty pathetic way to justify voting against a very imporant right for gays.
Your viewpoint is valid and consistent. It is not shared by 120,000,000 out of 200,000,000 people. This does not make them wrong and you right. It does not make them right and you wrong. It is a difference in moral weights attached to different ideals.
Another example of this is a pacifist in WWII. There where some people that refused to fight Hitler on moral grounds (I will not kill, no matter what). There were others that choose to kill other humans to fight Hitler on moral grounds. It is different - but in both cases arguments can be made either way.
That is what you seem to lack - the ability to see the other side. It is a very useful skill, and will determine much of your success in life - financial, marital, and social.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood me - I do not believe that God is saying "that is evil", he is saying "that will hurt you."
Just what I believe, based on my experiences.
This is true, but does not go against the article. The guy in the article says that you are more likely to die from an asteriod collision than you are from a terrorist on a plane. (Paraphrased)
I think it is a matter of scale - we spend billions preventing terrorism, how much do we spend on asteriods? Perhaps we should be looking to the sky more often!
This is the wrong way of looking at it in my opinion. We are here on Earth to learn how to be respectible beings in the afterlife. We will be alive for say 100 years. We will be in the afterlife forever. From that perspective, the "bad" things that happen here are less important - what is important is to learn from them.
An example: Isn't it cruel that High School teachers allow some kids to fail tests? Shouldn't they sit over the kids shoulder, and point out mistakes before the grade is given?
Another, and all the fathers and mothers can attest to this: Your kid is playing on the couch, and you see that she is going to fall if she keeps bouncing like that. You tell her. She ignores you and keeps bouncing. You let her fall, get a little owie, and then say - "See, you need to listen, daddy knows things that you don't. Let me kiss it better."
Pain is a necessary part of learning. I believe that the people that have advanced humanity the most tend to be those that have endured the most pain. I know that the pain I have experienced has taught me a lot, and helped me to understand things I could not have understood before.
Just a comment, since this was such an interesting discussion - as I see it, God never turns his face away from us, he merely allows us to turn from him (free agency and all that).
As I have lived my life, I have found that the "commandments," "sins," and "restrictions" all have our benefit in mind. In my belief, God is our father - not Grandpa, or Judge, but father. When you are a father, you tell your children what you believe the best way to act is for them. But then you get out of their way, and let them fall on their face. This life is a time to prepare for "real life," which will happen after we all die. That's why bad things happen - because bad things let us learn and grow.
Applying this to homosexuality, I believe that there is a reason behind this request/command. I am not sure what it is (perhaps resurected bodies do not experience homosexuality, or something, I don't know), but all of my experiences leads me to believe that there is a reason.
That said, remember that someone else's challenges are merely different than your own. Everyone is faced with problems, and everyone must try for their own happiness!
no holes in UNIX because UNIX is no more than the kernel is bunk...
Agreed. The whole point of Unix security is that any program should not be able to give the user more permissions than they start with. Any program that fails that test causes Unix to fail it as well, because the Kernel gives the program too much control.
Saying it doesn't count is like saying you want to exclude car crashes where the tires failed from your vehicle safety evaluation. Yes, it makes the number smaller, but it covers up serious security problems!
However forcing Microsoft developers to do that would ensure that the rest of us wouldn't have to!
Who do we contact to get admin rights revoked for all Microsoft developers?
Now we need to force them to really eat there own dog food - turn off admin access on their machines.
I bet things would start working without admin rights REALLY fast!
I didn't know about that work - thanks!
It would be interesting if they could do that - but it sounds tricky. One problem with scaling up systems that use solid fuel (hybrids or solids) is that the combustion chamber must be large enough to contain the entire fuel supply (the same problem pressure fed rockets have). That has been shown to be very difficult (more difficult than using liquid engines).
So I'm not sure that this will lead to easy to build rockets, but still very interesting.
The real problem (apart from the aforementioned reentry difficulties) is propellant mass fraction. The very best chemical engines require a 7:1 mass fraction: For each 1 kg of vehicle you need 7 kg of fuel. This is determined by the performance of the engine (called Isp, mainly determined by the energy density of the fuel being burned).
That's why NASA uses hydrogen, even though it is a total pain. Using more ordinary fuels (like kerosene, for example) take you quickly to 20:1 mass ratios.
The kicker is that SS1's engines would have a 400:1 mass ratio to orbit. That just wasn't even being looked at during design - it would take a new frame (with large propellant tanks), a new engine (higher Isp, almost certainly liquid fueled), and new re-entry method (the heating is 10 times higher).
So a new rocket is required. (I believe they are currently working on it, though!)
The problems for a business case are even worse than you say... the first one to orbit will pay astronomical costs and face astronomical risks. The second one will pay far less, and face much lower risks.
That's why no one will invest in it right now - your first competitor is guaranteed to blow you away. The only money available right now is emotional spending, not real investment.
It is true though - since these races are so close, the overall view must be that they are about equal in capabilities. Or seen another way, equally pathetic.
The key here is cost per watt. Currently, the cheap forms of solar power give around 5%, while the expensive forms give 30%. That means for an equal cost per watt, the cheap version needs to be less than 1/6 the cost. Right now, the sweet spot seems to be in the 10-15% range, where the power delivered per dollar is maximized.
The reason everyone is working on higher efficiencies is that it is very hard to make the inefficient stuff any cheaper. There's just not any more room for economies of scale, etc. At the high end, you have more money to spend per square meter, so economies are easier.
For a concrete example, say that competing energy sources cost $1/watt. At 5% efficiency, that means that you only have about $25 per square meter of stuff. Its hard to imagine something that cheap being very useful. At 30% efficiency, you can now spend $150 per square meter - much more likely to be possible.
So that's why most people are working on efficiency.
...what if the (presumably worst-case scenario) of 40% of current rainfall in 70 years...
This is exactly the kind of thinking that is wrong, through. You don't know what effect global warming will have. It is incorrect to assume that it will be bad or good. We need to learn more, be able to really predict the true outcome!
For example, rain is one of the pumps nature uses to get heat out of the ground (well, water) and into the air. It is highly likely that if temperatures increase, rain will increase as well - possibly solving current water shortage problems (though causing other problems, certainly). The tropics have a lot of rain, almost every day in fact. Global warming may make our planet into a paradise! We don't know!
That's my only point, we don't know what we are doing.
This sort of gets to my point - we don't know enough to even attempt a fix. I do agree that we should look for better energy sources, but we should not do so if it means restraining our growth. Looking back through the history of Earth, it seems that there are many stabilizing influences at work. Your example of the atmosphere soaking up water. Another one: If "global warming" goes as far as expected, the high humidity of the air will lead to better heat transfer around the planet. In previous dramatically hotter climates, what we know is that the tropics stayed about the same, but Norway became a lot more pleasant.
Perhaps global warming would be a good thing! Perhaps not. I'm just saying that we don't know, and so killing ourselves (or even restricting our growth of capabilities) to change something we don't understand is not a good idea. Far better to deal with the concrete "symptoms", as someone else called it. When we really understand the disease, then we can try to fix it.
For an example of why it is bad to treat a problem you have no clue about: More people died from leeches during the middle ages than were cured by them.
Personally, I still say that reguardless of global warming it is better to continue on and deal with problems as they arise. If we throw away our technology, as some would seem to prefer, and we are wrong - we die, because we have insuficient resources to live in a rapidly changing world. On the other hand, if we keep expanding our capabilities and resources, we can survive anything that comes through our resources. Even if we have to leave Earth!
As a concrete example of this - the article talks about the sea level, and how a possible change of 20 meters will destroy hundreds of millions of homes, start wars, etc. OK, possibly, if we didn't do anything. But what do you want to bet that New York would pay the Dutch for there expertise in building walls to keep water out?
These problems have solutions! Building water walls around every human city would be cheaper than a sudden switch of power sources.
Actually in the studies I have read funding has only a very minor influence. The number one influence is parents, and nothing really comes close to that. A truely exceptional teacher can have an effect, but really parents are the problem and the solution.
Maybe we should start regulating and licensing parents...
I find your brain to be just like any other part of your body:
The more you use it, the stronger it gets.
I think nuture has a lot more to say than nature.
But then, what do I know!
Very interesting - notice that all the countries included are actually the same (as in no statistically significant difference). The 95% confidence interval is far larger than the difference between first and last place. In order words, the US places lower in random noise!
We cannot allow a random noise GAP!
What a load of BS! Let me tell you how the world really works: (hint, no one is trying to pull you down, they are trying to pull themselves UP)
... with no health benefits
Conservatives really want cheap labor..
This is the exact opposite of what conservatives want. The price of labor is set by supply and demand, not by evil overlords. There are two reasons for cheap labor - too much supply and/or not enough demand. Both these things are bad for everyone, including conservatives. If labor is cheap, you should be starting a business to employ the cheap labor. It helps you (assuming you are successful), it helps your employees (even though they will grumble about pay soon enough), and it helps everyone else (you are providing a service that didn't exist previously).
The poor education will make us and keep us poor...
This is a real problem, but your attitude is compounding it. We need educated people, because starting new businesses is hard! That is the only way to improve the quality of life for everyone, and you are vilifying the entrepenors that can help. By doing that, you make your friends and contacts less likely to start their own businesses, contributing to the problem. If you don't like how people run businesses, start your own. You will quickly learn to respect those that have suceeded. Please try this (but realize that your first 2-3 companies will fail, make sure that you personally learn and don't die with them). Do not attack people that have been sucessful. Imitate them! If you don't like certain aspects, change that but if you attack you limit your friends and companions to failures.
They have to go all the way to India to save money now
Obviously, my answer is build a company. Use the current cheap labor, drive the prices up yourself via the demand mechanism! In a perfect world (where Indians spoke perfect English and worked our hours), all US jobs would be outsourced to India - and everyone in the US would have full-time employment in those relatively few jobs that cannot be outsourced. The way out is up, not by dragging the few successful business owners down!
...you are a homophobe.
...it simply means that 120M people are wrong.
...We don't mind what they do, but we don't want blacks to 'marry'
I understand your confusion on this, but this is not true. My 2 best friends are gay, and it saddens me that they are not given the same legal rights as I am. In fact, I fight for them receiving those rights when possible. In this case, to me that means getting the state out of the marriage business.
Wow! The arogrance in that statement is incredible! Do you realize that you are talking about half the population being disenfranchised by your beliefs? Why does a gay activist's desires overrule half the population? It does not harm someone to not call what they are doing a marriage. It harms them only when they are prevented from doing something others can. The harm that churches see in diluting the meaning of marriage is simple: they lose a capability to be clear in doctrine. For example - the bible says marriage is ordained of god (of some such thing). It also says that praticing homosexuality is an abomination. OK, now if marriage is extended to mean both homosexual marriage and hetrosexual marriage people will read the new definition into the previously written doctrine and be misslead. You may not see that as an issue, but 120,000,000 others do. The majority should prevail. The only allowable reason for the majority not to prevail is in the case of harm to others. Civil Unions address that aspect of the problem, or if not, some other solution needs to be proposed. Saying that the feelings of 120,000,000 people are irrelevant because it may hurt the feelings of several million others is not going to help. The interesting thing is that pretty much everyone wants true equality - even for smaller groups like open homosexuals, blacks, Nazis, or bible-thumping wackos.
Well, first let me make sure you know that this is not how (at least I) feel. I believe quite strongly that homosexuals practicing homosexuality are harming themselves, similar to drug use, alcohol use, tabaco use, premarital sex, etc. I also believe that they must be allowed to choose for themselves, and not be condemed for that choice (at least by me...).
But anyway, to answer your analogy - the true analogy would be to say: "We don't mind what they do, but we don't wants blacks to say they are white." Of course, that is a little silly to say... and in this day and age it is hard to tell blacks from whites anyway because of all the interracial marriages, so I guess you could say anything...
That is so dumb! Everyone knows that the reason for these dubious time estimates are that ntpd had not been developed yet.
this also implies that stonehenge was built...
Not necessarily - it could mean that our dating methods are off. (Yes, I know that we have done our best to verify them. Mistakes can happen...)
An interesting perspective on this:
Let's say you have a race of beings (call them GODs), that have basically become omnipowerful. They have kids. Since they are omniscient, they realize that having omnipotent kids is a Bad Idea (TM). So they create a planet for them to learn on (call it Earth). They let the kids basically run free, experiencing a "life" that will teach them how to control themselves, how to make good decisions, etc. Of course, anything that happens on the planet doesn't really matter (think of it as a very sophisticated game), because only what you learn from it will make any difference after you become a GOD. Once a kid dies, have them observe (call them spirits). Why would a loving parent do this? Why do we spank our kids, and not let them wath TV all day? (Besides, from personal experience I know that painful experiences teach you far more.)
Anyway, assuming all that - how would you make the planet? Might you just take a snapshot of your existing planet, say right before the GOD speicies really started mucking about?
By the way, we are getting close to the next system reset.
What is interesting is that here in the US (well, Chicago at least) we have had the coldest summer in a long time.
Even if the whole issue with these people is not wanting a shift in the vernacular, it's a pretty pathetic way to justify voting against a very imporant right for gays.
Your viewpoint is valid and consistent. It is not shared by 120,000,000 out of 200,000,000 people. This does not make them wrong and you right. It does not make them right and you wrong. It is a difference in moral weights attached to different ideals.
Another example of this is a pacifist in WWII. There where some people that refused to fight Hitler on moral grounds (I will not kill, no matter what). There were others that choose to kill other humans to fight Hitler on moral grounds. It is different - but in both cases arguments can be made either way.
That is what you seem to lack - the ability to see the other side. It is a very useful skill, and will determine much of your success in life - financial, marital, and social.