You are quite right, the makers of the items throwing valuable stuff around unsecured are doing wrong.
But, someone taking advantage of this problem is still doing wrong. I don't think you are arguing that it is ethical to take that which is thrown at you, but that the owner had no intention of you having. I understand that this is a "technicality", that it isn't expected to stop this wrong.
And someone publishing a directory ( or web site ) with directions on how to get to such ill secured items, especially to encourage, even allow viewing something like sleeping kids is doing wrong, verging on evil. Chorus of above.
Buying, A, it may not be direct, but it is the intent B, if there is no benefit, at least most of the time, why do they do it? if there is no profit, why do it?
Advocacy groups, etc, yes, quite. But corporate money should not be involved, at the very least. For any.
Impairment, I hear you, but if I and a hundred thousand of my closest friends were all to write my senator or congressperson and say "we are opposed/favor legistation 'x'" but company blah is on the opposing side, but contributed to that politicians campaign, who is he/she/it going to regard? Observe, DCMA, SOPA, PIPA, copyright extensions, foreign trade agreements, bankruptcy law changes, etc. Who got "relief" when the economy tanked ( large corporations did, which then turned around and tossed people out of their houses ). Who's interests are regarded and protected? ( yes, SOPA didnt get enacted, but it took a huge outcry, and it was a narrow thing, and I am sure parts of it will have enactment attempts performed )
"Influencing elections by urging people to vote one way or another isn't buying votes" "Influencing legislation isn't buying votes either; it's helpful to their interests"
Using money to get a desired outcome is not purchasing. Hmmm. Well, if you say so. I don't buy it. ( pun intended )
"any group of people should be able to tell a legislator what they think should be changed about legislation, proposed or otherwise"
Very true. Currently, *my* ability to tell a legislator what *I* think ( for each my/I in the non-corporate audience ) is severely impaired, as I don't have enough money to be interesting enough to listen to. According to your analysis, corporate money isn't a good thing.
Therefore, either Corporation *can* buy votes ( influence elections, legislation and policy ), or Corporations are wasting money donating to politicians. There is no third way. Which is it?
HR: How long have you been doing it? Job Seeker: I've been MBA-ing for several years now.
HR: Are you certified to code and develop? Job Seeker: My MBA-ing allows me to certify an anything you need me too. So if I don't got it, I can get it!
HR: YOUR PERFECT!!! Can you start...yesterday?!!!"
Job Seeker: I started last month, where is my check?
No. We are more expensive, sure, but not too expensive.
It is really stupid to allow ( and I'm not talking govt intervention ) all these jobs to flow out and be replaced by "grey market, low wage" jobs. Who will be the buyers when all these jobs and the wages thereto have been shipped elsewhere?
American Corporations, you are selling your future. You, personally, wont be welcome in the countries you are sending the jobs to, and they will eventually exclude you ( as corporations and people ) from participating, once things hit a certain point.
In the long run, wages will equalize. The countries we are sending the jobs to will gain economic power, political power, and will bring back more authoritarian dealings with people, there will be less personal liberty, less freedom, less happiness.
The H1B program in it's entirety is a market distortion.
The reality is that if companies want workers with good skills, they should have some good wages to offer in return. Ordinary should not cut it. But, because they have the reins of government, they can now force lower wages.
My HR department managed to find qualified American engineers. And if universities are having a hard time with STEM graduates, tech companies have themselves to blame. Who wants to follow a profession into the shredding machine? Tech management keeps having Americans train offshore workers so the offshore workers can replace the American ones. Even though there are still jobs out there, it's hard to tell someone "get a tech job". The market clearly works. During the lead-up to the.com bubble, everyone and his dog spot was trying to get "trained for tech". We had people applying for jobs for open slots where it seemed that recognizing a computer 3 out of 4 times was sufficient for an interview.
I have worked with many H1Bs. The ones I have worked with have been OK. Not the stellar God like creatures business would have you believe. Ordinary, OK, nothing to write home about, got stuff done. Just like the Americans they worked with.
And on pay, here is an anecdote to match yours. Tech worker responded to a craigslist ad I had placed for camping cots. Why? So she and a coworker from India would have something to sleep on. She got to my house on a bus. Tied the cots together with rags, so they would not bang the other passengers, and be something she could manage to carry. Now, tell me she was paid ( Intel or someone contracted to Intel, from her badge ) the prevailing wage that she felt she could not afford a cheap car between the two of them and a pair of second hand real beds. In terms of time and effort, both a car and the buying of real beds would be cheaper....
I would join the argument that our electorate fails. I would argue that the choices are not what they should be. I would also argue that what is left of our democracy is fading, over this very issue.
So, government would have no say in the business realm?
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money. That power can be used that way, and is, but that is because our choices in any given election are dictated by wealth/power.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state. The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth. That you don't seem to see that indicates a narrow or willful view to me. Taxation, disproportionate or otherwise A, money should not equal speech. B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me. C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
" To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous" Oligarchy/ plutarchy. Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings Your statement amounts to "those who pay more should have more say". That is not democracy.
"Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals"
Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.
I would venture that more are educated about the basics of our government, and that they are capable for forming opinions. I would agree that more and better education would be very excellent, and would help. But I have to disagree on the "who gets to yell loudest' part. And one does not have to depend on the other.
This is the first of many things that need to change. Money needs to be out of politics. Buying office leads to plutarchy. not democracy. For all the "what about my speech" people, you gain it not lose it. In the current system only the wealthy have any real speech. Yes, people vote, but there is no real voice, only selecting between awful choices presented by the powerful.
"I just don't see how this could possibly be the execs fault. Did they direct the Engineers to design faulty suspension? Did they direct the Engineers to make cars wireless systems vulnerable to hacking? Did they direct engineers to make the gas tank likely to catch on fire?"
I dont know, but I can see how it might be the execs fault: Eng: We should have engine management, steering management, antilock brake management control systems in these airgap'd modules Exec: Oh, dear, well, but wont that cost more? Eng: Yes, a bit. Exec: You realize that saving $1.00 on each car makes us millions+ ( depending on how many cars they build each year ). Eng: Yes, well, It isnt a good idea. Exec: Dont care! This is money we are talking about! No airgap. And it will make updates easier, we will only need one "point in".
"Yep, those civilians were totally to blame for Pearl Harbor. They deserved to die."
Others have spoken to the military targets near, and what other options there were, and I think to the point that the nuclear bombs did not cause the most casualties, and are only the most memorable.
But, further, A, the guys at Pearl Harbor, and all the other places people died in the early stages of the war, were they responsible for the issues that made Japan feel like an attack was a good idea? Did they deserve to die? Did they deserve to die as they did? ( read about the Bataan death march, among other atrocities ) ( noted that this does not make the civilians in Japan deserving of death, particularly )
B, how else would you have proceeded in the political leadership of America's place? What do you think they should have done instead? A bit of a rhetorical question, but seriously posed.
If you think about responding with "negotiate", i'm going to suggest more reading/research on your part. Civilians jumped off cliffs during the invasion of Okinawa. Japanese soldiers were still found on Pacific islands, waiting for the return of the victorious Japanese on into the 1970's ( my point being how fanatical some could be coming out of that society )
I think that part of the difference is
A, the harm they can do to you
B, the inability to have cooperation with them.
If you could negotiate with them ( stay away from the house, I'll refrain from killing you, maybe spend part of the money saved on traps and poisons on some food, left away from the house periodically ), maybe you would. I would. But, we cant. So, what are our alternatives? Kill them, drive them away, or put up with the damage they do, the harm they can do to us and our loved ones.
"What makes you think aliens aren't doing it already?"
A La the Matrix? Perhaps.
"If they are doing it, we wouldn't care."
Once we knew, we would care.
"Because we couldn't notice - anymore than the rats do."
They don't? How do you know?
"Those rats will definitely do a lot better than the rats that I called the exterminator on last week."
Not necessarily. Are they confused, frightened, in pain? Dead might be better.
"The main problem with your argument is that you are granting greater capabilities to the rats than they have. I'm not talking about hypothetical souls, I'm talking about comprehensive power. The rats are not smart enough to understand any of what we are proposing doing to them."
Smart is only part of the issue. What about what happens to them as these things are done to them? What do they experience? Are we right in doing it to them? Why is this needed?
"Secondly, as below, as above fails many ways. It is not transitive. Just as humans ascribe greater rights to a intellectually challenged human than we do to mammals and greater rights to mammals than we do to bacteria (you don't hear about bacteria abuse cases), intelligent aliens should grant greater rights a talking, tool using humans than they do to non-talking, non-tool using mammals. If they don't, then they are no better than criminals that abuse animals."
It succeeds in many ways. And why does it have to be transitive. We do ascribe greater rights as creatures climb in intellectual capability. Why should that allow us the right to tamper? And are we being criminals that abuse animals in doing things like this?
"Rights are not an all or nothing affair - they are granted based on various factors, including intelligence."
I see your point. Pain and discomfort and utility to the species being so used should be part of those "various factors".
I'm *very* well aware that for a Naval aircraft, the second engine is a required feature. That fact is why the engines are spaced so far apart on the late, great F-14. They are so far apart because the designers wanted to increase the likelihood that the other engine would survive if the aircraft were hit ( or if an engine tore itself apart, possibly due to battle damage ) It was important enough that they lived with the fact that being so far apart would tend to put the aircraft in a spin if one did go out ( as made famous in TopGun ).
My comment was that for general export sales to non Naval customers that second engine is *not* a sales feature. See my other post, the F-18 is heavier, will likely have higher operating costs, and is more expensive. For an air force flying from traditional land bases, as most export countries would be, the F-16 is the better choice. You can just about buy two F-16's for the cost of an F-18. For a country looking to buy aircraft for their aircraft carriers, the F-18 would be the only choice between the two, even a "navalized" F-16 would lack the very important in that scenario second engine.
For an aircraft that is supposed to command the entire Pacific, I would actually want a more capable aircraft than the F-18. The F-18 is less expensive operationally than the F-14 was, and is aerodynamically better, but it does not have the range or payload ( during some missions against Afghanistan, the F-18 could not haul bombs to the distance the F-14 was able to. So, they put the bombs on the fighter ( the F-14 ), and had the attack aircraft ( the F/A-18 ) fly cover. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
It is hard to "strip off" the naval stuff. You can remove the tail hook, but the stuff they do to the airframe to make it strong enough to keep the tail from coming apart under that abuse would require a large redesign. The landing gear are likewise stronger than a "normal" aircraft, and would require redesign.
From the below, 120 miles of range, lower ordnance load, and, unless the L was half price, a higher acquisition cost. Operational costs are probably higher, spares are probably more, fuel cost are probably higher( greater range, two engines to feed, more weight ( more fuel, navalized parts, etc ). Not a great value for non-Naval airforces.
( numbers from wikipedia ) F-16, cost: 19 m range: 340 mi payload: 17,000lbs speed: mach 2
F-18, cost: 29 m range: 460 mi payload:13,700 lbs speed: mach 1.8
Slashdot Mirror
You are quite right, the makers of the items throwing valuable stuff around unsecured are doing wrong.
But, someone taking advantage of this problem is still doing wrong.
I don't think you are arguing that it is ethical to take that which is thrown at you, but that the owner had no intention of you having.
I understand that this is a "technicality", that it isn't expected to stop this wrong.
And someone publishing a directory ( or web site ) with directions on how to get to such ill secured items, especially to encourage, even allow viewing something like sleeping kids is doing wrong, verging on evil.
Chorus of above.
Buying,
A, it may not be direct, but it is the intent
B, if there is no benefit, at least most of the time, why do they do it? if there is no profit, why do it?
Advocacy groups, etc, yes, quite. But corporate money should not be involved, at the very least. For any.
Impairment, I hear you, but if I and a hundred thousand of my closest friends were all to write my senator or congressperson and say "we are opposed/favor legistation 'x'" but company blah is on the opposing side, but contributed to that politicians campaign, who is he/she/it going to regard?
Observe, DCMA, SOPA, PIPA, copyright extensions, foreign trade agreements, bankruptcy law changes, etc. Who got "relief" when the economy tanked ( large corporations did, which then turned around and tossed people out of their houses ). Who's interests are regarded and protected?
( yes, SOPA didnt get enacted, but it took a huge outcry, and it was a narrow thing, and I am sure parts of it will have enactment attempts performed )
"Influencing elections by urging people to vote one way or another isn't buying votes"
"Influencing legislation isn't buying votes either; it's helpful to their interests"
Using money to get a desired outcome is not purchasing. Hmmm. Well, if you say so. I don't buy it. ( pun intended )
"any group of people should be able to tell a legislator what they think should be changed about legislation, proposed or otherwise"
Very true.
Currently, *my* ability to tell a legislator what *I* think ( for each my/I in the non-corporate audience ) is severely impaired,
as I don't have enough money to be interesting enough to listen to.
According to your analysis, corporate money isn't a good thing.
"Corporations can't buy votes,"
Corporations exist to make stockholders money
Therefore, either Corporation *can* buy votes ( influence elections, legislation and policy ), or Corporations are wasting money donating to politicians.
There is no third way.
Which is it?
"No Intel is making new WiFi and directX 12 and 12.1 graphics, next gen NVME 2.0, and type-c USB thunderbolt connectors."
None of those have to do with the CPU.
"Do you even MBA bro?!
HR: So, what do you do?
Job Seeker: I MBA
HR: How long have you been doing it?
Job Seeker: I've been MBA-ing for several years now.
HR: Are you certified to code and develop?
Job Seeker: My MBA-ing allows me to certify an anything you need me too. So if I don't got it, I can get it!
HR: YOUR PERFECT!!! Can you start...yesterday?!!!"
Job Seeker: I started last month, where is my check?
We are too expensive.....
No. We are more expensive, sure, but not too expensive.
It is really stupid to allow ( and I'm not talking govt intervention ) all these jobs to flow out and be replaced by "grey market, low wage" jobs.
Who will be the buyers when all these jobs and the wages thereto have been shipped elsewhere?
American Corporations, you are selling your future. You, personally, wont be welcome in the countries you are sending the jobs to, and they will eventually exclude you ( as corporations and people ) from participating, once things hit a certain point.
In the long run, wages will equalize. The countries we are sending the jobs to will gain economic power, political power, and will bring back more authoritarian dealings with people, there will be less personal liberty, less freedom, less happiness.
Sad.
The H1B program in it's entirety is a market distortion.
The reality is that if companies want workers with good skills, they should have some good wages to offer in return.
Ordinary should not cut it. But, because they have the reins of government, they can now force lower wages.
My HR department managed to find qualified American engineers. .com bubble, everyone and his dog spot was trying to get "trained for tech".
And if universities are having a hard time with STEM graduates, tech companies have themselves to blame.
Who wants to follow a profession into the shredding machine?
Tech management keeps having Americans train offshore workers so the offshore workers can replace the American ones.
Even though there are still jobs out there, it's hard to tell someone "get a tech job".
The market clearly works. During the lead-up to the
We had people applying for jobs for open slots where it seemed that recognizing a computer 3 out of 4 times was sufficient for an interview.
I have worked with many H1Bs. The ones I have worked with have been OK. Not the stellar God like creatures business would have you believe.
Ordinary, OK, nothing to write home about, got stuff done. Just like the Americans they worked with.
And on pay, here is an anecdote to match yours.
Tech worker responded to a craigslist ad I had placed for camping cots.
Why? So she and a coworker from India would have something to sleep on.
She got to my house on a bus.
Tied the cots together with rags, so they would not bang the other passengers, and be something she could manage to carry.
Now, tell me she was paid ( Intel or someone contracted to Intel, from her badge ) the prevailing wage that she felt she could not afford a cheap car between the two of them and a pair of second hand real beds. In terms of time and effort, both a car and the buying of real beds would be cheaper....
Like the indictment came down for the Bush administration for their use of off site email?
I would join the argument that our electorate fails.
I would argue that the choices are not what they should be.
I would also argue that what is left of our democracy is fading, over this very issue.
So, government would have no say in the business realm?
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
That power can be used that way, and is, but that is because our choices in any given election are dictated by wealth/power.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
That you don't seem to see that indicates a narrow or willful view to me.
Taxation, disproportionate or otherwise
A, money should not equal speech.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
" To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous"
Oligarchy/ plutarchy.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
Your statement amounts to "those who pay more should have more say". That is not democracy.
"Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals"
Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.
I would venture that more are educated about the basics of our government, and that they are capable for forming opinions.
I would agree that more and better education would be very excellent, and would help.
But I have to disagree on the "who gets to yell loudest' part.
And one does not have to depend on the other.
This is the first of many things that need to change.
Money needs to be out of politics. Buying office leads to plutarchy. not democracy.
For all the "what about my speech" people, you gain it not lose it.
In the current system only the wealthy have any real speech.
Yes, people vote, but there is no real voice, only selecting between awful choices presented by the powerful.
"Actually, he already got a private meeting with the Pope. Then he announced his retirement."
That was my point.
Maybe he wanted to get his papal audience...
Maybe he thought that would not happen if he announced his resignation first.
"I just don't see how this could possibly be the execs fault. Did they direct the Engineers to design faulty suspension? Did they direct the Engineers to make cars wireless systems vulnerable to hacking? Did they direct engineers to make the gas tank likely to catch on fire?"
I dont know, but I can see how it might be the execs fault:
Eng: We should have engine management, steering management, antilock brake management control systems in these airgap'd modules
Exec: Oh, dear, well, but wont that cost more?
Eng: Yes, a bit.
Exec: You realize that saving $1.00 on each car makes us millions+ ( depending on how many cars they build each year ).
Eng: Yes, well, It isnt a good idea.
Exec: Dont care! This is money we are talking about! No airgap. And it will make updates easier, we will only need one "point in".
"Yep, those civilians were totally to blame for Pearl Harbor. They deserved to die."
Others have spoken to the military targets near, and what other options there were, and I think to the point that the nuclear bombs did not cause the most casualties, and are only the most memorable.
But, further,
A, the guys at Pearl Harbor, and all the other places people died in the early stages of the war,
were they responsible for the issues that made Japan feel like an attack was a good idea?
Did they deserve to die? Did they deserve to die as they did? ( read about the Bataan death march, among other atrocities )
( noted that this does not make the civilians in Japan deserving of death, particularly )
B, how else would you have proceeded in the political leadership of America's place?
What do you think they should have done instead?
A bit of a rhetorical question, but seriously posed.
If you think about responding with "negotiate", i'm going to suggest more reading/research on your part.
Civilians jumped off cliffs during the invasion of Okinawa.
Japanese soldiers were still found on Pacific islands, waiting for the return of the victorious Japanese on into the 1970's
( my point being how fanatical some could be coming out of that society )
I understand your dilemma.
I think that part of the difference is
A, the harm they can do to you
B, the inability to have cooperation with them.
If you could negotiate with them ( stay away from the house, I'll refrain from killing you, maybe spend part of the money saved on traps and poisons on some food, left away from the house periodically ), maybe you would. I would. But, we cant. So, what are our alternatives? Kill them, drive them away, or put up with the damage they do, the harm they can do to us and our loved ones.
"What makes you think aliens aren't doing it already?"
A La the Matrix? Perhaps.
"If they are doing it, we wouldn't care."
Once we knew, we would care.
"Because we couldn't notice - anymore than the rats do."
They don't? How do you know?
"Those rats will definitely do a lot better than the rats that I called the exterminator on last week."
Not necessarily. Are they confused, frightened, in pain? Dead might be better.
"The main problem with your argument is that you are granting greater capabilities to the rats than they have. I'm not talking about hypothetical souls, I'm talking about comprehensive power. The rats are not smart enough to understand any of what we are proposing doing to them."
Smart is only part of the issue. What about what happens to them as these things are done to them? What do they experience? Are we right in doing it to them? Why is this needed?
"Secondly, as below, as above fails many ways. It is not transitive. Just as humans ascribe greater rights to a intellectually challenged human than we do to mammals and greater rights to mammals than we do to bacteria (you don't hear about bacteria abuse cases), intelligent aliens should grant greater rights a talking, tool using humans than they do to non-talking, non-tool using mammals. If they don't, then they are no better than criminals that abuse animals."
It succeeds in many ways. And why does it have to be transitive.
We do ascribe greater rights as creatures climb in intellectual capability.
Why should that allow us the right to tamper?
And are we being criminals that abuse animals in doing things like this?
"Rights are not an all or nothing affair - they are granted based on various factors, including intelligence."
I see your point. Pain and discomfort and utility to the species being so used should be part of those "various factors".
Anyfour.
Humor aside,there are serious ethical issues here.
If an alien race as much above us as we are above rats were to come here and began to use Humans in like manner, how would we react/feel/moralize?
"If it was really based on mass delusion, then you should be able to profit from it greatly"
If it is based on rationality and logic, why do we keep having booms and crashes?
Taking your statement and modifying it:
If it was really based on mass delusion, then ***someone*** should be able to profit from it greatly.
And they do, dont they?
I'm *very* well aware that for a Naval aircraft, the second engine is a required feature.
That fact is why the engines are spaced so far apart on the late, great F-14. They are so far apart because the designers wanted to increase the likelihood that the other engine would survive if the aircraft were hit ( or if an engine tore itself apart, possibly due to battle damage ) It was important enough that they lived with the fact that being so far apart would tend to put the aircraft in a spin if one did go out ( as made famous in TopGun ).
My comment was that for general export sales to non Naval customers that second engine is *not* a sales feature. See my other post, the F-18 is heavier, will likely have higher operating costs, and is more expensive. For an air force flying from traditional land bases, as most export countries would be, the F-16 is the better choice. You can just about buy two F-16's for the cost of an F-18.
For a country looking to buy aircraft for their aircraft carriers, the F-18 would be the only choice between the two, even a "navalized" F-16 would lack the very important in that scenario second engine.
For an aircraft that is supposed to command the entire Pacific, I would actually want a more capable aircraft than the F-18. The F-18 is less expensive operationally than the F-14 was, and is aerodynamically better, but it does not have the range or payload ( during some missions against Afghanistan, the F-18 could not haul bombs to the distance the F-14 was able to. So, they put the bombs on the fighter ( the F-14 ), and had the attack aircraft ( the F/A-18 ) fly cover.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
It is hard to "strip off" the naval stuff.
You can remove the tail hook, but the stuff they do to the airframe to make it strong enough to keep the tail from coming apart under that abuse would require a large redesign.
The landing gear are likewise stronger than a "normal" aircraft, and would require redesign.
From the below, 120 miles of range, lower ordnance load, and, unless the L was half price, a higher acquisition cost. Operational costs are probably higher, spares are probably more, fuel cost are probably higher( greater range, two engines to feed, more weight ( more fuel, navalized parts, etc ).
Not a great value for non-Naval airforces.
( numbers from wikipedia )
F-16,
cost: 19 m
range: 340 mi
payload: 17,000lbs
speed: mach 2
F-18,
cost: 29 m
range: 460 mi
payload:13,700 lbs
speed: mach 1.8
"Just look at North Korea, how they are still standing! DPRK wouldn't be around today lest for those 7-9 primitive nukes they hold."
There was a day before they had nukes. What protected them then?
I submit that being nestled right next to China is far more protection.
"Look at what happened to Libya and Iraq, which failed to obtain nukes and the amero-zionist cabal violently dismantled them"
Libya fell apart without much real help from us.
Iraq was invaded on the premise that they had or were attempting to obtain nukes and other WMD.