This is because it's not like Israel is that far behind the U.S. in terms of mathematics, computers, or encryption, so not exporting to them wouldn't change their strategic posture much at all, and would just deny business to a U.S. corporation in favor of a homegrown one (e.g. IMI).
Not to put on my tin foil hat or anything, but we don't really know how sophisticated the US government's mathematics and encryption technologies are. The NSA employs a huge amount of mathematicians (particularly number theorists/cryptologists), and their work certainly isn't made public. They very well may be as far ahead of the rest of the world in those matters as they are militarily.
Just think, instead of writing a paper detailing the intricacies of the American Civil War in expository form, have students write the paper in narrative form as a merchant in Quebec observing the war from afar.
Bad example. All you've done there is turn a history paper into a creative writing assignment. If you're in a history class, it might not be the best idea to be testing someone's ability to write from another's perspective. You should be testing their knowledge of what was covered in the class (i.e. history). This doesn't solve the problem.
The real problem is that most professors or teaching assistants don't have the time to be able to check for cheating. If you have a small class where you can directly interact with the professor, they get to know your intelligence, writing style, etc. It becomes pretty obvious when someone is cheating if you know those things. Most classes you just don't have that kind of interaction, so it becomes easier to cheat.
If your education is an assembly-line process, then it should be expected that people will cheat successfully. If there's a class with 300 students and one professor with a few assistants, it is hard enough just to grade all the assignments and exams. The only way to stop it is to spend time interacting and discussing with the students. In most large public universities, this is damn near impossible.
Excellent post. This is why I read slashdot. Occasionally you see posts like this and the two above it that are fair, well-reasoned, and articulate. Thank you.
Video games simply haven't been around for long enough. We've seen developers that are attempting to create "artistic" games (Rez, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, others) as well as developers trying to push forward in gameplay, storytelling, etc. However, none have managed to be a breakthrough success (either commercially or artistically).
I believe that the growth of independent games is absolutely necessary for video games to mature as a medium. We as a community need to support those developers that are willing to take risks. We need to support those people that are willing to challenge conventions. Right now, the big developers have no reason not to make more crappy FPS/strategy clones. If you look at the movie scene, most of the creative and challenging movies don't come from the large studios, they come from independents. We need that in video games.
Look at some of the best games of the last couple years. Quake 4, Doom 3, Civ 4, Half-Life 2, etc. are all games that are taking minor steps forward. Sure, the gravity gun is cool, but how special is it? Ten years ago, could you say that you would be blown away by any of these games? Other than the graphics and minor gameplay tweaks, nothing much has changed. We need people willing to take risks to challenge accepted styles, and we need a community to support these people.
Actually, the age of consent in most US states is 16. A few states have an even lower age as long as the age difference between the two people isn't too large. Your point is still valid, though.
The cop chasing someone into a department store has a reasonable suspicion that someone in the department store has committed a crime. In situtations where a crime is currently being committed or someone is in immediate danger, allowances are made to protect people from harm. It is likely that the FBI had a reason to look at these students specifically, however no one outside the bureau knows that reason. There was no judicial oversight.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that since this information was transferred from a different federal department that had no relation to law enforcement it should have required some sort of warrant. In your analogy , the cop is looking at information that is already publicly available (i.e. your face). Your financial history is definitely not supposed to be public information.
There should be some sort of process where a person outside of the executive branch (like a judge) oversees requests for this information. It is routine for other types of crime, why is terrorism an exception? Although in this case it may seem justified on the surface, if a precedent like this is established it may lead to very harsh consequences. There are restrictions on the executive branch for a reason.
Bring us another transparent attempt for an outsider to seem authorative about the games industry, this one's broken.
It's not like they're carving these categories in stone. It was a survey put out by a marketing research firm...meaning they are trying to find out more about the market. Their results simply showed that there are other market segments other than casual and hardcore, and that the game industry is missing large opportunities by ignoring these segments. Their categorizations are a little fuzzy, but all market segmentation is inherently arbitrary. It's hardly a ridiculous idea.
I was going to start hacking this to pieces, but it's so obvious I just can't be bothered any more.
What made you hate the article so much? Because I can't really see why you think it's so terrible. It's not great by any means, but it's not horrible either. It seems to me like you're just trolling, with a little bit of karma whoring thrown in.
1) In 1943, the US did not have the military strength necessary to handle a war in the Pacific and a land invasion of Europe at the same time. Remember, Pearl Harbor happened in December, 1942. There would not have been enough time to train and equip armies of millions in only a few months. The majority of the operations in the European/African theatre that year were performed by the British military, with American and other Allied support.
2) The Eastern Front had not yet turned fully against the Germans. The Battle of Stalingrad ended in February. The Soviets pushed about as hard and as fast as any army in history and only managed to get to the former Soviet-Polish border by the end of the year. There was absolutely no way they would've been able to put the same pressure on Germany that they did in 1944.
3) France is right next to Great Britain. This seems like an obvious point to me. The total amount of troops, machinery, and supplies necesesary to be landed for a full amphibious invasion was absolutely enormous. Overlord almost failed as it was, there was no way an invasion from the south in 1943 would have worked. The logistical task of supplying that many troops in what was former enemy territory (Italy) would have been horrendous. Not to mention they would've had to perform this under the eyes of Italian citizens (where many would've certainly been spying on them). They would've had to establish air fields and move aircraft there in order to provide the proper air cover for the invasion. On top of it all, the invasion would've had to be planned and deployed in a in a few months (Italy surrendered in September 1943). Oh, the invasion also would've happened in fall/winter. It would've been impossible.
From there they could go north through the Rhone valley and reach the German border in a few weeks.
You act as if they were on vacation. Remember (again, it seems like an obvious point) the Germans were trying to stop them! They also happened to be pretty good at that whole war thing. With the number of troops the Allies were bringing, they would've been lucky to make it to Germany in a few weeks if the German army turned around and left.
Or the Allies could have keep going North through Italy.
I have two words for you, Les Alps. In winter. Okay, that was four words. Not a very good idea for an invasion.
You, sir, may want to go back and re-read William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. This time, actually try and think while you are reading. It may help your comprehension. I would also suggest Carlo d'Este's Decision In Normandy. It gives a very detailed account of the Allied decisions approaching the invasion, with exteremely informative footnotes.
It is really hard to build new Hydro plants because people are concerned about the environmental impact. When I livedin the northwest, I heard lots of talk about people wanting to get rid of the hydro dams because they believe it would be beneficial to salmon. (This seems NUTS to me.)
I would wager that you are only saying this because you did not hear the entire argument. What the "environmentalists" have proposed is simply breaching some of the lower-river dams. This would not impact electrical output very much, as these dams do not even begin to approach the size of some of the behemoths further upriver.
Taken from Save Our Wild Salmon. (It seems that this group is largely, but not entirely, funded by fishing groups.)
We focus our efforts on the Columbia and Snake River Basins, where in the time of Lewis and Clark up to 16 million wild salmon returned each year. Today, as few as ten thousand salmon return home to the Snake River. Our current priority is an exciting national campaign to restore these endangered salmon and steelhead by partially removing four dams on the lower Snake River, which in turn will restore the Pacific Northwest's wild salmon and free-flowing rivers as vital economic engines for local communities.
I recognise that environmentalist/ism are politically charged words in the Northwest. I grew up in an area that was absolutely devastated by the whole spotted owl and anti-logging fiasco. I completely understand why people are skeptical. However, this is a very real issue that needs more level-headed public discourse.
Warhammer also ripped off Lord of the Rings in a major way. I can't remember exact references (its been about 8 years since I played), but a huge amount of the names of characters and places are more or less directly taken from LotR. Also, the general geography of the original game bears a striking resemblance to that of Middle Earth.
Ok, my post was a little bit flamebait. I can see why they would use PC, it just bothers me. What I learned is that whether it was a PC or not depended on the use of the computer. The different categories are mainframe, server, PC, imbedded, etc. In my mind it has more to do with how a computer is used, not the particular OS. I'm pretty sure that is where the designation came from, at least originally.
It appears to me that they're using the blanket term PC so that they won't have to worry about angering MS even though it's blatantly obvious that they're criticizing Windows.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that PC stood for personal computer, not Windows. Apple sells PC's that run on a Mac OS. They don't use the name Windows because that would open the possibility for a libel suit, but that is definitely what they are attacking.
This is nothing more than a smear campaign using misleading information. Just because it is Apple, does that suddenly make this behavior ok?
We implemented socialistic programs that didn't really help with the depression and arguably made it worse (World War II is what got us out of the depression, not the New Deal).
That is a ridiculous oversimplification of what happened. Just like there were many factors that caused the Great Depression, there were many factors that ended it. The economy steadily improved (even taking into account some heavy downturns) after the low point of the depression (which generally correlates to the time Roosevelt came into office). The military/industrial jobs that the war provided didn't have a large effect until 1942, long after the depression is considered to have "ended".
Would it kill the FCC to allow us to communicate WITHOUT paying protection money?
Yes. That is why outside influence is needed to return the FCC back to its original purpose: ensuring everyone has equal access to the airwaves. A bureaucracy will never reduce its own power and influence.
I disagree. For the vast majority of undergrad CS subjects, a day or two of revision was plenty. For the 'soft' subjects (management, etc.) a few hours was more than enough to memorise the buzzwords.
I could not disagree more with you. This is terrible advice to give to somebody else. If "the vast majority" of students in class only require a day or two of revision, then your class is too damn easy. Most people struggle with college level programs. I can't remember a single upper level CS class that I haven't had to study days on end in addition to regular studying throughout the semester, and I consider myself one of the smartest students in my class.
As for 'soft' subjects, that is just crap also. If all you have to do to pass a class is take a few hours "to memorise the buzzwords", it isn't because you are smart. It is because your class is too easy. Learning is supposed to be hard. If school is that easy, then you are wasting your time.
How many other billionaires have given many billions of their own money for such purposes? Wait, i'll answer that: None.
Wait, here's an actual answer: a whole hell of a lot of them. People have this misconception that because somebody has a lot of money that they are evil. Here are some billionaires that have given, or have promised to give, a huge percentage of their estate to charity: Warren Buffet, John Huntsman, Sr., Ted Turner, George Soros, Eli Broad, and Alfred Mann.
Also, don't forget the old robber barons (and family) who created some incredibly great things through their gifts to charity: Andrew Carnegie, John_Rockefeller, John_Rockefeller, Jr., Leland Stanford, etc. Stanford, Carnegie, and especially Rockefeller, Sr. were huge assholes in the way they gained their wealth, but gave much of that back to the people through important and enduring social and cultural institutions.
These are just people I can think of off the top of my head. There are plenty of people that I'm forgetting. My point is that you can't simply characterize a person by how much wealth they have, either in a positive or negative way.
Rich people are just that, people. Some are assholes, some are really great people. Some of them recognize that they are fortunate to be where they are and want to give back to the community. Don't be ignorant and assume otherwise.
But that doesn't mean that all of communisms manifestations are doomed. Socialism, which has been exceptionally popular aruond the world, has been one implementation of communist ideas that has been very successful. But they have only been successful because they have had reasonably accountable governments and institutionalized transparency.
I think what you meant is that communism has been one implementation of socialist ideas that has been very unsuccessful. Socialism is the "ideal" and communism was the "implementation". Socialism as an idea was around much longer than communism, it just happens that the first major socialist revolution in the world picked communism as a political/economic system.
Not in the same category as using a no-cd crack to play a warez copy of a game, I'll admit. But I bet the EULA and/or license for the game forbids you from using such software.
A crack or a keygen may make it much easier for you to run software that you are entitled to use, and using one in such a situation might not (and probably will not) result in litigation, but that does not mean it's a legitimate use.
This is a huge gray area, though. Simply becaus they dictate certain terms in the EULA does not mean that they are enforceable. What is or is not fair use in regards to circumventing protection schemes for media that you purchased legitimately has not been established in court, as far as I know. IANAL, but I am also pretty sure that if they know that users are regularly breaking the EULA and do nothing about it (and I don't know of any cases where any company has prosecuted someone for using a no-cd crack) then a person is much less likely to be found at fault for breaking the EULA in court.
The corrupt, and adulterous Republican neo-conservitive leaders found that it was an issue they could use to wrap the public around their fingers (AND IT WORKED, well enough to control congress and the executive branch within 4 years).
Sorry that I don't have enough time to write a more elaborate response, but this is wrong. The Republicans already controlled Congress, and had for some time (about 6 years I believe).
Yea, Reagan, I loved that old guy, it's too bad that the good parts of his legacy were co-opted by the self-serving neo-conservitive bastards who are now in firm control of our government
Reagan was a prick just like Bush, if he would've had the same license (i.e. the 2001 attacks and lack of public remembrance of Watergate) he would be doing the same asshole things. Remember, that was the guy who made "Reaganomics" and "family values" the basis of his platform.
Wouldn't it be even better to protect society from 'ethics criminals'? Oil companies are refusing to do anything to lower pump prices because it's not in the best interest of the shareholders, despite it being in the best interest of society as a whole.
I couldn't disagree more on this particular issue. I think that the end of cheap oil is a godsend at this point. After almost thirty years of fruitless bickering and partisan debate since the oil crisis of the 70's, the market is finally forcing us to wake up to the fact that we are way too dependent on foreign sources of energy. Precisely because of the way big oil is jerking the common folks around (which IMO is just deserts) we are now seriously approaching alternative fuel sources. The oil companies are not "ethics criminals" because they sell a product which is at a very high demand for a very high price. Maybe if we were in the middle of a natural disaster or other situation where it was apparent exploitation was happening it would be different, but right now they are charging a fair price.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to put on my tin foil hat or anything, but we don't really know how sophisticated the US government's mathematics and encryption technologies are. The NSA employs a huge amount of mathematicians (particularly number theorists/cryptologists), and their work certainly isn't made public. They very well may be as far ahead of the rest of the world in those matters as they are militarily.
Don't forget Patrick Hemingway. I'm sure there are more.
Bad example. All you've done there is turn a history paper into a creative writing assignment. If you're in a history class, it might not be the best idea to be testing someone's ability to write from another's perspective. You should be testing their knowledge of what was covered in the class (i.e. history). This doesn't solve the problem.
The real problem is that most professors or teaching assistants don't have the time to be able to check for cheating. If you have a small class where you can directly interact with the professor, they get to know your intelligence, writing style, etc. It becomes pretty obvious when someone is cheating if you know those things. Most classes you just don't have that kind of interaction, so it becomes easier to cheat.
If your education is an assembly-line process, then it should be expected that people will cheat successfully. If there's a class with 300 students and one professor with a few assistants, it is hard enough just to grade all the assignments and exams. The only way to stop it is to spend time interacting and discussing with the students. In most large public universities, this is damn near impossible.
Thank God I never decided to get a mod chip. I had no idea there would be crazy naked marketing parties.
Actually, on second thought...
Not sure if this is what you meant, but here is something for inquiring minds. André the Giant Has A Posse
Excellent post. This is why I read slashdot. Occasionally you see posts like this and the two above it that are fair, well-reasoned, and articulate. Thank you.
Yeah, that's a pretty logical response. Straw Man
Video games simply haven't been around for long enough. We've seen developers that are attempting to create "artistic" games (Rez, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, others) as well as developers trying to push forward in gameplay, storytelling, etc. However, none have managed to be a breakthrough success (either commercially or artistically).
I believe that the growth of independent games is absolutely necessary for video games to mature as a medium. We as a community need to support those developers that are willing to take risks. We need to support those people that are willing to challenge conventions. Right now, the big developers have no reason not to make more crappy FPS/strategy clones. If you look at the movie scene, most of the creative and challenging movies don't come from the large studios, they come from independents. We need that in video games.
Look at some of the best games of the last couple years. Quake 4, Doom 3, Civ 4, Half-Life 2, etc. are all games that are taking minor steps forward. Sure, the gravity gun is cool, but how special is it? Ten years ago, could you say that you would be blown away by any of these games? Other than the graphics and minor gameplay tweaks, nothing much has changed. We need people willing to take risks to challenge accepted styles, and we need a community to support these people.
Actually, the age of consent in most US states is 16. A few states have an even lower age as long as the age difference between the two people isn't too large. Your point is still valid, though.
The cop chasing someone into a department store has a reasonable suspicion that someone in the department store has committed a crime. In situtations where a crime is currently being committed or someone is in immediate danger, allowances are made to protect people from harm. It is likely that the FBI had a reason to look at these students specifically, however no one outside the bureau knows that reason. There was no judicial oversight.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that since this information was transferred from a different federal department that had no relation to law enforcement it should have required some sort of warrant. In your analogy , the cop is looking at information that is already publicly available (i.e. your face). Your financial history is definitely not supposed to be public information.
There should be some sort of process where a person outside of the executive branch (like a judge) oversees requests for this information. It is routine for other types of crime, why is terrorism an exception? Although in this case it may seem justified on the surface, if a precedent like this is established it may lead to very harsh consequences. There are restrictions on the executive branch for a reason.
It's not like they're carving these categories in stone. It was a survey put out by a marketing research firm...meaning they are trying to find out more about the market. Their results simply showed that there are other market segments other than casual and hardcore, and that the game industry is missing large opportunities by ignoring these segments. Their categorizations are a little fuzzy, but all market segmentation is inherently arbitrary. It's hardly a ridiculous idea.
What made you hate the article so much? Because I can't really see why you think it's so terrible. It's not great by any means, but it's not horrible either. It seems to me like you're just trolling, with a little bit of karma whoring thrown in.
You are ignoring three very important points:
1) In 1943, the US did not have the military strength necessary to handle a war in the Pacific and a land invasion of Europe at the same time. Remember, Pearl Harbor happened in December, 1942. There would not have been enough time to train and equip armies of millions in only a few months. The majority of the operations in the European/African theatre that year were performed by the British military, with American and other Allied support.
2) The Eastern Front had not yet turned fully against the Germans. The Battle of Stalingrad ended in February. The Soviets pushed about as hard and as fast as any army in history and only managed to get to the former Soviet-Polish border by the end of the year. There was absolutely no way they would've been able to put the same pressure on Germany that they did in 1944.
3) France is right next to Great Britain. This seems like an obvious point to me. The total amount of troops, machinery, and supplies necesesary to be landed for a full amphibious invasion was absolutely enormous. Overlord almost failed as it was, there was no way an invasion from the south in 1943 would have worked. The logistical task of supplying that many troops in what was former enemy territory (Italy) would have been horrendous. Not to mention they would've had to perform this under the eyes of Italian citizens (where many would've certainly been spying on them). They would've had to establish air fields and move aircraft there in order to provide the proper air cover for the invasion. On top of it all, the invasion would've had to be planned and deployed in a in a few months (Italy surrendered in September 1943). Oh, the invasion also would've happened in fall/winter. It would've been impossible.
You act as if they were on vacation. Remember (again, it seems like an obvious point) the Germans were trying to stop them! They also happened to be pretty good at that whole war thing. With the number of troops the Allies were bringing, they would've been lucky to make it to Germany in a few weeks if the German army turned around and left.
I have two words for you, Les Alps. In winter. Okay, that was four words. Not a very good idea for an invasion.
You, sir, may want to go back and re-read William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. This time, actually try and think while you are reading. It may help your comprehension. I would also suggest Carlo d'Este's Decision In Normandy. It gives a very detailed account of the Allied decisions approaching the invasion, with exteremely informative footnotes.
I would wager that you are only saying this because you did not hear the entire argument. What the "environmentalists" have proposed is simply breaching some of the lower-river dams. This would not impact electrical output very much, as these dams do not even begin to approach the size of some of the behemoths further upriver.
Taken from Save Our Wild Salmon. (It seems that this group is largely, but not entirely, funded by fishing groups.)
It's not like they're going to get rid of Grand Coolee or Chief Joseph.
I did a quick google search, here are some websites that give a little more information on the subject:
Center For Columbia River History
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon State University
University of Washington
I recognise that environmentalist/ism are politically charged words in the Northwest. I grew up in an area that was absolutely devastated by the whole spotted owl and anti-logging fiasco. I completely understand why people are skeptical. However, this is a very real issue that needs more level-headed public discourse.
Warhammer also ripped off Lord of the Rings in a major way. I can't remember exact references (its been about 8 years since I played), but a huge amount of the names of characters and places are more or less directly taken from LotR. Also, the general geography of the original game bears a striking resemblance to that of Middle Earth.
Ok, my post was a little bit flamebait. I can see why they would use PC, it just bothers me. What I learned is that whether it was a PC or not depended on the use of the computer. The different categories are mainframe, server, PC, imbedded, etc. In my mind it has more to do with how a computer is used, not the particular OS. I'm pretty sure that is where the designation came from, at least originally.
It appears to me that they're using the blanket term PC so that they won't have to worry about angering MS even though it's blatantly obvious that they're criticizing Windows.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that PC stood for personal computer, not Windows. Apple sells PC's that run on a Mac OS. They don't use the name Windows because that would open the possibility for a libel suit, but that is definitely what they are attacking.
This is nothing more than a smear campaign using misleading information. Just because it is Apple, does that suddenly make this behavior ok?
That is a ridiculous oversimplification of what happened. Just like there were many factors that caused the Great Depression, there were many factors that ended it. The economy steadily improved (even taking into account some heavy downturns) after the low point of the depression (which generally correlates to the time Roosevelt came into office). The military/industrial jobs that the war provided didn't have a large effect until 1942, long after the depression is considered to have "ended".
Yes. That is why outside influence is needed to return the FCC back to its original purpose: ensuring everyone has equal access to the airwaves. A bureaucracy will never reduce its own power and influence.
I could not disagree more with you. This is terrible advice to give to somebody else. If "the vast majority" of students in class only require a day or two of revision, then your class is too damn easy. Most people struggle with college level programs. I can't remember a single upper level CS class that I haven't had to study days on end in addition to regular studying throughout the semester, and I consider myself one of the smartest students in my class.
As for 'soft' subjects, that is just crap also. If all you have to do to pass a class is take a few hours "to memorise the buzzwords", it isn't because you are smart. It is because your class is too easy. Learning is supposed to be hard. If school is that easy, then you are wasting your time.
Wait, here's an actual answer: a whole hell of a lot of them. People have this misconception that because somebody has a lot of money that they are evil. Here are some billionaires that have given, or have promised to give, a huge percentage of their estate to charity: Warren Buffet, John Huntsman, Sr., Ted Turner, George Soros, Eli Broad, and Alfred Mann.
Also, don't forget the old robber barons (and family) who created some incredibly great things through their gifts to charity: Andrew Carnegie, John_Rockefeller, John_Rockefeller, Jr., Leland Stanford, etc. Stanford, Carnegie, and especially Rockefeller, Sr. were huge assholes in the way they gained their wealth, but gave much of that back to the people through important and enduring social and cultural institutions.
These are just people I can think of off the top of my head. There are plenty of people that I'm forgetting. My point is that you can't simply characterize a person by how much wealth they have, either in a positive or negative way.
Rich people are just that, people. Some are assholes, some are really great people. Some of them recognize that they are fortunate to be where they are and want to give back to the community. Don't be ignorant and assume otherwise.
I think what you meant is that communism has been one implementation of socialist ideas that has been very unsuccessful. Socialism is the "ideal" and communism was the "implementation". Socialism as an idea was around much longer than communism, it just happens that the first major socialist revolution in the world picked communism as a political/economic system.
I really wish there was a way to mod something above +5 funny. Excellent response.
This is a huge gray area, though. Simply becaus they dictate certain terms in the EULA does not mean that they are enforceable. What is or is not fair use in regards to circumventing protection schemes for media that you purchased legitimately has not been established in court, as far as I know. IANAL, but I am also pretty sure that if they know that users are regularly breaking the EULA and do nothing about it (and I don't know of any cases where any company has prosecuted someone for using a no-cd crack) then a person is much less likely to be found at fault for breaking the EULA in court.
Sorry that I don't have enough time to write a more elaborate response, but this is wrong. The Republicans already controlled Congress, and had for some time (about 6 years I believe).
Reagan was a prick just like Bush, if he would've had the same license (i.e. the 2001 attacks and lack of public remembrance of Watergate) he would be doing the same asshole things. Remember, that was the guy who made "Reaganomics" and "family values" the basis of his platform.
I couldn't disagree more on this particular issue. I think that the end of cheap oil is a godsend at this point. After almost thirty years of fruitless bickering and partisan debate since the oil crisis of the 70's, the market is finally forcing us to wake up to the fact that we are way too dependent on foreign sources of energy. Precisely because of the way big oil is jerking the common folks around (which IMO is just deserts) we are now seriously approaching alternative fuel sources. The oil companies are not "ethics criminals" because they sell a product which is at a very high demand for a very high price. Maybe if we were in the middle of a natural disaster or other situation where it was apparent exploitation was happening it would be different, but right now they are charging a fair price.