Do you care to explain why it is silly?

FYI the budget of NASA is approximately $18bln/year. $2mln is not even the rounding error.

Well said. Even if the probability of detection is low $2mln/year is next to nothing for what could be a huge payoff.

My question is how can morality adapt to something which is immoral -- by the very fact of such adaptation these things become moral.
You have given a few good examples of exactly that process happening in the society.

We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models.

If morality can adapt to "immoral" models, do they become moral thereby?

She may be a terrorist after all, you never know.

The Statue of Liberty is not going to go to California, while the professors from the CS department might.

They can just take the energy of whatever engine they use to accelerate to relativistic speeds and apply it as a weapon. That would be far more powerful than any nuclear explosion. This relies on the assumption that they fly at relativistic speeds. There are two alternatives -- they can travel for thousands of years in a slow massive ship, in which case the technology needed to assemble and to accelerate such an object would need to be equally impressive. Another possibility is that they use some unknown technology for faster than light travel/wormholes, etc. In that case their technology is likely to be beyond our understanding.

> They have a ship. We have a planet.

And Cortez had a few hundred conquistadors against all of the Atzek empire.

Good point, I was assuming we were near Earth, but that is not necessary. Still, would make little difference in the foreseeable future.

Thanks for pointing that out, seems like an amusing story!

But probably not very likely. Thing about even our human history -- ability to sail long distances correlated pretty strongly with superior weaponry and technology.

I have also thought about that comparison, but decided against it. Ants have a tendency to spread, but fish are constrained in a barrel, just like us on Earth.

> and if they make it this far, they aren't going to waste their precious resources trying to kill us.

Actually, if they make it this far, killing us (if they are inclined to do so) would be a trivial exercise, like shooting fish in a barrel.

This makes sense for moderate size stockholders with varied holdings, who value a steady cash flow. For immense fortunes like his, almost completely invested in one company, it would make much more sense to sell stock.

"You are old, Father William," the young man said,
"And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head—
Do you think, at your age, it is right?"

"In my youth," Father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."

Why would he care so much about dividends? He can just sell a bit of his stock. The capital gain tax is also 15%, makes no difference either way.