Everyone who snitches feels conflicted and jeopardizes their lives and everyone else's by doing so in a way, but it would threaten more lives if you did not snitch. You know your buddy is getting stoned by crack rocks or you know they are stoning people with crack rocks, but you understand what drove them to do it. Explain to the judge that they have already been stoned, and you don't want the judge to crucify them further in rusted jail cells. Then explain that to them because they apparently don't understand that what you are doing is in their best interest. My name is Andrew Harris, and I was a cold hearted son of a bitch, who snitched to an extent that you may not even believe and told them.

There are a good number of Christians and other peaceful groups in the UK that are discriminated against for various reasons. I think he should. More power to Mr. Wales.

Maybe they will open source the whole thing and give you the option of installing it on any of their devices, allowing the community to continue it much further. It sounds like a much better idea to me. Redhat once upon a time had a distribution for the home user, which stopped at 9, I think. Anyway, they released it to the community, and Fedora is pretty cool over all. I'm more of a debian man myself. Out sourcing software can be a really good thing for Nokia. I just hate for all that symbian code and Lumia 900 and prior phones to go to waste, with Microsoft not supporting them and all. Could you get a pretty girl with a southern accent to say that to them with tears in her eyes?

I think that sometimes it's better to outsource software projects, but the biggest problem is.... the same old sob story. I bought this phone six months ago, and I can't afford to pay $500 for an upgrade this month or any time in the next six months. So, I'll have to make do with insecure software because the company that develops the software abandoned it. That's why I've supported open source software projects for the past fourteen years with donations, purchases, and even putting up with buggy software only to send in information about the glitches. That required dedication and at times sacrifice in a way. True, I always tried to make sure my hardware was supported before upgrading it, but you know the way the wheels turn. This could be a huge amount of negative PR for Nokia and Microsoft, especially if there are a good number of people who have a Lumia 900 who never upgrade and Nokia never helps in the effort to port Debian Linux or something similar to it. I'm a stock holder too. This is really bad news. I'd written them a letter a while back. Maybe they will actually read it and take a hint. I always heard that if you own stock they might actually listen to you, so maybe if enough people like me buy stock while it's dirt cheap, they will change their minds.

I think it's heroic to try to weed these sites and things off of the internet and get the guys busted. True, people will sometimes say the guy that blew the whistle was a sicko, but the fact of the matter is, especially in this guy's case, he was there to keep this kind of thing from disturbing people, alert authorities, and make the world a safer place. That's like one of the most horrible things you can do to a guy. Give him a job that almost nobody wants because they realize what they will have to deal with, then not pay for the therapy afterwards. Shun shun... It should be a requirement for companies that have people doing this to pay for therapy for the employee. I saw happy_place's comment, and I'd be prone to agree. The problem is that there are always things that would be hard for anyone to talk about fifteen minutes into a therapy session with some weirdo who seems to be way to curious about their personal life. Therapy starts by gaining trust, and if the therapist sends you for a type of therapy and you read in the paper work that it gives them the right to tell the media your medical history, then they have betrayed your trust already. Unless someone confesses to literally killing someone or something of that nature, it's not the media's effing business. Some things are left private for a good reason.

Everyone in their right minds questions the intentions of the government. If you take a walk down the streets of many a town, even in rural areas thought of as very hospitable, you will see some degree of oppression. I saw a video once called 9/11 loose change, and I also read some of the declassified materials then and some having to do with drug related operations prior to the fast and the furious scandal. I've personally seen a few things first hand that would make you really wonder about what is going on here, and I admit I've probably said some things about the government that looking back on it may have been a bit far fetched. It's his right to think this, but making direct threats at people is a problem. The man probably has PTSD. Lord knows that anyone who survives some of the things of war or the drug ridden counter culture will definitely have PTSD. I'd wonder if he cracked under stress, and I wouldn't be so quick to strip him of his metals... Get him off the streets and get him some help, yea, definitely. Having said what he said there are probably a good number of people who probably really want to kill him, and he's probably been in danger for quite a while anyway. Sounds like he needs to go to discretion grove for pudding cups and art therapy...

I think that if we start censoring the web, it could cause a major problem. Like this will be overlooked by many because of the title. Most of the time websites are overlooked because of their title or content, whether it be because it's misinformed or something you simply don't want to see. There is a problem though. The problem is laws, other than copyright laws, are often video taped and placed on the web. I personally don't go looking for anything crazy on the web, but I feel as though it'd be my right to censor my home network of certain things, especially if a child were present. Let's face it, somethings are big boy talk. Other things aren't. I agree that for education's sake, human right's sake, , many websites shouldn't be censored by a parent. It's important to discuss the views contained from an educated stand point with your children, but there are some sites... I'd prefer that I'd never seen them. I'm sure almost anyone could agree they've run across a few that should definitely not be on the web, and there are probably a few that should definitely not be in open view for anyone with unrestricted internet or access to a tunnel to view. The question is where should this line be drawn. Over all, I'm for net neutrality, unless that physically hurts another human being is literally being committed in plain view. Like should a child be able to easily get their hands on pornographic materials, definitely not. Whether or not it should be legal in the first place is a different story altogether, and what should be legal in that domain and what should not be legal, and then you run into the whole big can of worms because this may infringe on someone's religious freedom or something of that sort. Of course, all human beings can fall into temptation, Lord knows I have in several ways throughout the years. To paraphrase the Bible, I'd say out of sinners I am chief. Or something to that affect. The beauty of Christianity is the idea of redemption, reform, and hope. Even to people who have done horrible things. So is it a corporation or media provider's right to censor the web? I think it is, as long as they are not the sole provider of services to an area, and it is well documented in their user agreements. I live in an area where there are very few provider of internet services, and I don't think it's right, especially since there are other services provided to people within walking distances of the area in both directions. So, if it is their right to do so, a person, like me, given they are abiding by typical American law, should definitely be protected under some kind of clause in federal law in that circumstance especially. I'll personally be voting against Obama for a few reasons, but his stances on net neutrality are fairly agreeable to anyone with any sense.

I've heard that every man woman and child could fit in the state of Rhode Island for quite some time now. I don't think over population is the root of what is destroying our society, but personally, I look up to any man or woman who chooses to be celebate for the rest of their lifetime because of the realization that even though I find Jane's Addiction to be out there. "Sex is violent" is a line I'll never forget because no matter how you look at it, it has to do with dominance, even when mutual gratification and reproduction is the goal. I honestly hope to marry one day, but facing the problems that our society faces now, it may not be wise to procreate. And there are obvious health risks involved in homosexuality, no matter how respectable a homosexual may try to be in what they do behind closed curtains. This is why if I were in a position, like being a minister, I would not marry a homosexual couple because I respect them enough to tell them the dangers of what they are doing to each other, rather than saying, "yea, just go do your thing. Ain't bothering me none." I wouldn't go as far to say kill them because if you read the scripture about homosexuality in Romans it goes on to say not to kill them or judge them because you may be found worthy of death as well. If it came down to nazi-ism over personal choices, it would end with most people dying because they'd done something someone else found to be horrible.

I think the date of the end of this world is set in stone, but I do that our actions obviously play into the quality of life that we have here. Obviously, if you slam into a tree going 90 mph, you're at least going to break a bone or two in most cases. It's important to advance medical technology, but it's true that with anything there are ethical implications. Like the article where 29% of medical device failure is caused by software problems. Is it ethical, knowing that a pacemaker could get hacked, to regulate it over the same networks our browsers crawl? Wouldn't it be smarter to have those networks on a more strict protocol on separate towers? Anyway, I feel as though humanity as a whole was destined to overall destroy itself both by things we do to the ecosystem and to ourselves. Humanity as a whole is insane. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do" didn't merely apply to Jesus thinking, "they really shouldn't be beating me". I think it had to do with the fact that people in general don't understand the full implications of what they do and say, nor do I think that I know every reaction to everything that I've ever done. Thus is life, sadly. It'd be wise to use smarted technologies for sure.

I also realize that the Japanese and Vietnamese are two distinctively different tribes, but you get my drift.

I wouldn't say it's a completely irrational fear. It's been found to be true that many of the US of A's nuclear plants are subpar in some ways, especially against damage from earth quakes. There is a fault line in our area, and there is a power plant about one hundred miles from where I personally live. Many people think it to be foolish to worry about such a devastating event, but since this hype and fear, there have been at least two earthquakes in our area. This is something most people here were misinformed about. Then there were a few small quakes, which only caused some minor damage. One of them was actually pretty close to where I live. "That'll be the day" is the phrase that most people would have used to describe a situation like the disaster in Japan occurring in the area I live in prior to the recent quakes. I wouldn't say to rush out and buy a huge stock pile of potassium iodide, but it's important to have that around in an area like this one anyway. There is a base near by, and you never know. Nothing to have panic attacks over, but it's something to keep in mind. I heard that the disaster in Japan may have left many of the women infertile. This is disturbing to me because for a number of years, the Japanese have been allies to us. I have a cousin that was adopted from Vietnam, and I worry that their race may become extinct. Rational fear is healthy. Irrational fear causes more problems, like shortages of potassium iodide in areas where it really is needed immediately. Anyway, I wouldn't put my head between my legs and kiss it good bye just yet.

I don't feel as though it would be in a country's best interest to genetically engineer children because as far as I can tell, geneticists don't know enough about the way it works to even cure some genetic problems that seem like that would be easy to cure. Take for instances Epidermolysis Bullosa. It seems as though it would be easy to cure, given that a close relative donate some of their stemcells to do some testing because it has to do with the way the layers of skin adhere to one another, but the problem is we don't know enough about the way these things work to do this yet. Should we genetically engineer children without knowing for sure if the process we use will cause more harm to a child than good, and it would not be wise to try to be like the spartans and kill the ones that come out a little different. Surprisingly enough, there are a good number of people with problems that occurred throughout their lifetimes with problems caused by genetics that have played a major role in shaping science and our society in general to be what it is today, good or bad. It sounds like a great idea, like heroin or pcp, which were originally used to treat horrible pain and to put people under anethesia. Then, later on, they were deemed to be mostly unfit for the use in humans because of long living effects afterwards. How then could we learn more about genetic engineering? Well, there have been several experiments in which a person donated their own stem cells for research for a cure for their untreatable disease. There is a difference between this and using an unborn child to get the cells or as an experiment, and yes, I agree there may be a situation where an unborn child would be born in such a condition where it would be very cruel to allow it's birth. But, I think that this is a judgement call that should have a very well informed and ethical doctor in charge. Like it may be merciful to mercy kill someone by not extending their life support for thirty years after they are brain dead. The problem is that at times people wake up from 30 year brain dead comas, and it would not be wise to turn the machine off on every brain dead person, same with an unborn child. So that's a very fine line that geneticists would be walking, and it's questionable whether or not it's a call for a person at all to make in the first place.

Darwin's theory is that, a theory, so including it in course material is hypocritical for those who say the state should not sponsor a religion. Atheism too is taken on faith in a sense. Appears to be the lack of faith, but in a lot of cases, it takes a whole lot of faith to believe that. I just saw a man resurrect, ah, perhaps it was just one of those things that are simply chemical...

I'm not an nihilist, but I'm prone to agree that a good bit of what is taught is what is collectively agreed upon by most people who write the books. At times, it's taught by teachers who say before they start teaching that they personally know it to be a lie, yet it is considered to be factual by many people. Much of it is what they want you to believe and in thirty years if the world doesn't end, it'll be another big collective mess of nonsense that is disproven time and time again and ignored.

I think that you shouldn't be so critical of something you don't understand bud. No test that is based on fact should ever include theory, unless the test is on theoretical science. So, i don't think that evolution should be on a test quoted as fact. Why not make it strictly things we know to be true. Like most humans have a heart. Not all humans do, some have mechanisms fashioned by men that replace them, both mechanical and the actual organ.