Comment Re:Thank you (Score 1) 242
No bastard ever changed his country by suffering for his ideology. He changed it by making the other poor dumb bastard suffer for his ideology.
No bastard ever changed his country by suffering for his ideology. He changed it by making the other poor dumb bastard suffer for his ideology.
The program itself is just an executable jar you have to configure, comes bundled with a tomcat if I remember correctly
uh I mean tomcat server not this
The engineer designs/builds the stuff. Someone else uses the stuff unethically.
True an engineer can't know ahead of time exactely how/when/where say an American combat rifle will be used. However, seeing that after 9/11 we invaded 2 countries that had little (Afghanistan) and no (Iraq) connection to it but do have strategic uses/oil (rich tasty oil) its pretty clear the US will use those weapons as it chooses, unilaterally (more or less) and in violation of international law and any sense of morality.
It would be like suggesting chemical weapons research for Bashar al-Assad might be used to find new cures. Technically true but the precedent suggests otherwise.
Pretty much anything can be weaponized; some things more directly than others, but in the end, whatever you design, think, build, imagine can (and likely will) be used to hurt others, be they human beings or animals.
We should build more powerful nukes because people would just knife each other anyway?
Logistics matter a great deal, saying the internet is worthless because USPS is a reliable means of transmitting information would be moronic.
if John Doe is an engineer and he's offered a military industry job, then if he turns it down, someone else will take it.
And someone else can deal with the ethics of that.
"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." Don't pretend you have higher ethics than what your actions reflect, you don't.
Also, the article implies that an engineer should think of all possible implications when working on something, including ethical use of the product. Which brings back the original statement: you can't make sure that the product will only be used in an ethical manner. It's an impossibility. The only assurance would be that no engineer builds anything anymore. And I'm pretty sure that most people would loathe shivering in a cave with only a raw pelt covering their skin. Just sayin'...
I completely agree that there could be times an engineer is working on a project and not predict how that technology, even fairly directly, could be used for purposes they would never condone. I, personally, would only ask that an engineer make an honest attempt to determine if immoral uses are possible and reasonably likely in lifetime of the technology and use that to judge the work as ethical or not. A standard would need a more concrete definition and thus more consideration than I can put into this comment.
Saying an engineer shouldn't design a better non-lethal weapon is like saying a doctor shouldn't treat a wounded soldier.
FTFY (Even that is arguable given they could be used to enforce a police state, and that non-lethal weapons can cause permanent injury)
However of course this may be impossible or impractical with current technology. Ex. I imagine it would be impractical with current technology to disable an aircraft or submarine without virtually guaranteeing the death of some/all occupants.
Wars are frequently started not for moral reasons but merely justified by citing some moral argument with no connection to reality. Designing better lethal weapons for a country (read America) that is already generations of military tech ahead of all allies and much more so enemies with the justification of "saving lives" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.
So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.
Forcing yourself on others in any way is violence. If you don't leave, if you block a path, don't kid yourself that your are not being violent and potentially inciting a (well-deserved) violent response.
violence
noun
1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"Sitting in" does not damage anything. Disobedience is not by definition harmful and the last century has shown it can be central to movements doing great good.
It is precisely because the violent responses were so clearly undeserved and one-sided that those movements were successful.
Only in academia
No. You should read the blog post titled "If You Want to Know What a Falsified Resume Looks Like, Here's an Example"
When the compliants are 'company policy does not tolerate lying on resumes' and workers (Cheri Sidney in the blog) are hired and promoted after demonstrably lying on their resume (for 90k+ jobs not some CSR job) the point is no longer arguable.
Hypocrasy is not a subjective value.
With younger generations, it may be that they've never used e-mail for that purpose to begin with.
I haven't. Never even thought about it, I'd rather use my cell phone.
I would be inclined to say this is already a problem, especially since it seems like many of them ignore obvious information sources (such as congressional voting records of incumbents) in favor of soundbites.
To clarify I meant that scandals wouldn't have time to be researched and surface. I don't like media hype on scandals more than the next person, but the longterm pressure on Palin when showing her extreme religious beliefs and lack of experience may have taken away votes from those who would otherwise have reflexively voted R (some in my family choose not to vote for that reason). I think you bring up a good point, and the benefits may out way the disadvantages (sadly as I think in an ideal world you would have a long run up to get plenty of information about the candidates).
What I agree with
What I disagree with
Neutral
What I suggest
TL;DR: If you will not put forth the effort to at least skim it your opinion isn't of interest to me.
Except wikileaks (and Assange himself) is already known to embellish the truth, or even outright fabricate it. For example, what they claimed were cameras in that "collateral murder" video were in fact weapons. I'm not even an expert and I clearly saw both Kalashnikov and RPG being carried by those people walking - I don't know how anybody could mistake those for cameras. Assange himself admitted that his intent is to cause outcry, even if he has to lie about it.
All of which are false (those in fact were cameras, held by the two reporters named Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh working for Reuters), more info here. I think we have additional evidence that in fact bloggers are a much worse source of news than reporters. Instead tending to reinforce the beliefs and opinions of those that seek them out rather than provide accurate commentary. Slashdot, please mod AlphaWolf_HK down.
There is enough leftist hatred and antisemitism in the Guardian to kill a civilization.
Great! Then you will have no trouble citing multiple stories The Guardian has written indicating as much.
For extra points provide some commentary from other news sources, which typically leaning pro-Israel (especially in America), would no doubt have torn apart those same Guardian stories.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion