No, that's covered. God created us (and the universe, etc.) He knows at any given time what all the inputs to our decisions can be. He also knows what is the outcome of every decision we can make (all possible futures). Depending on how one views alternate space-times, he may exist across all the space-times which cover the decision tree -- but that's a bit orthogonal. Even though he knows all possible decisions and repercussions which can ensue -- we still have the choice of which fork of the decision tree is taken. That's free will. In short, we choose our own universe out of all possible universes every second of every day. God knows all of them regardless of our choice -- and we're held to the standard of the ones we actually chose.

Or God is both omniscient and omnipotent (as it says on the tin) -- and being omniscient knows not only all of the past, present and future -- but all possible pasts, presents and futures (a God who is outside of time by virtue of creating time and space is probably going to be that anyway, right?).

Therefore -- God is certainly aware of all potential sins by humanity - but free will allows the choice not to sin. Simply put, God knows the worst we can be -- and simply wishes us the best possible world (and future).

I think you can see from the adult (or from placental/umbilical) stem cell research being much less controversial (I want to say unopposed.. but I'm sure there's someone, somewhere that has some problem with it -- I haven't heard of any widespread objection, though) that if you removed the source of the ethical concern that there would be less resistance. Seems rather obvious, really.

But no, I disagree that there's a distinction here. Those who have an ethical issue with stem cell research that destroys the embryos can still disagree with funding it, regardless of what benefit society supposedly receives (in the same manner that while we may ask citizens to volunteer their lives for their country -- not many would volunteer others to benefit society. And this is one of the fundamental points of disagreement that makes this an ethical issue -- is an embryo at this point an "other"? Does that matter if so? Those who answer "Yes" and "Yes" are not going to support this no matter what benefit is claimed -- in the same way that (if they're consistent) they wouldn't support harvesting organs from prison inmates to better society, etc.).

From that ethical perspective any reduction of an individual or individuals to "property" to be disposed of by society as a whole is a regression of liberty (and really a return to a slave class) which outweighs the benefits to those who profit from the activity. As such, like the war protesters -- the activity from their perspective is NOT in the public's best interest.

Riiight... which is why the Catholic Church is such a proponent of IVF.

Oh wait -- that's in Bizarro land.

As far as fertility drugs, they're apparently generally fine with them -- simply cautioning that large multiple pregnancies put both mother and infants at risk.

Sorry to burst your bubble but some of these "arrogant and self centered" folk are more consistent than you think. (And I would think on at least the "arrogant" front that there's a little speech about not worrying about the mote in your neighbor's eye....)

Turn the argument around for a moment, though. Why must your beliefs mandate that another individual fund (via mandatory taxation) research they view as fundamentally unethical? (And yes -- there are other things taxes may pay for folks may find unethical... I have nothing but empathy for a true pacifist who has to help fund the War Department, etc.) Can you blame them for petitioning those who both impose the taxation and fund the research about their grievances (you know, participating in the democratic process and all)? If you feel they can be and should be outvoted -- get the law changed. If they can't and you want to fund it anyway, then don't use mandatory taxation funds to do so (fund it yourself, do it at the state level where you can get the law passed, etc.) The ruling isn't that the funding is unconstitutional -- you have reasonable redress here.

I'd not only accept your offer -- but welcome it. Having ethical concerns with a practice and not being entirely sure that the fruits of the practice are identifiable (and hence avoidable) is a much worse state that if we could be sure that those who find this troubling could fully avoid supporting or abetting the practice by buying products or services derived from it.

Lobby Congress and the President (who are rather in the majority at the moment) to change the law in the first place?

Oh wait... that's not weaseling, sorry.. I'll come in again.

No, can't say I noticed that at all.

Next question?

I'd say it is way too little in some cases, unless you can psychically be assured that the ebook will sell many copies. And while lower price / supply and demand may encourage that, I wouldn't be certain that's always sufficiently the case.

I can't help but think of Stephen R. Donaldson in this discussion -- his General Interview on his website touches on ebooks, publishing and author's rights several times, and it fairly well boils down to "As long as I receive a reasonable remuneration for my work, things are fine."

And here's the catch -- it is pretty obvious to me (as very much a non-writer), that it is a serious level of work. And as such, I'm more than willing to pay a reasonable price as compensation. $9.99 for all his books (given he's more than a little of an acquired taste and unfortunately doesn't seem likely to build a huge new readership)? Unlikely to be enough unless we could ensure that money went mostly directly to him. So -- in the same way I prefer acquiring his work in hardback to both get a product that lasts better through multiple reads and to knowingly pay the "early adopter" fees that funnel more money his way than el-cheapo paperback editions, I would pay more for an e-book as a support mechanism.

I'm sure others have similar niche or less popular authors, or can cite other examples such as more limited interest books (some of the more arcane history texts probably fall into this category).

Back more on-topic, there's no way I'm ever buying a serious book with anything jumping, wiggling, flashing or spamming me. Nor do I want a book which requires a net connection to update or check anything. Probably why I have no interest in an ebook reader in the first place.

I don't remember Carly being bumped for misconduct - it was performance and just generally clashing with the board once too often, if I recall correctly [Hey, maybe I don't].

You may be thinking of Patricia Dunn who left the board due to the pretexting scandal when she was Chairwoman. That's when Hurd got both roles (even though the board and he made such a big deal about how that was such a danger when Carly was ousted... funny how that didn't seem to be a problem for them anymore...)

You rather glossed over the whole inaccurate expense reports, misappropriation of corporate resources and undisclosed close relationship with a contractor part of things that was uncovered while investigating the non-violation. Either that or your opinion of "didn't really do anything wrong" is substantively different than most other folks'. Perhaps you should get your resume over to the HP board soon?

$40 to $50 million by current estimates: http://www.businessinsider.com/hp-severance-2010-8.

Part of me wonders if it was actually in his contract that even on being fired for ethical/criminal reasons [i.e. not just fired because "we don't think you're pumping the stock quite enough"] he gets a severance or if the board just wants this over with / is such pals with him / whatnot that they gave it to him anyway. If the former is true -- the hiring committees really need to make better contracts (and stop being packed with the friends of the folks they're hiring... but I suppose that's what happens when boards keep cross-pollinating as they do).

You're too boring and camera shy for the photos to exist in the first place.

Works for me, anyway....

No one is suggesting getting rid of all nukes- MAD works.

... well, except for President Obama, that is:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/06/obamas-nuclear-free-world-dont-bet-on-it/ Or do you think he meant something else by "a world without nuclear weapons"?

Not really hard. Buy two 2 TB drives, fill them with the same, cryptographically strong random data. Travel with both drives to one secure endpoint, deposit one drive there. Return to the other secure endpoint, deposit the other drive there. The drives are never out of your possession until they are in the hands of the other trusted party. Depending on what kind of crap you are encrypting, 2 TB is plenty of pad to last for quite some time.

If physically traveling to the endpoints with the pads is cost-prohibitive, then the data you are protecting probably isn't important enough for OTP anyway.