I mean, did anyone bother to do an environmental impact study before launching something with such worldwide and long-term impact?

Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia wasn't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc?!?!

Was there even a government committee chartered to keep watch to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day weren't harmed?


DIDN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!

Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a "still alive" from at least a majority of the "tens of thousands of editors" who have gone "dead" -- if even a sample of those who don't respond turn out to actually be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault. Remember: just because we don't see a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.

"[self-righteous pissing and moaning, etc.]...so I've gathered up the passwords to the products we make and have been using them as part of my pitch to the competition."

I'm reminded of what I once heard a lady say on the subject of dating married men: "If he'll do it to them he'll eventually do it to you." In your case: any company who'll hire someone based on what they can illegally/immorally bring to the table will treat them like the crap they are when what they brought to the table is used up.

"Causality error" in that they've mistaken the (observed) effect as a "cause". The fact is, the "global recession" has merely revealed a decline in workers' "ethics" that was already there and which had been forming for at least the past several decades. Despite what the talking heads (in both media and the government) are saying, this "economic downturn" is nowhere near as bad as the "Great Depression"; this according to the many "oldsters" I am in frequent conversation with -- my own parents included -- who actually lived through the period rather than merely learning about it from the history books -- and their recollections do not include such a widespread deterioration in the "morals" (their word -- read "ethics") of the population (and yes there were notable exceptions, some accounts of which are a little scary even to modern ears, but by and large people -- at least in this part of the country -- still left their doors unlocked at night; I triple-locked my doors almost religiously during even the much lauded "economic boom time" of just a few years ago!!) Poverty does not cause crime any more than crime causes poverty (including but not by any means limited to the "victims" of Mr. Madoff -- their poverty was caused by a mixture of greed and stupidity.)

"...never match speeds with someone in the lane next to you...

That is annoying (especially on the relatively narrow "two-lane-divided-highway" -vs- the typical interstate), but I'll gladly take that over the guy who plays

EVERY car has one to several blind spots (the bigger the vehicle the bigger the blind spot(s), etc.) and at least if the bonehead is right beside you you've got a snowball's chance of noticing him when you go to change lanes for the guy riding your bumper.

btw, I've maintained that Slashdot's approaching the "tipping point" towards AI for years now, and yet another proof is in the captcha for this post: "evasion" ....spooky!

There's two reasons now to fear the British government!

Hmph, as if the lizard people didn't target the thermal scanner operators' union for infiltration first!!

Speaking just from my experience almost six years ago at the Shanghai International Airport, it's pretty hard to miss: first they ask you to sign a card stating that you have not taken a bunch of fever reducer, then they set up the thermal scanner on one end of the sprawling airport and the check-in desk at the other, and give you ten minutes to run (and I do mean run -- my travelling party looked like we were trying to re-enact a certain rent-a-car commercial from bygone days) from one end of the place to the other and back again with all your luggage (because the luggage check is the next thing you get to do after that -- we were all amazed that a dozen sweaty Americans (it was November and they just, culturally, seem to have a different idea of what a "comfortable" temperature is) running around like maniacs didn't set off some kind of alarm. Looking back, the "thermal imaging camera" didn't bear any labels attesting to that -- it could just as well have belonged to the Chinese equivalent of "Candid Camera", and if so I'm sure they got a good laugh...

The "buying votes" reference points back to your original post about "socialism" -- confiscatory redistribution of personal wealth (or "spreading the wealth around", as we've recently heard admitt...er, mentioned) is wholly unnecessary to fund the maintenance of infrastructure, pursuit of noble causes, and long-term/advanced (albeit apparently esoteric to the "uninformed masses") research, let alone to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I'm well aware that some level of taxation is necessary and should even be considered a personal responsibility (though not necessarily "patriotic"; one of the most memorable incidents of our nation's founding days involved a revolt by bona-fide "patriots" against what they felt to be unfair and misrepresentative taxation), but if the overall tax burden on the "average citizen" (is there really any such person?) were in line with what is really necessary to fund the basic functions of government (rather than the extravagance of funding it's crept toward in the last century -- in direct contrast to the obvious intent of the founders) then those average citizens might have the financial wherewithall to voluntarily fund some of these "grand causes" that exceed the basics. It would then be incumbent upon the recipients of those "bonus" funds to explain why they're so necessary -- a "pain", more than likely, but if a researcher isn't able to inspire enough others to feel the same way he does about the mating habits of the Ugandan Bangabon Fly or whatever to voluntarily fund his research then why should those same people be coerced into funding it? Very easily enough people see the value in developing flu vaccines, cleaner-burning coal, stronger and longer-lasting bridges, and even (nowadays) a faster and more secure internet but why should these popularly important things be lumped-together with endeavors that can only successfully garner funding from a politician?!

Consider this: Name five people you personally know who you consider to be very bright. Now, are any of them politicians? Can you name any politicians who are brighter than those five people? Why should they not have an equal if not stronger voice in where their own tax dollars (remember: tax dollars are the people's, and NOT "the government's"!) are applied? Simply giving a bunch of politicians a huge pot of money and expecting them to spend only as much of it as is really necessary is just begging for extravagant and unnecessary spending (because the "hey, if we don't spend it all this year we might get our funding cut next year!!" mentality is always there waiting to rear its ugly head -- ever work on a department budget in a corporation? Not too many crumbs left on the table, let alone scraps falling on the floor, and each plate is usually left squeaky-clean.)