There is a difference between group projects, where each individual takes on a different part, which are then combined, and pairing, where two people work on exactly the same thing, at the same time, sitting next to each other.

It's not the amount of money, it's the sheer number of people he tried to extort.
That he asked so little money and still managed to fail most of the time is no excuse.

...and he blackmailed the people on the pictures.
It's still not rape, but it's quite a bit more evil than "just" posting private nude pictures without permission, which is pretty bad to begin with.

I wonder; was there ever such a thing as "Pair architecture" or "Pair mathematics"?

Except that their employment costs more tax money than their unemployment benefits would.

It's "art" because your tax paid for ~4 years of somebody slacking off and now he had a thought that everybody else already had years ago.

Meanwhile, Google and the like will get requests to add a new CA, they will research the new CA and find the same slimeballs in charge and never add the new CA to begin with. Nothing hurt but the pockets of some slimeballs.

Browser manufactures have a responsibility towards their own customers (users), not towards the victims of some untrustworthy CA.

Google's web services may not be a player in China (irrelevant, so I didn't check), but their browsers (desktop and android) most certainly are: http://www.chinainternetwatch....

I don't think "lessor" is a word, but if you meant "lesser" then you couldn't be more wrong: http://www.zdnet.com/article/n...

I'm quite confident that most of these Google-browser users don't have a clue what digital certificates are.

Verisign, Thawte and GeoTrust would probably be treated the same way, if they failed to act of known false certificates. This isn't just "negligently or willfully making bogus certificates", this is mostly about failing to fix the problem after having been informed of having created "bogus certificates". Matter of fact, these CA's regularly update their recovation lists (CRL): https://isc.sans.edu/crls.html

We all know who the real April's fool is today; Slashdot editors.
April's fool jokes are supposed to trick people into believing something which is obvious nonsense in hindsight.
The Slashdot editors have been fooled into believing these stories were believable, even though they obviously aren't.
Seriously, you can't think up a story about Apple announcing an iRing that controls other devices or CERN's LHC having found the flogiston particle?

The same could be said about somebody "conditioned" to associate the e-racing noises with racing and I might well learn to enjoy the sound of e-racing. But right now, I don't.
I was merely stating my taste, to add a different point on view on the topic of noise, then sjbe went full retard about it.
It's like demanding somebody to justify their taste in music or food.

It has to do with enjoying the sport.
The noise servers no purpose other than that it's enjoyable to hear.
There is no purpose to racing, or any sporting event, at all. Attacking this single part of inane.

As for your second comment, you are merely attacking a strawman.

For me, the lack of any "raw" engine noise is actually the only minus.
The high-pitches wheezing just doesn't sound enjoyable at all; it's bland and unrecognizable at this point.

I'm not saying they are equal, as you probably already understood, but the NDA"s are obviously amoral and probably not legal either; a lawyer has a moral responsibility of the things they do as part of their employment just like every employee has moral responsibility. I understand the moral responsibility of a lawyer make take a somewhat more dualistic form (like knowingly defending a guilty criminal), but this situation isn't even remotely close to that.

That still doesn't shield them from moral responsibility.
If their client told them to murder a witness, should they do so?