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.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That still doesn't shield them from moral responsibility.
If their client told them to murder a witness, should they do so?
"The boy who cried wolf" was also a warning, not an instruction manual.
Zooming into London, I passed five totally different map styles.
Realistically though, How could the BBC have resolved this any other way?
I predict we'll see announcements of a totally unrelated new show with all three hosts, called "Highest Gear" on a competing channel very soon.
People can be both victims and perps.
Who is the victim in these situations?
- School vs. Wikipedia
- School vs. parents
- School vs. students
- Parents vs Wikipedia
- Parents vs. students
- Students vs. Wikipedia
And even that is an oversimplified view, if only because most of these parties may have multiple separate relationships to eachother.
There are enough rich people to sustain current high-end priced watches.
A watch (or atleast anything beyond a $10 casio) is a fashion accessory.
Just like all fashion, it pays to have absurd "haute couture" products that nobody really buys, because it makes famous people want to buy the high-end products, which makes ordinary people buy the low-end products where all the profit is made.
Most top fashion brands famed for catwalk suits, dresses and clothing make most of their profit from branded handbags and belts that ordinary folk can afford.
Same deal here; Tag Heuer is perhaps the most popular brand willing to risk their brand name in cooperating with Google.
They sell you a dial with a single needle and tell you it's just as good as 3 needles due to some stupid algorithm that tries to simulate it?
Hard work and ability gets you lots of money.
Being a dick then makes you lost an equivalent amount of money.
Hard work and ability does NOT earn you the right to be more of a dick than other people.
Like bankrupt musicians, athletes and artists; people who earn a lot of money for one particular skill may not have any skills in other areas (such as being smart with money).
And ofcourse there are plenty of people who just inherit their wealth, who are likely (as average humans) to poses no exceptional skills at all.
How do you know FLOSS projects don't suffer a 70% failure rate too. Or perhaps even worse.
FLOSS projects typically don't have deadlines unless they get really popular, way after they passed the "success" treshold.
If a FLOSS project that hasn't had updates for years a failure or a success, even though it's fully functional?
Projects that don't meet budgets, deadlines or functional criteria are considered failed. Most FLOSS projects don't have any of these unless they already had some level of success. Most FLOSS projects die well before reaching that level, though.
Judging by my own subjective standards of failure; most projects on Github and Sourceforge are failures. They have no code, cannot compile or have showstopper bugs and no recently activity that could remedy these problems.
Wouldn't this ideally be presented as a choice to users?
1. I don't care who reads my email; use either password or SMS only.
2. I care only slightly who reads my email; use two factor authentication.
3. My email is actually of some importance; choose a different email provider.
4. My email contains sensitive information; cancel all my email accounts.
By that logic, we should execute everybody.
Crime rates will drop to zero.
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've been found (sometimes wrongfully) guilty of having executed someone else themselves.
If there is any reason to never execute somebody, this is it.
And yes, it happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
If you are the judge of somebody wrongfully executed, you should be tried for negligent homicide.
So if a judge is abolutely 100% certain of guilt, go ahead and give the order. My guess is nobody would ever be executed again.