For the same reason we arrest Russian/Chinese/Whatever spies in America, but send our own spies to Russia/China/Whatever.

I mean, seriously? How is this even a question? This got ranked "insightful"? Really, Slashdot?

I don't think anyone (well, anyone even half sane) would argue that it's objectively moral for the US to engage in espionage/cyberwarfare against another country, but objectively immoral for them to do it to us. It's equally moral (or immoral), no matter which direction it goes, so you make sure your side has every advantage, and assume (correctly) the other side(s) are doing the same.

"But, golly! Wouldn't it be nice if we all just agreed to not be big ol' meanies to each other?"

It sure would. And each side is eagerly trying to convince the masses on the other side that this is just what everyone wants, and to urge their governments to stop with all the saber rattling and a-feudin' and a-fussin'. However, a few thousand years of human history have taught us that those who beat their swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not.

...if this got as much attention in the local press as throwing a ball into a basket does.

Prograph did this in the early 1990s. Way to innovate, Microsoft!

Ah, but could you do it to a recently deceased brain, then use a 3-D bioprinter to replicate each neuron and its connections, then place the result in a new host?

That's called "all of it".

A popular "green" ritual is just an act of empty symbolism designed to make people feel morally superior while actually doing nothing and causing no real inconvenience? No! I refuse to accept that!

To any company thinking of giving in to patent trolls, because it's cheaper than fighting them...

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html

I managed to misread the original summary, which implied generic diversity, in the study, correlated with economic success, rather than the LACK of genetic diversity correlating with economic success.

Which, in turn, implies that the Alabama and other states in the "mah family tree doesn't fork" regions of the US should be the more economically successful. Still doesn't seem right.

a)If this is the case, then, the most economically successful (based on the premise described in the Slashdot article, I haven't read the paper) would be the Native Americans on the East coast, as they came from Africa, through Asia, across the Bering Strait, and then across what is now the United States, putting them about as far from Africa as you can get. While the American natives had a far more advanced culture than classic stereotypes portray, I'm not sure you could call it more economically advanced than the Europeans had when they landed here, as the Europeans had already invented such advanced economic developments as usury, debtor's prison, embezzling, and insurance fraud. I have not heard of any Native American cultures having developed those vital economic tools prior to contact with Europe, but I will accept I could be wrong.

b)I'm absolutely certain the xenophobic far-right will seize with gleeful delight on a study that says "exogamy, multiculturalism, and mixing of ethnic groups/continual intermarriage is the key to success". (That was sarcasm.)

c)Given that, I'm not sure why the left, which presumably favors multiculturalism, mixing ethnic groups, etc, would OPPOSE a study that says, "Yes, the more genetically diverse your population is, the better off you're going to be."

d)"Argument from consequences" is a severe logical fallacy. If the paper is factually wrong, then, prove it wrong -- but don't say, "This can't be true because it would be BAD if it was true." That's the equivalent of saying, "I know my spouse isn't cheating on me, because I'd be utterly heartbroken if they were. That proves they're not."

OK, good, someone beat me to it. I'd be disappointed otherwise.

"Beware, oh ye sinners! You who consume the flesh of beasts, you who buy trinkets of little worth, you who defile and despoil the Earth! Beware! Your times of joy and revelry will end! Suffering shall come, and pain, and torment, lest ye repent your sinful ways! Repent! There is no salvation in the sun! There is no salvation in the tides! There is no salvation even in the poisonous fires of the atom itself! No, none! No salvation but the cessation of your sins!"

That is the article in a nutshell. I could point out all the false premises (the most key being that anyone, anywhere, claims that *infinite* growth is possible -- it self-evidently isn't, and no one, not even the most utopian, claims it is), or the coy dismissal of "kicking the can down the road" (Hint: That's how humans solve almost ALL problems. It's like saying, "Well, if you're hungry now, you can eat, but what does that do? Tomorrow you'll be hungry again! You're just putting off the problem, not solving it! Stop being hungry at all!"), but I'm pretty sure the umpteen-hundred other posters have already done this. Demanding a solution that will work for the projected lifespan of the universe, and for infinite growth of human consumption, is setting an impossible goal, and she knows it -- she just hopes the readers will be too busy shouting "Amen!" and "Preach it, Sister!" to notice.

This is simply a fanatical fundamentalist railing at sin, and should be taken as seriously as every other such preacher.

Or edit the timestamp so that the ATM camera shows you there at the time the cops know that the suspect in the "Chainsaw Castrator" case made a withdrawal. (No hackers involved, that I know of, but back in the early 1990s, the Daily News ran a front-page photo of the suspect in a serial rape case, based on ATM footage. Except, oops, the time stamp was wrong and the poor shmuck was completely innocent.) (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/16/nyregion/man-in-photo-is-not-a-suspect.html) Now, consider what could be done today with actual malice, by crooks or by the cops who just want to arrest *someone*.

....is a documentary, then. Who knew?

"Sure, if you are a biased moron and got all your information from /. headlines."

A base insult! I ALSO get my information from Fark headlines! So there!

Anyway;
a)Clinton tried to get the clipper chip, or its equivalent, through three times, at least accoding to Slashdot headlines. I'd normally use Fark headlines, but I don't think it existed back then.

b)While the Communications Act, as a whole, was pretty much a done deal, Clinton actually called out the portion of it that contained the CDA during the signing ceremony, taking special pride in that part of it. Granted, the DoJs defense of it was so pathetic that he could have given them orders to throw it -- but as Obama showed with DOMA, the Executive branch is not actually obliged to defend a law it considers unconstitutional at all, and he could have chosen to do that.

This assumes you can place the bomb where there is such a socket. Of course, if the lamp requires a socket, there goes THAT plan. Curses, foiled again!