I believe it was titled "Government Surveillance" or something like that. The two sides debated: Law enforcement said its "good" and they would never abuse this data. Stanford ethicists and the EFF argued that its "bad" and its already being abused by law enforcement's flagrant disregard of the Constitution. Interestingly, the arguments were moot since law enforcement complained that the detail resolution of the images were not good enough to justify the costs in terms of actual prosecutions. In other words, it would help to solve crimes, but not necessarily well enough - especially because its hard to ID a perpetrator from above the top of their head. I think we need stop relying on technology to run our criminal justice system. Remember, Soylent Green is people.

In fact, this process attempts to blame unethical behavior on "bad apples" rather than an entire profession. It does not improve the results, however. Unethical behavior permeates society on all levels regardless of the particular profession. When a profession such as banking or real estate or auto manufacturing or insurance or engineering go out of their way to "teach ethics" to the members of their profession or association then I believe it is an attempt to deny culpability in their own unethical behaviors. My belief is ethics is not taught professionally, rather, it is merely defined in terms of the limits of professional responsibility, which make it possible for sociopaths to navigate the tightrope. This way unethical people learn how to deny responsibility for a lack of professional ethics, when in fact they have a lack of ethics altogether, which can't be repaired by certifications. The fact is that the certifications will have much less impact on improving an individual's personal ethics at their current stage of personal development. The true solution is to stop rewarding unethical behavior in our society, plain and simple. People will behave according to their incentives, whether or not they actually have a social conscience or even a soul, or the professional certifications, thereof.

After all, who was gonna dig up all of that gold for the rich guys? Besides, who needs capital to build civilizations and pyramids when you have a bunch of slaves? Money is virtual slavery.

.... what Mississippi said.

You're absolutely right.

I just closed my Comcast account (an hour on the phone) and I feel much better now

. Don't pay cartels for crap. Just say no to Comcast.

Correct on all counts, and thank you for reminding me the "Rover" had the GM branding, moon roof, and radial tires...it was driving me to ...lunacy.

COMCAST is a greedy fat little blood sucker that takes all that technology has to offer and screws it up with moronic menus and programming lineups, lethargic and useless VOD and database features, inconsistent policy, and BAIT AND SWITCH quarterly revision to service fees that require hours of wasted time to correct. They run infomercials on every channel, refuse to stagger the programming over the clock and calender, and advertise on packages that were once commercial free. It boggles the mind how their only skill is to offer the minimum amount of program choices over the maximum number of channels. I get less programming on 6 HBOs 6 Showtimes and 400 other channels than I did back in the 1990s on an analog oak box on less than 70 stations. So SCREW COMCAST and SCREW the FCC for making us have to pay for all of that wasted bandwidth and packaged crap. WE SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO PAY ONLY FOR WHAT WE GET, as apposed to getting what we "pay" for....I no longer am interested in COMCAST content or packages. If I decide to watch PBS and then just binge on whatever I want, and then decide to watch nothing for a week - then that's all I should pay to see. If they cannot organize their bandwidth then they should no longer be allowed to screw around with programming. Their duopoly programming advantage (NBC Universal vs. Viacom CBS) is a cornered market, and controls domestic media agenda. Netflix, Amazon, Youtube seem to know how on demand programming can function properly, so why can't they?. COMCAST MUST BE NEUTERED, They are the ONLY cable company in my market and I would rather do business with fascists. Death to BIG PIG corporate market exclusivity entitlement. Let the parasite die, if it can't or won't compete for its market share.

This isn't rocket science... why ask any scientist less qualified than an astronaut? GM built the lunar module, so NASA is very qualified to stall a car on the moon..

Or perhaps, more precisely, there is a baker

I just can't prove it, cosmologically speaking.

....is no longer an undisclosed location.

And everyone knows Batman works in Gotham City. Duh.

Exactly! Call it Hannibal's and then open a second establishment at Donner Pass...

...postcards from bleeding edge sight seeing destinations

We all make choices.

I figure that either everybody or nobody

is chosen by omnipotence or serendipity.

I choose Omnipotydipity

...and are healthier and more robust"

These Shrimps ain't shrimps anymore, I guess. With a 40% increased growth rate we should feed that stuff to Yankees sluggers.

These statistics sound like those cattle and poultry farmers achieve from hormone injections. If these shrimp suddenly become lobsters maybe the cholesterol will be a little too high as well.

It seems to me that "healthier" is a marketing term, not a scientific matter of fact.