I sometimes get confused on the definitions: morality vs ethics.
As I see it, morality (and mores) is derived from an adherence to laws of some kind, be they societal, religious, dogmatic, or what have you. In fact, morality is traditionally law-based.
Where ethics is a system arrived at from personal experience.
Thus the morality of an act may depend on how it relates to scripture, or societal rules, and the ethics of an act are cognitively defined.
One could say that it is immoral to kill, because many religions have a strong "do not kill" clause. Yet religion is a very popular theme in most mass killings, with the killers citing relevant religious codes as confirmation of their morality.
Where an ethical decision might be that, under the circumstances, it is better to kill bad guys than good guys.
We can argue ethics, but not morality.

OK, well I guess I was wondering if the HUD display would obscure my ability to see at all, since I only use one eye.

It's nice to have a built-in excuse!

Thanks, I guess I have non-binocular vision, too; amblyopia. If I could just get that damned third-eye working...

I've never tried Google Glass, but I peeked through a few early AR headsets at the VR lab in school. I wonder if anyone's working on a solution for those of us with monocular vision? It would suck to be cheated out of 3d movies AND "The Next Big Thing"

Hear, hear.

Word.

Wonders how accurate the maps of Cornwall are.

OP mentions it in his reply, his political agenda is clear, as is Chomsky's. Anyone who works on a computer owes much of his profession to the outstanding work of Prof. Chomsky.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would I care about entering my CC info into a phone? I'm not liable for any unauthorized charges. In the country where I live, it's the vendor who's liable, not me, and certainly not the bank, may their names be praised.

No, nor would I sit through Basket Weaving 150 if it were a required course for a literature degree.

I shouldn't have used the word automatic; I meant reflexive or involuntary.
These are some quasi-clincal definitions that seem to agree with what I learned back when I studied psych:

Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.

AND

emotional awareness and understanding of another person's thoughts, feelings, and behavior, even those that are distressing and disturbing. Empathy emphasizes understanding; sympathy emphasizes sharing of another person's feelings and experiences.

Both of the above are from the medical section here. Note that the one you cited and the first of these both use the word vicarious, which seems (to me, anyway) to imply an emotional, rather than cognitive response. But perhaps you see it differently.

Clinically speaking, sociopathy is related to ASPD (antisocial personality disorder), and is defined in both the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, the latter of which lists the first criterion as:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

Sympathy is not included in either manuals' definition.

Lack of empathy is also specifically associated with Psychopathy and Narcissistic personality disorder.

See WIKI

I might have empathy for a serial killer, in that I may wince if he were to get stuck with a pin (a reflexive response), but I may not have sympathy for him, because I cognitively determine that he deserves it.

More importantly, who remembers the awesome Star Trek (tos) episode, The Empath ? I think that clears it up perfectly.

That's not really what empathy is. Think of empathy as an automatic response, like when you wince when you see someone get a paper cut, or get kicked it the nuts.
Sympathy is more intellectual, you consider the circumstances, and cognitively place yourself in the situation.
Then you weigh whether the person deserves your sympathy. This is where your ethical beliefs may come in to play.
Or you could think of it this way: A person without sympathy is a hard-ass, while a person without empathy is a sociopath.

Thank you for educating me. A 'whoosh' would have been in order, I suppose.

If by Americans you mean people from the U.S., then don't think that's true.

With a very few exceptions, I've heard "lin-ucks" over here.

Though, I would guess that it would be most accurately pronounced "lee-nucks."