>The solution lies with us. When programmers have ethics and courage, enough to say "no", it will make a vast difference. In the context of your statement, how

>The solution lies with us. When programmers have ethics and courage, enough to say "no", it will make a vast difference. In the context of your statement, how are you defining "ethics"? One could argue that it's completely ethical to trade one's information or skills on a subject to the highest bidder. That's how a job works. What someone does with a knife or book doesn't concern a storekeeper after the purchase. Absent any evidence of one's rights being violated, what does it matter what another person chooses to do after one has been compensated? He has his life and you have yours. >They take software and turn it to inappropriate ends, misuse it, abuse it, make it a panacea, a weapon, then a crutch. They build whole cities and societies around things they neither understand nor appreciate the origins of. In this context, who is or should be the arbiter of "inappropriate", "misuse", "abuse", etc. ? I agree with you that many people don't understand the totality or consequences of what they purchase. But is that to be held against them as evidence of "unworthiness" or that they must patronized?