scruples

In my opinion, the man has no scruples and no conscience. I feel like a fool to have trusted him.

I run ads on my sites and I think I have some scruples, thank you very much. They sort of cover hosting costs.

If you don't have scruples and you don't have honor, you don't have anything. That's the basic message.

This woman is entirely without scruples, she does this and boasts of it when interviewed.

Just don't let others tell you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make it work without guilt.

That depends entirely on your evidence/lawyer and who has the fewest scruples. Whoever's got the least scruples and the best lawyer wins.

But from the perspective of normal people, or "slaves" as Nietzsche would call us, he's just an overachieving asshole with no moral scruples. Going to Harvard doesn't make you uber anyway, it just makes you "best slave".

Apple has never pretended to have scruples in the legal department, so it's not out of character for them to twist the broken patent system to its very limits to get what they want. But we should call them on it.

If you can commit to MS Windows or anything similar and lack scruples why on earth would you be playing for the penny ante on the formal market?

GameStop's lack of scruples: not surprising. GameStop fears OnLive as a substantial threat: a little surprising.

As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves. For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...

> In reality, those in the best position to make money take all they can get, with no scruples about their working-class victims, because taking, in the minds of the rich, serves as a model for success. It's deceptive to simply say "paying less taxes" == "taking."

It's bad because someone different, someone with less scruples, could be in office tomorrow. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I actually believe that the people in charge of this stuff today are at least trying to be careful about what they're doing with the information they've collected.

If party A is truly evil, then they would have no scruples over claiming party B is truly evil, and vice versa, analagous to the Liar's Paradox. Entering this frame, and debating who is "truly" the evil one, is a lens more likely to obscure than clarify.

It would be awkward to explain to friends, they would have moral scruples, and it might very well be illegal. If a non-psychopath and a psychopath both limit their imaginations to plausible options, the psychopath isn't any more wise for seeing options the non-psychopath doesn't.

The ubermensch is someone who doesn't _need_ scruples. He operates beyond conventional morality because the sharpness of his judgement and the greatness of his philosophical insights far exceeds the value of the slave morality embodied by everyday law, and morals.

That may or may not be true, but my basic position is that I want to do business with people who don't care whether dodgy practices will or will not make money in the short, medium, or long term, they have scruples that outweigh their venality.

I]f the US soldiers at Abu had shot those prisoners on the battlefield, nobody would have complained, but they put underwear on their heads and the world freaks the hell out Your obsession with terrorists' lack of scruples is causing you to become what you hate. You think it's OK to humiliate and torture them because they're terrorists, they think it's OK to behead us because of religion and nationality.

Why, when these leaders are allowed to lord it over us as they see fit, should they suddenly develop scruples in gathering information that only serves to enhance their power to do what we are already letting them do without so much as a peep of principled opposition? Privacy is in significant peril, and it is a serious loss when Groklaw goes down over this issue.

An example of what is developing into my biggest problem with EFF: an organization doing incredibly important work that at the same time has seemingly no scruples about muddying the water to gain attention and gin up outrage. It's hard to escape the thought that Blizzard is on this list because nobody cares about German frozen food companies, but everyone recognizes Blizzard.

I feel quite ashamed to admit this now, but when I was much younger and had less scruples, I had a consulting role with an elite private school in a well to do suburb of Melbourne in Australia that had chronic problems with students accessing material that violated the school's internet usage policy. They had experimented with many, many blacklists and blocking solutions before, but with little success.

The amount of trust we grant these people and companies in the first place may not be the root of the problems we're facing lately, but our collective naivete about other people's motivations and scruples has most certainly contributed to the lengths at which our rights and privacy can readily be violated by both the people we're throwing our data at and the governments that want access.