Well, Monaco is not a country (just a resort), and ireland has only been growing since the EU started giving it money for development 2 decades ago (it was piss-poor before, probably due to the English occupation). Here (Holland) there is a bit of a battle going on surrounding the question whether to lower edu standards (so that we can get a higher %age of people with 'tertiary' education: the govt wants 25% or so of the population to be able to receive uni/higher vocational training, and they're not willing to wait until they've become cleverer.) or just accept the fact that you can only do so much via teaching before ability starts rearing its 'ugly' head. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of tertiary education alone, a decent secondary education is at least as important for a population as a whole (more attainable, even if still not universal).
In light of that, I suspect that you would be able to find slight differences in overall education levels between the US/UK (illiteracy in the UK is quite a bit higher than in other parts of europe, which is why I don't include the UK with WE) and Continental Western Europe. I can't really find any figures on average education(-equivalent) levels of the respective current working-age populations, but considering we have a smaller manufacturing sector (I'm using Holland as an example here, forgive me if it isn't quite representative), I'm just hazarding a guess that it's somewhat higher.
farming, forestry, and fishing 0.6%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.6%, managerial, professional, and technical 35.5%, sales and office 24.8%, other services 16.5%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2007) USA
(Source: CIA WFB). Of course this doesn't cover non-participants. That said, (Forgive me if this sounds a bit negative, as I understand it this is all fairly factually supported, even if I don't have sources listed atm) I'm not sure what to do with those; but we have about 6% living under the poverty line, whereas the USA has anywhere between 12 and 30-35% of the total population, depending on whether you count access to healthcare, affordable education, etc. Also, as I understand it the "definition of poverty line" used in US statistics is somewhat odd (goods basket which hasn't been updated in ages, etc). I will for now venture that this group is likely also poorly educated, and wasted as a source of potential labor.
To get back to your assertion about the correlation between national debt and education costs: considering the US will probably be rising to something like 120-150% of GDP in the coming years, and weighing the fact that the total sum does matter a bit for investors when considering whether to invest further (trust issues).
Lastly, GDP sort of sucks as an indicator of welfare, as it doesn't tell you anything about income/wealth distribution (which does matter), PPP is slightly better, but problematic for the same reason, and GINI coefficients don't tell you anything about median incomes either. The OECD (and Gapminder) are luckily working on developing a new methodology, but it's fairly easy to argue that any of these indicators only give a very partial picture. I say this not so much to demean the US, as to emphasize that quite a bit is left out in these measures (which seems pertinent because you're using it as an indicator of wealth/welfare/something similar).
Having said that, I don't the correlation is very strong yet, but considering we've only really started educating 'the masses' since 1950 or so (or really 1960), I will suggest the effect will likely become more pronounced in the coming decades, and the US will be forced to start subsidizing education more (or alternatively, require tuition fees to come down. If you look at the historical development, the US went from mass free uni education via government sponsorships in the 1960s-70s to having upward from $50k for a degree per
Actually, all you do is create an irrelevantly-educated underclass that can do nothing anymore. (Thus enabling you to claim that it's the underclass's own fault that they're stupid. Self-fulfilling prophecies are wonderful things.) Outsourcing will happen anyway, heavy industry will still move to countries where they get to pay as little as possible for manufacturing, and all the US will be left with is an enormous underclass with no jobs to do, because nobody can afford to retrain them all for something else.
Right. Because fuck knows having a better-educated population won't pay off in the long run. Do you have any idea what it does for the US to have so many people only capable of filling basic manufacturing jobs? Yes, indeed: "Auto industry bailout", and other forms of protectionism (import quotas on steel, which causes higher taxes as well as more expensive goods made from artificially more expensive US steel, etc.). Congratulations, you've just lost 50 billion dollars. Enjoy it.
Of course you can; it's the republican way. there are no systems (except Big Government), everything else is the market, and the Market is Good. Also, people deserve to be punished for the "mistakes" of their parents (such as them not being millionaires), so that rules out aid/affordable loans to children/students. It's all very biblical, if you think about it. Anyway, without seeming like an advertiser too much, might I draw this book to your attention? It's mostly relevant, though it slightly emphasizes the banking industry's side of the story over the education industry's, and I found it a fairly interesting hypothesis. (even though it sort of ignores the question why there is so much worry over bad education per se.)
The largest advantage to wave I see (as well as the biggest potential issue) is authentication. Right now anyone can spoof email.. That should be over if people would switch to something like Wave.
It's taken alot of stuff from Battlestar Galactica and Lost - not nescesarilly a bad thing -
Yeah, they took mostly the bad parts. I had to watch fifteen minutes of some hysterical young woman crying because her dad was a diseased and overweight US senator who decided to throw himself out of an airlock in some misguided sense of justice. Was I the only one who was thinking "if all you have to do is push a button, there's about fifty better ways to do it than this -- like drop one of those floating camera balls on it maybe?" Hey, you're in a ship made by a super-advanced civilization. I'm willing to bet there's a Plan B that doesn't involve dramatic (but stupid) death. Can I have some intelligent death with my drama, pleeeeease? Also, if they wanted to take something from BSG, why not take the idea of a stronger female role model, rather than reverting to the Hysterical Idiot Woman cliche that pervades almost all science fiction?:(
Oh, and could we do a little less wholesale borrowing of the Baltar character in this series? I half-expected this Rush guy to start masturbating to visions of a long-lost love the moment he realized they were running out of air. Also, since this is the 3rd generation of the series -- us long-time Trek fans know where this puts it: Deep Space Nine. Cue groaning in 5...4...3...
I have to say I agree almost entirely with your post, though I found his death less misguided than a Deus Ex Machina plot device to be milked again and again (and I fear not for the last time, either). The 'daddy I'm a PolSci graduate (and presumably something like 22+), but I'm really dependent on you and I will cry lots when you even mention wanting to be left alone so that you can try to think about sacrificing yourself for the greater good (something I'm sure lots of responsible father figures/politicians do) without being distracted by my crying' person annoyed me to tears. And that was before I was dragged through a harrowing 9 minute scene of her crying and then bonding with young_soldier_boy_in_command, because we had to have character development, or something resembling it.
The first ep was decent if not earth shattering, but the second really had way too many boring action-lacking scenes that weren't setting up any of the later story (apart from the probable oncoming suicide of $whiny_daughter, or something similarly predictable that nobody cares about because nobody has been drawn into the story line yet). And then they end the pilot at the worst possible moment, and tell you to finish watching next weekend, leaving you on a horrible (s)low note that pervaded most of the second episode. Gods, the planning for this broadcast really was terrible.
Then there's Dr. Rush, and everyone refusing to be under his command, there's a "don't patronize me, boy" senator who suddenly decides to be heroic off-screen, 2 IOA members who shout "who made you boss" without having any regard whatever for trying to survive first, before executing the grunts trying to save them (God I'm tired of the 1-dimensional incompetent self-important politician stereotype that so pervades TV), and the general fact that almost every scene took 50% too long, along with the fact that they spent about 3 scenes on the same 'life-threatening issue' where one would really have been enough. How often can you say "shit, we're fucked unless we miraculously fix this" already? Sure, you can portray helplessness of the ad-hoc crew nicely by letting them wander around aimlessly, but it all mostly just seemed badly directed to me.
PS. I apologise for the rambling and meandering nature of my post, but I'm having trouble generating a coherent plot from the episodes.
Right. Being academically trained, however, means both 1. being able to evaluate said arguments, and/or "science", and 2. (given that you should most often be "discussing" possibilities) try to be as open-minded as possible (or, less strongly, as open-minded as is warranted given a certain source) in determining whether a suggestion has merit. Which also entails being at least slightly willing to do elementary google searches to verify content, rather than trying to "score" quick and easy victories on form.
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54]
Or you could google it, read, say, this review see, this article in elsevier and see for yourself that it is already pretty well-accepted that HFCS is bad.
As to the link to your post: You assert that GMO haters are unreasonable, or something to that effect, and that there is no reasoning with them, (but that they're wrong; at least, that seemed to me to be your unspoken conclusion/assertion). In response, I suggested that they might be less wrong than you suppose, and further, that it's not entirely unreasonable to be careful when considering how next to mess with human food intake, specifically because, per my assertion, metabolism is ill-understood, and we know very little of what the body actually needs to function properly. And that it's not a priori unreasonable to assume that we have evolved uses for everything we used to eat, and that some of these new functions we were able to develop are now things we can no longer do without without breaking. I'm really sorry that you were so shocked by my assertion that Americans are somewhat fucked by being forced to eat quite so much junk (just because HFCS is cheaper to produce than other sugars), but it sort of saddens me that you were so shocked that you couldn't even be bothered googling the two relevant terms just to see if there is a suggested link between HFCS and diabetes (and other metabolic diseases) before stating so triumphantly that my post contains "zero science".
I'm sorry, but digestion and the (human) metabolic system in general is among the least-understood processes in our body; never mind 'guessing' what vitamins/minerals etc we need and which we don't (see, for an extreme example, people with bipolar disorder who suddenly improve when they get enough lithium again).
Further, see this post, as it sums up a lot fairly nicely.
Sure, part of the problem with the american diet is just the total and utter lack of vegetables, but stuff like HFCS are currently being suggested to be among the worst choices ever for adult-onset diabetes (as fructose digestion takes up much more energy/concentration by the relevant organ [iirc the liver] than glucose does, etc. See an earlier post of mine in another thread for more).
I can sort of live with the indirect effect this has via cow fodder etc, but I'll be damned before I'm forced to buy GM food (as things like 'contamination'+litigation by maffiosi like Monsanto will result in that 20 years down the line) that is hardly tested at all for long-term effects before being rubberstamped by that at least semi-corrupt organization called the FDA.
That desire you felt for your wife's girlfriend? Uh oh. Acting on that impulse could have landed you in jail at one time in history, too.
What are you suggesting? That rape, pillage and plunder will some day become morally acceptable too, just like adultry has (and always has been, at least for males, in reality)? Because that's a fairly silly argument to be making, really.
You seem to be forgetting (for the point of your argument) that the outcome of an adultry session is far less dramatic than the outcome of a murder/rape/pillage session.
The point isn't that people have bad thoughts, the point is that some people do not, and some people literally cannot inhibit them (often enough), and as such are not able to live in a society that requires a modicum of sociality. This isn't about "moral outrage" because the removing of random people (based on the desires of those sociopaths combined with a dose of luck) for no reason other than that they felt they had to give into an urge is a very radical action, much more radical than having sex with someone other than your partner.
Sure, your wife may kill herself/you/whatever, but that's up to her, and is behavior that is not determined by your actions, whereas being killed leaves very little by way of possible responses to that fact.
As such, it can surely be tragic how someone lost his inhibitory systems, but that does not mean he/she can still walk around through society freely without becoming a problem. (the only problem here is developing adequate prediction/screening techniques that don't yield FPs). Pity is no excuse, as the point isn't to be "fair", the point is to keep society free from those people who cannot live in groups without majorly fucking up other people's lives because they're rude.
Sure, you can wonder about detection adequacy, racism and the lot, but, assuming perfect detection and no abuse of the system (or well, as perfect as the current justice system is, noting that I'm not talking about the US specifically here, as there are just too many Tom Hanks movies about prisoner abuse to want to be ambiguous on this point), there is no argument against it that is strong enough to justify letting them walk around.
So yes, eugenics is a good idea. Implementation is ever the issue.
And everyone who had put money in those banks, trusting that the SEC and Fed would make sure those banks couldn't fuck them over should've just be thrown to the wolves?
"Bankruptcy" at this level has nothing whatsoever to do with "taking your responsibility"; if your downfall means you'll be taking 200.000 others with you, your rhetoric about "the market decides what's fair" notwithstanding. 90-95% of Americans have zero control over what others do with their money, so why was it their responsibility to see through fraud schemes that even those with 'training' in the field couldn't (or wouldn't) grasp? That's why you have regulative agencies (and that's why they were neutered through lobbying).
Sure, it would be nice if all CEOs from the 1990s onward would be put in front of a firing squad and shot (either with or without a trial), but that's an entirely different point.
Isn't that sequence of events trademarked (or whatever) as a business method (or whatever) by Looney Tunes (or something)? It seems suspiciously similar to the sequences where laws like the law of gravitation only kicks in once the character sees he should be affected by them?
Scientific debate is, sure. But this isn't a debate, this is "policy-presenting". I'm quite sure that relevant scientists can use scholar.google.com to find actual publications. This "publication" (If you want to call this Competitive Enterprise Institute (see this neat interview in response to this) publication "scientific", or "debate". Their only goal is to confuse the public, and senators/representatives into thinking that they have a reason to be sceptical (or can justify their own "feelings" on the topic).. it has nothing to do with "providing another side to the scientific debate, just the political one.
Some of the marvellous things Thomas said in his dissent: (quoting the highlights)
Teenagers are nevertheless apt to âoebelieve the myth that these drugs provide a medically safe high.â ONDCP, Teens and Prescription Drugs: An Analysis of Recent Trends on the Emerging Drug Threat 3 (Feb. 2007) (here inafter Teens and Prescription Drugs). But since 1999, there has âoebeen a dramatic increase in the number of poisonings and even deaths associated with the abuse of prescription drugs.â Prescription for Danger 4; see also
Mind you, ONDCP is a government agency attached to POTUS, which in 2007 meant GOP, of course. Both very reliable sources when it comes to the severity of the problem where the War on Drugs is concerned.
death from overdose. The Pill Book 821, 827 (H. Silverman, ed., 13th ed. 2008) (observing that Ibuprofen and Naproxen are NSAIDs and âoe[p]eople have died from NSAID over dosesâ). Moreover, the side-effects caused by the use of NSAIDs can be magnified if they are taken in combination with other drugs. See, e.g., Reactions Weekly, p. 18 (Issue no. 1235, Jan. 17, 2009) (âoeA 17-year-old girl developed allergic interstitial nephritis and renal failure while receiving escitalopram and ibuprofenâ); id., at 26 (Issue no.1232, Dec. 13, 2008) (âoeA 16-month-old boy developed iron deficiency anaemia and hypoalbuminaemia during treatment with naproxenâ); id., at 15 (Issue no. 1220, Sept. 20, 2008) (18-year-old âoewas diagnosed with pill-induced oesophageal perforationâ after taking ibuprofen âoeand was admitted to the [intensive care unit]â); id., at 20 (Issue no.1170, Sept. 22, 2007) (âoeA 12-year-old boy developed anaphylaxis following ingestion of ibuprofenâ). If a student with a previously unknown intolerance to
So the most substantial thing he says is that "kids might die". Nothing about prevalence other than the assertion (never mind the credibility of the report). Basically, these are known, unlikely, side effects of ibu use, nothing more. Entirely irrelevant (or the FDA would've done something). Also, there is obviously the fact that ibu is an OTC drug.
with regard to "in loco parentis":
responsibilities delegated to them by parents. If the common-law view that parents delegate to teachers their authority to discipline and maintain order were to be applied in this case, the search of Redding would stand. There can be no doubt that a parent would have had the authority to conduct the search at issue in this case. Parents have âoeimmunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendmentâ when it comes to searches of a child
citing something from 1987 (when child molestation was almost never reported), he here says that teachers (like parents) have the right to do whatever they want to their kids; a statement the truth of which is doubtful at best, but he's still saying it.
Schools have a significant interest in protecting all students from prescription drug abuse; young female students are no exception. See Teens and Prescription Drugs 2 (âoePrescription drugs are the most commonly abused drug among 12â"13-year-oldsâ). In fact, among 12- to 17-year-olds, females are âoemore likely than boys to have abused prescription drugsâ and have âoehigher rates of dependence or abuse involving prescription drugs.â Id., at 5. Thus, rather than undermining the relevant governmental interest here, Reddingâ(TM)s age and sex, if anything, increased the need for a search to prevent the reasonably suspected use of prescription drugs.
You'd wonder what this guy was smoking when he wrote this. First off, "Abuse" is never defined anywhere. secondly, any age interval will have a "most abused (prescription) drug", so it's a red herring.
Lastly, something else about what he means by "abuse": the fact that they're using painkillers? It's alm
What's your point, exactly? That a 450g, 250 euro camera doesn't compare image quality-wise with a 1600 euro body+decent lens, 2kg DSLR?
I could similarly argue that your 40D is crap compared to a Phase One P65+, or point out that it's not a full-frame; but what is the point in doing that? It's all about trade-offs
My point was that, at its price point, and in its class (Superzooms/travel cameras) it's one of the best cameras around. Sure, you don't get awesome 100% zooms, but 1. you don't get any shots when you don't bring your camera (because you thought lugging it around wasn't worth the effort), and 2. if you've got the wrong lens on, you might just as easily miss a shot.
Choosing between DSLRs and P&S is not just a question of saying yes/no to quality: within classes you can do perfectly meaningful comparisons between cameras on relative image quality.
Lastly, to advertise a camera I don't own: the LX3 was made specifically with a lower-than-the-norm pixel density and a very fast lens, and it makes very neat pictures for something you can stick in your pocket. (see dpreview again, forums especially)
Not in a maintained list, but probably every camera that got an update on june 15 from here.
"Cracked" batteries will of course come out after any fw update (see this, for instance), but they'll probably only work for that fw (so don't update unless the fixes are significant). More reactions can be found here (DPReview pana forum).
That said, the older cameras that didn't have the chipped the batteries cannot get firmwares that check if third party batteries are used with the camera, but they seem to be shipping most (if not all, i haven't checked) new models with the chip "technology". Anyway, if you want a good camera without it, either get the FZ28 (very good superzoom cam, but not very usable with low light without the flash), get a camera with a known-to-be-working firmware (with no bugs that will need to be addressed), then get the batteries that work with the fw.
Mind you, my battery pack is good for about 500 shots (when shot with pauses between batches) without flash, so having an extra battery pack might not be imperative.
Awesome. In the same sentence you "apologize" for stereotyping me as "young and inexperienced" (because I don't subscribe to your take on the world), after which you seamlessly put me into another neat little box, the "PC Brigade". You seem to have a fascination with pidgeonholing people (I really do hope you only do this to those whose opinions you don't approve of).
Anyway, I wanted to apologize to you for giving you the impression that I am actually "married". I'm not, you see. I am, however, in a (fairly long-term) relationship. (I hope this will make it easier for you to dismiss my opinions, because of my obviously not being in a "real" relationship, or whatever.) Disregarding your attempted barb as juvenile, I would like to ask you a last question: Since you state so vociferously that it's a "female" thing to do to be "excited" (which apparently automatically implies sexually excited) when her man brings home the bacon, are you really saying that "being happy for your partner" is something only women become?
Lastly, I would like to come back to "Not quality of sex but quality of mate and moment. It's up to her mate to make the moment", as it doesn't seem to be internally consistent. You seem to be simultaneously saying that she picks "the quality of the moment" (whatever that means) and that he "makes the quality of the moment", but that it's not both. How does that work, exactly?
Anyway, I'm sorry to upset your world, but I'm not single, and haven't been for a while now.
Secondly, I was not talking about men who are selfish in bed, I'm talking about men who figure "shit, I've been busy all day, and now I have to do work for my partner as well, while she is doing nothing all day", and who figure that, if they're succesful at work, their wife will see and "appreciate" that, and show that specifically by "not requiring (emotional) upkeep"
Thirdly, sure, if you marry someone who has no education beyond HS to speak of (literary or psychology degrees might count, but don't necessarily) she'll be wonderfully happy to be a prairie mom or whatever, and be thrilled to be allowed to raise the kids, and get horny whenever her man feels "successful".
To some degree, this can only be expected, as those are the things that matter to the "survival" of the familial unit, but that is, and I do want to stress this, the same as saying that "women get aroused when a male is beating his chest". But sure, if you want to think that your spouse becomes aroused when you show her your big pile of money, be my guest.
Anyway, what does "it's up to her mate to 'make' the moment" mean? That she's helpless whenever you feel the need, and should consider herself lucky that you're being considerate? Because that really isn't any different from the chauvinism you mention in your 4th paragraph. It still doesn't take the "partner" in partnership seriously.
Lastly, thanks for the "once you get older and more experienced you'll realise this is the way the world works" peptalk, especially mixed with the conspiratorial "our". It makes me feel fuzzy inside.
No, canon has a much bigger marketing department (which is why you see 4000 canon products in every store but almost no Pana products)
In the digital compact market Panasonic is holding its own fairly well. Although the newest models indeed have these nonsensical battery firmware updates, the FZ28 can go head to head easily with the canon SX10.. And if you don't upgrade firmware, the LX3 with the 1.1 FW is one of the best cameras in its segment. Similarly for the tz7.
Yes, canon has the brand hame, but if you have a look at DPReview, you can compare reviews to see how the cameras/brands compare.
How neat. You seem to have missed (or chosen not to believe) in the parent's point entirely, preferring to stay a happy little misogynist who talks about how "all women" want "different things" (not to mention that they "only want money". yawn) from all men. I haven't the faintest if you meant to be funny or not (your post is too ambiguous), but judging from the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, you're not, so:
Where do you get that nonsense? In "women are from venus, and men are from mars"? Or just from your middle- to lower class friends, who "like to go fishing" whenever they're home from work?
To combat the first spiteful claim: if all goes well, you will also have changed by the time the two of you decide to have kids. If that isn't in the same direction, too bad for you. Learn to fucking communicate with the person you're attached to, rather than claiming "I don't get her, but she ain't putting out no mo'". They have brains, you know. Shouldn't be that hard to ask beforehand what they want to do when the both of you become parents. As I understand it, most women do not want to have a life that consists of getting up 20 times every night to feed the kid in the first 6-8 months, but as the male often refuses to ("I have to make money honey"), this will put a strain on her reserves. Especially when the guy's idea of sex is her blowing him, then him getting off in her and perhaps wanting to go a second time, but usually not, there doesn't seem to be any reason or her to "want" this, is there?
And in the more enlightened case, where the guy also cares about her enjoyment, he might also choose to apply that "sensitivity" (common sense?) to the time they spend together outside the marital bed. Sex is not a burden (FYI: I live in communist Europe), but it can become one easily, especially when the bed is the only place where two spouses "interact". What, exactly, would be the difference between that and "he only talks to me to get laid"?
Secondly, why, if you're that afraid of "marriage", do you still marry? Nobody forces you to. More to the point, If you wanted a wife that you could treat as an equal partner, who also has hobbies you like to talk about (or whatever), and whom you do "understand", you shouldn't marry right out of high school. This is one of the most turbulent times of your life, with most of your emotional growing still ahead of you, so how would you already know that your then-current partner is right for you? And by the time you're 25 or so, you should be able to pick someone whom you can talk to first about their (realistic) dreams and aspirations, and establish "what kind of mother/father" they want to become, etc. It's really only as hard as you make it.
The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
So: Go child porn?
Sure, the only people it will 'deter' is the stupid first time viewers, and it will probably still let through 90%, so it'll be pointless, but it's hardly as though there is a hard-an-fast distinction between 'censorship' and 'things you're by law required not to look at or enjoy'. The only difference is that in this case you're afraid of the "what else"... Sure, it's possible to say that you think the threat is overblown, or even that you just don't care enough about systematic exploitation of minors to want to risk "free speech" abridgment, but it's hardly as though you really are able, willing and interested in "saying" everything you could
The things you talk about, and consider important whenever the right to "free speech" is brought up, are the things that society allows you to talk about, after all. I still see very few people who are willing to openly discuss their private or sexual lives with others, even though there is no 'real'/'obvious' reason not to want to talk about it at all (in a non-lame/infantile manner). Especially considering the fact that statistically, people are still unsatisfied with these lives, and education, or sharing experiences, tips and tricks, would certainly obviate or alleviate some of these problems/complaints.
Yet still people consider this a "private" matter, feel uncomfortable, and are afraid that their spouse will immediately be poached upon or will want to 'try out' others as soon as the subject is discussed openly (or somesuch. We humans have such active imaginations, especially when it comes to thinking up scenarios about what might go wrong when we change some rule or other. They're much like that CDU politician at that, although most just come up with these rationalizations after the fact, because they "just don't feel comfortable" even thinking about it.)
Anyway, the problem isn't that certain modes of "speech" are being disallowed or prosecuted for when done online, (because that also happens offline) the problem is that cultural conservatives exist, who generally don't believe in looking at effect studies before passing judgment on whatever it is they perceive as a danger.
Luckily these people die to be replaced by other conservatives who are trying to conserve a slightly later rule set (the one that they grew up with, rather than their parents, allowing us to change the topics of debate at least once or a few times per generation. Reactionaries, luckily, are few and far between, and most of the time far off the mark when it comes to being "accurate" in their portrayal of earlier 'values'.
Slashdot Mirror
Here (Holland) there is a bit of a battle going on surrounding the question whether to lower edu standards (so that we can get a higher %age of people with 'tertiary' education: the govt wants 25% or so of the population to be able to receive uni/higher vocational training, and they're not willing to wait until they've become cleverer.) or just accept the fact that you can only do so much via teaching before ability starts rearing its 'ugly' head. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of tertiary education alone, a decent secondary education is at least as important for a population as a whole (more attainable, even if still not universal).
In light of that, I suspect that you would be able to find slight differences in overall education levels between the US/UK (illiteracy in the UK is quite a bit higher than in other parts of europe, which is why I don't include the UK with WE) and Continental Western Europe. I can't really find any figures on average education(-equivalent) levels of the respective current working-age populations, but considering we have a smaller manufacturing sector (I'm using Holland as an example here, forgive me if it isn't quite representative), I'm just hazarding a guess that it's somewhat higher.
(Source: CIA WFB). Of course this doesn't cover non-participants. That said, (Forgive me if this sounds a bit negative, as I understand it this is all fairly factually supported, even if I don't have sources listed atm) I'm not sure what to do with those; but we have about 6% living under the poverty line, whereas the USA has anywhere between 12 and 30-35% of the total population, depending on whether you count access to healthcare, affordable education, etc. Also, as I understand it the "definition of poverty line" used in US statistics is somewhat odd (goods basket which hasn't been updated in ages, etc). I will for now venture that this group is likely also poorly educated, and wasted as a source of potential labor.
To get back to your assertion about the correlation between national debt and education costs: considering the US will probably be rising to something like 120-150% of GDP in the coming years, and weighing the fact that the total sum does matter a bit for investors when considering whether to invest further (trust issues). Lastly, GDP sort of sucks as an indicator of welfare, as it doesn't tell you anything about income/wealth distribution (which does matter), PPP is slightly better, but problematic for the same reason, and GINI coefficients don't tell you anything about median incomes either. The OECD (and Gapminder) are luckily working on developing a new methodology, but it's fairly easy to argue that any of these indicators only give a very partial picture.
I say this not so much to demean the US, as to emphasize that quite a bit is left out in these measures (which seems pertinent because you're using it as an indicator of wealth/welfare/something similar).
Having said that, I don't the correlation is very strong yet, but considering we've only really started educating 'the masses' since 1950 or so (or really 1960), I will suggest the effect will likely become more pronounced in the coming decades, and the US will be forced to start subsidizing education more (or alternatively, require tuition fees to come down. If you look at the historical development, the US went from mass free uni education via government sponsorships in the 1960s-70s to having upward from $50k for a degree per
Hm. I guess I should've used the 'sarcasm' tag..
Sorry. Anyway, the book really is interesting.
Actually, all you do is create an irrelevantly-educated underclass that can do nothing anymore. (Thus enabling you to claim that it's the underclass's own fault that they're stupid. Self-fulfilling prophecies are wonderful things.) Outsourcing will happen anyway, heavy industry will still move to countries where they get to pay as little as possible for manufacturing, and all the US will be left with is an enormous underclass with no jobs to do, because nobody can afford to retrain them all for something else.
Hm. I guess I should've used the tag..
Right. Because fuck knows having a better-educated population won't pay off in the long run. Do you have any idea what it does for the US to have so many people only capable of filling basic manufacturing jobs? Yes, indeed: "Auto industry bailout", and other forms of protectionism (import quotas on steel, which causes higher taxes as well as more expensive goods made from artificially more expensive US steel, etc.). Congratulations, you've just lost 50 billion dollars. Enjoy it.
Of course you can; it's the republican way. there are no systems (except Big Government), everything else is the market, and the Market is Good. Also, people deserve to be punished for the "mistakes" of their parents (such as them not being millionaires), so that rules out aid/affordable loans to children/students. It's all very biblical, if you think about it. Anyway, without seeming like an advertiser too much, might I draw this book to your attention? It's mostly relevant, though it slightly emphasizes the banking industry's side of the story over the education industry's, and I found it a fairly interesting hypothesis. (even though it sort of ignores the question why there is so much worry over bad education per se.)
The largest advantage to wave I see (as well as the biggest potential issue) is authentication. Right now anyone can spoof email.. That should be over if people would switch to something like Wave.
It's taken alot of stuff from Battlestar Galactica and Lost - not nescesarilly a bad thing -
Yeah, they took mostly the bad parts. I had to watch fifteen minutes of some hysterical young woman crying because her dad was a diseased and overweight US senator who decided to throw himself out of an airlock in some misguided sense of justice. Was I the only one who was thinking "if all you have to do is push a button, there's about fifty better ways to do it than this -- like drop one of those floating camera balls on it maybe?" Hey, you're in a ship made by a super-advanced civilization. I'm willing to bet there's a Plan B that doesn't involve dramatic (but stupid) death. Can I have some intelligent death with my drama, pleeeeease? Also, if they wanted to take something from BSG, why not take the idea of a stronger female role model, rather than reverting to the Hysterical Idiot Woman cliche that pervades almost all science fiction? :(
Oh, and could we do a little less wholesale borrowing of the Baltar character in this series? I half-expected this Rush guy to start masturbating to visions of a long-lost love the moment he realized they were running out of air. Also, since this is the 3rd generation of the series -- us long-time Trek fans know where this puts it: Deep Space Nine. Cue groaning in 5...4...3...
I have to say I agree almost entirely with your post, though I found his death less misguided than a Deus Ex Machina plot device to be milked again and again (and I fear not for the last time, either). The 'daddy I'm a PolSci graduate (and presumably something like 22+), but I'm really dependent on you and I will cry lots when you even mention wanting to be left alone so that you can try to think about sacrificing yourself for the greater good (something I'm sure lots of responsible father figures/politicians do) without being distracted by my crying' person annoyed me to tears. And that was before I was dragged through a harrowing 9 minute scene of her crying and then bonding with young_soldier_boy_in_command, because we had to have character development, or something resembling it.
The first ep was decent if not earth shattering, but the second really had way too many boring action-lacking scenes that weren't setting up any of the later story (apart from the probable oncoming suicide of $whiny_daughter, or something similarly predictable that nobody cares about because nobody has been drawn into the story line yet). And then they end the pilot at the worst possible moment, and tell you to finish watching next weekend, leaving you on a horrible (s)low note that pervaded most of the second episode. Gods, the planning for this broadcast really was terrible.
Then there's Dr. Rush, and everyone refusing to be under his command, there's a "don't patronize me, boy" senator who suddenly decides to be heroic off-screen, 2 IOA members who shout "who made you boss" without having any regard whatever for trying to survive first, before executing the grunts trying to save them (God I'm tired of the 1-dimensional incompetent self-important politician stereotype that so pervades TV), and the general fact that almost every scene took 50% too long, along with the fact that they spent about 3 scenes on the same 'life-threatening issue' where one would really have been enough. How often can you say "shit, we're fucked unless we miraculously fix this" already? Sure, you can portray helplessness of the ad-hoc crew nicely by letting them wander around aimlessly, but it all mostly just seemed badly directed to me.
PS. I apologise for the rambling and meandering nature of my post, but I'm having trouble generating a coherent plot from the episodes.
Ahh, that is science(references to articles).
Right. Being academically trained, however, means both 1. being able to evaluate said arguments, and/or "science", and 2. (given that you should most often be "discussing" possibilities) try to be as open-minded as possible (or, less strongly, as open-minded as is warranted given a certain source) in determining whether a suggestion has merit. Which also entails being at least slightly willing to do elementary google searches to verify content, rather than trying to "score" quick and easy victories on form.
probable link between HFCS and liver disease (which already takes for granted the link between AOD and HFCS intake, Nature)
more about the detrimental effects specifically of using HFCS rather than normal glucose etc
High consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks and fruit drinks increased the risk for diabetes in African-American women in this analysis.
newscientist (pop sci) Fructose:health effects
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54]
Or you could google it, read, say, this review see, this article in elsevier and see for yourself that it is already pretty well-accepted that HFCS is bad.
As to the link to your post: You assert that GMO haters are unreasonable, or something to that effect, and that there is no reasoning with them, (but that they're wrong; at least, that seemed to me to be your unspoken conclusion/assertion). In response, I suggested that they might be less wrong than you suppose, and further, that it's not entirely unreasonable to be careful when considering how next to mess with human food intake, specifically because, per my assertion, metabolism is ill-understood, and we know very little of what the body actually needs to function properly. And that it's not a priori unreasonable to assume that we have evolved uses for everything we used to eat, and that some of these new functions we were able to develop are now things we can no longer do without without breaking.
I'm really sorry that you were so shocked by my assertion that Americans are somewhat fucked by being forced to eat quite so much junk (just because HFCS is cheaper to produce than other sugars), but it sort of saddens me that you were so shocked that you couldn't even be bothered googling the two relevant terms just to see if there is a suggested link between HFCS and diabetes (and other metabolic diseases) before stating so triumphantly that my post contains "zero science".
I'm sorry, but digestion and the (human) metabolic system in general is among the least-understood processes in our body; never mind 'guessing' what vitamins/minerals etc we need and which we don't (see, for an extreme example, people with bipolar disorder who suddenly improve when they get enough lithium again).
Further, see this post, as it sums up a lot fairly nicely.
Sure, part of the problem with the american diet is just the total and utter lack of vegetables, but stuff like HFCS are currently being suggested to be among the worst choices ever for adult-onset diabetes (as fructose digestion takes up much more energy/concentration by the relevant organ [iirc the liver] than glucose does, etc. See an earlier post of mine in another thread for more).
I can sort of live with the indirect effect this has via cow fodder etc, but I'll be damned before I'm forced to buy GM food (as things like 'contamination'+litigation by maffiosi like Monsanto will result in that 20 years down the line) that is hardly tested at all for long-term effects before being rubberstamped by that at least semi-corrupt organization called the FDA.
That desire you felt for your wife's girlfriend? Uh oh. Acting on that impulse could have landed you in jail at one time in history, too. What are you suggesting? That rape, pillage and plunder will some day become morally acceptable too, just like adultry has (and always has been, at least for males, in reality)? Because that's a fairly silly argument to be making, really.
You seem to be forgetting (for the point of your argument) that the outcome of an adultry session is far less dramatic than the outcome of a murder/rape/pillage session.
The point isn't that people have bad thoughts, the point is that some people do not, and some people literally cannot inhibit them (often enough), and as such are not able to live in a society that requires a modicum of sociality. This isn't about "moral outrage" because the removing of random people (based on the desires of those sociopaths combined with a dose of luck) for no reason other than that they felt they had to give into an urge is a very radical action, much more radical than having sex with someone other than your partner.
Sure, your wife may kill herself/you/whatever, but that's up to her, and is behavior that is not determined by your actions, whereas being killed leaves very little by way of possible responses to that fact.
As such, it can surely be tragic how someone lost his inhibitory systems, but that does not mean he/she can still walk around through society freely without becoming a problem. (the only problem here is developing adequate prediction/screening techniques that don't yield FPs). Pity is no excuse, as the point isn't to be "fair", the point is to keep society free from those people who cannot live in groups without majorly fucking up other people's lives because they're rude.
Sure, you can wonder about detection adequacy, racism and the lot, but, assuming perfect detection and no abuse of the system (or well, as perfect as the current justice system is, noting that I'm not talking about the US specifically here, as there are just too many Tom Hanks movies about prisoner abuse to want to be ambiguous on this point), there is no argument against it that is strong enough to justify letting them walk around.
So yes, eugenics is a good idea. Implementation is ever the issue.
And everyone who had put money in those banks, trusting that the SEC and Fed would make sure those banks couldn't fuck them over should've just be thrown to the wolves?
"Bankruptcy" at this level has nothing whatsoever to do with "taking your responsibility"; if your downfall means you'll be taking 200.000 others with you, your rhetoric about "the market decides what's fair" notwithstanding. 90-95% of Americans have zero control over what others do with their money, so why was it their responsibility to see through fraud schemes that even those with 'training' in the field couldn't (or wouldn't) grasp? That's why you have regulative agencies (and that's why they were neutered through lobbying).
Sure, it would be nice if all CEOs from the 1990s onward would be put in front of a firing squad and shot (either with or without a trial), but that's an entirely different point.
Isn't that sequence of events trademarked (or whatever) as a business method (or whatever) by Looney Tunes (or something)? It seems suspiciously similar to the sequences where laws like the law of gravitation only kicks in once the character sees he should be affected by them?
Scientific debate is, sure. But this isn't a debate, this is "policy-presenting". I'm quite sure that relevant scientists can use scholar.google.com to find actual publications.
This "publication" (If you want to call this Competitive Enterprise Institute (see this neat interview in response to this) publication "scientific", or "debate". Their only goal is to confuse the public, and senators/representatives into thinking that they have a reason to be sceptical (or can justify their own "feelings" on the topic).. it has nothing to do with "providing another side to the scientific debate, just the political one.
Teenagers are nevertheless apt to âoebelieve the myth that these drugs provide a medically safe high.â ONDCP, Teens and Prescription Drugs: An Analysis of Recent Trends on the Emerging Drug Threat 3 (Feb. 2007) (here inafter Teens and Prescription Drugs). But since 1999, there has âoebeen a dramatic increase in the number of poisonings and even deaths associated with the abuse of prescription drugs.â Prescription for Danger 4; see also
Mind you, ONDCP is a government agency attached to POTUS, which in 2007 meant GOP, of course. Both very reliable sources when it comes to the severity of the problem where the War on Drugs is concerned.
death from overdose. The Pill Book 821, 827 (H. Silverman, ed., 13th ed. 2008) (observing that Ibuprofen and Naproxen are NSAIDs and âoe[p]eople have died from NSAID over dosesâ). Moreover, the side-effects caused by the use of NSAIDs can be magnified if they are taken in combination with other drugs. See, e.g., Reactions Weekly, p. 18 (Issue no. 1235, Jan. 17, 2009) (âoeA 17-year-old girl developed allergic interstitial nephritis and renal failure while receiving escitalopram and ibuprofenâ); id., at 26 (Issue no.1232, Dec. 13, 2008) (âoeA 16-month-old boy developed iron deficiency anaemia and hypoalbuminaemia during treatment with naproxenâ); id., at 15 (Issue no. 1220, Sept. 20, 2008) (18-year-old âoewas diagnosed with pill-induced oesophageal perforationâ after taking ibuprofen âoeand was admitted to the [intensive care unit]â); id., at 20 (Issue no.1170, Sept. 22, 2007) (âoeA 12-year-old boy developed anaphylaxis following ingestion of ibuprofenâ). If a student with a previously unknown intolerance to
So the most substantial thing he says is that "kids might die". Nothing about prevalence other than the assertion (never mind the credibility of the report). Basically, these are known, unlikely, side effects of ibu use, nothing more. Entirely irrelevant (or the FDA would've done something). Also, there is obviously the fact that ibu is an OTC drug.
with regard to "in loco parentis":
responsibilities delegated to them by parents. If the common-law view that parents delegate to teachers their authority to discipline and maintain order were to be applied in this case, the search of Redding would stand. There can be no doubt that a parent would have had the authority to conduct the search at issue in this case. Parents have âoeimmunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendmentâ when it comes to searches of a child
citing something from 1987 (when child molestation was almost never reported), he here says that teachers (like parents) have the right to do whatever they want to their kids; a statement the truth of which is doubtful at best, but he's still saying it.
Schools have a significant interest in protecting all students from prescription drug abuse; young female students are no exception. See Teens and Prescription Drugs 2 (âoePrescription drugs are the most commonly abused drug among 12â"13-year-oldsâ). In fact, among 12- to 17-year-olds, females are âoemore likely than boys to have abused prescription drugsâ and have âoehigher rates of dependence or abuse involving prescription drugs.â Id., at 5. Thus, rather than undermining the relevant governmental interest here, Reddingâ(TM)s age and sex, if anything, increased the need for a search to prevent the reasonably suspected use of prescription drugs.
You'd wonder what this guy was smoking when he wrote this. First off, "Abuse" is never defined anywhere. secondly, any age interval will have a "most abused (prescription) drug", so it's a red herring.
Lastly, something else about what he means by "abuse": the fact that they're using painkillers? It's alm
What's your point, exactly? That a 450g, 250 euro camera doesn't compare image quality-wise with a 1600 euro body+decent lens, 2kg DSLR?
I could similarly argue that your 40D is crap compared to a Phase One P65+, or point out that it's not a full-frame; but what is the point in doing that? It's all about trade-offs
My point was that, at its price point, and in its class (Superzooms/travel cameras) it's one of the best cameras around. Sure, you don't get awesome 100% zooms, but 1. you don't get any shots when you don't bring your camera (because you thought lugging it around wasn't worth the effort), and 2. if you've got the wrong lens on, you might just as easily miss a shot.
Choosing between DSLRs and P&S is not just a question of saying yes/no to quality: within classes you can do perfectly meaningful comparisons between cameras on relative image quality.
Lastly, to advertise a camera I don't own: the LX3 was made specifically with a lower-than-the-norm pixel density and a very fast lens, and it makes very neat pictures for something you can stick in your pocket. (see dpreview again, forums especially)
Not in a maintained list, but probably every camera that got an update on june 15 from here.
"Cracked" batteries will of course come out after any fw update (see this, for instance), but they'll probably only work for that fw (so don't update unless the fixes are significant). More reactions can be found here (DPReview pana forum).
That said, the older cameras that didn't have the chipped the batteries cannot get firmwares that check if third party batteries are used with the camera, but they seem to be shipping most (if not all, i haven't checked) new models with the chip "technology". Anyway, if you want a good camera without it, either get the FZ28 (very good superzoom cam, but not very usable with low light without the flash), get a camera with a known-to-be-working firmware (with no bugs that will need to be addressed), then get the batteries that work with the fw.
Mind you, my battery pack is good for about 500 shots (when shot with pauses between batches) without flash, so having an extra battery pack might not be imperative.
Awesome. In the same sentence you "apologize" for stereotyping me as "young and inexperienced" (because I don't subscribe to your take on the world), after which you seamlessly put me into another neat little box, the "PC Brigade". You seem to have a fascination with pidgeonholing people (I really do hope you only do this to those whose opinions you don't approve of).
Anyway, I wanted to apologize to you for giving you the impression that I am actually "married". I'm not, you see. I am, however, in a (fairly long-term) relationship. (I hope this will make it easier for you to dismiss my opinions, because of my obviously not being in a "real" relationship, or whatever.) Disregarding your attempted barb as juvenile, I would like to ask you a last question: Since you state so vociferously that it's a "female" thing to do to be "excited" (which apparently automatically implies sexually excited) when her man brings home the bacon, are you really saying that "being happy for your partner" is something only women become?
Lastly, I would like to come back to "Not quality of sex but quality of mate and moment. It's up to her mate to make the moment", as it doesn't seem to be internally consistent.
You seem to be simultaneously saying that she picks "the quality of the moment" (whatever that means) and that he "makes the quality of the moment", but that it's not both. How does that work, exactly?
Anyway, I'm sorry to upset your world, but I'm not single, and haven't been for a while now.
Secondly, I was not talking about men who are selfish in bed, I'm talking about men who figure "shit, I've been busy all day, and now I have to do work for my partner as well, while she is doing nothing all day", and who figure that, if they're succesful at work, their wife will see and "appreciate" that, and show that specifically by "not requiring (emotional) upkeep"
Thirdly, sure, if you marry someone who has no education beyond HS to speak of (literary or psychology degrees might count, but don't necessarily) she'll be wonderfully happy to be a prairie mom or whatever, and be thrilled to be allowed to raise the kids, and get horny whenever her man feels "successful".
To some degree, this can only be expected, as those are the things that matter to the "survival" of the familial unit, but that is, and I do want to stress this, the same as saying that "women get aroused when a male is beating his chest". But sure, if you want to think that your spouse becomes aroused when you show her your big pile of money, be my guest.
Anyway, what does "it's up to her mate to 'make' the moment" mean? That she's helpless whenever you feel the need, and should consider herself lucky that you're being considerate? Because that really isn't any different from the chauvinism you mention in your 4th paragraph. It still doesn't take the "partner" in partnership seriously.
Lastly, thanks for the "once you get older and more experienced you'll realise this is the way the world works" peptalk, especially mixed with the conspiratorial "our". It makes me feel fuzzy inside.
The FZ28 doesn't have chipped batteries.
No, canon has a much bigger marketing department (which is why you see 4000 canon products in every store but almost no Pana products)
In the digital compact market Panasonic is holding its own fairly well. Although the newest models indeed have these nonsensical battery firmware updates, the FZ28 can go head to head easily with the canon SX10.. And if you don't upgrade firmware, the LX3 with the 1.1 FW is one of the best cameras in its segment. Similarly for the tz7.
Yes, canon has the brand hame, but if you have a look at DPReview, you can compare reviews to see how the cameras/brands compare.
How neat. You seem to have missed (or chosen not to believe) in the parent's point entirely, preferring to stay a happy little misogynist who talks about how "all women" want "different things" (not to mention that they "only want money". yawn) from all men. I haven't the faintest if you meant to be funny or not (your post is too ambiguous), but judging from the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, you're not, so:
Where do you get that nonsense? In "women are from venus, and men are from mars"? Or just from your middle- to lower class friends, who "like to go fishing" whenever they're home from work?
To combat the first spiteful claim: if all goes well, you will also have changed by the time the two of you decide to have kids. If that isn't in the same direction, too bad for you. Learn to fucking communicate with the person you're attached to, rather than claiming "I don't get her, but she ain't putting out no mo'". They have brains, you know. Shouldn't be that hard to ask beforehand what they want to do when the both of you become parents. As I understand it, most women do not want to have a life that consists of getting up 20 times every night to feed the kid in the first 6-8 months, but as the male often refuses to ("I have to make money honey"), this will put a strain on her reserves. Especially when the guy's idea of sex is her blowing him, then him getting off in her and perhaps wanting to go a second time, but usually not, there doesn't seem to be any reason or her to "want" this, is there?
And in the more enlightened case, where the guy also cares about her enjoyment, he might also choose to apply that "sensitivity" (common sense?) to the time they spend together outside the marital bed.
Sex is not a burden (FYI: I live in communist Europe), but it can become one easily, especially when the bed is the only place where two spouses "interact". What, exactly, would be the difference between that and "he only talks to me to get laid"?
Secondly, why, if you're that afraid of "marriage", do you still marry? Nobody forces you to. More to the point, If you wanted a wife that you could treat as an equal partner, who also has hobbies you like to talk about (or whatever), and whom you do "understand", you shouldn't marry right out of high school. This is one of the most turbulent times of your life, with most of your emotional growing still ahead of you, so how would you already know that your then-current partner is right for you? And by the time you're 25 or so, you should be able to pick someone whom you can talk to first about their (realistic) dreams and aspirations, and establish "what kind of mother/father" they want to become, etc. It's really only as hard as you make it.
despite its conservative population.
despite or because of? ;-)
The golden era is over. We're all doomed.
The exact reverse can be argued. Due to the empowerment the internet has given to Joe Public, the enabling technologies which continue to come to market and the explosion in independent self expression Governments around the world are panicking into passing legislation which they hope will get the Genie back in the bottle. But frankly, they're pissing in the wind. Human ingenuity will win out over the nay sayers maybe for the first time in history because the development of tools is in OUR hands and the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
So: Go child porn?
Sure, the only people it will 'deter' is the stupid first time viewers, and it will probably still let through 90%, so it'll be pointless, but it's hardly as though there is a hard-an-fast distinction between 'censorship' and 'things you're by law required not to look at or enjoy'. The only difference is that in this case you're afraid of the "what else"... Sure, it's possible to say that you think the threat is overblown, or even that you just don't care enough about systematic exploitation of minors to want to risk "free speech" abridgment, but it's hardly as though you really are able, willing and interested in "saying" everything you could
The things you talk about, and consider important whenever the right to "free speech" is brought up, are the things that society allows you to talk about, after all. I still see very few people who are willing to openly discuss their private or sexual lives with others, even though there is no 'real'/'obvious' reason not to want to talk about it at all (in a non-lame/infantile manner). Especially considering the fact that statistically, people are still unsatisfied with these lives, and education, or sharing experiences, tips and tricks, would certainly obviate or alleviate some of these problems/complaints.
Yet still people consider this a "private" matter, feel uncomfortable, and are afraid that their spouse will immediately be poached upon or will want to 'try out' others as soon as the subject is discussed openly (or somesuch. We humans have such active imaginations, especially when it comes to thinking up scenarios about what might go wrong when we change some rule or other. They're much like that CDU politician at that, although most just come up with these rationalizations after the fact, because they "just don't feel comfortable" even thinking about it.)
Anyway, the problem isn't that certain modes of "speech" are being disallowed or prosecuted for when done online, (because that also happens offline) the problem is that cultural conservatives exist, who generally don't believe in looking at effect studies before passing judgment on whatever it is they perceive as a danger.
Luckily these people die to be replaced by other conservatives who are trying to conserve a slightly later rule set (the one that they grew up with, rather than their parents, allowing us to change the topics of debate at least once or a few times per generation. Reactionaries, luckily, are few and far between, and most of the time far off the mark when it comes to being "accurate" in their portrayal of earlier 'values'.