Within a week I'll be seeing this on some politically-skewed news site given as proof that brain death is just something doctors invented as an excuse to kill people. A week later, Obama will have invented it.
It really only ends one of three ways that I can see: 1. Political reform happens and politicians work to create a welfare system capable of supporting a large unemployed population indefinitely. It probably won't support a very high standard of living, but enough to keep them fed, sheltered, and supplied with television. 2. Civil unrest reaches the point of open revolution - tens of millions of unemployed people turning to crime to put food on the table and resenting the wealthy, eventually reaching the point of riots. This will eventually resolve into 1 or 3, depending how the new authorities handle things. 3. Civil unrest is arrested by the imposition of a police state, in which the government uses surveillance to detect and quell any revolution before it can happen. Society becomes increasingly divided along class lines.
We've seen 2 in the past, ending in disastrous attempts at communism. It's possible it will actually work when augmented by better technologies.
Medical technology has been advancing rapidly - but so has the cost of using the latest and most capable technologies. People live longer than ever, but the older they get the more it costs to keep them going.
There are some experiments that prove the values are not set - but they cannot be observed without also randomising them in such a way that no information can be transferred.
Tachyons have never been observed. Even if they can exist, there is no known means to generate them. The only reason to believe such a particle is even possible is that they are a valid solution to certain equations in special relativity.
If the subject of the image is unaware the image has been viewed again, how can they possibly be harmed by the act?
You have, though, provided a good demonstration of why debate on the subject is so difficult: The socially acceptable view is that child porn is inherently evil and anyone who seeks to watch it is a monster who needs to be locked up or destroyed. This view is so strong that to question is in public is to risk one's reputation and one's career. I personally regard it as a medical issue: No person simply decides 'I think I'd like to look at some child rape today.' It's a psychological problem, a compulsion, and one that the sufferers do try their best to resist as they are filled with self-loathing. They need treatment and monitoring, not to be thrown in jail - but anyone who expresses this view is branded as a 'child sexual assault apologist, or else a fucking nonce.' How can you have a debate in such an emotionally charged environment?
Including the historical predecessor to the western culture which most posters here reside in. It wasn't until the 1800s that a movement to raise the age of consent began to spread, and it was driven in large part by a desire to eliminate prostitution - prior to that the legal age of consent in most countries was somewhere between ten and thirteen, and the social standard was that menstruation was the signal a girl had reached adulthood and was ready to be married. Most parents would be very eager to get their daughter married off as quickly as possible - get them a good husband, and get their upkeep and food costs transferred to another family. The sons would take longer - they had to worry about financial security and education.
The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.
Even in the not-very-good film, it was the exact opposite situation: It was impossible for him to alter the past in any manner that would *prevent* the construction of the machine, because that would create a paradox.
I do have a list of IP ranges that, if blocked, kill Cortana and all the other spyware. But you can't do them using the Windows firewall - system services are exempt, and there's also a whitelist of hosts that will always be resolved via DNS rather than the hosts file. You have to do it from the router. It'll also block Bing, Onedrive, product activation and pretty much everything else Microsoft.
I don't see any conflict. It's the old Voltaire position on free speech: I may not agree with your decision, but I believe it must be your decision to make.
I find it very frustrating that the pro-life side generally opposes contraception and sex education, even though these are the best mean we have to reduce the need for and number of abortions. I think it's because they have such a strong religious element - almost all of the major pro-life organisations and leaders are explicitly Christian and devoutly so, which means they must regard their mission as not only to eliminate abortion, but to eliminate the evil of non-marital sex too.
Left, right... there are no clear definitions for them, really. They are labels of convenience, and both sides have tremendous internal complication and conflict.
If I were starting this topic over, I'd have taken a different route - and it's no more right or wrong. My definition of right-wing fiction would be that which has a clear absolute moral element: There's a good guy and a bad guy, the bad guy is very very bad, and there's no doubt at all about who is in the right. It supports the view that there is a right and a wrong side in every conflict. The left-wing fiction would include elements of relativism: Yes, the aliens might be morally abhorrent to us at first sight, but that just means we don't understand them and why they do what they do.
Trump is having a difficult time adopting the language of right-wing political culture, something evidently quite foreign to him but essential in getting the nomination.
The pro-life movement as a whole has graduations, but the politically active subset tend to be the most extreme no-abortion-no-exception types who will only with great reluctance allow the option of abortion even if it's the only way to save the life of a woman.
Even the pro-choice side generally don't like abortions (Which is why I find it so annoying when their opposites refer to them as 'pro-abortion.'). They either regard abortion as something which must be legal for reasons of principle, or as something which must be legal as it is sometimes the least-worst of a set of bad options.
At least after birth you can err on the side of caution - protecting the baby doesn't unavoidably infringe upon anyone else's rights. Before birth there is an unavoidable conflict with the rights of the woman.
Slashdot Mirror
Within a week I'll be seeing this on some politically-skewed news site given as proof that brain death is just something doctors invented as an excuse to kill people. A week later, Obama will have invented it.
It really only ends one of three ways that I can see:
1. Political reform happens and politicians work to create a welfare system capable of supporting a large unemployed population indefinitely. It probably won't support a very high standard of living, but enough to keep them fed, sheltered, and supplied with television.
2. Civil unrest reaches the point of open revolution - tens of millions of unemployed people turning to crime to put food on the table and resenting the wealthy, eventually reaching the point of riots. This will eventually resolve into 1 or 3, depending how the new authorities handle things.
3. Civil unrest is arrested by the imposition of a police state, in which the government uses surveillance to detect and quell any revolution before it can happen. Society becomes increasingly divided along class lines.
We've seen 2 in the past, ending in disastrous attempts at communism. It's possible it will actually work when augmented by better technologies.
The US public are deliberately unaware, because anyone who speaks about it it attacked as a dirty commie.
Medical technology has been advancing rapidly - but so has the cost of using the latest and most capable technologies. People live longer than ever, but the older they get the more it costs to keep them going.
Isn't that how it already goes?
There are some experiments that prove the values are not set - but they cannot be observed without also randomising them in such a way that no information can be transferred.
Tachyons have never been observed. Even if they can exist, there is no known means to generate them. The only reason to believe such a particle is even possible is that they are a valid solution to certain equations in special relativity.
If the subject of the image is unaware the image has been viewed again, how can they possibly be harmed by the act?
You have, though, provided a good demonstration of why debate on the subject is so difficult: The socially acceptable view is that child porn is inherently evil and anyone who seeks to watch it is a monster who needs to be locked up or destroyed. This view is so strong that to question is in public is to risk one's reputation and one's career. I personally regard it as a medical issue: No person simply decides 'I think I'd like to look at some child rape today.' It's a psychological problem, a compulsion, and one that the sufferers do try their best to resist as they are filled with self-loathing. They need treatment and monitoring, not to be thrown in jail - but anyone who expresses this view is branded as a 'child sexual assault apologist, or else a fucking nonce.' How can you have a debate in such an emotionally charged environment?
Including the historical predecessor to the western culture which most posters here reside in. It wasn't until the 1800s that a movement to raise the age of consent began to spread, and it was driven in large part by a desire to eliminate prostitution - prior to that the legal age of consent in most countries was somewhere between ten and thirteen, and the social standard was that menstruation was the signal a girl had reached adulthood and was ready to be married. Most parents would be very eager to get their daughter married off as quickly as possible - get them a good husband, and get their upkeep and food costs transferred to another family. The sons would take longer - they had to worry about financial security and education.
The IWB is a well-intentioned organisation, but they have no accountability whatsoever. They publish a list of links they claim are child abuse imagery, and ISPs block what's on the list - but the list, for obvious reasons, is super-secret. The processes by which the list is generated is also secret - even those who are put on the list are not informed that they are now on the list. Some (not all) ISPs actively try to prevent those who are censored from finding out by spoofing 404 error page rather than explaining that a deliberate block is in place - they certainly aren't going to contact the site operator. Even if someone wrongly blocked finds out (as happened with Wikipedia only because the block process inadvertently broke the site) there is no appeals process in place. That's a lot of power for an unaccountable and opaque organisation.
Even in the not-very-good film, it was the exact opposite situation: It was impossible for him to alter the past in any manner that would *prevent* the construction of the machine, because that would create a paradox.
https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/Q...
There. I just didn't have them to hand at the time of posting.
https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/Q...
There. I just didn't have them to hand at the time of posting.
You forgot sex trafficking. That's the latest one to get added to the list.
Yes, but I think a good portion of the users are just there to look at crude 3D porn and semi-literate roleplays now.
I'm sure the #1 query on Bing is 'google.'
And #2 is 'facebook.'
I do have a list of IP ranges that, if blocked, kill Cortana and all the other spyware. But you can't do them using the Windows firewall - system services are exempt, and there's also a whitelist of hosts that will always be resolved via DNS rather than the hosts file. You have to do it from the router. It'll also block Bing, Onedrive, product activation and pretty much everything else Microsoft.
Because she can always give it up for adoption.
It's more often the man who is forced by law to pay for the support of a child he didn't want.
I don't see any conflict. It's the old Voltaire position on free speech: I may not agree with your decision, but I believe it must be your decision to make.
I find it very frustrating that the pro-life side generally opposes contraception and sex education, even though these are the best mean we have to reduce the need for and number of abortions. I think it's because they have such a strong religious element - almost all of the major pro-life organisations and leaders are explicitly Christian and devoutly so, which means they must regard their mission as not only to eliminate abortion, but to eliminate the evil of non-marital sex too.
The respect for science isn't really needed. There's a subgenre of dystopia based on a projection of technological advance.
Left, right... there are no clear definitions for them, really. They are labels of convenience, and both sides have tremendous internal complication and conflict.
If I were starting this topic over, I'd have taken a different route - and it's no more right or wrong. My definition of right-wing fiction would be that which has a clear absolute moral element: There's a good guy and a bad guy, the bad guy is very very bad, and there's no doubt at all about who is in the right. It supports the view that there is a right and a wrong side in every conflict. The left-wing fiction would include elements of relativism: Yes, the aliens might be morally abhorrent to us at first sight, but that just means we don't understand them and why they do what they do.
Trump is having a difficult time adopting the language of right-wing political culture, something evidently quite foreign to him but essential in getting the nomination.
The pro-life movement as a whole has graduations, but the politically active subset tend to be the most extreme no-abortion-no-exception types who will only with great reluctance allow the option of abortion even if it's the only way to save the life of a woman.
Even the pro-choice side generally don't like abortions (Which is why I find it so annoying when their opposites refer to them as 'pro-abortion.'). They either regard abortion as something which must be legal for reasons of principle, or as something which must be legal as it is sometimes the least-worst of a set of bad options.
At least after birth you can err on the side of caution - protecting the baby doesn't unavoidably infringe upon anyone else's rights. Before birth there is an unavoidable conflict with the rights of the woman.