it is allowed now, and perhaps that is something that needs to be addressed. for a long time up until the mid-1800's, the rule of thumb for abortions was that it was ok before the baby's kick could be felt. I'd be okay with the deadline being around 20 weeks, but in any case the vast majority of abortions happen long before the end of the first trimester.
Babies as young as 25 weeks premature have survived to be healthy adults outside after care and treatment in the NICU. That is far earlier than most terminations!
Lies! Judging from the actual numbers, it looks to me like the majority (54%) of abortions are performed prior to 8 weeks of gestation, and especially before 10 weeks (77%). At 10 weeks, the fetus is about 1 inch in length. It's just a ball of stuff that in a few weeks will become a human.
Unwanted pregnancy sucks, but it's not the end of the world. A culture that values only the convience of now, and the "benefit of the species", is very likely going to be a very unpleasant place to live long term.
You are extremely naive. You probably haven't had sex yet, but I'd say you are in need of a good near-pregnancy scare or two. Even the most careful people have them now and then. It certainly makes you think about what you would do.
Compassion is a very valuable force in society, which pays more than it costs.
Yes, but what if the compassionate thing is to prevent another unwanted baby?...and some research even indicates it may very well make society a better place to live in.
The imperial Roman culture of the Augustian age would have suited you well, you're a fascist babykiller, etc, etc...
You're nuts if you can't differentiate between destroying a ball of tissue the size of a marble and killing fully-developed beings.
Ie, you're more interested in creating a child to carry your genetics than in creating a life to love, hold, and care for.
What is the point of having children, and really anything else we do here if it is not to make every effort to maximize our long-term survival and prosperity as a species?
Perhaps I should ask why you care so much about your specific genetic line. Unless you can prove that your genetic line will be advantageous in the future (which you can't)
Nobody's saying anyone can prove a genetic line will be advantageous in the future. What I'm saying is that there are certain genetic anomalies which nobody could reasonbly argue are viable or would be good for us evolutionarily.
I can't begin to see why you'd decide to go off and end a life to maximize the chances of creating the single life you're able to financially insure.
Again, you're drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument. I'm saying there is reasonable evidence to conclude that this electrochemical computational phenomenon we call "life" does not develop beyond that of a very rudimentary organism until around halfway in the pregnancy, and there is some evidence which shows that giving people the option to do so greatly improves the peace and and quality of life in a community, which in turn increases long-term survivability and prosperity of the species.
So, if you could only find out your child had Down's syndrome at 10 years, would you be okay with people killing their children then? Would you require a doctor's note? What if it wasn't until 19 years that symptoms showed up?
Of course not! But are you seriously not able to distinguish between leaving a baby to the wolves and destroying what is clearly a non-sentient mass of tissue? It's significantly less sentient than that animal you just ate was. I don't suppose you're a vegan?
Life is life. It's a sad state of affairs when people place their own selfish wants over the responsibility that goes with it, just like it's a sad state of affairs that people would inhibit risk reduction (ie, go out of their way to block contraceptive use). It's one thing to block the contract of sperm and egg (analogous to not having sex at all). It's quite another to, even with contraceptives, having egg and sperm unite, then deciding you're not able to take the responsibility. If people were taught early on... blah, blah...
It's not just for one's own selfish wants, but the benefit to society and the future of the species. Do the benefits of a society without unwanted children outweigh giving you the satisfaction of making people suffer "the consequences of their actions"? So instead you'd have society suffer for years the consequences of irrational inaction?
No matter how much sex education you give people, some will still make mistakes or have accidents. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that unwanted and unprepared pregnancies often result in poverty, psychological problems, and crime. There is also plenty of evidence that a large part of the pregnancy the fetus could hardly be called a sentient being, but merely a chemical reaction which will result in one. Why not stop the problem before it has started?
No, not everyone believes that unborn children have a soul or is human, but denying it won't change the reality that they do.
honestly- why should i believe that they do? why should i believe that anyone has a soul? because the bible says so?
from what i understand, good science now indicates that most life, including human behavior, can be measured and described as the result of a highly complex but clearly logical organic computational phenomenon occurring in not only the human mind, which is clearly its most sophisticated manifestation to date, but in all animal minds. It is this phenomenon which we are only now beginning to comprehend the possibility of understanding.
There is much evidence which suggests there is little of this computational activity for much of the first half of the pregnancy, and that termination at this point would result in very little suffering. The costs to society of having what are clearly malformed and evolutionarily nonviable and non-reproductive candidates -and I'm not talking ethnic cleansing here, silly. there are some things that are clearly debatable about what constitutes a "nonviable" candidate, and this certainly excludes cosmetic issues, gender, and other obviouly racist or sexist strawman you may put up, but do not honestly tell me that those with Down's Syndrome are seriously evolutionarily viable? That our gene pool would seriously benefit from the presence of this anomaly? If it can be detected and eliminated early on, it would greatly benefit society as a whole with no suffering or coersion.
Some may even agree that this could be extended to pregnancies which are unwanted. There is significant evidence which suggests a direct link between unwanted pregnancies and many social ills. If they can be stopped at a point where it is clear that a significant manifestation of this computational phenomenon we call "consciousness" forms, I don't see anything wrong with it, and what your church says shouldn't affect the laws, as nothing to suggests it's true beyond "faith".
Sorry...guess I'm in one of my more atheistic moods today:)
It should be noted that I do not believe that a baby should be aborted or abandoned for merely cosmetic reasons, as your post might suggest I do. Clearly Shaolin-Do was abandoned for merely cosmetic reasons, and that was wrong.
I'm merely suggesting that history has shown that many reasonable and civil societies, such as the ancient Greeks, have rationally concluded that it does not make evolutionary sense to spend resources on what are reproductively and socially non-viable candidates.
While I may find it somewhat cruel to wait until it is a fully-grown baby clearly capable of much suffering and having it devoured by wolves, starved to death, or whatever horrible fate awaited them in the forests, I have no difficulty mentally separating that from destroying a blastocyst, or a 3-month-old
fetus with a mental capacity below that of a mouse.
If these nonviables can be accurately detected this early, and the problem eliminated so cleanly and painlessly, it would seem plenty reasonable to me. Of course, my idea of where that "reasonable" line is and your idea of where that line is may vary, but that's a purely subjective thing, but for a long time up until the mid 1800's, the rule of thumb was that it was ok if it was before the baby's kick could be felt. That seems not unreasonable to me.
don't be so quick to judge those who don't make the same decisions as you. in other cultures a child born with such a defect would be left in the woods, or similarly cast out. there are many of us who would rather invest our parenting efforts and limited time raising a child who will grow up to be independent and able to carry on our genetic line.
not all of us believe that that cluster of cells which has implanted itself in a woman's uterus has a soul, or is even yet a human being with all the rights that accompany such status, and would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.
don't get me wrong- i respect your choice. it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.
it's not that creation in general is stymied by copyright protection, because there are always more individuals who wish to make their living off of their creative work, but that an artist's continued indvidual production loses incentive when they've made a hit song or two and can live off of it for the rest of their lives. why should creative artists be able to record a song once and then do nothing but live off of it for the rest of their lives? if there weren't copyrights, they'd still be able to make a living off of their music, but they'd have to work for it by touring or something
as far as jingles go, maybe there should be continued royalties for commercial use. i don't have all the answers. however, i feel that creative works SHOULD at some reasonable point become public domain, at least for individual use. reasonable, to me, seems like 20 years or so. perhaps your thoughts vary...
Sure, you can only scan people of the same sex, but that doesn't exclude homosexual screeners. The whole point of same-sex screeners is to remove any sexual element from the scan, but it doesn't do that at all.
i find it kinda ironic, considering how many/.ers look at pr0n, just how freaked out people get at the possibility that someone might get aroused looking at them. heaven forbid!
besides, did you see what the scans look like? you'd only get aroused if you get off on freaky hairless green aliens. so if we eliminate sci-fi geeks from the hiring pool, it should be fine:)
i've got a degree in studio art, and i use graphic design applications all the time. photoshop, illustrator, flash, dreamweaver, quark, pagemaker, premiere... you name it, i use it. i've never had anything "crash so badly it needed a restart" are you using windows 98 or something? 2000 and XP are the only ones that get my endorsement, 95, 98, and ME suck ass big time, and if you're using those, there's your problem. but if you're using 2000 or XP, there's no reason anything should be "too hard". i never have to tinker with my machine. it just works -just like a mac. clearly you are doing something really wrong, or have one of those non-NT versions.
nobody's claiming the majority of illegal file sharing involves works over 20 years old. i'm not even claiming people would limit sharing to works in the public domain. but, at the moment, there is hardly ANY music in the public domain. it wasn't meant to work like this. the founding fathers didn't intend that authors would profit indefinitely from their works, but just for a limited time. the way it is now, i could write a one hit wonder, and then rest on my laurels for the rest of my life because it's sure to be played on the radio and, as you mention, it's sure to get used in commercials, etc. how does that promote continued creation?
i've got my computer under my coffee table with dual 19" flat panels on top. with the wireless keyboard and mouse, i can sit on my couch and compute comfortably. it would suck to have a keyboard cable getting in the way...
the balance isn't in favor of the file swappers. what they're doing is still illegal and could get them some hefty fines.
to make things "balanced" would be to return the duration of copyrights to a reasonable length. imagine what life would be like if copyrights were a generous 20 years long- everything prior to 1985 would be public domain. you could probably log on to your local library's website and download the entire Beatles catalog, half of the movies on that top 100 list posted earlier today, or any of the great books written prior to '85. how much would that benefit society, to have our recent cultural past opened up for public use? people wonder why so much of our culture right now is lame- it's because it's a stagnant cesspool. if it weren't for the internet and other forms of uncontrollable communication, we'd just be stuck with what Clearchannel, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the like wanted us to hear/see.
What's nice abut OSX is that it comes with a kind of "powered assist and trainer". It gives you quiet but noticable warnings when this sort of thing occurs. "This Download contains an executable. Are you sure you want to open it?" Or maybe, "Running executables directly from email is potentially unsafe and may open you to viruses and malware. Are you sure you want to continue?"
Windows gives these same warnings. If a user ignores the warnings on Windows, they'll likely ignore them on a Mac as well. The only thing that saves them with the Mac is that there aren't as many "free screensaver"-type applications made for the Mac.
you're assuming that consumption is distributed evenly across the oceans. more likely, it will be much more concentrated in areas within a few km of coastal cities, probably a very small percentage of a percent of the world's ocean water. who knows what kind of effects it would have on sea life, plankton levels, bacteria, etc., but it's entirely possible for it to cause some sort of chaotic disturbance of global proportion. whether or not it will is unknown, however to deny that there is a possibility is to bury one's head in the sand. it certainly deserves more investigation.
i don't get it- what's so hard about win 2k or xp that these morons have so much trouble? i've got a 2k box at home, and it runs great for days, weeks, months without needing a reboot. the only piece of software that ever crashes is firefox! i don't get spyware, or viruses...
what are these people doing wrong, and, whatever it is, what makes them think that it won't happen on a mac? are they just clueless idiots who click every "yes" button and download everything they see? maybe that's not windows' fault but theirs... using a mac because it's "immune" to most of the malware that people stupidly install themselves simply because macs make up a tiny percentage of the market is security by obscurity, plain and simple
also, i think a lot of the problem are these retarded apps that manufacturers and isp's install on users' machines. one of the first things i do with a new machine is clean off all that crap. half of the time it's that shit that screws everything up. if you run a clean version of windows and only use professionally written apps, you'll see that the problem is not windows
i realize windows has it's flaws, and has especially had flaws in the past, but it doesn't take a genius to keep an XP or 2000 machine safe and clean, and i'm tired of people blaming windows for their own stupid behavior.
duke nukem? that wouldn't be very impressive, because IIRC, that fit on a 1.44MB floppy. i recall playing that, along with commander keen, on my PS/2 back when a PS/2 was a computer...
...you might want to point the can at your keyboard. alternatively, you could huff it, which might make it impossible to see what's on the keys as well (or anything else for that matter, but hey- think of what you'll save on monitors!)
the last supper was by Leonardo da Vinci, not Michelangelo. The reason it's in the lousy condition it's in is because Leonardo was using an "experimental" technique.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who is tired of all this podcasting, bodcasting, roadcasting, godcasting, and rod casting?
it is allowed now, and perhaps that is something that needs to be addressed. for a long time up until the mid-1800's, the rule of thumb for abortions was that it was ok before the baby's kick could be felt. I'd be okay with the deadline being around 20 weeks, but in any case the vast majority of abortions happen long before the end of the first trimester.
Babies as young as 25 weeks premature have survived to be healthy adults outside after care and treatment in the NICU. That is far earlier than most terminations!
...and some research even indicates it may very well make society a better place to live in.
Lies! Judging from the actual numbers, it looks to me like the majority (54%) of abortions are performed prior to 8 weeks of gestation, and especially before 10 weeks (77%). At 10 weeks, the fetus is about 1 inch in length. It's just a ball of stuff that in a few weeks will become a human.
Unwanted pregnancy sucks, but it's not the end of the world. A culture that values only the convience of now, and the "benefit of the species", is very likely going to be a very unpleasant place to live long term.
You are extremely naive. You probably haven't had sex yet, but I'd say you are in need of a good near-pregnancy scare or two. Even the most careful people have them now and then. It certainly makes you think about what you would do.
Compassion is a very valuable force in society, which pays more than it costs.
Yes, but what if the compassionate thing is to prevent another unwanted baby?
The imperial Roman culture of the Augustian age would have suited you well, you're a fascist babykiller, etc, etc...
You're nuts if you can't differentiate between destroying a ball of tissue the size of a marble and killing fully-developed beings.
Ie, you're more interested in creating a child to carry your genetics than in creating a life to love, hold, and care for.
What is the point of having children, and really anything else we do here if it is not to make every effort to maximize our long-term survival and prosperity as a species?
Perhaps I should ask why you care so much about your specific genetic line. Unless you can prove that your genetic line will be advantageous in the future (which you can't)
Nobody's saying anyone can prove a genetic line will be advantageous in the future. What I'm saying is that there are certain genetic anomalies which nobody could reasonbly argue are viable or would be good for us evolutionarily.
I can't begin to see why you'd decide to go off and end a life to maximize the chances of creating the single life you're able to financially insure.
Again, you're drawing the wrong conclusion from my argument. I'm saying there is reasonable evidence to conclude that this electrochemical computational phenomenon we call "life" does not develop beyond that of a very rudimentary organism until around halfway in the pregnancy, and there is some evidence which shows that giving people the option to do so greatly improves the peace and and quality of life in a community, which in turn increases long-term survivability and prosperity of the species.
So, if you could only find out your child had Down's syndrome at 10 years, would you be okay with people killing their children then? Would you require a doctor's note? What if it wasn't until 19 years that symptoms showed up?
Of course not! But are you seriously not able to distinguish between leaving a baby to the wolves and destroying what is clearly a non-sentient mass of tissue? It's significantly less sentient than that animal you just ate was. I don't suppose you're a vegan?
Life is life. It's a sad state of affairs when people place their own selfish wants over the responsibility that goes with it, just like it's a sad state of affairs that people would inhibit risk reduction (ie, go out of their way to block contraceptive use). It's one thing to block the contract of sperm and egg (analogous to not having sex at all). It's quite another to, even with contraceptives, having egg and sperm unite, then deciding you're not able to take the responsibility. If people were taught early on... blah, blah...
It's not just for one's own selfish wants, but the benefit to society and the future of the species. Do the benefits of a society without unwanted children outweigh giving you the satisfaction of making people suffer "the consequences of their actions"? So instead you'd have society suffer for years the consequences of irrational inaction?
No matter how much sex education you give people, some will still make mistakes or have accidents. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that unwanted and unprepared pregnancies often result in poverty, psychological problems, and crime. There is also plenty of evidence that a large part of the pregnancy the fetus could hardly be called a sentient being, but merely a chemical reaction which will result in one. Why not stop the problem before it has started?
No, not everyone believes that unborn children have a soul or is human, but denying it won't change the reality that they do.
...guess I'm in one of my more atheistic moods today :)
honestly- why should i believe that they do? why should i believe that anyone has a soul? because the bible says so?
from what i understand, good science now indicates that most life, including human behavior, can be measured and described as the result of a highly complex but clearly logical organic computational phenomenon occurring in not only the human mind, which is clearly its most sophisticated manifestation to date, but in all animal minds. It is this phenomenon which we are only now beginning to comprehend the possibility of understanding.
There is much evidence which suggests there is little of this computational activity for much of the first half of the pregnancy, and that termination at this point would result in very little suffering. The costs to society of having what are clearly malformed and evolutionarily nonviable and non-reproductive candidates -and I'm not talking ethnic cleansing here, silly. there are some things that are clearly debatable about what constitutes a "nonviable" candidate, and this certainly excludes cosmetic issues, gender, and other obviouly racist or sexist strawman you may put up, but do not honestly tell me that those with Down's Syndrome are seriously evolutionarily viable? That our gene pool would seriously benefit from the presence of this anomaly? If it can be detected and eliminated early on, it would greatly benefit society as a whole with no suffering or coersion.
Some may even agree that this could be extended to pregnancies which are unwanted. There is significant evidence which suggests a direct link between unwanted pregnancies and many social ills. If they can be stopped at a point where it is clear that a significant manifestation of this computational phenomenon we call "consciousness" forms, I don't see anything wrong with it, and what your church says shouldn't affect the laws, as nothing to suggests it's true beyond "faith".
Sorry
It should be noted that I do not believe that a baby should be aborted or abandoned for merely cosmetic reasons, as your post might suggest I do. Clearly Shaolin-Do was abandoned for merely cosmetic reasons, and that was wrong.
I'm merely suggesting that history has shown that many reasonable and civil societies, such as the ancient Greeks, have rationally concluded that it does not make evolutionary sense to spend resources on what are reproductively and socially non-viable candidates.
While I may find it somewhat cruel to wait until it is a fully-grown baby clearly capable of much suffering and having it devoured by wolves, starved to death, or whatever horrible fate awaited them in the forests, I have no difficulty mentally separating that from destroying a blastocyst, or a 3-month-old fetus with a mental capacity below that of a mouse.
If these nonviables can be accurately detected this early, and the problem eliminated so cleanly and painlessly, it would seem plenty reasonable to me. Of course, my idea of where that "reasonable" line is and your idea of where that line is may vary, but that's a purely subjective thing, but for a long time up until the mid 1800's, the rule of thumb was that it was ok if it was before the baby's kick could be felt. That seems not unreasonable to me.
don't be so quick to judge those who don't make the same decisions as you. in other cultures a child born with such a defect would be left in the woods, or similarly cast out. there are many of us who would rather invest our parenting efforts and limited time raising a child who will grow up to be independent and able to carry on our genetic line.
not all of us believe that that cluster of cells which has implanted itself in a woman's uterus has a soul, or is even yet a human being with all the rights that accompany such status, and would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.
don't get me wrong- i respect your choice. it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.
However, what would she chose as her method of disassembly? Kung Fu, Karate, or a la Matrix Style?
maybe she'd just use the stairs...
it's not that creation in general is stymied by copyright protection, because there are always more individuals who wish to make their living off of their creative work, but that an artist's continued indvidual production loses incentive when they've made a hit song or two and can live off of it for the rest of their lives. why should creative artists be able to record a song once and then do nothing but live off of it for the rest of their lives? if there weren't copyrights, they'd still be able to make a living off of their music, but they'd have to work for it by touring or something
as far as jingles go, maybe there should be continued royalties for commercial use. i don't have all the answers. however, i feel that creative works SHOULD at some reasonable point become public domain, at least for individual use. reasonable, to me, seems like 20 years or so. perhaps your thoughts vary...
Sure, you can only scan people of the same sex, but that doesn't exclude homosexual screeners. The whole point of same-sex screeners is to remove any sexual element from the scan, but it doesn't do that at all.
/.ers look at pr0n, just how freaked out people get at the possibility that someone might get aroused looking at them. heaven forbid!
:)
i find it kinda ironic, considering how many
besides, did you see what the scans look like? you'd only get aroused if you get off on freaky hairless green aliens. so if we eliminate sci-fi geeks from the hiring pool, it should be fine
i've got a degree in studio art, and i use graphic design applications all the time. photoshop, illustrator, flash, dreamweaver, quark, pagemaker, premiere... you name it, i use it. i've never had anything "crash so badly it needed a restart" are you using windows 98 or something? 2000 and XP are the only ones that get my endorsement, 95, 98, and ME suck ass big time, and if you're using those, there's your problem. but if you're using 2000 or XP, there's no reason anything should be "too hard". i never have to tinker with my machine. it just works -just like a mac. clearly you are doing something really wrong, or have one of those non-NT versions.
nobody's claiming the majority of illegal file sharing involves works over 20 years old. i'm not even claiming people would limit sharing to works in the public domain. but, at the moment, there is hardly ANY music in the public domain. it wasn't meant to work like this. the founding fathers didn't intend that authors would profit indefinitely from their works, but just for a limited time. the way it is now, i could write a one hit wonder, and then rest on my laurels for the rest of my life because it's sure to be played on the radio and, as you mention, it's sure to get used in commercials, etc. how does that promote continued creation?
i've got my computer under my coffee table with dual 19" flat panels on top. with the wireless keyboard and mouse, i can sit on my couch and compute comfortably. it would suck to have a keyboard cable getting in the way...
they don't even have a table!
how am i supposed to hide my annoyance with that annoying Greg guy by flicking him off under the table?
Looks like they're basically saying "Sorry, EU-MPAA
So, wouldn't that be MPAEU?
the balance isn't in favor of the file swappers. what they're doing is still illegal and could get them some hefty fines.
to make things "balanced" would be to return the duration of copyrights to a reasonable length. imagine what life would be like if copyrights were a generous 20 years long- everything prior to 1985 would be public domain. you could probably log on to your local library's website and download the entire Beatles catalog, half of the movies on that top 100 list posted earlier today, or any of the great books written prior to '85. how much would that benefit society, to have our recent cultural past opened up for public use? people wonder why so much of our culture right now is lame- it's because it's a stagnant cesspool. if it weren't for the internet and other forms of uncontrollable communication, we'd just be stuck with what Clearchannel, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the like wanted us to hear/see.
Windows gives these same warnings. If a user ignores the warnings on Windows, they'll likely ignore them on a Mac as well. The only thing that saves them with the Mac is that there aren't as many "free screensaver"-type applications made for the Mac.
you're assuming that consumption is distributed evenly across the oceans. more likely, it will be much more concentrated in areas within a few km of coastal cities, probably a very small percentage of a percent of the world's ocean water. who knows what kind of effects it would have on sea life, plankton levels, bacteria, etc., but it's entirely possible for it to cause some sort of chaotic disturbance of global proportion. whether or not it will is unknown, however to deny that there is a possibility is to bury one's head in the sand. it certainly deserves more investigation.
i don't get it- what's so hard about win 2k or xp that these morons have so much trouble? i've got a 2k box at home, and it runs great for days, weeks, months without needing a reboot. the only piece of software that ever crashes is firefox! i don't get spyware, or viruses...
what are these people doing wrong, and, whatever it is, what makes them think that it won't happen on a mac? are they just clueless idiots who click every "yes" button and download everything they see? maybe that's not windows' fault but theirs... using a mac because it's "immune" to most of the malware that people stupidly install themselves simply because macs make up a tiny percentage of the market is security by obscurity, plain and simple
also, i think a lot of the problem are these retarded apps that manufacturers and isp's install on users' machines. one of the first things i do with a new machine is clean off all that crap. half of the time it's that shit that screws everything up. if you run a clean version of windows and only use professionally written apps, you'll see that the problem is not windows
i realize windows has it's flaws, and has especially had flaws in the past, but it doesn't take a genius to keep an XP or 2000 machine safe and clean, and i'm tired of people blaming windows for their own stupid behavior.
Bloggy Bloggers, Blogman!
duke nukem? that wouldn't be very impressive, because IIRC, that fit on a 1.44MB floppy. i recall playing that, along with commander keen, on my PS/2 back when a PS/2 was a computer...
maybe you meant duke nukem forever...
what- do they think we're actually going to look at the article to find out? pshah!
...you might want to point the can at your keyboard. alternatively, you could huff it, which might make it impossible to see what's on the keys as well (or anything else for that matter, but hey- think of what you'll save on monitors!)
When respoding to this message, please confirm you're not a script by typing the text shown in this image
how do i respode to a message?
the last supper was by Leonardo da Vinci, not Michelangelo. The reason it's in the lousy condition it's in is because Leonardo was using an "experimental" technique.