I'd say there is a problem with your reasoning too, if I could see any signs of reasoning at all. The analogy with cars doesn't make sense. If you were to do that analogy, cars would be the computers, those are the tools. Then you have to find an activity you do with cars that is necessarily dependent on hurting someone, and where it's patently obvious that it does.
Hey, you have to have a sense of humor, otherwise life would be too depressing. I disagree with much of what you say, as you might expect...
It's true that a person won't see a paedophile video and order the DVD (although they would, if it were legal as you want it to be), but that's just half of the argument about filesharing helping record companies. It's still a way of spreading the images, spark the interest of potential consumers who look at it, and, as such, to help the industry. Why do you think companies advertise their products? Not to mention there are people who don't do it for money, and having people download is an incentive to them. And who says quality isn't an important factor? If that were true, there would be no high quality pornography. Many people do want quality, or at least quantity, or there wouldn't be secret child porn sites out there.
And that part about the guy who downloaded the file from another guy who downloaded, etc... where did the file come from? Magic? Or maybe a child was hurt to produce it, but hey, we can just distance ourselves from the fact.
It's true that the issue is much more complex than saying a person will be automatically scarred for life because of those photos and the circumstances in which they are taken. What kind of argument is that though? "Oh it won't necessarily scar them for life, so it's all good". Based on current knowledge (which could change, I admit), common sense, and just basic decency of not doing to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you, or your own children, I would like to spare kids the chance of finding out what it feels like. And you say "there are many worse things that are done to kids, like simply raping them without photos"?! So taking photos is a mitigating factor? And even if there are worse things, like some of the others you mention, what's your point? You seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset, where child porn would have to be the one bad thing in the world, to even consider fighting it. I have never seen anyone saying child porn is the root of all evil, but so what? Let's do nothing then. Why bother with burglars if killers are much worse? There is no root of all evil, but fighting all the little seeds is still worthwhile, if you want the world to get any better.
You're not sure the damage of abuse would be greater than a very bad teacher? That would be one hell of a bad teacher. And your idea that parents, police and psychiatrist are such a negative impact is based on what evidence? Maybe the abuse itself, especially when it goes on for years, is the main problem for these kids? I know, it's a revolutionary concept, but give it some thought, and maybe read some testimonies about it. Children do explore their sexuality, and that's healthy, but adults have a different way of exploring their own sexuality and that of children. We're talking about kids here, who are inexperienced and vulnerable, still don't decide about everything in their lives, because they don't have the capacity to, and rely on their parents and authorities for protection against abuse.
The fact that the children is exploited for child porn is relevant. It's your all-or-nothing mindset again, saying that if pictures are not the whole evil, they're no evil at all. Of course the abuse itself is the worst part, but what about the humiliation of seeing it on the Internet? If I may be so bold to ask: if you were abused yourself, would you prefer to have no pictures taken, or would you still consider the issue irrelevant? And that's discounting for the fact that pictures are also important when they are driving a business, or when they may be part of the motivation to abuse the child in the first place. I know our opinions are different about this point, but I would say that poor child treatment is a requirement of child porn, because using children for pornography is already treating them poorly.
Child pornography was legit a few decades ago, and not much of a problem, because children had no
Now you've done it. This is slashdot after all, you can get modded up for the apology of child porn, but this:
Tell me please, how downloading a child porn image from a free anonymous website feeds any industry? I can only see how it starves the industry by wasting precious traffic.
Replace "a child porn image" with "an mp3" and you'll have 100,000 people here jumping on your throat to explain you.
And in an unrelated point, even granting that there are grey areas (for instace, watching a 3 months old baby being raped is not the same as a 15 year old teenager being allured to have sex), and cases where you could argue that the child is better off in that situation (although that would lead to a big debate, I'm sure); even granting that, I hope your friends only watch pictures with the little "Unicef Approved" logo, saying no children were harmed in the production of those images. Yes, there are children who might starve if they weren't used like that. Forget for a moment the monstrosity of allowing them to live only if they perform those acts. There are still many other children who are kidnapped, or who are allured to go to some country to find a job, maybe as waiters in a bar, or any other employment, and then get thrown in a basement where they become prostitutes or child porn actors. I'm sure your friends really care about the source of the pictures, and only watch those that are produced in good, clean home businesses. Hey, maybe the state should even fund those moral enterprises, to put the "bad guys" out of business.
And yet another point, about "paedophiles" having asked the FBI to let them have the current production, so they wouldn't need new child porn, because they would just watch what already exists. Of course that would work! That's why we don't have movie and record industries anymore, who would want to watch new things when we have so many movies and songs and books? I don't even go to the movies anymore, or listen to the radio, what's the point? Oh, but wait, that's me, some unrestrained freak. We're talking about child porn viewers here, that responsible and civilized crowd.
And who went to the FBI anyway? Paedophiles of the World United? Are there associations big enough to tell the FBI they will help them if they can have legal material, and not be laughed at, for being irrelevant? Who are these people?
I think it's scary that you got modded as insightful. I'll refer you to another comment I made about the subject, some time ago, if you want to read it:
I know you are talking about people who don't pay, but, depending on where they got the pictures, it could be an incentive to the people who produce them (for instance through advertising, or just the knowledge that there is a big market out there). That's why they are "creeps" to me, not because I fear they will necessarily become child molesters. I'd say more about it but I have to work.
There are two different aspects... if a child steals something from a store (to use an example that is clearly theft, instead of copyright infringement), they won't be prosecuted for it, in the same way as an adult, but it is still against the law. I think that's what was meant, in the comment you replied to, not that the same punishment applies to children and adults, which is obviously false.
Things aren't black and white. No one's saying that every report of paranormal phenomena is caused by infrasounds, just that there might be an association in some of them, which is corroborated by that experiment they made. All they said (at least in that article) is that infrasounds cause strange sensations. Of course, the media always take the most sensationalist angle.
In addition to what the other person said: the exporting aspect may be important economically, but I don't think it's so relevant in this case. Even if the US didn't export any steel, or farming goods, the other countries would still complain, because the issue is the increase in domestic demand, due to those protections, that locks other countries out.
Protectionism certainly stems from an anti-globalization mentality that is still embedded in most countries' policies, even those who strongly advocate globalization, and there are ongoing trade wars all the time, so it's not just one country that is bending the rules.
I don't know if they are right, but in this case, for instance, Microsoft's issue is similar to steel, farm goods, etc, but they're on the other side of the fence, trying to ensure China doesn't give their companies unfair trade advantage.
No, that's not a contradiction. It's as if two kids, one American and one Chinese, were playing, and the American one feels that the father of the Chinese wants to set the rules. The American kid says parents shouldn't set the rules, and if that keeps happening, he's telling his dad.
More seriously, it's just a matter of Microsoft thinking the US Government should protect its interests in the matter; it would only be a contradiction if they wanted their Government to replace the Chinese Government in setting the rules.
Have you read Utopia, by Thomas More? That Technocracy idea (I only read the 11 quick reasons to believe it) resembles that book in some ways, somewhat like a modern version of it.
I have some doubts about the system. About Product Quality, for instance; even taking for granted that what they say about razor blades is true (which I don't, for my own ignorance about the process), can it be applied to "virtually any industry"? Food, software... It seems hard.
There's something I don't understand about "eliminating money". It seems to me that they just give it a different name, count it as the energy necessary to produce things, and suppose that it is enough for everyone to live well. I don't know if that system is feasible. How do you price an artist's work, or an athlete's work, anything that isn't industry or agriculture/farming? Or maybe the system doesn't even need to account for that? But what if someone decides not to work at all? There is only a limited amount of people who could do that without breaking the system, and I didn't see how it could be prevented.
About social control, I wouldn't say it's necessarily "human nature", the way we currently act, but it's not something you can just dismiss and say it's "cultural". We are animals, and our main objective is to ensure our genes pass on to the next generation. That would probably always involve some degree of competition, unless there was no limit to how many children people could have, and then the planet's resources would be depleted.
About the example with the cars, I'd say we could do it right now; there are public transports, but most people choose to have a car because it's more convenient. Is it feasible to have garages everywhere, with all sorts of cars available, close enough to everyone's homes?
Standardization I just don't like. Utopia takes that to the extreme, making all people wear the same clothes, but even something like the example with standardized cars can have more disadvantages than benefits. A very good balance would have to be reached, because diversity is a key to survival.
A final question in my mind is about the scarcity problem itself. Even taking for granted that scarcity is not real in our world, but rather self-imposed (which I don't take for granted, again, maybe due to ignorance), the question remains that maybe it's that scarcity that provides the drive to be productive, and maybe without competition there would be scarcity because most people wouldn't want to work. If that was the case, it might be feasible in the future, but not right now.
Reading the whole thread, I think the confusion was always present. I think goldspider was talking about the law when he said "wrong", but the person who replied interpreted it as being about morals; I read a phrase about morals and thought he meant the law, and then you understood it again as being about morals when I was talking about the law.
I agree with you, I think if the law dictates what is moral, morality will be very relative, and it will also be a blow on individuality, and that is frightening indeed.
Well, those were the outrageous comparisons I was thinking about. I am aware that you don't mention Nelson Mandela, but I think your point is close enough to confront it with some of these arguments (you can probably ignore the quotes in the beginning).
And if you don't feel like going there, I'll just say I agree that it's necessary to break the law in some cases, but, in my opinion, copyright infringement doesn't come even close.
By the same token, immoral!=wrong
"Wrong" isn't necessarily used in a moral sense, it can pertain to the law too, and that's all I meant. That was actually the reason I said it is wrong "for the time being".
I don't think anyone says the record industry bosses are a bunch of saints, and of course they may be wrong, but even if they are, about sales, it doesn't change the argument. Imagine we were talking about theft of CDs in stores and someone reached the conclusion that it helped sales. It still doesn't give people the right to do it. Even if they were being stupid, it's a right they have, it's their product. Stealing, on the other hand, is a right people don't have.
But then if you consider that a blank CD costs a fraction of what a music CD would cost, and that only a fraction of that money will go to the record companies, and also that a CD holds many more mp3s than CD audio tracks. And it doesn't change the morality of the issue anyway.
you aren't the only one who gets to decide what's right and wrong
Neither do you, or any individual. It is against the law, so it is wrong for the time being, no matter how many excuses people make. Unless you start making the outrageous comparisons with Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, but those are easily addressed too.
Their influence averages to zero if they do vote randomly. I was reading someone's comment, about candidates higher up in the list getting more votes, precisely because of the people who vote "randomly". You could have ballots with a random order, but I think that's more trouble than it's worth. I am against mandatory vote anyway, because I think it just masks the true situation of the country, making it seem that all is fine and every citizen is interested in politics.
I looked for information on iron ore mining too, and related issues, and it's possible to find it. More to the point, as someone mentioned, we don't need to have an expert in every field, in every neighborhood, because in the mean time we evolved to large scale markets and specialization. It's been a long time since there was a man who knew about everything, or most things, generally speaking. What is important is that we, as a whole, can do most things that comprise current human knowledge, and there is redundancy, both in human and material resources, with information scattered all over the world.
The problem with analogies is they often neglect a part of the problem. The fact that the location isn't physical is important, because it means this little convention is taking place everywhere in the world where there is a computer connected to the Internet.
That said, I think what really matters is the law, not everyone's personal moral views on the matter, although of course those are important to shape the law in the future.
"THE DISCOVERY of the gene brings scientists closer to a holy grail of biology: the ability to turn ordinary cells into those that possess all the biomedical potency of human embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need to destroy embryos to get them.
Researchers cautioned that the new work (...) will not bring a quick end to the political controversy over human embryo research."
They even say that it might intensify research on embryos, for now.
Re:Why are we always nitpicking?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I did exactly the same thing; checked for embetterment in dictionary.com and it suggested embitterment.
Re:Why are we always nitpicking?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 0
Don't worry, if HP ever did something like changing the expiration date, they would immediately get caught by the people who go for seven or eight years without switching cartridges.
The problem is... where does that porn come from? Restricting such sites goes deeper than just trying to stop people from seeing child abuse. You're right when you say this won't make the problem go away, but you're just thinking of the people who look at the sites and not the ones who produce them. As long as people are looking for those sites, there will be criminals willing to produce the pornographic material to sell it. There is an industry behind these crimes; there are paid child porn sites, supported by their users, and maybe by advertisement. What makes this fundamentally different than, say, sites about using drugs, or even showing rape (which can be faked), is that, in order to produce it, you're already commiting a crime, against someone who is vulnerable. Someone mentioned sites with videos of murders, but that's different because people aren't murdered with the sole purpose of taping it and putting it in a website. If that happened, I would say the sites should be shut down, because they wouldn't just encourage the act (which is arguable), they would objectively cause murders to happen. People who look at those sites feed the industry.
That said, thoughts about the "two year old kid in a bath tub", and the problem of people being prosecuted just for trying to denounce it, I consider them relevant. About the first one, I would say I don't mind people posting pictures of their kids, but if they post pictures of someone else's kids that's a different story. The point about prosecution is more complex. These issues should be discussed, my point is just that you can't generally say there's no real problem with the sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say there is a problem with your reasoning too, if I could see any signs of reasoning at all. The analogy with cars doesn't make sense. If you were to do that analogy, cars would be the computers, those are the tools. Then you have to find an activity you do with cars that is necessarily dependent on hurting someone, and where it's patently obvious that it does.
Hey, you have to have a sense of humor, otherwise life would be too depressing. I disagree with much of what you say, as you might expect...
It's true that a person won't see a paedophile video and order the DVD (although they would, if it were legal as you want it to be), but that's just half of the argument about filesharing helping record companies. It's still a way of spreading the images, spark the interest of potential consumers who look at it, and, as such, to help the industry. Why do you think companies advertise their products? Not to mention there are people who don't do it for money, and having people download is an incentive to them. And who says quality isn't an important factor? If that were true, there would be no high quality pornography. Many people do want quality, or at least quantity, or there wouldn't be secret child porn sites out there.
And that part about the guy who downloaded the file from another guy who downloaded, etc... where did the file come from? Magic? Or maybe a child was hurt to produce it, but hey, we can just distance ourselves from the fact.
It's true that the issue is much more complex than saying a person will be automatically scarred for life because of those photos and the circumstances in which they are taken. What kind of argument is that though? "Oh it won't necessarily scar them for life, so it's all good". Based on current knowledge (which could change, I admit), common sense, and just basic decency of not doing to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you, or your own children, I would like to spare kids the chance of finding out what it feels like. And you say "there are many worse things that are done to kids, like simply raping them without photos"?! So taking photos is a mitigating factor? And even if there are worse things, like some of the others you mention, what's your point? You seem to have an all-or-nothing mindset, where child porn would have to be the one bad thing in the world, to even consider fighting it. I have never seen anyone saying child porn is the root of all evil, but so what? Let's do nothing then. Why bother with burglars if killers are much worse? There is no root of all evil, but fighting all the little seeds is still worthwhile, if you want the world to get any better.
You're not sure the damage of abuse would be greater than a very bad teacher? That would be one hell of a bad teacher. And your idea that parents, police and psychiatrist are such a negative impact is based on what evidence? Maybe the abuse itself, especially when it goes on for years, is the main problem for these kids? I know, it's a revolutionary concept, but give it some thought, and maybe read some testimonies about it. Children do explore their sexuality, and that's healthy, but adults have a different way of exploring their own sexuality and that of children. We're talking about kids here, who are inexperienced and vulnerable, still don't decide about everything in their lives, because they don't have the capacity to, and rely on their parents and authorities for protection against abuse.
The fact that the children is exploited for child porn is relevant. It's your all-or-nothing mindset again, saying that if pictures are not the whole evil, they're no evil at all. Of course the abuse itself is the worst part, but what about the humiliation of seeing it on the Internet? If I may be so bold to ask: if you were abused yourself, would you prefer to have no pictures taken, or would you still consider the issue irrelevant? And that's discounting for the fact that pictures are also important when they are driving a business, or when they may be part of the motivation to abuse the child in the first place. I know our opinions are different about this point, but I would say that poor child treatment is a requirement of child porn, because using children for pornography is already treating them poorly.
Child pornography was legit a few decades ago, and not much of a problem, because children had no
Now you've done it. This is slashdot after all, you can get modded up for the apology of child porn, but this:
Tell me please, how downloading a child porn image from a free anonymous website feeds any industry? I can only see how it starves the industry by wasting precious traffic.
Replace "a child porn image" with "an mp3" and you'll have 100,000 people here jumping on your throat to explain you.
And in an unrelated point, even granting that there are grey areas (for instace, watching a 3 months old baby being raped is not the same as a 15 year old teenager being allured to have sex), and cases where you could argue that the child is better off in that situation (although that would lead to a big debate, I'm sure); even granting that, I hope your friends only watch pictures with the little "Unicef Approved" logo, saying no children were harmed in the production of those images. Yes, there are children who might starve if they weren't used like that. Forget for a moment the monstrosity of allowing them to live only if they perform those acts. There are still many other children who are kidnapped, or who are allured to go to some country to find a job, maybe as waiters in a bar, or any other employment, and then get thrown in a basement where they become prostitutes or child porn actors. I'm sure your friends really care about the source of the pictures, and only watch those that are produced in good, clean home businesses. Hey, maybe the state should even fund those moral enterprises, to put the "bad guys" out of business.
And yet another point, about "paedophiles" having asked the FBI to let them have the current production, so they wouldn't need new child porn, because they would just watch what already exists. Of course that would work! That's why we don't have movie and record industries anymore, who would want to watch new things when we have so many movies and songs and books? I don't even go to the movies anymore, or listen to the radio, what's the point? Oh, but wait, that's me, some unrestrained freak. We're talking about child porn viewers here, that responsible and civilized crowd.
And who went to the FBI anyway? Paedophiles of the World United? Are there associations big enough to tell the FBI they will help them if they can have legal material, and not be laughed at, for being irrelevant? Who are these people?
I think it's scary that you got modded as insightful. I'll refer you to another comment I made about the subject, some time ago, if you want to read it:
6 273
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54488&cid=534
I know you are talking about people who don't pay, but, depending on where they got the pictures, it could be an incentive to the people who produce them (for instance through advertising, or just the knowledge that there is a big market out there). That's why they are "creeps" to me, not because I fear they will necessarily become child molesters. I'd say more about it but I have to work.
There are two different aspects... if a child steals something from a store (to use an example that is clearly theft, instead of copyright infringement), they won't be prosecuted for it, in the same way as an adult, but it is still against the law. I think that's what was meant, in the comment you replied to, not that the same punishment applies to children and adults, which is obviously false.
Things aren't black and white. No one's saying that every report of paranormal phenomena is caused by infrasounds, just that there might be an association in some of them, which is corroborated by that experiment they made. All they said (at least in that article) is that infrasounds cause strange sensations. Of course, the media always take the most sensationalist angle.
In addition to what the other person said: the exporting aspect may be important economically, but I don't think it's so relevant in this case. Even if the US didn't export any steel, or farming goods, the other countries would still complain, because the issue is the increase in domestic demand, due to those protections, that locks other countries out.
Protectionism certainly stems from an anti-globalization mentality that is still embedded in most countries' policies, even those who strongly advocate globalization, and there are ongoing trade wars all the time, so it's not just one country that is bending the rules.
e xploits.htm"
Here is a link about it if anyone is interested:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0718
(it seems biased, but explains the issue...)
I don't know if they are right, but in this case, for instance, Microsoft's issue is similar to steel, farm goods, etc, but they're on the other side of the fence, trying to ensure China doesn't give their companies unfair trade advantage.
No, that's not a contradiction. It's as if two kids, one American and one Chinese, were playing, and the American one feels that the father of the Chinese wants to set the rules. The American kid says parents shouldn't set the rules, and if that keeps happening, he's telling his dad.
More seriously, it's just a matter of Microsoft thinking the US Government should protect its interests in the matter; it would only be a contradiction if they wanted their Government to replace the Chinese Government in setting the rules.
Have you read Utopia, by Thomas More? That Technocracy idea (I only read the 11 quick reasons to believe it) resembles that book in some ways, somewhat like a modern version of it.
I have some doubts about the system. About Product Quality, for instance; even taking for granted that what they say about razor blades is true (which I don't, for my own ignorance about the process), can it be applied to "virtually any industry"? Food, software... It seems hard.
There's something I don't understand about "eliminating money". It seems to me that they just give it a different name, count it as the energy necessary to produce things, and suppose that it is enough for everyone to live well. I don't know if that system is feasible. How do you price an artist's work, or an athlete's work, anything that isn't industry or agriculture/farming? Or maybe the system doesn't even need to account for that? But what if someone decides not to work at all? There is only a limited amount of people who could do that without breaking the system, and I didn't see how it could be prevented.
About social control, I wouldn't say it's necessarily "human nature", the way we currently act, but it's not something you can just dismiss and say it's "cultural". We are animals, and our main objective is to ensure our genes pass on to the next generation. That would probably always involve some degree of competition, unless there was no limit to how many children people could have, and then the planet's resources would be depleted.
About the example with the cars, I'd say we could do it right now; there are public transports, but most people choose to have a car because it's more convenient. Is it feasible to have garages everywhere, with all sorts of cars available, close enough to everyone's homes?
Standardization I just don't like. Utopia takes that to the extreme, making all people wear the same clothes, but even something like the example with standardized cars can have more disadvantages than benefits. A very good balance would have to be reached, because diversity is a key to survival.
A final question in my mind is about the scarcity problem itself. Even taking for granted that scarcity is not real in our world, but rather self-imposed (which I don't take for granted, again, maybe due to ignorance), the question remains that maybe it's that scarcity that provides the drive to be productive, and maybe without competition there would be scarcity because most people wouldn't want to work. If that was the case, it might be feasible in the future, but not right now.
Reading the whole thread, I think the confusion was always present. I think goldspider was talking about the law when he said "wrong", but the person who replied interpreted it as being about morals; I read a phrase about morals and thought he meant the law, and then you understood it again as being about morals when I was talking about the law.
I agree with you, I think if the law dictates what is moral, morality will be very relative, and it will also be a blow on individuality, and that is frightening indeed.
Well, those were the outrageous comparisons I was thinking about. I am aware that you don't mention Nelson Mandela, but I think your point is close enough to confront it with some of these arguments (you can probably ignore the quotes in the beginning). And if you don't feel like going there, I'll just say I agree that it's necessary to break the law in some cases, but, in my opinion, copyright infringement doesn't come even close.
By the same token, immoral!=wrong "Wrong" isn't necessarily used in a moral sense, it can pertain to the law too, and that's all I meant. That was actually the reason I said it is wrong "for the time being".
I don't think anyone says the record industry bosses are a bunch of saints, and of course they may be wrong, but even if they are, about sales, it doesn't change the argument. Imagine we were talking about theft of CDs in stores and someone reached the conclusion that it helped sales. It still doesn't give people the right to do it. Even if they were being stupid, it's a right they have, it's their product. Stealing, on the other hand, is a right people don't have.
But then if you consider that a blank CD costs a fraction of what a music CD would cost, and that only a fraction of that money will go to the record companies, and also that a CD holds many more mp3s than CD audio tracks. And it doesn't change the morality of the issue anyway.
you aren't the only one who gets to decide what's right and wrong Neither do you, or any individual. It is against the law, so it is wrong for the time being, no matter how many excuses people make. Unless you start making the outrageous comparisons with Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, but those are easily addressed too.
Their influence averages to zero if they do vote randomly. I was reading someone's comment, about candidates higher up in the list getting more votes, precisely because of the people who vote "randomly". You could have ballots with a random order, but I think that's more trouble than it's worth. I am against mandatory vote anyway, because I think it just masks the true situation of the country, making it seem that all is fine and every citizen is interested in politics.
The usual response to that situation is a null vote (blank).
Google is your friend.
http://www.bssa.org.uk/nsindex.htm
http://www.steel.sandvik.com/techdata/
I looked for information on iron ore mining too, and related issues, and it's possible to find it. More to the point, as someone mentioned, we don't need to have an expert in every field, in every neighborhood, because in the mean time we evolved to large scale markets and specialization. It's been a long time since there was a man who knew about everything, or most things, generally speaking. What is important is that we, as a whole, can do most things that comprise current human knowledge, and there is redundancy, both in human and material resources, with information scattered all over the world.
The problem with analogies is they often neglect a part of the problem. The fact that the location isn't physical is important, because it means this little convention is taking place everywhere in the world where there is a computer connected to the Internet.
That said, I think what really matters is the law, not everyone's personal moral views on the matter, although of course those are important to shape the law in the future.
They answer that in the article:
"THE DISCOVERY of the gene brings scientists closer to a holy grail of biology: the ability to turn ordinary cells into those that possess all the biomedical potency of human embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need to destroy embryos to get them.
Researchers cautioned that the new work (...) will not bring a quick end to the political controversy over human embryo research."
They even say that it might intensify research on embryos, for now.
Actually, I did exactly the same thing; checked for embetterment in dictionary.com and it suggested embitterment.
Looks like he caused some embitterment.
You used to think you were a little paranoid?
Don't worry, if HP ever did something like changing the expiration date, they would immediately get caught by the people who go for seven or eight years without switching cartridges.
But isn't having kiddy porn on the net
The problem is... where does that porn come from? Restricting such sites goes deeper than just trying to stop people from seeing child abuse. You're right when you say this won't make the problem go away, but you're just thinking of the people who look at the sites and not the ones who produce them. As long as people are looking for those sites, there will be criminals willing to produce the pornographic material to sell it. There is an industry behind these crimes; there are paid child porn sites, supported by their users, and maybe by advertisement. What makes this fundamentally different than, say, sites about using drugs, or even showing rape (which can be faked), is that, in order to produce it, you're already commiting a crime, against someone who is vulnerable. Someone mentioned sites with videos of murders, but that's different because people aren't murdered with the sole purpose of taping it and putting it in a website. If that happened, I would say the sites should be shut down, because they wouldn't just encourage the act (which is arguable), they would objectively cause murders to happen. People who look at those sites feed the industry.
That said, thoughts about the "two year old kid in a bath tub", and the problem of people being prosecuted just for trying to denounce it, I consider them relevant. About the first one, I would say I don't mind people posting pictures of their kids, but if they post pictures of someone else's kids that's a different story. The point about prosecution is more complex. These issues should be discussed, my point is just that you can't generally say there's no real problem with the sites.