I don't really think people should have "moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research. Human embryos left over from IVF are (mandated by law) thrown in a bin. Is IVF immoral?
Embryonic stem cells have many, many reasons going for them over adult stem cells, not least of which a lower potential for developing into cancer. In terms of basic medical research, they are - for want of a better phrase - a godsend. Adult stem cells are not as good.
Why should "moral issues" about trash from a process that brings the joy of children to many stop genuine medical advances?
Anyhow, clinical trial entry in the US is dependent on the person receiving the trial therapy signing a waiver saying that they understand what they're doing. The worrying thing in this circumstance is that these people are desperate, which never helps clear judgement.
The 3G added 3G and GPS; the 3GS added a reasonably faster ARM chip, slightly better camera, uncrippled the video capability, and a digital compass.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but a journalist, Nick Davies, has built an entire book on media distortion and starts with the Y2K brouhaha and argues the opposite of what you're saying about media types.
He argues that billions that governments spent avoiding the mostly fairly minor consequences of the vast majority of non-mission critical computers thinking it's the wrong date were whipped up by lazy journalists wanting easy copy: http://www.flatearthnews.net/chapter-one-bug-ate-world
He ends with "This is Flat Earth news. A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true - even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda".
Where there's a will, there's a relative.