That is indeed a problem. A problem we need to fix with our puritanical society.

From what I've been able to tell, it's not exactly about "stumbling" as it is, "this is relevant to the topic of the page." If you're searching for topics on anatomy, for example, pictures are appropriate. The fact that a picture of say, an eye, is appropriate and pictures of genitals are not is a problem with our culture, not wikipedia. It's all just normal human anatomy.

Same goes for other topics that are not considered appropriate. If you're old enough to know to search for it, you're old enough to find out about it. If your parents didn't prepare you for it by the time that you're curious about it, they've fucked up. Talk to your kids early and often, or they're going to find the information before you've had a chance to give them your moral views on the topic at hand.

Except for Bundle in a Box, every one of those bundles seem to involve steam, and I won't support DRM (even so called "permissive DRM").

Bundle in a Box did say DRM-free, but I also noticed a few of the games in the bundle had the 'steam' icon. They also had the 'download' icon, so I assume that's optional, which would make it acceptable. Still, they're not doing the cross-platform emphasis that the Humble Bundle has, so I would still give preference to Humble.

I assume that by "partially imaginary" you mean they are all complex.

You would then be right.

What the hell? There is a single reason why it's unethical to do that to a human. They feel pain, both physical and mental anguish. If we did not, it would not be unethical to do it to humans. The cockroach does not, so it is not unethical to do it with them.

By all means, lock them up in a glass jar and check out how long they can go without food. Cut out legs. Poke it. Who the fuck cares? It certainly doesn't, why should you?

Yeah. Maybe 0.4 extra people will statistically get cancer 30 years from now that wouldn't have gotten it anyway. Oh wait, I've contemplated it.

The new, official story - just made public - is that the initial release from TEPCO was 2.5 X higher than was admitted at the time. If this is what they are recalcitrantly admitting to, after incontrovertible evidence, how bad is it really? After all, the utility and the government both demonstrate they cannot be trusted to prefer health and safety over saving-face.

So? Buy a phone and whistle past the graveyard...

Did you even read the article you linked to? "Because radiation sensors closest to the plant were knocked out by the March 11, 2011 quake and the tsunami, the utility based its estimate on other monitoring posts and data collected by Japanese government agencies." This isn't some grand conspiracy of people trying to save face, it's about not having information because their sensors were knocked out. They were able to gather more data since.

By the way, even 2.5x the original estimate is really no big deal. Now it will approximate the yearly dose from natural potassium in the body.

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying you don't take their entire site down. You tell them, "you're infringing on my copyright" and give them the opportunity to either take it down or say, "how much do you want for it?"

Same way that if somebody bought your stolen laptop, you tell them it's a stolen laptop and get it back. You don't put them in jail first until they can prove they were innocent and that, hey, it wasn't your laptop after all. The problem with the DMCA is that it bypasses the court before action (taking the site down) is taken.

I've got no problems accepting that cultures changes, but you can't attack another religion's texts for one thing, and then defend your own when it does the same thing by using that argument. Because your defense applies to them as well.

Not in Lot's time, when he was offering his daughters up to be raped in order to save his guests. I'm not objecting to his defense of his guests, I'm objecting to his solution.

I really have nothing against religious folk. I know plenty of Christians who I know that if they were placed in Lot's situation, they would die defending the guests in their homes. They would most certainly die defending their daughters too. Which is really my point. You don't judge people by their religious texts, you judge them by their actions. Some Christians are bad people, most are great people I'm happy to associate myself with.

I don't understand what that means.

And right there you've proven his point. Really? Buying a girl from her father against her wish is ok, as long as you don't resell her? That's like a marriage, because you're stuck with her for eternity, huh?

If you're forcing someone to live with you against their wish, it's slavery. Even if you treat them extremely well besides that, a gilded cage is still a cage.

Except for all the evolution we see happening right before our eyes. Damn super-bugs and their resistance to penicillin...

That's not science, that's philosophy. What are the chances I'm the only being in the universe, and that everything I think I am, everything I see (including your post), is just my imagination as my super-brain floats in the void? I can't prove anything else exists and I don't hallucinate it all. That doesn't mean I should give that possibility even the slightest thought.

In the absence of certainty, we make all of our decisions according to what is most likely to be true.

You're absolutely correct, and I agree with you on every single point. But quotas and affirmative action don't fix the problem.

A black kid goes to a substandard school in his neighborhood, and as a result isn't prepared for college. We institute quotas, and he gets in...but he's still ill-prepared for college, so now his grades are below average and his employment prospects suck when compared to his classmates. That's if he even graduates...guess who is more likely to drop out? And if he had to take any loans to pay for for college AND had to drop out? How'd you like to be in that situation?

Is it the kid's fault? No, of course not. He didn't have the opportunities the rest of us had. Do we, as a society, need to fix the problem? Yes, absolutely. However, in this case, fixing the problem means fixing education in low-income neighborhoods and doing a better job preparing these kids for college.