Until you manage to produce undeniable proof that someone is physically unable to be cured from mental illness, we should always, as a society, strive to cure them. Let's take an analogy that's perhaps closer to home: some people in hospitals have neither the money nor the physical wellness to get cured. Should we simply abandon them, or should we strive to the very end to attempt to cure them, even (and especially) if it ultimately fails?
Attempt at reform is pointless for many; it's a well-established fact that you cannot 'cure' a sociopath.
I heard that particular page read just after the infamous fetal pig intestine fight in biology.
That was an awesome, fucked up day.
Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.
The dollar is the root of our empire, not our labor force.
CGI humans in movies--pre-rendered by giant server farms for as long as it takes--still fall into the uncanny valley.
It'll be a long, long time before graphics can be rendered in real time with no uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley has nothing to do with rendering any more, but modelling.
They've gotten better, but kinematic models are still crap. This will be fixed when someone bothers to spend the money to actually make a facial model based on data collected from fast fMRI, instead of by the hand of an "artist", or a clumsy inverse kinematics algorithm.
Trying to cover all cases with one universal standard is rarely the best solution. Covering the core with a small number of good standards, and having a few others that work differently to handle the rest is often the best way. This is simply because the 'solution space' covered by a single universal standard has many more regions of possibility that will never be touched than a few more focussed standards. Whilst it's massively oversimplifying, imagine the problem of covering a bounded region of a plane, that has an interesting shape, with squares. Hardcore minimalists will point out that one big square will do. That is what the universal standard approach tries to do. The trouble is that a few interesting cases can push the required size of the square to large proportions. If one wants to optimise for area, many small squares are better, but at the expense of having to manage many squares. A balance between these two, with a very small number of large squares and a slightly larger number of smaller squares, tends to be the best solution. Things work similarly with languages, both human and computer ones.
The problem isn't that the standard tries to be universal, it's that it's applied at a completely inappropriate level of abstraction.