Read the article from MIT, not the other sources. You'll notice a distinct difference. I hate to see good research get misrepresented.

The non-MIT articles makes grand claims that are NOWHERE in the real research. The "journalists" makes large claims about the existence of a "moral center" of the brain. The actual study and the MIT summary gives a much more restrained and accurate description. It shows that temporary disruption of TPJ interferes with the complete normal process which draws upon many areas of the brain.

Let's use a train analogy to get away from car analogies.

In order for a train to go from A to B, there must be intact railing the whole way. If we alter a section of the track and derail the train, it does NOT prove that the removed section is the train transportation center of the railroad track. It is essential, but it is only part of the process. The disruption of this area of the brain only shows that it is essential in the complete processing of moral judgement, not the center itself. I'm not talking down this research, only the journalistic representation of it.

Legitimately? Many decades. This research shows that there indeed is some sort of modular physiological aspect to our conception of morality. But beyond that, it tells us almost nothing about how it might affect behavior in a legal sense. In the future this kind of research will require a fundamental change in our judicial system, but not yet. Now if we are talking about quack defenses, I bet someone has already tried it. Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin'.

China might lose because this discourages other businesses to operate in China.

The search services are the part that pertains to censorship. Google isn't severing business ties, they are refusing to facilitate censorship.

Like google or not, it's good to see a business stand up to the Chinese government.

I have a very old player piano which uses rolls to playback performances. A few of them are Rachmaninov himself playing his own works. I don't have the particular one they have on their website, but stylistically it does not match up at all with what i've heard. Before someone jumps up and says the rolls aren't accurate playback, there were some models towards the end of the player pianos heyday which played back lived recording with full expressioning. Amazing piece of tech really, you'd be amazed how accurate it is.

Why don't you open your eyes? Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda. The "nutritional value" and "oxygen" they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data. All so plants can spread across this globe, making botanists rich and powerful. They don't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs. So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money.

I can already see how the other side is going to spin this:

"The UN creates special climate change audit to question the validity of global warming so-called experts!"

"UN global warming fact check panel to reassess climate change"

And when the panel comes back supporting the massive amount of good data, they will comb through the report and take lines out of context to attempt to discredit the panel.

"The UN is conspiring with a bunch of liberal elites to STEAL YOUR FREEDOM."

How many of those does an average person use or even know about?

Who would you rather watch on screen? A pudgy thirtysomething typing code in a dark room or a bunch of really attractive young people?

Hollywood figured this out a long time ago. If we are going to stare at a screen for two hours we want eye candy.

Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel (emphasis added): "...divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the PERSON who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the PERSON who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the PERSON who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the PERSON who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the PERSON who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

This nomination of an object clearly goes against the founders intent. Are we going to aware the physics prize to the LHC someday?

All the examples you list are either broadcast or point to point communication. The internet is an evolution of these technologies that allows for both kinds of communication at a low cost of entry for billions. Not the greatest thing in mass communication in the last 100 years? A large and rapidly growing number of the population of this planet has the capacity to instantly communicate regardless of geographical location. It seems magical by comparison to communication technology of the past.

As for government control, having a million ants running around with megaphones is alot harder to stop (or control) than a few centralized points of broadcast. Look at the recent political turmoil is Iran as an example of a repressive state having alot harder time silencing it's populace than it would have twenty/thirty years ago.

So, the United States then?

Most failed results have no useful knowledge in them. Having a huge amount of them is less useful that it sounds.

Lets make the assumption that this law existed before this event happened. Would it have been prevented? Of course not. More ineffective unenforceable laws are what America needs! That is, if you are a up for reelection.