Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1 of 212next »

Your groups article touch on a very hot and controversial topic and I applaud your courage with all the hype to write about it. In addition, the article is very well written and your videos allow us readers to go more in-depth. I like how you clearly & concisely explained what wiki leaks was, I have heard so many things, but only had a vague understanding of what it is and how it all worked until I read your article. I also liked how instead of picking one of the two extremes you said that we need to fall somewhere in the middle. At first, I thought this whole wiki leaks thing was a conspiracy or that some people that just want extra attention until I saw on the news that Hilary Clinton and many government officials want wiki leaks down along with their founders. To me it is like why would they publicly admit they want to shut down wiki unless wiki leaks what they are leaking is true. I like how you told both sides of the issue that wiki leaks is not only exposing corruption from the government but also from its citizens as well (the Iraq soldiers).

I believe wiki leaks is an eye opener for the average American, and recently it seems we as people, no longer have a say in what is going on because we don’t know what is really going on. I know wiki leaks founder is being “hunted so to speak, but what law has the founder “Julian Assange” broke? What can the government really do to him? Even if they stop Julian Assange who is to say there won’t be more people like him. Thinking about how many computer literate and how easily it is to access information with the right skills. I believe the only solution will be a law, hopefully as you said one that is in the middle of the two extremes of no censorship to 100% censorship. I also like how you noticed and mentioned how all the hype is coming down on Julian Assange and whole he seems to be taking the blame for a whole organization. Your article talks about his intent and how he is doing this because he wants a reform within our government. This reminded me of stories I have heard from the 70s and wondered in our day and age if the internet is how we do our protests and reformed now, but that is another topic for another day………….

by Christine HipplerChristine Hippler, 09 Dec 2010 03:59

I had no clue on this topic until a year ago when I became pregnant and somebody mentioned to only eat organic meat. Since that time I have done a lot of research on it. Personally, this issue was hard for me to come to terms with since I love meat! I have to eat meat with almost every meal. Now, if I buy beef I make sure it is organic, or get chicken since (not yet) is chickens inserted with hormones or being cloned at the alarming rate cows are. “The FDA does not want to label the meat because it insinuates that there is something wrong with the product.” I personally, would want a label because I feel it is just plain ignorant to say cloned meat has no health effects; if it causes all of those problems to the cows themselves than it is hard to image it wouldn’t harm a human being which we are much more complex and could have much longer adverse effects than a cow. I think it is way too early to tell what is exactly going on; it could take decades to see the effects. Like the injection of hormones to cows. Hormones have been linked to a number of complications including early puberty in girls and autism. There are more studies that are coming out every day. Yet the FDA said in the beginning that it is okay and still does after all of this research came out. That is exactly why I don’t care what the FDA says about cloned meat, that it is safe; they lied to us about hormones what is to say they are not lying now? The FDA has and has always had their agenda. Look out for their own and make money.

On to the moral dilemma. Personally it just seems unnatural and wrong. One, if we allow cloning of animals that it just open the doors wide open for cloning of humans down the road. Two, what makes us human compared to the other animals in the animal kingdom is that we have a wide range of emotions. Like the Pink book, American’s and alike live for and from empathy & sympathy. It is hard to know that so many of these animals have to suffer. As well as you mention the cost factor of 10,000-20,000$ to make cloned meat. Who is paying for this? Taxpayers?

The only real criticism I have for your article is that you did not take a stand one way or another. If you are going to write about a conversional topic go all the way (besides the fact taking a side is a requirement for the wiki article). All in All, great article learned a little more than I did before on this construct.

by Christine HipplerChristine Hippler, 09 Dec 2010 03:56

There is a lot of controversy as to why the FDA is taking a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” when it comes to labeling cloned meat on the market. Some say they are choosing to be this way because of the issue of pricing and tracking where the meat comes from; others say that the FDA does not want to label the meat because it insinuates that there is something wrong with the product. Whatever the case may be since there is no test for meat to tell if it is cloned or not, it is pretty much impossible to tell if the meat you had for dinner was from a real cow or a cloned one. It took legislation 6 years to pass the bill to make cloned meat legal for sale in the United States, and the original plan was to label the meat but once the bill was passed that never happened.

Since studies have been taking place on cloned meat, there have been no indications that eating cloned meat can be detrimental to one’s health. However, who is to say that effects of this new type of genetically cloned meat will not be harmful to the consumers? Perhaps it is too early to tell. Many countries, including the UK, Argentina, New Zealand, and others around the world are jumping on the bandwagon and beginning to clone animals of their own. Anything from pigs, chickens, and cows can be cloned and sold for meat. The same argument exists around the world; should cloned meat be labeled accordingly? Meat eaters around the world say “yes,” and for those selling the meat they say “no.” One thing is for sure, we have the right to know what we are eating.

by Devon CutterDevon Cutter, 08 Dec 2010 16:22

1.) We only had 2 people so we had word count constraints & our page was not done, we were still trying to figure out links and graphics (the links and graphs tells a lot that our article doesn’t) which are now completed.
2.) There are no real statistics out there for texting while driving. (Google says there is harm and the stats are only estimates) because it is so hard to prove someone was texting while driving. For example if you got in a crash because you were texting while driving would you admit it to a cop? However, a large number of people with surveys admit to texting while driving. The only studies that have been done with texting while driving have been simulated or in controlled environments their results say it is dangerous and how dangerous it is but it is so hard to get a real figure of actually how many people get into crashes because of texting while driving .
3. According to the wiki handout we had to show the benefits and risks then take a stand on the issue hence why there was a benefit section.
However, with all that aside thank you for your input and if I had the time this article would be 8-9 pages long to do a thorough job on the subject matter.

As the others have stated before, the privacy settings set by default are simply atrocious. What I find sad, though, is the fact that the site, itself, has to “teach” the user how to block unwanted attention. For things like this, it’s usually rather simple and straightforward, but there are even news sites that have to show the general population how to do the privacy settings – something you never heard about with myspace.

I read this article awhile back, and honestly, I didn’t find this to be the least bit surprising. Privacy breaching seems to be a regular occurrence with Facebook, but will Mark Zuckerberg actually do anything about it this time? He probably will admit a bit of wrongdoing but will engage in similar activities at a later time. The situation reminds me of Wall Street in a way. Many people blame them for the collapse of the economy, but what happened afterwards? There was a lot of blame and some restructuring, but the same practices still go on because we rely on them in our everyday lives, and they can get away with it. The same is true for Facebook in my opinion. Yes, there’s blame thrown around and an apology or two, but the fact that so many people use it so heavily makes me think that nobody really realizes the potential for disaster if we remain ignorant of the situation.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything to combat the problems, though. There used to be a way to look at people’s profiles even if they were fully private – all you had to know was the user id! Thank goodness that changed.

Agreed! It's a flawed system. by SakuzaSakuza, 06 Dec 2010 04:48

While I completely agree with the premise of your article that texting while driving is dangerous, I was somewhat disappointed with the presentation of this groups argument. I don’t know if it was only because two people were working on the assignment, but when I finished reading I wasn’t sure exactly what was being argued. The final sentence in the conclusion, “Hopefully Florida lawmakers will ban texting while driving or think of solutions to stop this behavior in order to save lives”, was the first time the article mentioned potential political action.

I am also confused by the inclusion of the “Benefits of Texting” section. Was this to mention that the writer’s believe texting does serve a logical function and just shouldn’t be used while driving? Nothing was there to explain the reason this section existed in this article. All it does is explain why texting exists, which really has nothing to do with driving. I really haven’t figured out the correlation, and when reading any kind of argumentation piece, logistics is extremely important.

Speaking of logistics, we finally reach the section which should have been the theme of the entire article and hammered home throughout: texting while driving has been harmful, is harmful today, and will continue to be harmful if nothing is done to prevent it in the future.

I was extremely surprised that there were no statistics presented showing exactly how many people have been affected by texting while driving. Furthermore, there was not one tragic story highlighting the harms of texting while driving. When I typed in “texting while driving tragedies” into Google, there were nearly 50,000 results. These kinds of stories work well in constructing an argument. Personal anecdotes work really well as well. I know I’ve swerved or had to stop short to avoid hitting the car in front of me because I was messing with my phone. It just seemed like the article forgot to appeal to the audiences’ common sense.

I did like the study that compared texting while driving to drunk driving. It shined an extremely positive light on the case but I thought the article was missing an important sentence tying the study to the argument. Something along the lines of, “We all know the dangers of drinking and driving. We have seen the statistics, we have heard the horror stories. Now we have a new studying proving that texting while driving is even worse than this known atrocity. If we now KNOW this, some kind of action must be taken.”

Had this article actually been published in any sort of journal, I think those who spend their time actually fighting for action to be taken to ban texting while driving would be sorely disappointed.

The Facebook phenomena is quite complex. The privacy on Facebook is important in delivery a good product to its users. It is up you ultimately on what you share on the social network; however, relying on Facebook to keep your personal information within Facebook safely and securely is something users take for granted. The breach of secure information shows users how easy it is to get information about you even if it is supposed to be private.

In this part of the article : “As an experiment, in any major search engine and typing the contents, "First name", "Last name" and "Facebook" will bring a person's Facebook profile and Facebook groups, and other information, in a few seconds. This effortless task allows all Facebook users/ non Facebook users to find their friends, coworkers, relatives, or even the person next to them in a gym class.” (Privacy and Settings)

I found it a bit alarming how easy it is for people to find you even those with ill intentions. I am very careful what I put on my Facebook page, but I still wonder if I put too much on my page. It is fun and addicting; nonetheless, we should remember to guard ourselves from people we don’t know. Facebook was made for connecting; however it has evolved into so much more. What astonishes me is the value Facebook has on the market. The value of Facebook is something I would have never thought would have brought in that much value. (Amazing) Facebook is tool that is being used for businesses globally. Marketers love Facebook.

Who would have thought that this networking would have made such an effect on its users?

The question to censor or to release information is one that can be academically debated in a forum such as this project, but the reality is that the choice has already been made. Wikileaks is an organization that was the product of secretive military self-policing and lying political factions within governments. The modern press has become complacent in their reporting, even at times operating as a co-conspirator to the dissemination of lies. It is in this climate that organizations such as Wikileaks were founded. The choice has already been made.

There are arguments for both sides of this uncensored release of information. This does endanger current operatives in the field and at the same time it exposes events that were covered up by the military such as the “Collateral Damage” video. In that particular case the military had denied the freedom of information request, because they had discovered that they had acted improperly and negligently. If the organization of Wikileaks hadn’t leaked that video they would have essentially gotten away with murder and the families would never have received an honest answer as to why their loved ones had died in Iraq.

There is going to be pluses and minuses to everything, but I believe that Wikileaks is a response to a world where information is filtering, cleaned, spun, and woven into something completely unrecognizable. They stand for the release of information above all costs and I believe it is something to be critical of as well of proud of.

The possibilities of the genetic engineering are almost incomprehensible. This subject pricks human curiosity to the core. As humans, we are naturally curious and ambitious. With this combination it could breed horrific disaster or awe-inspiring breakthrough discoveries. This precipice that science is at is pivotal to the future of humanity. My hope is that scientists who are so excited about this research come at it with type of reverential responsibility. Their actions are actions that will make effects for generations to come. To be someone that could do something that effective is amazing.

This article is well formatted, organized, and very interesting. The information collected is very solid and illustrative. For those that don’t know much about this subject you all have made something complex understandable which shows your writing talent.

rBree : Your discussion response is very good.
The questions you brought out were questions in my mind as well. In my personal thoughts, a world without the sick will not happen because of how nature mutates. Once we find a way to eradicate one disease or virus another takes its place, and usually it is far worse than what we eradicated. Nature always seems one step ahead of us, sadly. It is a way of balance I think.

The face that the group chose to look at all the pros and cons of social networking using Facebook made this article quite enjoyable. The topic itself is extremely relatable to today’s society and the risks of Facebook are often overlooked in comparison to the benefits that the users themselves find. In terms of the benefits of using Facebook, I would have liked to see the section elaborated a bit more. For those who are not familiar with the website, it would have helped to clarify the popularity of social networking. In comparison, by summarizing the benefits the group’s position questioning the safety of using Facebook.

I thought the risks section did a great job of illustrating the numerous risks of social networking. As someone who consistently uses Facebook I found it interesting to read all of the possible risks that can come from just the information that I post on my Facebook account. Personally, I think the most difficult risk for me to grasp is the effects that my Facebook page could have on my current and future job or career. It is completely realistic to believe that management would use Google and social networking sites to find out about their future employee. Overall, the only criticism I had was that I thought the voice could have been a little more sophisticated throughout the risks section only to solidify the seriousness of the section itself.

Very interesting topic by ShelbyGT500ShelbyGT500, 06 Dec 2010 02:54

Cloned meat has been, for me, a real dilemma. I’m not quite sure what to think, because even though it doesn’t have any apparent health consequences, it just seems unnatural and wrong. I enjoyed reading your article because it really put together the whole story of cloned meat and taught me a lot about the subject.

This situation has a lot in common with environmental problems such as, the subject of my group’s article, mountaintop removal mining (MTR). They are both said to be safe, but usually only by those who stand to gain from continuing the status quo. Just as the FDA has been infiltrated and swayed by big business, some of the very organizations that claim to be fighting for the environment are doing just the opposite. They spread misinformation about the true nature of their business, which is producing profit at all costs. Some of the biggest environmental organizations are backed by the most polluting industries, just like the corporate food executives have been given high-ranking positions within the FDA. They too are only concerned with the bottom line. They do not take into account the suffering of the animals that die from their babies being too large or the many that are born with deformed limbs and organs. Similarly, those who support MTR do not take into account the diverse species they harm and they disregard the health and rights of people who fall within the massive shadow of damage cast by MTR. Much of environmental arguments come down to human and animal rights, maybe if we think of these issues in such a way we could understand it further and find solutions that are best for society.

I'm not sure what position your group formerly took, but I think it has something to do with thinking that WikiLeaks should follow some "middle path". Personally, I think WikiLeaks represents the selfish, arrogant, and childish desires of extremist activists. Before the latest information "dump", I might have considered the other side of the argument. I can certainly understand your group's desire for a middle-path-following WikiLeaks, but unfortunately I do not think WikiLeaks or Julian Assanage will ever agree to it. Assanage and the WikiLeaks team seem to be driven by some Victim/Napoleon Complex that forces them to divulge all the secrets of the big, popular, bully people in an effort to destroy their power, rather than fight corruption as their noble claim states.

True, at the beginning it seems that this may have been the real driving force. But exposing countless gossipy documents that achieve nothing but destroying the trust and confidence between diplomats, reporters, and their sources seems juvenile and pointless. It seems they are now exposing just to expose; they are telling other people's secrets just to embarrass and betray them. There is no nobility or overriding moral force behind this type of exposure; it is selfish, pointless, and just stupid. The Christian Science Monitor wrote a good, short article on the matter as well:

We live in an age of constant evolution of technology; where music, movies, and video games play a big part in the entertainment industry. Now after reading this article, one may seem lost in what you are trying to say as you have given so much background information about how digital media is being illegally downloaded and giving other source of outlets where it can be legally distributed. You didn’t clearly state what your position on the matter of illegal distribution of digital media; whether it was good or bad. I understand you gave ample amount of information support the claim that it might not cause the music industry to lose any money; however once I got down to the stated position of the article it was merely said that sites like Hulu and Netlfix provide a safe legal way of watching movies and how iTunes helps monitor music distribution. I’m trying to provide this article with constructive criticism on what has been stated.

I believe that people who illegally download anything just want it for cheap or in the terms of music and movies want it earlier. I agree with how this article stated that musicians make more money off of live performances than they do on actual album sales. I believe it lies with the label companies wanting to make as much profit as they can possibly can so the prosecute those that sell it illegally since they don’t receive a portion of that said profit. Movies and video games cost a lot to make and the companies sell them for a hefty price that quite frankly most people can’t afford to go watch a $15 movie that they don’t keep or a $60 game that takes all about five hours to beat which is a lot less than what it takes to make that money to buy the game. This is where more options and game modes come into place as we have seen with recent sales of the popular series of Call of Duty that has made the multiplayer experience the reason to play for countless hours. I think a solution for the movie piracy would be for these companies to start mass-producing the movies digitally to sell them after a consumer has watched it in the cinemas. Most of the illegal downloads of movies come from those who have already watched a movie and just want to watch it over and over but it doesn’t come out for at least three months after it has already released.

Speaking on computer software, I believe security keys are a very good way to ensure it isn’t being pirated; however these keys can be easily duplicated and reused over and over again. The main problem with why digital media is being illegally downloaded is because of cost. Many just don’t have that type of money to go around for everyone especially since we pay for Internet and electricity and gas on a monthly basis. We feel that whatever we do on the Internet is our business and not others. Only when one starts to mass-produce these products is when it poses a problem whereas most users just download these items for personal use.

by Benjamin ZambranaBenjamin Zambrana, 05 Dec 2010 21:56

To the group of Nicole, Geddy, Elliot, and Shehan I have to commend you on writing such an informative article. Until I read your piece on Mountaintop removal for coal mining I had no clue that such activities were taking place in our great mountain lands. The actions coal companies are taking is completely horrible. Even though I’m shocked and sadden to hear that this is happening, I’m not at all surprised. From prior knowledge of corporate and governmental corruption I believe cases such as the effects of mountaintop removal will continue to happen.

I have to disagree with changing the right of property. The reason I disagree is because we as free Americans have the same rights as the coal companies do. Although, what the coal miners don’t have is a right to do is damage and infringe other citizens right to property. It really hurts to see the American citizens be taken advantage of like this. With the health effects of the sulfate and debris that get in the air and water its clear our government knows what’s going on and they don’t care. More likely than not our congressmen are being bribed to turn the other cheek. In the case they aren’t being bribed, they are most likely have some form of investment in the company.

Since reading about all these health and property effects I thought I share with you guys some info on other corporate and government corruption against the American people.

Charles Fliggins

This article was rather informative. I particularly enjoyed the brief recap on the history of file sharing; the discussion of the key actions dealing with media sharing help give the reader a solid foundation of where we are today. But I found it somewhat disappointing that there was no mention of other Peer-2-Peer client programs mentioned in the Social History section. Names like Frostwire, Shareaza, BearShare, Ares, eMule, and the infamous (and recently ousted) Limewire could use a mention in the section at the least. Furthermore, the article doesn’t even take into consideration the use of torrents to download media—this includes no referencing to the current and former popular torrent sites like, isoHunt, Mininova, Demonoid, and etc.

In the brief history section, they discuss the means in which certain malicious P2P clients contained malware that recorded the data use of the file sharing as evidence in the court prosecutions. While on the topic of evidence used against “pirates” in court, the article could have discussed the means in which file sharers are caught. As was mentioned in other posts to this wiki, a reference to one of the many ridiculous lawsuits being held against an individual accused of illegal file sharing (and possibly mention the ludicrous amount of money they are being sued for) would have fit nicely into the argument concerning Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I am glad that this discussion spoke of DRM and its insane regulation standards and how they ultimately affect the legal end user negatively. I remember purchasing the video game Bioshock when it was released from Gamestop. I took it home, installed the software from the CD, and having to re-enter the SAME Registration key FIVE TIMES before the program finally understood my key as valid. I did not retype the key with any errors at any point in time—each execution was error-free, like the first. The DRM on that game was so harsh that it actually discredited VALID Registration Keys several times before it realized that the key was valid (Bioshock DRM Issues). In fact, an example such as this would have been a great addition to the wiki article.

by Thomas Ingham JrThomas Ingham Jr, 05 Dec 2010 20:58

It is really disturbing to learn that a drunk driver is a more responsive driver than a texting driver. I realized the problem of texting and driving a while ago, but had no idea its has bloomed to such a disastrous level. It is somewhat a relief that most cell phone providers are actively campaigning against texting while driving. Drive on any interstate and you will see a barrage of billboards urging drivers to put down their cell phones, but this is simply not enough. It is obvious that drivers realize the dangers of texting and driver, but yet again and again, drivers continue to a take this unnecessary risk. Like you guys said, texting and driving is most prevalent among teen drivers, the generation that heavily relies on electronics. This article reminds me of a Mythbusters episode where they test cell phones and drunk driving. The videos are below:

Part I:
Part II:
Part III:

Although the experiment involves only talking on a cell phone and not texting, it still highlights the distractions that cell phones pose to drivers. Like you guys stated, the experiment revealed that using a cell phone while driving is just as dangerous or potentially more dangerous are a drunk driver. A lot more drivers choose never to drink and drive because they realize that drinking severely hinders ones driving ability. But yet most drivers fail to realize that texting hinders one driving ability just as much. For this reason, we should outlaw cell phone usage while driving, just like drinking and driving is outlawed. If legislation was made that banned cell phone usage while driving, people would immediately realize the potential hazard cell phones pose, which would hopefully reduce the problem. This in turn will make our roads and drivers safe for everyone.

What a HUGE problem by neilpatelneilpatel, 05 Dec 2010 19:23

The media sharing controversy is something that I personally find very interesting, presumably because I was able to follow it from its very beginning. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article because I think it is written from a quite neutral perspective. However, I can only partly agree with your position because I do not share the same feelings towards Netflix. Personally, I am already at the stage where I stopped using, let alone buying optical discs such as CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs. I genuinely believe that we will eventually stop producing these insane amounts of physical storage discs and rely on digital downloads for obtaining media. If you consider the popularity of Steam, for example, it becomes evident that an increasing number of people prefer to get their games instantly. Moreover, they can redownload their purchased games as often as they want and as long as Steam exists. Another benefit is that Steam allows you to install patches without the hassle of searching for them on your own.

Although the article mentions a lot of specifics regarding the various legal decisions surrounding the media sharing controversy, I would have also been interested in reading about how media is shared nowadays. Two big keywords are torrents and file-hosting websites. Especially the latter are interesting because to this day, I have not heard of a single case where someone was sued for downloading something from a file-hosting website such as the popular RapidShare, which has existed for approximately five years now.

by Erik EpsteinErik Epstein, 05 Dec 2010 17:01

I loved the topic your group chose. As a big gamer, myself I deal with video game anti-piracy each time I am to buy a new game. Recently, as you explained, Ubisoft has been using a DRM which makes the user be on constant internet connection or the user cannot play their game. A game that was bought and paid for is being rented since the game relies to be connected to their servers. If their servers were to ever go down, even permanently, then I could not play the game I paid for. To be fair, I am a PC user and I dislike how many games come with TAGES, Ubisoft DRM, and SecuROM. TAGES and SecuROM limit how many times the customer can install the piece of software. Companies implement these digital rights management onto their games but harm the paying customers. Why is it that PC gamers have to limit themselves to only being able to reinstall a game 5 or less times? Console gamers do not face these problems. One could have a rebuttal that PC has more piracy over consoles, but right now in court there is a case over the modding of Xbox 360 consoles that allow the download of games. You can look at the case here. Console piracy is a big problem as well but wholly ignored by the bigger companies.

I thoroughly despise that my choice of platform leads me to being targeted as a potential pirate. There are ways to make it so DRM is not such a big deal on to the paying customers. As mentioned in the article Steam is a great tool to combat piracy. It allows users to take their account and put it on any other computer and download their games from wherever they are. The president of Valve Software, the ones who run Steam, is Gabe Newell. This video explains his stance on DRM and piracy:

Gabe Newell has the correct stance and a lot of other developers and companies need to follow suit.

Other forms of anti-piracy that are not too bad are ones like the recent Michael Jackson video game for the Nintendo DS. The game detects if it’s an illegitimate copy and plays a vuvuzela over the music in the game. It also removes the in game cues to actually play the game.

Although these forms of anti-piracy are easy to get around they don’t pose much of a threat and makes the company, in the eyes of the pirates and gamers, seem trusting. The bigger the DRM is put on the actual game, the more of a risk and challenge for the pirates. They take DRM to be an insult and make it a mission to be able to hack it, much like EA’s Spore incident.

I really dislike that I am treated as a criminal.

by Chris NyeChris Nye, 05 Dec 2010 16:18

I think it’s ridiculous that the music and gaming industries go to such extreme measures to protect their profits. Of course, I understand that they want to protect their intellectual property, but suing children is absurd. Likewise, attempting to ban the sale of second-hand games is just greedy. Video games are already priced extremely (and bizarrely) high, and trying to control the actions of the buyers after their expensive purchase is unfair and ridiculous. Hopefully, they will not be allowed to continue in this manner, because the idea that the various industries could have control over my actions after a purchase is unnerving to say the least. It’s a little Big Brother-ish, ultimately. I have the same feelings about Apple’s desperate authoritative and monopolistic control tactics with all of their software (and hardware, ultimately). Honestly, something should be done about that. I enjoyed reading your article as it commented on all of these issues.

And as a side note, I completely agree with your stance. Netflix is by far the simplest way to get the best of both worlds (that is, the ease of downloaded movies and the peace of mind that comes with legality). I can’t imagine risking my computer’s health or wasting my time to download pirated films. The same is true of iTunes, although I mentioned earlier my extreme dislike of Apple's control methods. I do recognize that there are other legal avenues to download music, but iTunes has the best platform it seems, and furthermore it is the only platform that works with my iPod.

by denaenoeldenaenoel, 05 Dec 2010 15:56

I agree whole-heartedly with your stance on stem cell research and the blind standpoints that many tend to hold due to their morals. I consider it illogical to put an embryo in a dish and a living human being into the same category, and to deny people everywhere the opportunity for promising cures because of that is simply unnecessary. Stem cell research has shown great promise in curing certain diseases and ailments, and there should never have been a ban placed on it. Comparing a roughly 150 cell blastocyst smaller than the tip of your eyelash to a living human life is a tad bit outrageous if you ask me.

By allowing scientists to continue to research these cells we can even find out more about the human body that’s yet to be discovered. I actually found this article just the other day about a breakthrough in burn treatment. By spraying the burns with a solution made with the victim’s OWN stem cells, not only is the healing process dramatically increased but the likelihood of a skin graft taking hold is also more likely. Here’s the link to the full article:

I'm thrilled that Obama lifted the absurd ban on stem cell research and I hope that in the future funding for this excellent area of science will be greatly increased. Given the proper resources, I'm sure it won't be long before cancer, AIDS, blindness, alzheimer's, and paralysis begin to find their individual cures through stem cell research.

Completely agree by Levi TylekLevi Tylek, 05 Dec 2010 11:10
page 1 of 212next »