Any pathogens would be cooked anyway.
Just a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at porn is an extremely bad metric. Just one child out if the several million or so in the U.K. would technically be a reduction. And the kids going around it is precisely why this sort of regulation doesn't work.
You have to ask what your goal is. Do you actually just want a strict reduction in the number of kids looking at pornography as if all pornography is created equal. Kids will just go to less moderated sites which will contain higher rates of child pornography, other rape depictions, etc.
These laws are generally supported by two types of people: ones who know how it will be abused to stifle free speech (see: ID required to see protestors arrested by police) and dinosaurs that think the internet works identically to the video rental store.
Edit: I think the reason your comment was downvoted was because of the first sentence. It doesn't protect children. Not even the most ideal "just gives up immediately after the popup" child.
She's a public figure, and this information extremely relevant to that status.
Edit: changed and added some words to make comment clearer.
Drones can now carry significant payloads.
This has been true since they first put a camera on them.
This is a real machine in Romania. Do 20 squats in front of it, and it prints you a free bus ticket.
Having to prove you're disabled is also often ableist
Does anyone else think that this is kind of a bad article? It doesn't at all explain why the headline is true.
It doesn't do that. None of this does that
Sweden teaches its kids English first now. You'll be fine.
Bro does NOT have his helmet on
view more: next ›
He's in Australia?