Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps the fact that he posted a link to a total shit webcomic?

You mean like xkcd that gets quoted in every story?

I'm not affiliated with the following website, but they make a lot of good points:

xkcdsucks.blogspot.com

Never Forget Keanu

If a scientist other than themselves didn't make the discovery, it's obvious the other guy's methods are flawed!

Scientists can be such whiny, arrogant assholes...whatever happened to science being done for science, rather than recognition?

You do realize that criticizing research is a crucial part of the scientific method, right? Letting claims go unchallenged is the domain of religion, not science.
People are ripping apart this paper because it makes grand claims based on a potentially flawed methodology. If the results can be replicated with those flaws fixed, then the NASA team's research recieves further validation. If not, hey, I guess they jumped the gun. Either way, you have to identify the potential flaws, which is what people are doing here.

Also, to once again quote Rosie Redfield:

There's a difference between controls done to genuinely test your hypothesis and those done when you just want to show that your hypothesis is true.

So my question is basically what does it matter what they grew or washed the bacteria with when, in one of the many investigations, they found that gel purified genomic DNA had elevated levels of arsenic in them? Unless I'm misunderstanding what 'gel purified genomic DNA' means, I would assume that there's still several pieces of data in these experiments that point toward an organism that uses arsenic in place of phosphorous -- even if only somehow partially. Would this sort of spectrometry reveal any arsenic at all in my gel purified genomic DNA?

From Rosie Redfield's critique:

Could 400 atoms of arsenate per genome be due to carryover of the arsenate in the phenol-chloroform supernatant rather than to covalent incorporation of As in DNA? The Methods describes a standard ethanol precipitation with no washing (and no column purification which would have included washing), so I think some arsenate could easily have been carried over with the DNA, especially if it is not very soluble in 70% ethanol. Would this arsenate have left the DNA during the gel purification? Maybe not - the methods don't say that the DNA was purified away from the agarose gel matrix before being analyzed. This step is certainly standard, but if it was omitted then any contaminating arsenic might have been carried over into the elemental analysis.

1. As I explained in this recent blog post, Apple's ITC assertions against Nokia were split into two parts. The staff report that the press reported on in early December related to only 4 of the 10 patents Apple originally asserted against Nokia.

I wouldnt give too much of that opinion. That guy considers the "shift-key" ^H^H^H multi-touch patents the most powerful weapon. How such a patent could be claimed by anyone other than the inventor of the touch device, if even that, is beyond me. What next, A invents a temperature sensor and B patents the art of converting the binary data into human readable form?

Have fun. Haven't tried lua here yet, but python works fairly well.

Also, KDE veteran Aaron Seigo wrote a blog entry about the split.

The patents in question were related to implementing a global standard for wireless communication (GSM) which Nokia has an obligation to offer on RAND terms to all comers.

Not true. There are two different patent cases going on between Apple and Nokia. Only one relates to essential wireless patents (Delaware case). The other case (Wisconsin) is for patents that cover many modern technologies that Nokia is not obligated to offer to all comers, e.g. camera phone technology, internal antennas etc.. Camera phones and internal antenna cell phones hadn't been invented when the GSM wireless specs were standardised. Neither had multi-touch phone interfaces. If Apple insists that Nokia can't use multi-touch, then Nokia is going to insist that Apple can't put a camera or internal antenna in the phone. All are obvious technologies, and Star Trek predates them, but that's the stupidity of patents for you.

If you want to build a phone then we are literally allowed to make identical clones to the iPhone and sell it with a Nokia brand.

A literal, identical clone? You think that Nokia wants to create pirate iPhones like some kind of cheap HK knockoff? Or do they just want to use obvious advances like multi-touch in their own phones? Apple's position is that the user interface - which we've had several decades of various designs, layouts, haptics etc. - is unique and ought to be protected, and yet every other patented technology in the phone ought to be licensed on RAND terms. Apple knows that it's share of the smartphone market will be eroded by cheaper Android products as surely as the PC won over the world. It's just another instance of Apple using the courts to try and stop competing products. Instead of "look and feel" and copyright law, now they're trying "look and feel" and patent law. Motorola has over 9,000 patents. Nokia has over 10,000. How many do you think cover non-RAND licensed technology? Thousands. Even if Apple manage to win some, they are going to lose eventually. It's worth pointing out that many of Apple's patents in these cases are pretty generic:

• 5,379,431 "invent a boot loader"
• 5,379,430 "invent a CORBA-like directory service"
• 5,455,599 "invent a computer with a video card"
• 6,424,354 "invent event handlers"
• 5,920,726 "invent suspend and resume for power events"

All of this is obvious stuff and I wouldn't be surprised if there's prior art.

How much would you be willing to pay per game hour?

Good question. According to this blog, "30 yuan will buy you 4000 minutes of gametime and 15 yuan will buy you 2000 minutes of gametime. That's $0.06 per hour played."

That works out at US$4 for 4000 minutes, which would be about £3. Obviously, Chinese pricing reflects the local economy. 4000 minutes is 66h 40m, so say that's 2 hours a night for a month. Lowest UK monthly subscription is £7.69, so if I could get 4000 minutes for £7-£8 that expired after 90 days, I'd probably go for it.

From the provided link:

Earlier this year, Sarah is reported to have posted a telling entry on her website, which she has since removed. But a copy has been retrieved and widely circulated on the internet. Entitled ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge’, it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers. Step 7 says: ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’ (The highlighting of text is Sarah’s own.)

The newspaper article was very misleading in its characterisation of the blog posting. The only occurrence of "legal" (or any related word) was in the title of the blog article, and that should be read as "7 steps to taking revenge without breaking the law" rather than as "7 steps to taking revenge by talking legal action". The blog posting did not suggest using the courts to get revenge.

The very first step in the blog article stated: "It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge".

Steps 3 and 7 in the blog article suggest that the form of revenge you take should be similar to and in proportion to how you feel you have been wronged.

To characterise the blog article as a recipe for how to bring false accusations of rape against a person is incorrect.

For anyone who is interested, here is a translation of the blog article.

It is clear to me that inaccuracies in the media and on the Internet are demonising not just the accused but also (at least one of) his accusers.

From the source article, I obtained their server's domain/hostnames and nameservers, which I now have added to my custom HOSTS file... & blocked out, thus:

0.0.0.0 greatfull-toolss.ru
0.0.0.0 ns1.reg.ru
0.0.0.0 ns2.reg.ru
0.0.0.0 greatfull.ru
0.0.0.0 ns1.arbusi-host.net
0.0.0.0 ns2.arbusi-host.net
0.0.0.0 hellcomeback.ru

They're not going to get to ME, because I cannot get to they now... & what I can't touch, I cannot be "burned" by, simple!

HOSTS as blacklists, work! Some evidences & cases why you may be interested in implementing such protective (and speed gaining features too) measures:

---

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download

It's not even rape. It's apparently "sex by surprise," whatever the fuck that is.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

***

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/12/sex-charges-and-arrest-warrant-against.html

Yeah motorola filles patent claims agains apple

But they didn't file first.

Apple sued HTC first, Motorola sued Apple some time later as a proactive defence. Apple was the belligerent party whether you like it or not.

Try reading the actual article rather than making up whatever you feel like.

Apple sued HTC first. HTC responded, Motorola responded. Apple shot first, they were the belligerent party and now we are all paying for a futile patent war.

One of the reasons I chose Android in the first place so I didn't have to overpay for a phone.

P.S. don't forget, for instance, that most of Apple's patents will be software patents (and therefore limited to the US)

That's a misconception. Just look at these examples (including some of the patents Apple asserts against Android). Also, consider that Apple sued Nokia in the UK as well (a couple of months ago) over 9 European software patents.

whereas most of the Nokia/GSM/Motorola patents will be hardware patents,

When I publish my PDF diagrams and analysis of the Apple-Nokia dispute, you'll see that the share of software patents among Nokia's patents is far greater than you believe at this stage.

I wasn't going to reply to someone who describes my hard work on this as leaving "taint", but here goes anyway ;-)

You do raise an important point: cross-licensing. However, cross-license deals come in all shapes and forms. In a few cases the parties will be on an equal footing; in most cases one party will be considerably if not hugely stronger. In the latter case, a "settlement" will also be announced, but in economic and strategic terms, one party will end up losing.

For now I'm rather skeptical of the impact the patent portfolios of the Android camp can have on their competitors. I gave a quick overview of the five strongest areas of Motorola's patent portfolio in this recent blog post and I also pointed out that Google makes a weak showing against Oracle because Google still hasn't countersued. When I wrote that blog post, Google had already had three months since Oracle sued. Now there's been almost another month and Google still doesn't seem to have found any patents with which it could build a serious counterthreat against Oracle...

I wasn't going to reply to someone who describes my hard work on this as leaving "taint", but here goes anyway ;-)

You do raise an important point: cross-licensing. However, cross-license deals come in all shapes and forms. In a few cases the parties will be on an equal footing; in most cases one party will be considerably if not hugely stronger. In the latter case, a "settlement" will also be announced, but in economic and strategic terms, one party will end up losing.

For now I'm rather skeptical of the impact the patent portfolios of the Android camp can have on their competitors. I gave a quick overview of the five strongest areas of Motorola's patent portfolio in this recent blog post and I also pointed out that Google makes a weak showing against Oracle because Google still hasn't countersued. When I wrote that blog post, Google had already had three months since Oracle sued. Now there's been almost another month and Google still doesn't seem to have found any patents with which it could build a serious counterthreat against Oracle...

There was some confusion out there about the ITC staff (Office of Unfair Import Investigations, OOUI) report, and this quote from your post reflects them:

Apple lost just about their entire claim against Nokia, when half the patents they were seeking to enforce were declared invalid by the FTC, and the rest dismissed as not being infringed.

No.

1. As I explained in this recent blog post, Apple's ITC assertions against Nokia were split into two parts. The staff report that the press reported on in early December related to only 4 of the 10 patents Apple originally asserted against Nokia.

2. That staff opinion is just an opinion, not a definitive dismissal. My Apple vs. Android chart does mention that some patents were dropped from the ITC cases between Apple and HTC: on pages 8 ("Move #7 - Apple drops 4 patents from ITC complaint against HTC") and 10 ("Move #9 -- HTC drops 1 patent from ITC complaint against Apple"). But the instances I mention in my chart were definitive partial terminations of those cases. The ITC staff opinion published a month ago on one Apple v. Nokia case is not definitive. It's an opinion and the ITC's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) can agree or disagree with it. There have been many cases already in which the ALJ judge took decisions that were very different from the staff reports. I've seen a long list of cases in which the staff then actually appealed the ALJ's decision, which is clear evidence that decisions deviate from those staff reports quite often. The staff report is an opinion, and I don't mean to downplay the importance of the staff and its reports, but that is just not a dismissal of claims (let alone the invalidation of patents).

3. Even if some patents lost before the ITC, they might (as my blog post mentioned under item 1 explains) still be enforced in a US federal district court. My chart makes that distinction in connection with the patents dropped from ITC cases. HTC's '183 patent is grayed-out from Move #9 on because it was only asserted in the ITC so far and they withdrew it. By contrast, Apple's '867, '131, '852 and RE'486 patents were only dropped from an ITC complaint but Apple does enforce them against Motorola now in a federal district court, so the patents are still alive.

4. The chart this article refers to is purely about Apple vs. Motorola and Apple v. HTC. I'm going to do the same visualization for the Apple-Nokia conflict as well but it will be a separate document because otherwise things would become too complex to fit in a single chart. In fact, I already have that one in place for the most part, so it will become available pretty soon. (Also for Microsoft vs. Motorola and Oracle vs. Google, by the way.)

Hi Urkki,

I'll have to leave this as a quick reply.

Once more, please let us all know where you live, where you are literally OWNED by your "employer"! We are of course animals too, can you agree with me there? We set up an artificial distinction, "humans" and "animals", that we are "above" them, or above "IT" perhaps more accurately. Its rather interesting that we chose that position for ourselves, eh? Perhaps Cats think they are above us? ;-)

Physics, "fundamental laws" are not being challenged here, we are talking about unnecessary suffering and death. Are we for unnecessary suffering and death? Why do we kill the animals which we do? Do we *need* to, as a "fundamental principle of physics", or do we CHOOSE to do so?

In New Zealand, theres another huge OUTRAGE (!!!) over Seals being hurt, why have we built certain animals up onto a pedestal? Where they reach a level of demi-gods? Where some people will say things like "animals are better than us, Human beings are a virus on this planet...animals are innocent", once more with that artificial distinction between "humans" and "animals", but in the nonhumans favour this time!

Whales, Dolphins, Seals...hmm, lots of "large marine animals", Cats and Dogs, we somehow have made these animals PERFECT, AMAZING, WONDERFUL, SPECIAL. What distinguishes them in any way from the Chickens I look after? Why do we love some animals, genuinely respect their right to be free, I'd assume *MOST* people in my society would be against having Whales performing etc, you can thank Free Willy for that!

Animals live in the wild just fine Urkki, they most certainly do not need us to cage them, to own them, to control them, to treat them as "ours".

I used Chickens as my example because 1) they make up the VAST majority of the 56 Billion land animals killed each year (2007 UN FAO figures PDF http://bit.ly/56billion ), and 2) because I look after a family of Chickens. I think they are a splendid example for those reasons, they are the most killed, and the nonhumans I myself am most familiar with.

I just founded the Invercargill Vegan Society, promoting Veganism in my small, rural city. I've had my Chicken Friends pose around my business cards etc ;-)

http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/invercargill-vegan-society-business.html

We have created an artificial justification, a "circle of life". Yes, animals (and we are animals too of course) are born, live, die. We should not harm or kill others, where possible. There will always be deaths, of "natural causes", "act of god", and "accidental" etc. These are unavoidable.

Other animals do many things that you and I would find abhorrent, and morally wrong. We do not justify those activities with "but...Animals do it to each other!...", because they run afoul of our Societal Norms, what we've grown up with, what we've grown up doing to others.

I wouldnt campaign for "humane child molestation", there is no such thing. I wouldnt spend millions of dollars, volunteers time, and perhaps worst, effort to influence consumers opinion against a subset of killing and using others. IE, "factory farming".

Such activity is common from Animal Welfare groups, such as New Zealands SAFE, who are over the moon about a "sow crate ban", for Mother Pigs. They've spent millions on this, and have really made actual progress difficult for those promoting respect for Animals right not to be "things", for us to kill how we wish, for the most trivial of reasons, "coz we like it".

This featured as episode 39 of my show, where I was joined by guests to talk about this declared "VICTORY!!!" : http://coexistingwithnonhumanani

Hi Urkki,

I'll have to leave this as a quick reply.

Once more, please let us all know where you live, where you are literally OWNED by your "employer"! We are of course animals too, can you agree with me there? We set up an artificial distinction, "humans" and "animals", that we are "above" them, or above "IT" perhaps more accurately. Its rather interesting that we chose that position for ourselves, eh? Perhaps Cats think they are above us? ;-)

Physics, "fundamental laws" are not being challenged here, we are talking about unnecessary suffering and death. Are we for unnecessary suffering and death? Why do we kill the animals which we do? Do we *need* to, as a "fundamental principle of physics", or do we CHOOSE to do so?

In New Zealand, theres another huge OUTRAGE (!!!) over Seals being hurt, why have we built certain animals up onto a pedestal? Where they reach a level of demi-gods? Where some people will say things like "animals are better than us, Human beings are a virus on this planet...animals are innocent", once more with that artificial distinction between "humans" and "animals", but in the nonhumans favour this time!

Whales, Dolphins, Seals...hmm, lots of "large marine animals", Cats and Dogs, we somehow have made these animals PERFECT, AMAZING, WONDERFUL, SPECIAL. What distinguishes them in any way from the Chickens I look after? Why do we love some animals, genuinely respect their right to be free, I'd assume *MOST* people in my society would be against having Whales performing etc, you can thank Free Willy for that!

Animals live in the wild just fine Urkki, they most certainly do not need us to cage them, to own them, to control them, to treat them as "ours".

I used Chickens as my example because 1) they make up the VAST majority of the 56 Billion land animals killed each year (2007 UN FAO figures PDF http://bit.ly/56billion ), and 2) because I look after a family of Chickens. I think they are a splendid example for those reasons, they are the most killed, and the nonhumans I myself am most familiar with.

I just founded the Invercargill Vegan Society, promoting Veganism in my small, rural city. I've had my Chicken Friends pose around my business cards etc ;-)

http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/invercargill-vegan-society-business.html

We have created an artificial justification, a "circle of life". Yes, animals (and we are animals too of course) are born, live, die. We should not harm or kill others, where possible. There will always be deaths, of "natural causes", "act of god", and "accidental" etc. These are unavoidable.

Other animals do many things that you and I would find abhorrent, and morally wrong. We do not justify those activities with "but...Animals do it to each other!...", because they run afoul of our Societal Norms, what we've grown up with, what we've grown up doing to others.

I wouldnt campaign for "humane child molestation", there is no such thing. I wouldnt spend millions of dollars, volunteers time, and perhaps worst, effort to influence consumers opinion against a subset of killing and using others. IE, "factory farming".

Such activity is common from Animal Welfare groups, such as New Zealands SAFE, who are over the moon about a "sow crate ban", for Mother Pigs. They've spent millions on this, and have really made actual progress difficult for those promoting respect for Animals right not to be "things", for us to kill how we wish, for the most trivial of reasons, "coz we like it".

This featured as episode 39 of my show, where I was joined by guests to talk about this declared "VICTORY!!!" : http://coexistingwithnonhumanani

If you're an author then I strongly urge you to read this guy's blog -> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/

It's not a genre I'm into but he's making some pretty good sales numbers with his books and is pretty freely telling people how he's doing it. If I were a publisher I'd be terrified :-)

That's why any DRM'd ebooks I want I get from Amazon: they *can* be converted to a portable format, and that's the first thing I do when I buy one:

http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/12/circumventing-kindle-for-pc-drm.html

Maybe I haven't studied this too in depth, but how is this not a conflict of interest over the stated goals of Google Books? You know, the Google project to index books so that they were searchable?

Yeah, it turns out they were indexing them to sell eBook versions. I would love it if their Library project partners sued them for it.

"Nexus S can be purchased (unlocked or with a T-Mobile service plan) online and in-store from all Best Buy and Best Buy Mobile stores in the U.S."

I guess that's not clear if that's from the Google online Nexus store (like the last one was) or only from bestbuy.com, but it seems like the first scenario is more likely. I think they're partnering with Best Buy because last time so many people complained that they'd like to try the phone themselves.

Info about Gingerbread

"Kid, you have no idea what you're talking about... You are strongly misinformed on several points. I can't be bothered to respond to you, (i.e. feed the troll) because I don't think it would be worth my time. You're obsessed, and not interested in rational discussion - by metrix007 (200091) on Monday December 06, @07:03AM (#34458496)

Ok, you FINALLY came back in, & NO: I am TRULY interested in "rational discussion", not avoiding it (as you obviously are with your 2 trollish replies here in this thread), so with that said? Disprove each of these 15 points on HOSTS files then:

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.ab

Thanks for supplying the bogus domains information. I checked on yourisp.ru, and sure enough - a known bogus malware domain/host name. It's blocked out here now, alongside payment8ltd.net, & how? Here is HOW & WHY:

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are program

What blocks off known bogus sites/servers or entire hostnames/domains better than anything (because it's not a program, and because it's just a filter that operates @ the IP Stack level, and covers ALL your webbound programs, plus mine at least gets updated from reputable & reliable sources, daily): a custom HOSTS file.

You've also already got one, whether you all know it or not, & it's just a matter of either downloading a prebuilt on (sources are below), or filling one in yourself, and yes, they work even vs. spam mail (& better than adblock does, because that only covers browsers it's designed for (maybe 1-3 of them), but not external HTML + script based external email programs, like Outlook Express/FULL Outlook)).

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF...).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
Spyb

Maybe not that well but it still does: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/sorting-1pb-with-mapreduce.html

Personally, I suspect it's the bucket of does. It's perfect for a stag party.

Yes, being able to produce energy at home with reneables like solar panel,s and being able toprint your own stuff in a 3D printer (and even recycle stuff back into raw materials) is a form of capitalims that connects with the locaism solution I mention (among others of a gift economy a basic income, and democratic resource-base plannin).

See writings by Kevin Carson for more ideas on how we might all become capitalists in that sense, even as we move beyond other aspects of capitalism.
    http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Albus#Peoples.27_Capitalism

A basic income could also be seen as a claim on our global capital as a right of citizenship:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
    http://www.basicincome.org/bien/

But it is a different paradigm for the mythology of wealth:
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

But if you make a story about Larry Potter and his trip to Gogworts from platform 8 and 3/4s, you should expect to get sued as a copyright infringer.

Really? Someone should sue everyone in the porn industry

(yes I know these ones aren't real.)

Haha, the linux hater's blog is pretty funny. To be fair most of his complaints are pretty valid, he holds mainstream linux distros up to the same standard as Windows and applies the same "annoyances" mentality to it. Its good to see the shoe on the other foot for reference.

When the pedagogues get involved then it's really time to worry.

I just closed my paypal account and said why in the "reason for closing" form they present.

Details of the angry rant are on my blog. ( http://scavenger-ethic.blogspot.com/2010/12/cancelled-my-paypal-account.html )

Frankly I'm faintly embarrassed that I waited this long to ditch them. I'm just lazy I suppose.

I hope your demands get some kind of response though.

> See, I use foxit. I like foxit.

you may be interested to know that Chrome seems to be using Foxit for their plugin:
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-chromes-pdf-plugin-uses-foxit.html

plus additional sandboxing, for extra security.

It appears that Chrome is using Foxit library.
Can't verify it because the codereview link they provide doesn't work anymore.

And what do you do during the evening, night, and early morning when there's no or too little sunlight? Oh, right, you burn natural gas. I suppose that's not the worst outcome in the world. I suppose it's better to burn natural gas part of the time, than to burn coal all of the time.

I suppose you could also supplement solar with wind - sun doesn't shine at night, but the wind often blows, so you might be able, with the combination, to get enough power, but it will be expensive power with current technology. Nuclear, even though the plants are expensive (but getting cheaper, at least outside the U.S. and Europe), just provides *so much* power that when you break it down to a per-unit-energy basis, it's actually the least-expensive alternative.

Right. Here's how easy it would be...

If Wikileaks was delivering Justin Bieber songs, they'd be shut down. But they're, um, just dumping government secrets.

Imagine if government secrets had the protection that Justin Bieber songs enjoy. That is to say, the government has the same copyright rights as Justin Bieber with regard to documents deemed secret.

Somehow, I don't find that unreasonable.

http://carbertscurrentevents.blogspot.com/

Hi Urkki,

Why would we believe it right to treat others as our "resources"? Thats a terrible way to describe one another, "you're my resource" ! Sounds like No Agenda :-)

I dont think there can be shades of "what is property and who is another being", do you? Someone is either someONE or someTHING.

Could we use an example from my second last blog post please? I commented here, as I've mentioned already, about the ad I saw calling Chickens "IT". How do you feel about the ad, in regards to the videos of my Chicken Friends also on the page? How would we define a time when its "right" for us to override any Right they have to NOT be property? http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/chicken-so-tasty-it-sells-itself.html Best wishes Urkki

I don't know what Swedish prisons are like, but in the US and elsewhere it doesn't seem that difficult to have someone killed in prison.

My initial response was that "In most of the civilized world, being in prison is only marginally more dangerous than being in jail." But from a brief search for statistics, I find this ("safer-in-prison-death-rates-declining.html") relevant to the US system :

Yet deaths by all causes are under 3,000 annually in prisons and under 1,000 in jails. More precisely, 3,924 died in 2002 in an incarcerated population of 2,085,620 -- less than two-tenths of one percent per year (.00188). Mortality rates for all causes have also declined precipitously for jails since 1980 and stabilized after a mid-1990s peak in prisons. So, I suspect there are real declines here, rather than simple changes in recordkeeping. Looking at the UK system :

"Investigations were opened into 193 deaths, compared with 181 in 2008–2009. However, it is encouraging to report that the number of self-inflicted deaths fell from 65 in the last reporting year to 63." That's for a population of 70-80 thousand. I make that 0.00257%

I suspect that we've both been reacting to a fictionalised meme that doesn't have an actual basis in fact. I can only recall one alleged case of someone being murdered-to-order in prison (and I don't think that was proven in court) in the UK in quite a few years. On the other hand, murders by psycotic inmates driven by their own internal forces are a depressingly frequent occurence.

Since each such occurrence results in a lot of paperwork for the prison management involved ... prices for such a contract would be high, when counted in careers.

15++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF...).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs.

11.) HOSTS files are E

Hey Kitsune Inari,

PETA class themselves as "Animal Rights", possibly because its "cooler" ;-)

They have whats called a "New Welfarist" approach, they are mostly Vegan (the staff), but promote NonVeganism, "Happy Meat" etc, because "Veganism is hard!". I strongly disagree with this, there is nothing difficult about being Vegan!

I live at the bottom of the world, not bloody Los Angeles or Portland, some city filled with "hipsters" ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invercargill

Its easy to be Vegan here, its easy to be Vegan pretty much anywhere, granted, I guess it could be hard buying Soymilk if you lived in Antartica, not many local stores that carry it, I hear ;-) Then again, in such locations, not many convenience stores anywhere! They make/bring/are sent their own supplies!

There is nothing "wingnuts" about Animal Rights.

I invite you to visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ , or my own Show, http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/

Best wishes to you

hi!

I'm glad you've heard of PETA, please dont assume they speak for ANYONE, such as Abolitionist Vegans ( http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ) like myself! I dont think you have, you mentioned as such, just making it clear to others who may be reading this comment.

No Animal Welfare, OR Animal Rights group I know of are talking about "throwing animals out onto the streets", all that I know of have always spoke about adopting unwanted nonhumans.

I cannot speak on nutrition, I am not a health professional, although many of them also have crazy positions! Think of all the "fad diets" out there! ;-)

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could NOT be Vegan. I've had tests done for Iron levels, and were fine. I am 23 years old, 1.95 Metres tall, up until a few months ago, I cycled 66 kilometres a day, and have a job moving furniture. I'm health :-) I would go so far to say that all Vegans I know would be healthier than "the median" New Zealander or American, they would tend to be thinner, more muscular, more active etc.

That is certainly not a rule! Being Vegan does not instantly give you super powers, ha! http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/vegan-super-powers-video.html

I know of many "rescued" cats and dogs, as you mentioned. I'm glad you've been able to care for other animals :-)

If you're interested in hearing more from consistent, and sane *ACTUAL* Animal Rights people, please try these websites,

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ http://veganacious.com/

And these podcasts http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com/ http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/

Best wishes to you

hi!

I'm glad you've heard of PETA, please dont assume they speak for ANYONE, such as Abolitionist Vegans ( http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ) like myself! I dont think you have, you mentioned as such, just making it clear to others who may be reading this comment.

No Animal Welfare, OR Animal Rights group I know of are talking about "throwing animals out onto the streets", all that I know of have always spoke about adopting unwanted nonhumans.

I cannot speak on nutrition, I am not a health professional, although many of them also have crazy positions! Think of all the "fad diets" out there! ;-)

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could NOT be Vegan. I've had tests done for Iron levels, and were fine. I am 23 years old, 1.95 Metres tall, up until a few months ago, I cycled 66 kilometres a day, and have a job moving furniture. I'm health :-) I would go so far to say that all Vegans I know would be healthier than "the median" New Zealander or American, they would tend to be thinner, more muscular, more active etc.

That is certainly not a rule! Being Vegan does not instantly give you super powers, ha! http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/vegan-super-powers-video.html

I know of many "rescued" cats and dogs, as you mentioned. I'm glad you've been able to care for other animals :-)

If you're interested in hearing more from consistent, and sane *ACTUAL* Animal Rights people, please try these websites,

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ http://veganacious.com/

And these podcasts http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com/ http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/

Best wishes to you

hi!

I'm glad you've heard of PETA, please dont assume they speak for ANYONE, such as Abolitionist Vegans ( http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ) like myself! I dont think you have, you mentioned as such, just making it clear to others who may be reading this comment.

No Animal Welfare, OR Animal Rights group I know of are talking about "throwing animals out onto the streets", all that I know of have always spoke about adopting unwanted nonhumans.

I cannot speak on nutrition, I am not a health professional, although many of them also have crazy positions! Think of all the "fad diets" out there! ;-)

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could NOT be Vegan. I've had tests done for Iron levels, and were fine. I am 23 years old, 1.95 Metres tall, up until a few months ago, I cycled 66 kilometres a day, and have a job moving furniture. I'm health :-) I would go so far to say that all Vegans I know would be healthier than "the median" New Zealander or American, they would tend to be thinner, more muscular, more active etc.

That is certainly not a rule! Being Vegan does not instantly give you super powers, ha! http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/vegan-super-powers-video.html

I know of many "rescued" cats and dogs, as you mentioned. I'm glad you've been able to care for other animals :-)

If you're interested in hearing more from consistent, and sane *ACTUAL* Animal Rights people, please try these websites,

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ http://veganacious.com/

And these podcasts http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com/ http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/

Best wishes to you

hey Johnny5000, I dont feel like I can comment on Animal Shelters, I've always hated visiting them, my family have volunteered there, I think they would be better qualified to talk about them than I would. I've looked after many "unwanted" animals before, including my Chicken Friends now,

http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-in-life-of-chicken-friend-video.html

And I think its best if more people can look after these other animals.

I hope you've seen the difference between an Abolitionist Vegan position, and PETA's, they do not speak "for the Animal advocates"! RE your signature, we are animals too ! Unless you are a Creationist? ;-)

RE living vs suffering, you really picked up the heart of the issue. Welfare vs Rights.

Animal Welfare is "we can do whatever the heck we like, we are God given masters of this world, they are ours, they are things to us, oh, but lets get it over with quickly, "humanely"".

Animal Rights is that Animals have a base right not to be "ours", to be our things, our property. I have no more right to kill the next Dog I see than I would to break into your house and steal your television. There is of course, quite a difference between "property theft" and killing someone! However, under Animal Welfare, "as long as you do it humanely..."

I remember months back a NZ news story, a Pacific Islander who came here and killed his family Dog, and cooked them. They were "hit on the head with a bat", and then their throat was cut. This caused a bloody outrage here, with people talking about killing the man responsible...seriously!

The problem is violence, it has nothing to do with the solution. The SPCA and others "couldnt charge him, because he killed IT humanely...", getting hit on the head, to "knock you out", and then having your throat cut is "humane"? And legal? If you're a Dog, it sure is!

Is it right? I would most certainly argue that it is not!

I've seen Chickens, and other animals, in cages before, many have simply given up. They are broken animals. I know of people who rescue animals from these situations, and they talk of how the animals are, taking their first true steps...of seeing the sun... of touching grass, of being able to dig...I could never honestly imagine what it must be like for them.

An Activist group has placed a wireless video camera at a "Chicken Farm", its streaming live to the internet. It breaks my heart to watch, as someone who looks after Chickens. I would feel awful if I left my little Friends in their coop for a single day, let alone their lives, to value them as "things". I've only ever watched the stream for a minute or so. Heres a blog post, with the link:

http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/live-video-stream-of-chickens-on-farm.html

If I were honestly in such conditions for all of my life, with absolutely no realistic chance of getting out, I think I'd rather be dead.

My hope is that more people will be Vegan, to directly help others, and that they can look after former "farm animals" like my Chicken Friends: http://www.youtube.com/jaywontdart

I'll answer your question seriously, although I found it shocking!

"earn their living"? Do you "earn your keep" by paying me for allowing you to live? Why would other animals? What gives us any more right to harm another, human or nonhuman, any more than I'd have the right to invade another country, kill all the humans (and nonhumans) there?

I use this quote as my email signature

""We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth." ~Henry Beston"

I found it on Earthlings, which is a very graphic documentary about how we treat other animals. It contains slaughterhouse footage, farming, "fishing", killing whales, dolphins, vets, medical experiments etc. I never mention it, I use positive images FOR Veganism, rather than attacking nonVeganism, I'm not a fan of political attack ads. "That guys a sonnofabitch! Dont vote for him!..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlings_(documentary)

Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW3gunMSCu4

Full video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

Positive examples are much better. Once again, here is my YouTube account, with videos of the Chickens I care for :

http://www.youtube.com/jaywontdart

I dont think anyone seriously thinks "there'll be a magic puff of purple smoke enveloping the globe, that all armies will lower their guns, that all (animal) farmers will allow animals to live..."

There are some ~7 Billion people alive, we kill over 56 Billion land animals each year, from the UN FOA 2007 statistics (PDF here http://bit.ly/56billion ). It simply wouldnt be possible to expect (much) more than 56 Billion animals to suddenly get homes with "only" ~7 Billion people alive! I also do not see large scale "releases" of animals to live free.

Supply and Demand, as more Vegans promote Veganism, not "Happy Meat", Demand will decrease over time. How long will it take? Dont ask me! Realistically, certainly not in my lifetime? I like Tim Giers article, A Vegan World in 8 years

http://timgier.com/2010/07/28/a-vegan-world-in-8-years/

However long it will take, a decline in dead flesh, bodily secretions, skin etc bought, less will be "made", less animals forcibly impregnated, less animals born etc etc etc. If we are killing some 56 Billion now, that number would decrease to near zero. I'm sure there will always be people who kill other animals, just as there are people who kill other humans.

Urkki, I would say there is absolutely no such thing as an "ethical" way to kill others. We kill animals, in the case of "meat", keep them alive to take their eggs, control their menstrual cycle, artificially impregnate them, kill the now unwanted child (through "inductions", I covered the topic here, http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/episode-37-hey-hey-hey-nah-nah-nah.html , links to news videos are at the bottom in Sources), for milk.

And for what? Pleasure, and profit, both ours.

I noticed the use of "it" to describe animals, my last blog post was about a McDonalds Facebook ad I saw, calling Chickens "It"