A few points,
Firstly, correlation != correlation. I have nothing against porn, in fact I'm something of a fan, but I still think it shouldn't be something we start our kids off watching at an early age - they should discover it themselves, the same way many of us did (on the internet, when we first worked out how to clear our histories).
And secondly, in my (admittedly, probably quite prudish) opinion, there's a difference between sex and adverts using sexuality to try and sell things. Like it or not, kids aren't born with fully formed powers of critical reasoning, there are valid reasons for parents limiting, to a certain degree, exactly what their kids are exposed to at young ages when still potentially easily influenced by what they see - and this goes for all advertising, not just the overtly sexual.
Wow, that post's turned out surprisingly controversial.
I suppose it's because of a personal preference in how I'd raise kids, there are conversations I wouldn't consider them ready for until a certain level of maturity.
(Alternatively, I'm willing to admit to myself that it's because I would have no idea how to go about explaining what those kind of ads are aiming for. - i.e. Largely cowardice on my part, which is one of the reason why I don't have kids)
You may very well have a point. I'm British, and cultural guilt is something we do incredibly well.
In my personal experience, there is a stage when children become aware of sexuality, the age of which varies from child to child. The attitude I expressed refers to children before this point, who honestly probably aren't ready for frank discussions about the subject (I know I wasn't at a young age, conversations like that were incredibly odd to me when I was younger than about 10 - but I suppose it varies based on the child).
I think the key point here is varying definitions of "child", I'd be much happier explaining what was up with that PETA advert to someone with a certain level of maturity than I would to an 8 year old.
To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".
I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.
While I agree that you could name your garbage collector as your beneficiary, in practice I doubt you already have a will - very few people younger than 40 do.
Normally, this isn't a problem - your next of kin would be the person you're married to. However, in a gay couple, forbidden from getting married the next of kin could be someone completely different (probably a parent). I've already read more than one account of this causing serious problems. A guy losing his and his dead partner's home to the partner's estranged and disapproving parents for example.
I don't think anyone is trying to blame google for the law.
And as for moving away from the law, I doubt many people are willing to move quite as far as Bangalore.
I hate myself for even knowing this, but Babylon 5 also had an ancient race (or a group of ancient races - the Vorlons and the Shadows) who seeded similar humanoid life throughout the galaxy.
You've made me hate myself now, I hope you're proud.
Oh, and I have no idea what the Star Wars justification is.
Most forms of life aren't actually preserved in the fossil record. Barring rapid burial in tarpits, or amber or some such, most lifeforms which are preserved have a hard mineral shell or skeleton.
Slashdot Mirror
Civ 3 often gives itself a bit of a leg up too. You destroy a civilisation - only for a new city to pop up.
Thank you, I'm glad there's someone at least who sees where I'm coming from.
A few points,
Firstly, correlation != correlation. I have nothing against porn, in fact I'm something of a fan, but I still think it shouldn't be something we start our kids off watching at an early age - they should discover it themselves, the same way many of us did (on the internet, when we first worked out how to clear our histories).
And secondly, in my (admittedly, probably quite prudish) opinion, there's a difference between sex and adverts using sexuality to try and sell things. Like it or not, kids aren't born with fully formed powers of critical reasoning, there are valid reasons for parents limiting, to a certain degree, exactly what their kids are exposed to at young ages when still potentially easily influenced by what they see - and this goes for all advertising, not just the overtly sexual.
Wow, that post's turned out surprisingly controversial.
I suppose it's because of a personal preference in how I'd raise kids, there are conversations I wouldn't consider them ready for until a certain level of maturity.
(Alternatively, I'm willing to admit to myself that it's because I would have no idea how to go about explaining what those kind of ads are aiming for. - i.e. Largely cowardice on my part, which is one of the reason why I don't have kids)
You may very well have a point. I'm British, and cultural guilt is something we do incredibly well.
In my personal experience, there is a stage when children become aware of sexuality, the age of which varies from child to child. The attitude I expressed refers to children before this point, who honestly probably aren't ready for frank discussions about the subject (I know I wasn't at a young age, conversations like that were incredibly odd to me when I was younger than about 10 - but I suppose it varies based on the child).
I think the key point here is varying definitions of "child", I'd be much happier explaining what was up with that PETA advert to someone with a certain level of maturity than I would to an 8 year old.
There's a difference between "hiding" something from children and blatantly exposing them to something they might not be ready for yet.
To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".
I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.
Clearly the terminator movies, as intended by the US army, were designed to condition you towards violent behaviour.
Apple's UK offices have meeting rooms named after famous british bands.
I'd imagine it'll just be large scale topographic detail.
Not to mention that only the big labels get a slice of a pie - essentially stifling competition.
Mathematically :p
While I agree that you could name your garbage collector as your beneficiary, in practice I doubt you already have a will - very few people younger than 40 do.
Normally, this isn't a problem - your next of kin would be the person you're married to. However, in a gay couple, forbidden from getting married the next of kin could be someone completely different (probably a parent). I've already read more than one account of this causing serious problems. A guy losing his and his dead partner's home to the partner's estranged and disapproving parents for example.
I don't think anyone is trying to blame google for the law.
And as for moving away from the law, I doubt many people are willing to move quite as far as Bangalore.
Try searching for an archive beyond the homepage.
That's probably not something you want them to be aware of you owning tbh. It's basically a list of sites which they consider illegal to look at...
You're joking, but I'd wager there's a hell of a lot of people who hate the internet archive for that very reason.
*sigh* "on the other hand" I can't type today :/
Hmm, must be a Northern thing.
Deep fried Pizza other hand is fantastic.
That's the best post I've seen on here in a while, can't agree enough.
I have NEVER seen a fried Mars bar in Scotland. I found one once, in an english chippy, but I think it was mostly there for gimmick value.
Also, they break deep fat friars.
I hate myself for even knowing this, but Babylon 5 also had an ancient race (or a group of ancient races - the Vorlons and the Shadows) who seeded similar humanoid life throughout the galaxy.
You've made me hate myself now, I hope you're proud.
Oh, and I have no idea what the Star Wars justification is.
Name a country that doesn't have such a record - particularly in regard to nuclear and biological testing.
In fairness, there was a TNG episode that "explained this" - S06E20: The Chase.
Most forms of life aren't actually preserved in the fossil record. Barring rapid burial in tarpits, or amber or some such, most lifeforms which are preserved have a hard mineral shell or skeleton.