"Environmentalist, eh? Well then I suppose you must at least be a vegetarian, if not vegan or fruitarian. Correct?"
What you eat does not necessarily have anything to do with being "environmentally friendly" or an environmentalist.
True, if you eat most of the stuff that you can get at a large supermarket you will be contributing to environmental decay etc. But, that is often not a function of what the food is but how it is produced.
Thus, if I eat only red meat, but it's raised in a responsible manner, I am more environmentally friendly than a fuitarian who eats apples grown on land that has been clear-cut and then doused in chemicals.
Don't confuse animal rights activists and environmentalists. There's a lot of overlap, but they are fundamentally different ideologies.
Why are so many people here afraid of looking like environmentalists?
Is there something wrong with wanting to keep the only habitable planet we've found, well, habitable?
So long as you're not an Envro-Nazi type environmentalist, the term only denotes a certain level of conscious responsibility. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Reminds me of an episode of Sienfeld: "I'm not gay!... not that there's anything wrong with that..."
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences really ought to examine the name of their organisation.
Movies broadcast over the internet can still be considered "motion pictures", and the art, and particularily the science, behind such motion pictures should be eligible for awards given out by such an organisation, particularily because the "science" of motion picture production has not really changed drastically in a while, but still relies on the same or similar media as it has for decades.
If the Academy is unwilling to consider such motion pictures they ought to change the name of their organisation to the Academy of Theatrical Film Arts and Sciences.
But does a bit more time really matter? I mean, they had to have seen this coming for a while now. And if it's an inevitable as you suggest, why not just breakup quickly before your compeditors have time to further jocky for possition?
I don't know much about American law, so I was wondering why this is such a huge victory for Microsoft... What did the gov't loose here? Can't the case go to the Supreme court after the lower court, anyway? And doesn't that leave everyone pretty much were they started? Maybe someone with some knowledge of American law could help me out...
What about all those great old BBS doors? Trade Wars was menu driven, which reduces the typing problem, and most of the text was short, which would get around the problem of scrolling up and down trying to read stuff a handfull of characters at a time...
Slashdot Mirror
How 'bout this: We all do what we can and then we can get on the case of those who won't even do that much.
Think before you speak.
What you eat does not necessarily have anything to do with being "environmentally friendly" or an environmentalist.
True, if you eat most of the stuff that you can get at a large supermarket you will be contributing to environmental decay etc. But, that is often not a function of what the food is but how it is produced.
Thus, if I eat only red meat, but it's raised in a responsible manner, I am more environmentally friendly than a fuitarian who eats apples grown on land that has been clear-cut and then doused in chemicals.
Don't confuse animal rights activists and environmentalists. There's a lot of overlap, but they are fundamentally different ideologies.
Is there something wrong with wanting to keep the only habitable planet we've found, well, habitable?
So long as you're not an Envro-Nazi type environmentalist, the term only denotes a certain level of conscious responsibility. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Reminds me of an episode of Sienfeld: "I'm not gay!... not that there's anything wrong with that..."
Movies broadcast over the internet can still be considered "motion pictures", and the art, and particularily the science, behind such motion pictures should be eligible for awards given out by such an organisation, particularily because the "science" of motion picture production has not really changed drastically in a while, but still relies on the same or similar media as it has for decades.
If the Academy is unwilling to consider such motion pictures they ought to change the name of their organisation to the Academy of Theatrical Film Arts and Sciences.
But does a bit more time really matter? I mean, they had to have seen this coming for a while now. And if it's an inevitable as you suggest, why not just breakup quickly before your compeditors have time to further jocky for possition?
I don't know much about American law, so I was wondering why this is such a huge victory for Microsoft... What did the gov't loose here? Can't the case go to the Supreme court after the lower court, anyway? And doesn't that leave everyone pretty much were they started? Maybe someone with some knowledge of American law could help me out...
What about all those great old BBS doors? Trade Wars was menu driven, which reduces the typing problem, and most of the text was short, which would get around the problem of scrolling up and down trying to read stuff a handfull of characters at a time...