> but saying "I'm banning X software because I don't know what it does" really means "I'm banning X software because I'm too stupid and lazy to find out". No, what it actually means is: we're running a business here, and we have real jobs to do. We can't willy-nilly allow everything on the network because we're a bit clued up about security, and unless you can make a good case why we should spend time and money evaluating your favourite piece of software, your shit out of luck. So grow up and get over it.
> You could perhaps provide a tunneling service similar to an anonymizing proxy on the internet, for a nominal fee. Nice idea, but a clued up sysadmin should block that ASAP.
Also, investment banks have to be particularly restrictive about telephone conversations; in fact, most telephones on the trading floor are routinely taped (mainly for clarification - "Did he say buy 10million or sell 10 million?", but also for compliance reasons). Some IBs even ban mobiles(cellphones) on the floor for the same reason, so banning Skype seems eminently sensible.
Banning personal webmail access is a nuisance, but entirely justified from a security perspective.
The nice thing about elections, as a computatioal problem, is that as the number of people willing to vote increases, so - approximately - does the number of people willing to count the votes (given the right setup, etc, etc).
AFAIK, Germany is still entirely manual when it comes to voting. There are frequently Federal, State, County (roughly) and local elections at the same time. All parties present counters and monitors, ensuring fairness. And the results are always finalized the next day.
Sorry, but voting machines are a solution to a non-existent problem, and introduce plenty of problems along the way.
> This is going to cost the government some money. That money comes from taxes and fees. What is the British citizen getting for that expense? Screwed.
It's a huge expense, with no discernible benefit in the areas it's touted against - Immigration, Terrorism, Benefit Fraud. At the risk of repeating myself, but in the vain hope that MPs who clearly have trouble following a simple logical argument may understand, let's break it down: * Immigration:
a) You get across the border with your foreign passport. ID cards don't help.
b) In a country where, when you get stopped by the police while driving, you have a choice of going to a police station of your convenience within 7 days to show your driving license and insurance details or simply giving a fake name and address, what chance do you have of people actually carrying the ID around? And if you don't get arrested for not having it, it will be ineffective. * Terrorism:
AFAIK, nobody who has or has attempted to commit an act of terrorism in the UK in history, including Guy Fawkews, would have had a problem getting an ID card. So the net effect on terrorism will be - zilch. nada. nothing. nichts. zero. * Benefit Fraud:
IIRC, benefit fraud is estimated at GBP 2 billion p.a., and according to government figures, in excess of 95% of that is "misrepresentation of circumstances" (a.k.a. as "my bad back stops me working, but doesn't trouble me on the golf course"). And ID card will help in that area by....magically diagnosing fake back pain? Sounding alarm sirens on malingerers? No, they will help - not at all. So we'll spend at least 8 billion on the governments own estimate to combat 5% of 2billion... Even Gordon Brown should be able to spot the flaw in THAT argument.
Now, if the government does something so patently nonsensical, one has to suspect them of terminal stupidity or having ulterior motives. Neither is a pleasant explanation.
What really galls me about this is how they've threatened the House of Lords, which has done an admirable job of protecting us, even if it's clearly fighting a loosing battle. The irritating thing is that Tony and his Cronies claim to have a democratic mandate; and while the Lords, of course, traditionally lack a democratic mandate, at least they, unlike the PM, weren't actively opposed by two thirds of the voters.
The bottom line is that Tony and his Cronies have comprehensively fucked us over. And unlike George W, they don't even have the excuse of not knowing any better. But they got into power on the premise of protecting human rights, introducing freedom of information, and making the country more democratic; let's not mention of sorting out the health service and education, since they have patently failed on those.
Yes, they introduced a human rights act, only to "opt out" of the important bits as soon as they could; all the terrorism legislation they have introduced has shown that - a lot of them being lawyers - they either slept through the human rights lessons, or just don't give a fuck about people. The latter is more likely, although of course there's the third alternative: Tony creates patently illegal legislation, and Chery and Matrix chambers take the government to court, creating a perpetual money machine for the Blair family. Of course that would be far too sinister for reality, but Dan Brown might take this theory into account for his next plagiarism trial )
They did introduce a freedom of information act. With all the relevant teeth removed. "Commercial Sensitivity" is apparently a valid reason for not giving information. Excuse me, but if you're spending MY tax money I have a right to know how.
They promised to reform the unelected House of Lords. Yes, they did, but by replacing most of the hereditary peers with a bunch of people appointed by an "indepenedent" commitee appointed by the government. Who's going to be more independent, the great-great
He didn't win the popular vote anywhere; in fact, he resoundlingly lost it: almost two thirds of voters voted AGAINST labour; he only got in due to the pecularities of the voting system (jerrymandering? Jerrymandering? What's that?). And then he had the gall to claim a popular mandate.
A company produces a software product. amd sells it under specified conditions and at a specified cost.
Someone breaks those conditions and illegaly copies the software and sells it on.
Why shouldn't the company sue the person infringing you're copyright? We're all gung-ho on/. when it comes to GPL infringers; the same rules apply to commercial software.
Morally, if not legally, I'm prepared to make certain compromises for personal installations, but if you're selling a copyrighted product illegaly, you deserve everything that's coming to you, and good luck to Microsoft.
> Strangely enough, this does not result in "long thin buildings". No, in investment banking you just have an entire floor open plan (apart from the corner offices). There is a window in line of sight; the fact that your are 100m away from it is surely irrelevant;)
Then again, in this industry it's often agreed that being close to your users is more important than having a comfy office; IMHO, this is borne out by results.
> The existence of the Pentagon is no excuse for cubicles (just like the existence of Burkina Faso is no excuse for paying people a dollar a day). The Pentagon almost certainly has a window in every office; it may have been part of the design spec.
Also, Burkina Faso has a GDP of $1200 / heead, so a dollar a day would probably be a bad wage even there.
Just to add insult to injury, the UK now has a law that let's them extradite you to the US without prima facie evidence; this wouldn't be so bad if it were reciprocated, but that's about as likely as George W. Bush appearing live on Al-Jazeera admitting he lied about WMD. "respect of US laws" is all nice and well if you're in the US, but if you're in the UK you should only have to worry about UK laws. Otherwise, before you know it, Richard Dawkins will face the death penalty in Utah for proclaiming Evolution;(
> How can we possibly think that different human races could evolve to look so different but did not evolve differently at all internally? For example, because there isn't any evidence that people are actually significantlu different internally? Can you show me any evidence that hair colour - probably as significant a genetic trait as skin colour - has any other ramifications apart from likelihood of sunburn?
> They use diagrammatic puzzles with a missing part. You could hardly argue that any level of college education could help you find the missing peice of a puzzle. College education perhaps not, but you'd have to be wilfully stupid not to see that early childhood training on puzzles wouldn't have a significant impact. At least if you've spent time with a toddler; I'll excuse your ignorance if you haven't. Small children will soak up input, the more they get, the more they absorb (within boundaries, of course); hence, it would be extremely difficult to make a good case that early childhood (aka "cultural") training wouldn't have a significant impact.
> It is documented that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of about 70. References, please. Aecdotal evidence (i.e. my personal acquaintances) suggests that 80% of Nigerians are medical doctors or accountant; the remaining 20% work in IT. This is now documented, on slashdot;)
> Thinking of it in terms of mental age, an adult with an IQ of 70 has the mental age of an 11 year old. I could drive, work on the farm, and shoot a gun before the age of 11. Having an IQ of 70 does not make you retarded, it is just that there is a strong correlation in America that people with low IQ are also retarded. All I'll say is that I'm very glad you were on the other side of the atlantic, shooting and driving, when you were 11. Given the lack of thought in your understanding of IQ test, I hope you'll stay there until you grow up. Whether that's 40, 60, or 80, I don't mind; patience is a virtue I'm eager to adopt.
> For many (not all) it is about anti-capitalism and controlling others. Misery loves company, and Yes, there are a lot of bozos on either side of the "debate". The fact that idiots agree with me doesn't invalidate my opinion, though.
> there really are millions out there who think they are smarter than the rest of us, Statistically, there are millions of people that are smarter than the rest of us. It's the beauty of the bell curve;)
> and think we should all live like they want us to live, whether we want to or not. Personal freedom is fine, as long as you agree with them and do exactly what they tell you I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to drive around guzzling gas if you want to, but I don't see why I should subsidise you doing it. Also I don't see why you should endanger my life by driving an unsafe truck masquerading as a passenger vehicle. I do, on the other hand, want to have decent public transport. Mainly because I'm fed up with the crappy trains and tube we have at the moment, but also because I honestly think it will help the environment. Also because I would much rather take the train than waste my time driving on the weekend.
> Ironically, the Barbara S.'s of the world are great to TELL you how to live, but not willing to live the same way. I guess you don't have to follow your own rules if you are rich and smart enough. Barbara who? She's clearly not famous enough for me to care.
> So in the mean time, it is impossible to know what is really going on with the atmosphere, because of the BS flowing liberally (pun intended) from certain camps, as well as the reality that we have VERY LITTLE objective data over 100 years old. I'm under the impression that the vast majority of people who actually know about the climate - you know, like climatologist who spend their career studying this kind of thing, actually agree that a dramatic, man made change in the climate is taking place (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4761804. stm). And there's a lot of evidence from a lot further back - icecores, tree rings, sediments, what have you - but that would be of the scientific kind, and you probably wouldn't care.
I would draw the obvious analogy to the ID "debate", but that would invoke a corrolary to Godwin's law, so I won't.
a) paying to recieve an SMS is as nonsensical as paying to receive a letter, phone call or email.
b) the US is is still the country with the worst GSM coverage I've encountered. For example, India and South Africa have far better coverage, so the old population density argument won't wash. As a tourist, I want my mobile to work, particulatly when I'm between major cities where there aren't any public phones.
> the people of the world to collectively reduce their usage of energy and lower their standard of living.
What makes you assume that reducing energy usage inherently reduces your standard of living?
* If your house is better insulated, you use less energy to heat or cool it. How does that lower your standard of living? * A 2006 model car (note that I said car, not masquerading truck) will get better mileage, comfort and performance than it's 1996 equivalent. Again, how does that lower the standard of living? * If you take, for example, the EuroStar from London to Paris instead of flying, you not only use a lot less energy, but also save a few hours of travelling time. * Hypothetically, if London had a public transport system that could cope with the demands, millions of hours stuck in traffic could be replaced with comfortable train journeys. Granted, that's not happening, but not because it's impossible. * LCD monitors use a lot less energy than CRTs; I've never heard that described as a downgrade. * Further examples left as an exercise to the reader.
> Bottom line. I dont think we are hurtling toward the point of no-return.. I believe we are PAST the point of no return.. at this point we might as well just try to find ourselves another planet, or work on technologies that make sure our civilization can survive the future. You may be right, but if you think humanity will find it easier to colonise mars than to fix up the environment here, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.
> Exactly my point. If I'm looking at a nude piece of art and some tooth-fairy worshipping zealot thinks its gross, I shouldn't be stopped. They have a choice not to look over your shoulder.
True, but there's a balance. A library is a public place, and there are limits to what is acceptable in public places. It's no more acceptable for you to look at porn in the library than it is to wank in public.
Also, I don't see why other taxpayers should subsidise your enjoyment of www.disgustinggrannies.com.
> And if you are worried about the children, guess what? They got here through SEX!! Yes, a penis actually entered a vagina and sperm was injected! There might have even been some oral sex to get the whole thing started!! Agreed, to an extent; I'm much more concerned about the level of violence in the media than about the odd boob. After all, small children seeing boobs is the most natural thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I want my three year old to see people having sex.
> How about not worrying about the kids being parented by the government and start parenting them yourself. You mean by, for example, taking them to the library to get some good books? Okay, let's agree that if I catch you looking at porn in my local library, I'll personally slap you instead of getting the police involved? And when I'm done with that I'll call your mother and tell her exactly what you've been doing.
Also, let's not forget that nobody entered the war against Nazi Germany because of what they were doing domestically, but because they were waging a war of aggression against other countries. All that fighting against the Nazis because of the holocaust stuff is, I'm afraid, post-facto rationalisation.
> * HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people
Was this when Saddam was still allied with the west? Before or after he started his first war of aggression against a neighbour - in that case, Iran. Of course the west supported him in that, so surely if he was on our side it must have been ethical.
> * Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights. Nigeria, while it has problems, doesn't have such a terrible human rights record compared to, e.g. Saudi Arabia, or China, or lots of other places people do business with. Face it, if you're only going to be dealing with truly nice people, your oil suppliers would limited to Norway and Canada.
Just remember that when you fill up your car; Shell & co are just acting as go betweens for you the consumer.
Mind you, there seems to be a market for green electricity, maybe there would be a market for ethical petroleum.
Slashdot Mirror
> but saying "I'm banning X software because I don't know what it does" really means "I'm banning X software because I'm too stupid and lazy to find out".
No, what it actually means is: we're running a business here, and we have real jobs to do. We can't willy-nilly allow everything on the network because we're a bit clued up about security, and unless you can make a good case why we should spend time and money evaluating your favourite piece of software, your shit out of luck. So grow up and get over it.
> You could perhaps provide a tunneling service similar to an anonymizing proxy on the internet, for a nominal fee.
Nice idea, but a clued up sysadmin should block that ASAP.
Also, investment banks have to be particularly restrictive about telephone conversations; in fact, most telephones on the trading floor are routinely taped (mainly for clarification - "Did he say buy 10million or sell 10 million?", but also for compliance reasons). Some IBs even ban mobiles(cellphones) on the floor for the same reason, so banning Skype seems eminently sensible.
Banning personal webmail access is a nuisance, but entirely justified from a security perspective.
The nice thing about elections, as a computatioal problem, is that as the number of people willing to vote increases, so - approximately - does the number of people willing to count the votes (given the right setup, etc, etc).
AFAIK, Germany is still entirely manual when it comes to voting. There are frequently Federal, State, County (roughly) and local elections at the same time. All parties present counters and monitors, ensuring fairness. And the results are always finalized the next day.
Sorry, but voting machines are a solution to a non-existent problem, and introduce plenty of problems along the way.
> This is going to cost the government some money. That money comes from taxes and fees. What is the British citizen getting for that expense?
Screwed.
It's a huge expense, with no discernible benefit in the areas it's touted against - Immigration, Terrorism, Benefit Fraud. At the risk of repeating myself, but in the vain hope that MPs who clearly have trouble following a simple logical argument may understand, let's break it down:
* Immigration:
a) You get across the border with your foreign passport. ID cards don't help.
b) In a country where, when you get stopped by the police while driving, you have a choice of going to a police station of your convenience within 7 days to show your driving license and insurance details or simply giving a fake name and address, what chance do you have of people actually carrying the ID around? And if you don't get arrested for not having it, it will be ineffective.
* Terrorism:
AFAIK, nobody who has or has attempted to commit an act of terrorism in the UK in history, including Guy Fawkews, would have had a problem getting an ID card. So the net effect on terrorism will be - zilch. nada. nothing. nichts. zero.
* Benefit Fraud:
IIRC, benefit fraud is estimated at GBP 2 billion p.a., and according to government figures, in excess of 95% of that is "misrepresentation of circumstances" (a.k.a. as "my bad back stops me working, but doesn't trouble me on the golf course"). And ID card will help in that area by....magically diagnosing fake back pain? Sounding alarm sirens on malingerers? No, they will help - not at all. So we'll spend at least 8 billion on the governments own estimate to combat 5% of 2billion... Even Gordon Brown should be able to spot the flaw in THAT argument.
Now, if the government does something so patently nonsensical, one has to suspect them of terminal stupidity or having ulterior motives. Neither is a pleasant explanation.
What really galls me about this is how they've threatened the House of Lords, which has done an admirable job of protecting us, even if it's clearly fighting a loosing battle. The irritating thing is that Tony and his Cronies claim to have a democratic mandate; and while the Lords, of course, traditionally lack a democratic mandate, at least they, unlike the PM, weren't actively opposed by two thirds of the voters.
The bottom line is that Tony and his Cronies have comprehensively fucked us over. And unlike George W, they don't even have the excuse of not knowing any better. But they got into power on the premise of protecting human rights, introducing freedom of information, and making the country more democratic; let's not mention of sorting out the health service and education, since they have patently failed on those.
Yes, they introduced a human rights act, only to "opt out" of the important bits as soon as they could; all the terrorism legislation they have introduced has shown that - a lot of them being lawyers - they either slept through the human rights lessons, or just don't give a fuck about people. The latter is more likely, although of course there's the third alternative: Tony creates patently illegal legislation, and Chery and Matrix chambers take the government to court, creating a perpetual money machine for the Blair family. Of course that would be far too sinister for reality, but Dan Brown might take this theory into account for his next plagiarism trial )
They did introduce a freedom of information act. With all the relevant teeth removed. "Commercial Sensitivity" is apparently a valid reason for not giving information. Excuse me, but if you're spending MY tax money I have a right to know how.
They promised to reform the unelected House of Lords. Yes, they did, but by replacing most of the hereditary peers with a bunch of people appointed by an "indepenedent" commitee appointed by the government. Who's going to be more independent, the great-great
He didn't win the popular vote anywhere; in fact, he resoundlingly lost it: almost two thirds of voters voted AGAINST labour; he only got in due to the pecularities of the voting system (jerrymandering? Jerrymandering? What's that?). And then he had the gall to claim a popular mandate.
>I guess that means the Prez can do pretty much whatever the hell he likes
Looks to me like he does.
Let's get back to the basics:
/. when it comes to GPL infringers; the same rules apply to commercial software.
A company produces a software product. amd sells it under specified conditions and at a specified cost.
Someone breaks those conditions and illegaly copies the software and sells it on.
Why shouldn't the company sue the person infringing you're copyright? We're all gung-ho on
Morally, if not legally, I'm prepared to make certain compromises for personal installations, but if you're selling a copyrighted product illegaly, you deserve everything that's coming to you, and good luck to Microsoft.
> Strangely enough, this does not result in "long thin buildings". ;)
No, in investment banking you just have an entire floor open plan (apart from the corner offices). There is a window in line of sight; the fact that your are 100m away from it is surely irrelevant
Then again, in this industry it's often agreed that being close to your users is more important than having a comfy office; IMHO, this is borne out by results.
> The existence of the Pentagon is no excuse for cubicles (just like the existence of Burkina Faso is no excuse for paying people a dollar a day).
The Pentagon almost certainly has a window in every office; it may have been part of the design spec.
Also, Burkina Faso has a GDP of $1200 / heead, so a dollar a day would probably be a bad wage even there.
Just to add insult to injury, the UK now has a law that let's them extradite you to the US without prima facie evidence; this wouldn't be so bad if it were reciprocated, but that's about as likely as George W. Bush appearing live on Al-Jazeera admitting he lied about WMD. "respect of US laws" is all nice and well if you're in the US, but if you're in the UK you should only have to worry about UK laws. Otherwise, before you know it, Richard Dawkins will face the death penalty in Utah for proclaiming Evolution ;(
Sorry if I sound bitter, but I am.
> How can we possibly think that different human races could evolve to look so different but did not evolve differently at all internally?
;)
For example, because there isn't any evidence that people are actually significantlu different internally? Can you show me any evidence that hair colour - probably as significant a genetic trait as skin colour - has any other ramifications apart from likelihood of sunburn?
> They use diagrammatic puzzles with a missing part. You could hardly argue that any level of college education could help you find the missing peice of a puzzle.
College education perhaps not, but you'd have to be wilfully stupid not to see that early childhood training on puzzles wouldn't have a significant impact. At least if you've spent time with a toddler; I'll excuse your ignorance if you haven't. Small children will soak up input, the more they get, the more they absorb (within boundaries, of course); hence, it would be extremely difficult to make a good case that early childhood (aka "cultural") training wouldn't have a significant impact.
> It is documented that Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of about 70.
References, please. Aecdotal evidence (i.e. my personal acquaintances) suggests that 80% of Nigerians are medical doctors or accountant; the remaining 20% work in IT. This is now documented, on slashdot
> Thinking of it in terms of mental age, an adult with an IQ of 70 has the mental age of an 11 year old. I could drive, work on the farm, and shoot a gun before the age of 11. Having an IQ of 70 does not make you retarded, it is just that there is a strong correlation in America that people with low IQ are also retarded.
All I'll say is that I'm very glad you were on the other side of the atlantic, shooting and driving, when you were 11. Given the lack of thought in your understanding of IQ test, I hope you'll stay there until you grow up. Whether that's 40, 60, or 80, I don't mind; patience is a virtue I'm eager to adopt.
> For many (not all) it is about anti-capitalism and controlling others. Misery loves company, and
;)
. stm). And there's a lot of evidence from a lot further back - icecores, tree rings, sediments, what have you - but that would be of the scientific kind, and you probably wouldn't care.
Yes, there are a lot of bozos on either side of the "debate". The fact that idiots agree with me doesn't invalidate my opinion, though.
> there really are millions out there who think they are smarter than the rest of us,
Statistically, there are millions of people that are smarter than the rest of us. It's the beauty of the bell curve
> and think we should all live like they want us to live, whether we want to or not. Personal freedom is fine, as long as you agree with them and do exactly what they tell you
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to drive around guzzling gas if you want to, but I don't see why I should subsidise you doing it. Also I don't see why you should endanger my life by driving an unsafe truck masquerading as a passenger vehicle.
I do, on the other hand, want to have decent public transport. Mainly because I'm fed up with the crappy trains and tube we have at the moment, but also because I honestly think it will help the environment. Also because I would much rather take the train than waste my time driving on the weekend.
> Ironically, the Barbara S.'s of the world are great to TELL you how to live, but not willing to live the same way. I guess you don't have to follow your own rules if you are rich and smart enough.
Barbara who? She's clearly not famous enough for me to care.
> So in the mean time, it is impossible to know what is really going on with the atmosphere, because of the BS flowing liberally (pun intended) from certain camps, as well as the reality that we have VERY LITTLE objective data over 100 years old.
I'm under the impression that the vast majority of people who actually know about the climate - you know, like climatologist who spend their career studying this kind of thing, actually agree that a dramatic, man made change in the climate is taking place (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4761804
I would draw the obvious analogy to the ID "debate", but that would invoke a corrolary to Godwin's law, so I won't.
I'll bet my fat white middle-class ass that there's an inverse correlation between driving an H2 and an interestin astronomy.
Or at least a nickel.
a) paying to recieve an SMS is as nonsensical as paying to receive a letter, phone call or email.
b) the US is is still the country with the worst GSM coverage I've encountered. For example, India and South Africa have far better coverage, so the old population density argument won't wash. As a tourist, I want my mobile to work, particulatly when I'm between major cities where there aren't any public phones.
> Not really. To be honest, I don't know how one could really raise children without Wikipedia.
With books? You know, like in the dark ages?
Rush Limbaugh would have to pay me about $5K to listen to his ramblings. If psychiatrists get paid to listen to mad people, why shouldn't I?
Because I can't yet strap my cellphone to my wrist?
Not without looking like a complete plonker, anyway.
> the people of the world to collectively reduce their usage of energy and lower their standard of living.
What makes you assume that reducing energy usage inherently reduces your standard of living?
* If your house is better insulated, you use less energy to heat or cool it. How does that lower your standard of living?
* A 2006 model car (note that I said car, not masquerading truck) will get better mileage, comfort and performance than it's 1996 equivalent. Again, how does that lower the standard of living?
* If you take, for example, the EuroStar from London to Paris instead of flying, you not only use a lot less energy, but also save a few hours of travelling time.
* Hypothetically, if London had a public transport system that could cope with the demands, millions of hours stuck in traffic could be replaced with comfortable train journeys. Granted, that's not happening, but not because it's impossible.
* LCD monitors use a lot less energy than CRTs; I've never heard that described as a downgrade.
* Further examples left as an exercise to the reader.
> Bottom line. I dont think we are hurtling toward the point of no-return.. I believe we are PAST the point of no return.. at this point we might as well just try to find ourselves another planet, or work on technologies that make sure our civilization can survive the future.
You may be right, but if you think humanity will find it easier to colonise mars than to fix up the environment here, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.
> Exactly my point. If I'm looking at a nude piece of art and some tooth-fairy worshipping zealot thinks its gross, I shouldn't be stopped. They have a choice not to look over your shoulder.
True, but there's a balance. A library is a public place, and there are limits to what is acceptable in public places. It's no more acceptable for you to look at porn in the library than it is to wank in public.
Also, I don't see why other taxpayers should subsidise your enjoyment of www.disgustinggrannies.com.
> And if you are worried about the children, guess what? They got here through SEX!! Yes, a penis actually entered a vagina and sperm was injected! There might have even been some oral sex to get the whole thing started!!
Agreed, to an extent; I'm much more concerned about the level of violence in the media than about the odd boob. After all, small children seeing boobs is the most natural thing in the world. That doesn't mean that I want my three year old to see people having sex.
> How about not worrying about the kids being parented by the government and start parenting them yourself.
You mean by, for example, taking them to the library to get some good books? Okay, let's agree that if I catch you looking at porn in my local library, I'll personally slap you instead of getting the police involved? And when I'm done with that I'll call your mother and tell her exactly what you've been doing.
> > Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years.
> That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "a part of."
In the same sense that Ireland has been part of the UK for hundreds of years.
Also, let's not forget that nobody entered the war against Nazi Germany because of what they were doing domestically, but because they were waging a war of aggression against other countries. All that fighting against the Nazis because of the holocaust stuff is, I'm afraid, post-facto rationalisation.
No, no, no, America is always right, everyone else is always wrong. Haven't you been paying attention?
> * HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people
Was this when Saddam was still allied with the west? Before or after he started his first war of aggression against a neighbour - in that case, Iran. Of course the west supported him in that, so surely if he was on our side it must have been ethical.
> * Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
Nigeria, while it has problems, doesn't have such a terrible human rights record compared to, e.g. Saudi Arabia, or China, or lots of other places people do business with. Face it, if you're only going to be dealing with truly nice people, your oil suppliers would limited to Norway and Canada.
Just remember that when you fill up your car; Shell & co are just acting as go betweens for you the consumer.
Mind you, there seems to be a market for green electricity, maybe there would be a market for ethical petroleum.
> paying some poor guy 12 cents an hour in dangerous conditions is surely at least as bad,....
From the point ov view of the poor guy getting 12 cents an hour, that is infinitely preferrable to getting zero cents an hour if he's unemployed.
Intelligent Designers wouldn't have anything to do with "Intelligent Design".