I'm not sure they are against pornography; this is the sort of thing that comes out of listening to your voters.
Sadly it's not about listening to voters, it's about listening to the Daily Mail. For sure the Daily Mail does reflect the view of some, and moulds the views of others. In the same way that Fox News does in the US. But with a circulation under 2 million, that's a small minority of voters.
You can say that again. I thought the US was very anti-pornography, and if you believe anything Bill Maher says, Americans are more sensitive to that kind of thing than anybody. Yet other than child pornography, there hasn't been any significant effort to ban it from either private homes or public places. This, as well as the recent European parliament nearly banning all forms of pornography, hints to me that it may not be quite what it seems.
Oh, American people are far more sensitive to porn and even nudity than the vast majority of Europe. In Europe Britain is probably the most uptight, but even they are rather less so than Americans. The reason that bans are easier in Britain than America has nothing to do with their people's respective views on porn, and everything to do with their respective views on free speech.
Free speech being in the American constitution mans that calls for censorship nearly always fail. Britain (and the rest of Europe) doesn't have free speech as a right held up over virtually all others, but a right that's balanced with other rights.
As to Greece's neo-nazis - you often get right-wing extremists making gains when an economy is in the toilet. Don't think there's anything different about the USA, if your economy is ever as bad as Greece's, your right wing extremists will also be sabre rattling. Except it won't be sabres, it'll be guns and nooses, tar and feathers.
There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.
There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.
Lets see. I remember Windows from v1 all the way through to XP.
2 was better than 1. It had overlapping windows! 3 was better than 2. Icons and early networking. 95 was a huge step forward from 3. e.g. People didn't close down Windows to run their legacy DOS apps anymore. They ran them within DOS boxes. 98 was a better 95. It fixed the rough edges. ME was apparently a step back. I didn't try it. I took a sidestep to 2000. Windows XP was a big step forward in reliability, merging consumer UI with NT kernel.
I can't speak for versions after XP, as I went to OSX at that stage. But I've covered most of Windows history there, and you're wrong with that statement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Microsoft or Windows, that's why I moved to OSX. I had grown to have complete contempt for Windows by the end. But it's wrong to say that Windows changed for the worse with most versions. It did generally improve.
So how do you manage to get by without buying products that have been tested on animals.
And of course you know that The Body Shop for example manage to maintain a policy that none of their products are tested on animals. So it's not really true that the law demands it.
Of course there are some product categories that the law demands animal testing for. But that's why we have activists - to get the law changed. Without activists we wouldn't have universal suffrage for example.
I don't see how it could work with cardboard cut-outs. The point is to see the falling blocks with one eye, and the gaps to guide them into with the other. The gaps move up the screen as you fill them, with a constantly changing profile.
Surely you could find an open source Tetris clone, and hack the software to display the different parts on the different screens.
Just to point out, treating animals humanely is already a concern at every real research institution. There are internal review boards and inspections to make sure animals are being treated well, they're healthy, and pain is minimized.
And actions by animal rights activists raising the issue is what caused the increased sensitivity that has resulted in those review boards and inspections, as well as more rigorous legislation in many countries.
I have some sympathy for those who think animal testing is inhumane, but really all they are doing is just making sure these animals suffered for nothing. Does anyone think these funded projects will not get funding and a new set of animals to test on again?
I've no idea whether this particular set of experiments will be continued and animals replaced or not. But animal rights activists have raised the profile of this issue over the last 3 decades or so, and standards and regulations have risen in many countries as a result. And now the question is always asked, is vivisection the only way this can be done?
As a result, I'm sure far less animals are now experimented upon than would otherwise be the case. Activism does work. But it's slow. It's slowly changing attitudes rather than any sudden successes.
It depends what is meant by "fucking up the planet". Are you speaking purely of the environmental impact of economic growth?
Yes. Nearly all life on planet earth shares the same lack of concern for economics. It's a purely human fiction.
It is quite easy to argue that the quality of human life is improved by adding value to the global economy.
Human life isn't "the planet" in anyone's vocabulary. And you're only talking about the present human life at that. Future human life will be cursing the wasted resources and the pollution left by current generations.
So, are you saying that it's the consumer's fault?
It's everybody's responsibility. Consumers, business, governments. They all consume, and influence the consuming of others. And consuming causes pollution.
Some group "not giving a rat's ass" hardly lets them off the hook for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure they are against pornography; this is the sort of thing that comes out of listening to your voters.
Sadly it's not about listening to voters, it's about listening to the Daily Mail. For sure the Daily Mail does reflect the view of some, and moulds the views of others. In the same way that Fox News does in the US. But with a circulation under 2 million, that's a small minority of voters.
The first part of your message just demonstrates your complete ignorance.
You half understood it. It was a satire of your original message which revealed you as an America nationalist with complete ignorance of Europe.
You can say that again. I thought the US was very anti-pornography, and if you believe anything Bill Maher says, Americans are more sensitive to that kind of thing than anybody. Yet other than child pornography, there hasn't been any significant effort to ban it from either private homes or public places. This, as well as the recent European parliament nearly banning all forms of pornography, hints to me that it may not be quite what it seems.
Oh, American people are far more sensitive to porn and even nudity than the vast majority of Europe. In Europe Britain is probably the most uptight, but even they are rather less so than Americans. The reason that bans are easier in Britain than America has nothing to do with their people's respective views on porn, and everything to do with their respective views on free speech.
Free speech being in the American constitution mans that calls for censorship nearly always fail. Britain (and the rest of Europe) doesn't have free speech as a right held up over virtually all others, but a right that's balanced with other rights.
As to Greece's neo-nazis - you often get right-wing extremists making gains when an economy is in the toilet. Don't think there's anything different about the USA, if your economy is ever as bad as Greece's, your right wing extremists will also be sabre rattling. Except it won't be sabres, it'll be guns and nooses, tar and feathers.
There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.
There's a reason for this: in the Windows world, change is mostly for the worse.
Lets see. I remember Windows from v1 all the way through to XP.
2 was better than 1. It had overlapping windows!
3 was better than 2. Icons and early networking.
95 was a huge step forward from 3. e.g. People didn't close down Windows to run their legacy DOS apps anymore. They ran them within DOS boxes.
98 was a better 95. It fixed the rough edges.
ME was apparently a step back. I didn't try it. I took a sidestep to 2000.
Windows XP was a big step forward in reliability, merging consumer UI with NT kernel.
I can't speak for versions after XP, as I went to OSX at that stage. But I've covered most of Windows history there, and you're wrong with that statement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Microsoft or Windows, that's why I moved to OSX. I had grown to have complete contempt for Windows by the end. But it's wrong to say that Windows changed for the worse with most versions. It did generally improve.
Says the law, unfortunately.
So how do you manage to get by without buying products that have been tested on animals.
And of course you know that The Body Shop for example manage to maintain a policy that none of their products are tested on animals. So it's not really true that the law demands it.
Of course there are some product categories that the law demands animal testing for. But that's why we have activists - to get the law changed. Without activists we wouldn't have universal suffrage for example.
Responsibilities very often require effort.
I don't see how it could work with cardboard cut-outs. The point is to see the falling blocks with one eye, and the gaps to guide them into with the other. The gaps move up the screen as you fill them, with a constantly changing profile.
Surely you could find an open source Tetris clone, and hack the software to display the different parts on the different screens.
You seem to be making excuses for national guardsman opening fire on a crowd of students, killing innocent people.
Is it wrong to force experimentation on human prisoners?
That includes animal testing ("use me, not the animal"), for the simple reason that such tests NEED to be performed on SOMETHING (or someone).
Says who? Why does an animal need detergent putting in it's eyes so a multinational can launch yet another brand of shampoo?
You're part of the Anonymous Coward group. So you are responsible for all the the GNAA and goatse posts.
And there's another ignorant stereotype for people you don't know.
Search for green power tariffs.
I sometimes get the impression that you have no idea what happens in Europe.
I was at Place de la Bastille during one of the 2010 riots where they used pepper spray. It was a general protest, not a student protest.
I'm not seeing a list of fatalities on your link.
Only because they have easy access to pepper spray now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
Europe tends to have a more easy going attitude towards student protest than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
What about if you think animals have to suffer?
Just to point out, treating animals humanely is already a concern at every real research institution. There are internal review boards and inspections to make sure animals are being treated well, they're healthy, and pain is minimized.
And actions by animal rights activists raising the issue is what caused the increased sensitivity that has resulted in those review boards and inspections, as well as more rigorous legislation in many countries.
I have some sympathy for those who think animal testing is inhumane, but really all they are doing is just making sure these animals suffered for nothing. Does anyone think these funded projects will not get funding and a new set of animals to test on again?
I've no idea whether this particular set of experiments will be continued and animals replaced or not. But animal rights activists have raised the profile of this issue over the last 3 decades or so, and standards and regulations have risen in many countries as a result. And now the question is always asked, is vivisection the only way this can be done?
As a result, I'm sure far less animals are now experimented upon than would otherwise be the case. Activism does work. But it's slow. It's slowly changing attitudes rather than any sudden successes.
Ultimately, it's not that they like animals. It's that they hate people.
No doubt they hate our freedom too. And they eat babies. And other such ignorant things we can say about groups of people we don't know.
It depends what is meant by "fucking up the planet". Are you speaking purely of the environmental impact of economic growth?
Yes. Nearly all life on planet earth shares the same lack of concern for economics. It's a purely human fiction.
It is quite easy to argue that the quality of human life is improved by adding value to the global economy.
Human life isn't "the planet" in anyone's vocabulary. And you're only talking about the present human life at that. Future human life will be cursing the wasted resources and the pollution left by current generations.
So, are you saying that it's the consumer's fault?
It's everybody's responsibility. Consumers, business, governments. They all consume, and influence the consuming of others. And consuming causes pollution.
Some group "not giving a rat's ass" hardly lets them off the hook for anything.
Would you drink tap water in a fracking area?
Economic output does absolutely nothing to help the planet. Quite the contrary in fact.