However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with.
I'm sure that's part of it, but speaking for myself I stopped watching CNN because they replaced hard news coverage with gimmicks like iReport, floating pie charts and Star Wars holonet knock offs.
The only serious American television newscast that's left is the PBS Newshour.
Did I suggest having "no regulations at all"? I merely pointed out the fact that local governments sign franchise agreements that grant monopoly status backed by law. You are implying that I was advocating for anarchy, which could not be further from the truth.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be overly disruptive to my daily commute to allow a fourth company to string wires along the telephone poles that already exist in my town. Why should three companies (the power utility, cable and telephone companies) have exclusive rights to use those poles? Those poles exist on the public right of way but I'm to be denied access to them if I wish to compete with Time Warner? How do you justify such a policy?
Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.
If the Government sets a precedent for taking over infrastructure that was built with private dollars then what's the incentive for investors to put their money into building said infrastructure in the first place?
Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.
You mean the great urban network that's going broke and which only survives on taxpayer subsidies? Let the straphangers pay the full cost of the service they receive and you might have a valid point.
Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?
You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right? Your local government signs "franchise agreements" that give a single cable and/or telco company exclusive rights to service your town. Even if you had the capital to lay your own wires you are prohibited by law from doing so.
What about a company like Norway, who is literally wealthy from their oil production, yet requires their offshore drilling platforms to install sonar activated blowout valves to stop exactly this type of leak? Why can't we do something like that?
There was a blowout valve on the well. It failed. The reason why it failed has yet to be determined.
No, this is America, we wouldn't want to mess with the "free market."
What free market? You make it sound like corporations are running wild. Did you see the news stories about the Cape Wind project? It took nine years of reviews by dozens of different local/state/federal agencies and at least three different lawsuits before the project was approved. There may well be more lawsuits before ground is actually broken on the project.
How the hell are we supposed to compete with China when we adopt this BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) mentality? How the hell are investors supposed to put their money on the line when it takes almost a decade to get approval just to break ground on new energy development? How do we move off fossil fuels when we subject their replacements to seemingly infinite layers of red tape?
And by the way natural gas, hydrogen can replace a large amount of our usage along with electricity.
Except that the tree huggers don't like natural gas either, because it isn't "carbon neutral". T. Boone Pickens had a rather interesting plan that relied heavily on natural gas for the transportation sector and most of the green people shot it down without bothering to read it.
and companies which are being negligent to human safety and the environment.
You are presuming negligence on the part of BP with regards to this spill? When was that established?
Point was: something in their thinking, something in the way they viewed women, led to their decision to rape one.
I am not a criminologist but my understanding of rape is that it's typically driven by the desire to dominate. I'm not sure how much of that I would attribute to the objectification of women. I've known a few chauvinistic pigs in my day but to the best of my knowledge none of them were rapists. Rape has also been around since the beginning of our race, long before sexually suggestive entertainment and pornography came onto the scene.
Most guys seem to have very clear ideas about this, and I don't think it comes from the "real world." I think it comes from porn, from advertisements, and clothing manufacturers.
That might be true to an extent, though I think that sexual attraction likely operates on a more primal level than that. No doubt that environmental and societal factors play a role though.
Food example: Coke. Is Coke good for you? I haven't read a study that said you can substitute coke for water and be just fine. And yet, from the advertisements and the way most kids live, you would think so. Certain aspects of society are teaching young people that soda is basically a valid substitute for water. And most people don't appear to differentiate between an advertisement and what is really true.
So what do you want to see happen? More regulation of advertising? That comes with it's own set of drawbacks and some people (myself among them) don't think it's the job of Government to teach caveat emptor.
The issue is what image and thinking society is "teaching." IMO, porn... and porn-related things ("sex" in advertising, entertainment, the internet, etc) is a contributor to how society is "teaching" young men to think about women, just as the "women on TV" were "teaching" your sister how she had to look in order to be beautiful/attractive/pretty/whatever.
I see it as an issue too, I'm just uncertain as to what you want to do about it?
But this is arguing that, biologically, sex is for reproduction. That was the "stupid Puritans" comment that started this whole thing, that Puritans(/"bible belt morons":) ) think that sex is for reproduction purposes and not for pleasure.
Sex is for reproduction, from a purely biological standpoint. In certain species (homo sapiens among them) it also serves a social function.
Considering that, for the average income, the income tax has gone down under Democratic administrations and up under Republican administrations, actually Democrats are better at keeping out of your wallet *and* your bedroom than Republican
Even if that's the case, in what world do you live that income taxes are the only ones that you pay? Here in my home state we are being slowly bled to death by property taxes. Democrats have dominated this state as long as I've been alive.....
I don't care for the private contractors because I don't see why Blackwater should be paid a premium to do what normal American solders do everyday and I don't see why Haliburton should make a profit for doing what normal American solders used to do.
I agree with you. I also don't like how they get to operate outside the confines of the UCMJ. But the only way to eliminate or reduce the use of private contractors in future conflicts is to increase the size of DoD. That may well require the institution of a peace time draft, not something that's likely to command much political support in Washington.
Image if you are a farmer in rural American and has to pay "market" price every time you want send in your utility payment.
In the ideal world that farmer would increase the cost of his products to account for the increased cost of living in the middle of nowhere. That would cost the city dwellers more money but so what? They are already subsidizing him with taxes -- urban areas almost always pay out more in taxes than they receive in services. Why not cut out the Government middle man and let them pay Mr. Farmer directly?
Or, imaging waiting in that long postal office line only to have people walk in and constantly cut in front of you because they are the "volume" shippers
I've never seen this happen at my local UPS distribution center, why assume it would happen if the USPS were privatized?
I think we can all pretty much agree rape is bad, right? Rape degrades women. Why are men okay with it?
I'm confused, who said men are ok with rape?
If you really respect women, you're not going to rape them.
What does that have to do with porn? If you respect your fellow human beings you aren't going to commit any crimes of violence against them. I would posit that the vast majority of people are able to differentiate between porn and the real world.
I am of the opinion that a society where women are seen as sex objects is a degrading society
it seems to me that society is putting significant pressure on girls to think of themselves as sex objects
I agree, but I don't think porn is to blame for this. Porn basically exists for one purpose -- sexual gratification. Porn is something that you have to make a deliberate attempt to obtain. I would argue that everyday TV advertisements, the entertainment and fashion industries do more to objectify woman than porn does. Our young girls are certainly influenced by them more than they are by porn. I watched my sister try to starve herself to death growing up so she could look like the women on TV. None of the women she was attempting to emulate were in a pornographic production.
If that IS the end-goal, then your view is, IMO, quite consistent.
From a biological standpoint that is the end goal of life. Human beings are one of the few animals with the higher brain functions required to set other goals for themselves but the drive to reproduce is still there.
I think it's premature to assume that society will directly assume the liability, given that BP has said they will pay for the cleanup and legislation is pending in Congress to increase the relevant liability cap.
Man, you do love you some strawmen. GP's post is clear, with the reference to RR and the solar panels, that problem is one of will, not money. Also,
No, the GP said that we need another Manhattan Project to solve our energy woes. I pointed out that DoE's annual budget exceeds the total cost of the Manhattan Project, thus it would seem apparent to anyone that another project on the scope of the Manhattan project will not even scratch the surface.
Besides, the focus on solar rather misses the point. Solar is next to useless for mobile applications (ships, trucks, planes) that are the primary consumer of oil derived hydrocarbons. If you want to look at this from a scientific standpoint instead of a political one, which energy source do you see on the horizon with sufficient energy density to displace petroleum in this application?
I'm sure there's plenty of money to be found elsewhere, especially when, as GP said, you don't have to be occupying half a dozen countries at once.
No amount of money is going to change the fact that hydrocarbons are the most energy dense non-nuclear fuel.
Meant to say that DoE's annual budget was 109% of the total cost of the Manhattan Project and probably worked out to 200-400% of it's annual budget, since the Manhattan Project was spread out over a number of years.
Why's it gotta happen tomorrow, Shakrai, or is that another strawman?
Because unless it can happen tomorrow, we are still going to have to extract oil from the Earth and the whole point of my original comment was to condemn those that fail to realize this basic fact.
we'd had a "Manhattan Project" for getting off of fossil fuels
I'm getting tired of hearing this. The Manhattan Project cost $2,000,000,000. Wikipedia says that would be around $22,000,000,000 if it was adjusted for inflation. DoE's annual budget for 2009 was $24,100,000,000. That's 109% of the total cost of the Manhattan Project. It's probably 200-400% DoE's stated mission is to end American dependence on foreign oil. How well is that working out for us?
You need to realize that not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. If it was a simple matter of money we would have figured this out a long time ago. The sad reality of the situation is that there really aren't a whole lot of non-nuclear alternatives for fossil fuels that can compete with them in terms of energy density. Nuclear, hydro and wind are a decent bet for replacing fixed energy production/consumption (power plants, factories, houses, etc.) but won't work so well for mobile purposes (ships, planes, automobiles).
But when Ronald Magnus Reagan tore down those largely symbolic solar panels on the roof of the White House
Yes, it's all Ronald Reagan's fault that the laws of physics conspired to make hydrocarbons an easy to extract energy dense resource.
If you really want to debate a complicated issue like energy policy by blaming one man for it's failure, I would see your Ronald Reagan and raise you a Jimmy Carter. Carter's decision that the United States would not reprocess spent nuclear fuel created the nuclear waste issue and removed a carbon free energy source from the table. One would think that a US Naval Officer with reactor training would have known better, but there you go....
Then sell your 401(k) and put all the money in a savings account. I would hate for you to see some gains from the exorbitant profits of the oil industry.
No, the implication is that there was certainty that there will be an oil spill of this magnitude every 20 years, and a decision was made to that risk as the cost of doing business.
Given that our society is dependent on oil for virtually all aspects of modern life, I'd say that it's a cost of society. It's unreasonable to expect that any human enterprise (let alone a technically demanding one like deep water oil extraction) can be run indefinitely without mistakes being made. The important thing here is to learn what went wrong and take steps to ensure that it can't happen again in the future.
These corporate-sponsored disasters come at least every twenty years.
That's cute, making it all about the evil corporations, as if society doesn't demand oil and derive some benefit from having it available.
Shouldn't, oh I don't know, their profits be less, to cover the costs?
That's an idea, but ultimately it's still the rest of us that will be paying for it. If you have a 401(k) or mutual fund account you almost certainly hold some oil company shares and receive dividends from them. Slash their profits through newer taxes and/or fees and you'll either for it with reduced earnings or a higher price at the pump.
You were NOT implying that BP will shoulder the cost of the cleanup?
They've said they will, but as I've said it's too early to say with certainty what will happen. Why don't you wait until the cost of the cleanup is known before you make assumptions about whom will pay for it?
I'm glad that you, too, are tired of the rich stealing from us
The only thing I'm tired of is hearing people on the left side of the political spectrum blame the rich for all the woes of society. Do you have a 401(k)? Do you own an automobile? Do you eat food? Do you use plastics? Do you purchase goods at the store? You've contributed as much towards this problem as the rest of us have, rich and poor.
Actually that raises another valid concern. Do non-porn enterprises have to register their.xxx domains to protect their copyright/trademarks? If they don't register them will a mechanism exist to keep others from using them? If they do register them then what's the point of an 'exclusive'.xxx domain?
first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure
Unless they were forced into such a production, what's the problem here? If a consenting adult makes a choice to become a sex object I don't see why it's any of our business.
who turn sex into the end-goal of life.
Reproduction is the end-goal of all life on this blue marble. Sex goes hand in hand with that, at least for mammals....
Slashdot Mirror
However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with.
I'm sure that's part of it, but speaking for myself I stopped watching CNN because they replaced hard news coverage with gimmicks like iReport, floating pie charts and Star Wars holonet knock offs.
The only serious American television newscast that's left is the PBS Newshour.
Did I suggest having "no regulations at all"? I merely pointed out the fact that local governments sign franchise agreements that grant monopoly status backed by law. You are implying that I was advocating for anarchy, which could not be further from the truth.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be overly disruptive to my daily commute to allow a fourth company to string wires along the telephone poles that already exist in my town. Why should three companies (the power utility, cable and telephone companies) have exclusive rights to use those poles? Those poles exist on the public right of way but I'm to be denied access to them if I wish to compete with Time Warner? How do you justify such a policy?
Once services like this become ubiquitous, the best thing to happen is for the government to take over the infrastructure and consolidate it.
If the Government sets a precedent for taking over infrastructure that was built with private dollars then what's the incentive for investors to put their money into building said infrastructure in the first place?
Private companies did a great job building hundreds of independent subway lines in Manhattan. Until the state took it over, though,it did not become the great urban network that it is today.
You mean the great urban network that's going broke and which only survives on taxpayer subsidies? Let the straphangers pay the full cost of the service they receive and you might have a valid point.
So start your own cable company to compete with them.
...oh wait, your local government won't allow you to do that, because it gave Comcast exclusive rights to service your town. Never mind.....
I am in favor of at least SOME Net Neutrality regulations, especially for de facto monopolies
Why don't we get rid of the regulations (i.e: franchise agreements) that created those de-facto monopolies in the first place?
Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?
You realize that the only reason that the wires are "inherently monopolistic" is because of governmental interference, right? Your local government signs "franchise agreements" that give a single cable and/or telco company exclusive rights to service your town. Even if you had the capital to lay your own wires you are prohibited by law from doing so.
What about a company like Norway, who is literally wealthy from their oil production, yet requires their offshore drilling platforms to install sonar activated blowout valves to stop exactly this type of leak? Why can't we do something like that?
There was a blowout valve on the well. It failed. The reason why it failed has yet to be determined.
No, this is America, we wouldn't want to mess with the "free market."
What free market? You make it sound like corporations are running wild. Did you see the news stories about the Cape Wind project? It took nine years of reviews by dozens of different local/state/federal agencies and at least three different lawsuits before the project was approved. There may well be more lawsuits before ground is actually broken on the project.
How the hell are we supposed to compete with China when we adopt this BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) mentality? How the hell are investors supposed to put their money on the line when it takes almost a decade to get approval just to break ground on new energy development? How do we move off fossil fuels when we subject their replacements to seemingly infinite layers of red tape?
Society doesn't necessarily demand oil, what they want is affordable transportation.
And fertilizers. And plastics. And medicine. And petrochemicals.......
Maybe it will cost twice as much as the Manhattan Project.
And maybe there really is a great pumpkin Charlie Brown.....
And by the way natural gas, hydrogen can replace a large amount of our usage along with electricity.
Except that the tree huggers don't like natural gas either, because it isn't "carbon neutral". T. Boone Pickens had a rather interesting plan that relied heavily on natural gas for the transportation sector and most of the green people shot it down without bothering to read it.
and companies which are being negligent to human safety and the environment.
You are presuming negligence on the part of BP with regards to this spill? When was that established?
Point was: something in their thinking, something in the way they viewed women, led to their decision to rape one.
I am not a criminologist but my understanding of rape is that it's typically driven by the desire to dominate. I'm not sure how much of that I would attribute to the objectification of women. I've known a few chauvinistic pigs in my day but to the best of my knowledge none of them were rapists. Rape has also been around since the beginning of our race, long before sexually suggestive entertainment and pornography came onto the scene.
Most guys seem to have very clear ideas about this, and I don't think it comes from the "real world." I think it comes from porn, from advertisements, and clothing manufacturers.
That might be true to an extent, though I think that sexual attraction likely operates on a more primal level than that. No doubt that environmental and societal factors play a role though.
Food example: Coke. Is Coke good for you? I haven't read a study that said you can substitute coke for water and be just fine. And yet, from the advertisements and the way most kids live, you would think so. Certain aspects of society are teaching young people that soda is basically a valid substitute for water. And most people don't appear to differentiate between an advertisement and what is really true.
So what do you want to see happen? More regulation of advertising? That comes with it's own set of drawbacks and some people (myself among them) don't think it's the job of Government to teach caveat emptor.
The issue is what image and thinking society is "teaching." IMO, porn ... and porn-related things ("sex" in advertising, entertainment, the internet, etc) is a contributor to how society is "teaching" young men to think about women, just as the "women on TV" were "teaching" your sister how she had to look in order to be beautiful/attractive/pretty/whatever.
I see it as an issue too, I'm just uncertain as to what you want to do about it?
But this is arguing that, biologically, sex is for reproduction. That was the "stupid Puritans" comment that started this whole thing, that Puritans(/"bible belt morons" :) ) think that sex is for reproduction purposes and not for pleasure.
Sex is for reproduction, from a purely biological standpoint. In certain species (homo sapiens among them) it also serves a social function.
Considering that, for the average income, the income tax has gone down under Democratic administrations and up under Republican administrations, actually Democrats are better at keeping out of your wallet *and* your bedroom than Republican
Even if that's the case, in what world do you live that income taxes are the only ones that you pay? Here in my home state we are being slowly bled to death by property taxes. Democrats have dominated this state as long as I've been alive.....
I don't care for the private contractors because I don't see why Blackwater should be paid a premium to do what normal American solders do everyday and I don't see why Haliburton should make a profit for doing what normal American solders used to do.
I agree with you. I also don't like how they get to operate outside the confines of the UCMJ. But the only way to eliminate or reduce the use of private contractors in future conflicts is to increase the size of DoD. That may well require the institution of a peace time draft, not something that's likely to command much political support in Washington.
Image if you are a farmer in rural American and has to pay "market" price every time you want send in your utility payment.
In the ideal world that farmer would increase the cost of his products to account for the increased cost of living in the middle of nowhere. That would cost the city dwellers more money but so what? They are already subsidizing him with taxes -- urban areas almost always pay out more in taxes than they receive in services. Why not cut out the Government middle man and let them pay Mr. Farmer directly?
Or, imaging waiting in that long postal office line only to have people walk in and constantly cut in front of you because they are the "volume" shippers
I've never seen this happen at my local UPS distribution center, why assume it would happen if the USPS were privatized?
I think we can all pretty much agree rape is bad, right? Rape degrades women. Why are men okay with it?
I'm confused, who said men are ok with rape?
If you really respect women, you're not going to rape them.
What does that have to do with porn? If you respect your fellow human beings you aren't going to commit any crimes of violence against them. I would posit that the vast majority of people are able to differentiate between porn and the real world.
I am of the opinion that a society where women are seen as sex objects is a degrading society
it seems to me that society is putting significant pressure on girls to think of themselves as sex objects
I agree, but I don't think porn is to blame for this. Porn basically exists for one purpose -- sexual gratification. Porn is something that you have to make a deliberate attempt to obtain. I would argue that everyday TV advertisements, the entertainment and fashion industries do more to objectify woman than porn does. Our young girls are certainly influenced by them more than they are by porn. I watched my sister try to starve herself to death growing up so she could look like the women on TV. None of the women she was attempting to emulate were in a pornographic production.
If that IS the end-goal, then your view is, IMO, quite consistent.
From a biological standpoint that is the end goal of life. Human beings are one of the few animals with the higher brain functions required to set other goals for themselves but the drive to reproduce is still there.
I think it's premature to assume that society will directly assume the liability, given that BP has said they will pay for the cleanup and legislation is pending in Congress to increase the relevant liability cap.
I tried your approach with the bills that I couldn't pay but they just sent me another invoice.... :(
Man, you do love you some strawmen. GP's post is clear, with the reference to RR and the solar panels, that problem is one of will, not money. Also,
No, the GP said that we need another Manhattan Project to solve our energy woes. I pointed out that DoE's annual budget exceeds the total cost of the Manhattan Project, thus it would seem apparent to anyone that another project on the scope of the Manhattan project will not even scratch the surface.
Besides, the focus on solar rather misses the point. Solar is next to useless for mobile applications (ships, trucks, planes) that are the primary consumer of oil derived hydrocarbons. If you want to look at this from a scientific standpoint instead of a political one, which energy source do you see on the horizon with sufficient energy density to displace petroleum in this application?
I'm sure there's plenty of money to be found elsewhere, especially when, as GP said, you don't have to be occupying half a dozen countries at once.
No amount of money is going to change the fact that hydrocarbons are the most energy dense non-nuclear fuel.
Ugh, hate typos, /. needs a comment editor.
Meant to say that DoE's annual budget was 109% of the total cost of the Manhattan Project and probably worked out to 200-400% of it's annual budget, since the Manhattan Project was spread out over a number of years.
Why's it gotta happen tomorrow, Shakrai, or is that another strawman?
Because unless it can happen tomorrow, we are still going to have to extract oil from the Earth and the whole point of my original comment was to condemn those that fail to realize this basic fact.
we'd had a "Manhattan Project" for getting off of fossil fuels
I'm getting tired of hearing this. The Manhattan Project cost $2,000,000,000. Wikipedia says that would be around $22,000,000,000 if it was adjusted for inflation. DoE's annual budget for 2009 was $24,100,000,000. That's 109% of the total cost of the Manhattan Project. It's probably 200-400% DoE's stated mission is to end American dependence on foreign oil. How well is that working out for us?
You need to realize that not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them. If it was a simple matter of money we would have figured this out a long time ago. The sad reality of the situation is that there really aren't a whole lot of non-nuclear alternatives for fossil fuels that can compete with them in terms of energy density. Nuclear, hydro and wind are a decent bet for replacing fixed energy production/consumption (power plants, factories, houses, etc.) but won't work so well for mobile purposes (ships, planes, automobiles).
But when Ronald Magnus Reagan tore down those largely symbolic solar panels on the roof of the White House
Yes, it's all Ronald Reagan's fault that the laws of physics conspired to make hydrocarbons an easy to extract energy dense resource.
If you really want to debate a complicated issue like energy policy by blaming one man for it's failure, I would see your Ronald Reagan and raise you a Jimmy Carter. Carter's decision that the United States would not reprocess spent nuclear fuel created the nuclear waste issue and removed a carbon free energy source from the table. One would think that a US Naval Officer with reactor training would have known better, but there you go....
the profits are exorbitant
Then sell your 401(k) and put all the money in a savings account. I would hate for you to see some gains from the exorbitant profits of the oil industry.
Quiet you, that's way too reasonable of a viewpoint for a discussion like this.....
No, the implication is that there was certainty that there will be an oil spill of this magnitude every 20 years, and a decision was made to that risk as the cost of doing business.
Given that our society is dependent on oil for virtually all aspects of modern life, I'd say that it's a cost of society. It's unreasonable to expect that any human enterprise (let alone a technically demanding one like deep water oil extraction) can be run indefinitely without mistakes being made. The important thing here is to learn what went wrong and take steps to ensure that it can't happen again in the future.
These corporate-sponsored disasters come at least every twenty years.
That's cute, making it all about the evil corporations, as if society doesn't demand oil and derive some benefit from having it available.
Shouldn't, oh I don't know, their profits be less, to cover the costs?
That's an idea, but ultimately it's still the rest of us that will be paying for it. If you have a 401(k) or mutual fund account you almost certainly hold some oil company shares and receive dividends from them. Slash their profits through newer taxes and/or fees and you'll either for it with reduced earnings or a higher price at the pump.
You were NOT implying that BP will shoulder the cost of the cleanup?
They've said they will, but as I've said it's too early to say with certainty what will happen. Why don't you wait until the cost of the cleanup is known before you make assumptions about whom will pay for it?
I'm glad that you, too, are tired of the rich stealing from us
The only thing I'm tired of is hearing people on the left side of the political spectrum blame the rich for all the woes of society. Do you have a 401(k)? Do you own an automobile? Do you eat food? Do you use plastics? Do you purchase goods at the store? You've contributed as much towards this problem as the rest of us have, rich and poor.
It's like The Matrix but with old people.
Will it also work with the diapers worn by crazy astronauts as they drive across state lines to kidnap the person that's sleeping with their crush?
I'm going to preregister microsoft.xxx right now!
Actually that raises another valid concern. Do non-porn enterprises have to register their .xxx domains to protect their copyright/trademarks? If they don't register them will a mechanism exist to keep others from using them? If they do register them then what's the point of an 'exclusive' .xxx domain?
first degrading to women, who are turned into sex objects simply to be used for pleasure
Unless they were forced into such a production, what's the problem here? If a consenting adult makes a choice to become a sex object I don't see why it's any of our business.
who turn sex into the end-goal of life.
Reproduction is the end-goal of all life on this blue marble. Sex goes hand in hand with that, at least for mammals....