Walsingham

Just a thought. Has the OP ever tried just laughing at cats?

Deploy the foot penises!

People complain when we take countries FROM foreigners. People complain when we give countries TO foreigners. There's no pleasing you bastards, is there?

You win today's internet.

"Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge. Wink wink. Say no more!" From the purely analytical perspective, shouldn't we try to achieve the best of both worlds, and have sex in laboratories?

If i can throw something else in, I suspect that Youtube loses far more people over the controls on nudity etc than it does on this sort of content. But they made the decision that a 'family friendly' Youtube will ultimately be more profitable.

Jersey Shore Edit: Forgot you're British. Geordie Shore Unless you are actually in Geordie shore, and think the people in Geordie shore should be destroyed, then that's not exactly relevant. ;p

While I respect you personally, Amentep. Well, a bit, anyway. I can't respect that view. What kind of god damned world do you think we live in? Perfect decisions are not the decisions you look for when you are facing a time critical problem. A time critical problem is what the world supposedly faces. It's no f***ing good wanting a nice alternative. Either windfarms need to be built right now, or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't be building ANY of the pointless bastards. If they do, then F**K the reed warbler. I would add that this kind of woolliness is _precisely_ why many serious businessmen and engineers don't take the Green movement seriously.

Any line of reason which negates the reasoner is - so far as I can see - self-negating. There simply cannot exist any human rationality that advocates the elimination of humans.

Interesting proposal, Amentep. Let's say the content creators who have been winning via Youtube succeed in turning people off it. Some other site automatedly gloms the creator's videos and puts them on their own site, and gives nothing to the creator besides saying it is for "educational purposes".

I was involved tangentially with a project up in Scotland to turn a large estate into a windfarm. The RSPB blocked it. That's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I'll be crystal clear and say I am unconvinced by global warming. But I accept that it is the general consensus. It therefore annoys the holy **** out of me when people ignore it for the sak eof - as you say - a nice view, or the convenience of the less spotted marsh cretin.

100% agree with Hurlshot. In practical terms it's a non-starter. The only people who would volunteer are the people who shouldn't. And equally even I can't imagine telling a specific couple they aren't allowed kids. You try it. Imagine having to go up to two couples you know and saying "I have decided that no matter what happens and how much you love each other, you won't be allowed any kids." EDITED Anyone else's genes taking executive control?

I tell you what, why don't we split into the ayes and nayes, and let reality decide who's right? Reconvene in 100 years?

I hope I can say this without sounding too crawly. I do enjoy it when Enoch and Nep weigh in on this stuff. It helps to have trained opinions.

I read through as much as I could, Rosti. It's not your fault the sodding forum insists on using white on black text. Although you could have gone easy on me and sectioned it up a little. I shouldn't be so lazy, though. If I contract my response it's not because I don't think you deserve. I'm just trying to be concise. 1a) It occurred to me that you are essentially arguing the same as many terrorists, only from a very different perspective. Crappy situations breed terror. Many terrorists deliberately wreck everything in order to polarise and create more terrorists. 1b) Not sure I rate the theoretical reasoning skills of many terrorists. not least because all that approach does is destroy for its own ends. It has no creative plan at all behind it, and is about as close to a definition of political evil as I can think of. 2) Unless my memory fails me, Algeria has had extensive political violence. It may not have been directed at the West, but it's been a very bloody business involving lots of terrorism. 3) Many countries are poor or have problems, but don't have terrorist movements. i suggest this because they lack the active 'type 1' terrorists.

So if I buy an album I cannot play it for an audience without the explicit consent of the publisher? *shrugs* What you and I do is - I propose - utterly immaterial. If I'm honest I reject the premise that the law should be the same for everyone, due to the unfortunate fact that people aren't all the same. The vast bulk of people are short-sighted imbeciles. They will very cheerfully steal from ordinary artists while spending their money on MacDs. Or refuse to support local businesses then complain when there are no local jobs. For example. It's complete insanity, but they'll do it.

Like you chaps I listen to things for free and then buy them. I own albums and DVDs and watch them on youtube because it's easier. But i put it to you that we are FREAKS, and totally unrepresentative.

Takes me right back to university....

Took you lot long enough to bring that up. The Sikh guy isn't dressed that flamboyantly - I've seen worse here - and orange is their colour, no ? I was just about to google 'flamboyant homosexual images' to offer a comparison. But stopped myself just in time.

No. No you don't.

Well, I agree that it forces people to decide whether they want to be sold like mind-coal for the economic furnaces.

True. I saw that HM Government just announced the end of 309 laws today. Including the offence of being an 'incorrigible rogue'.

Sure, I get where it comes from, but on the other hand, their consumer hostile practices are driving their revenue away, so it's not going to be sustainable. Are they though? I mean if it drives away freeloaders that may not be such a problem? Open question.

*shrug* No offence meant, JFSOCC but it's got sod all to do with what you want or don't want, creativity or the tooth fairy. Whatever model crops up has to make money to be sustainable. Providing massive servers capable of holding and streaming the feeds costs money. Creating quality content ultimately costs money. All Google and Youtube are doing is selling the viewer. They're just doing it in a much smarter 21st Century way than NBC/the BBC/Fox were doing it last century. Oh, and in a far more intrusive way, because they aren't just selling you when you're viewing. They're selling you when you are not.