Death_By_Pod

A lot of artists before American capitalism made art for profit. Many (if not all) of the great artists have done commission work, basically nobles paid good money to get a high quality portrait of themselves. The same thing with musicians, they would get paid by the nobles to perform for their parties. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not like any of them were starving since things such as music and art were some of the few forms of entertainment, if you had the money you would obviously pay to get some entertainment. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think an artistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s musical talent is centred on money, they make music they enjoy; the problem is a label might not release the album or get the artist to replace some of the songs on the album. The point is the songs are still made to the artistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s specification but they may have to compromise on the content of the album. For example I know David Bowie originally wanted to make a series of albums but after the first album didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t sell well, the label didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t release the other next two albums, even though he had recorded over 20 hours of music for the series. What an artists records and what they release can sometimes be two different things, they need to compromise in order to make a living much like how you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always get the job you want. Also GodwinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Law, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmaking a comparison to NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s will eventually happen the longer an argument lingersÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. It generally isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a good idea to make comparisons to NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s since the issue is so complex compared to the black and white downloading music is right/wrong. Yes I agree with you, music theft is petty theft (like stealing food or a toy) and should be punished that way. But there comes a point when you own a whole collection of mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (a few thousand) where it should be considered more then petty (like being a repeat offender, stealing regularly) and should be punished accordingly. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think anyone is arguing against this. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think anyone is comparing downloading to stealing merchandise from a warehouse or car jacking. It is stealing since you took the item without permission, much like stealing an album from a record store, making a copy and returning it. Not to mention the fact you are breaking and entering, you are breaking more laws then just stealing. Did you know what people did in those situations, they moved to a town where there was work. Are you seriously telling me that at any one time there are no jobs to be filled? Lots of people move to take up job positions, whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between that and relocating for the prospect of a job. Robinhood has nothing to do with todayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s living, also the story was promoting egalitarianism (everyone should be equal) not to be taken literally. These people were forced to pay unreasonable taxes, while now you are taxed within reason. No one demands you pay taxes you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t pay. If you download the music you would have paid for it (if you had no choice to download it), otherwise you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have downloaded the music if you didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think it was worth having. If an album is so mediocre that you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t pay for it then why would you download it? If I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think an album is worth the money I would rather spend the time listening to albums I do like. According to you stealing a Ferrari is ok because there were never going to get the money from it from you. You are rationalising getting something without paying for it. Why would you be granted that right if you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do it. They have laws against things you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t injure animals even though you can own them, you cant pollute the environment even though you own the block of land. Maybe they should make a law that forces all music companies to provide samples of an album, until that happens they still have the right of allowing/disallowing samples. Then why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you respect musicians rights? Well if you play an instrument or do a hobby and a friend or stranger came up to you and asked you to play your instrument or do your hobby with them, you wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t comply 100% of the time even though you enjoyed your hobby/instrument. If I enjoyed the work I do, I still wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work for free. YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re undermining your ability to live if you do everything for free. I would get pretty sick of playing the same song over and over, thousands of times to people; playing music to people losses its edge after you play it many times. What about giving away my drinks for free that coca-cola branding on them? IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not making any money but IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m misrepresenting the brand, their intellectual property and trademarks. By playing mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s you could claim it is misrepresenting the song because it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t designed to be distributed by the means of P2P, even if you could buy it online from an mp3 store; The P2P program is unprofessional and they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t approve of that form of the songs delivery. Even if it has no bearing on how the song sounds, the memory of how you got that song will always stay in your mind (which the company had no ability to control). If laws were based on morals there would always be a prejudice against minority. The word Prejudice is the from the words pre-judge; if laws have a moralistic view then the law will pre-judge against people that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t share the same view. Since morals are subjective the law will be subjective and wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be fair to people who donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in the majorities morals. Morals have to play some part but they only play a part in getting a feel of what morals are the same in ALL communities (such as stealing is wrong, murder is wrong etc). Abortion, right to die and homosexual marriage are all issues in America because America is predominantly Christian and those are Christian morals. In most other countries Abortion and right to die arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really an issue (homosexual marriage is because the word ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅmarriageÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

If you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you going buy the song in the first place then what gives you the right to download it and play it? It's pretty obvious that if you have downloaded a song and it remains on your hard drive then you enjoy it (remember most companies offer samples of songs, so you can't say your just trying out the song), so why are you not paying for it like every other thing in the universe? Back in the days if you were too poor to afford a luxury you didn't own it, simple. Now people think luxuries such as music are necessities but music has always been something you owned if you had spare money. Young people especially have the view that technology is a necessity not the three important ones: food, water and shelter, anything else if a luxury. What you seem to be forgetting that people who make music for ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâartÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ are not apart of RIAA; RIAA is a collection of businesses out to make money by selling music, not art. No artist would willingly join a RIAA label but would rather release albums through independent or a non-RIAA label (there are surely ones out there). The reason RIAA sues people for copyright infringement is not because they are evil but because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what its members want. The record labels and the artists on those record labels want to sue you. Without artists and therefore without labels that have artists, the RIAA is nothing because they wont have a music collection to monitor for copyright infringement. The RIAA are not suing you for owing your friends album on mp3, they are suing you for downloading Britney Spears or Nelly illegally. They are protecting their members and not music in general; music for art and music for RIAA are two different things.

It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter if IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m selling it; the argument still stands even if IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m giving it away. The company will sue me for misrepresentation and use of their trademarks regardless if I make a profit or not. Do you really think they will leave you alone if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re giving it away? The point here was that you pay for the intangible product at a movie theatre. I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that you solely pay to watch the movie, of course you pay for use of seats and building rent etc. but the point is you also pay money for something intangible (the movie itself). The movie theatre does not get movies for free and in return charges you for this intangible product but when you suddenly get an intangible product from the internet it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t count. The cost of the movie reel or c.d. is insignificant compared to what it stores; shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you be willing to pay for the price of a c.d. minus the cost of c.d. and packaging instead of completely refusing to pay? There are services that offer mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like Itunes, they offer the same thing as P2P so how come they expect you to pay for the songs? What are you talking about? All the samples (within reason, sure there might be a few that were misplaced but you know what I mean) work on Amazon.com and the quality is in general ALMOST as good as an mp3. Most mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (non lossless) are horrible anyway so something a bit worse doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hurt as much as the initial quality hit of 192kbit. I could probably find 5 or 6 albums I can stream by artists I listen to and probably get a whole bunch of mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s legally from them and the quality is just as good as the 128kbit or 192kbit songs you download and listen with your horrible Ipod earphones. Like the samples, the mp3ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s you download are like an advert without colourÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ because it is inferior to the c.d. version. When does an advert ever play a song from an album in full and offer you a copy for personal use? In a matter of fact when do you ever see a company give away their complete product and say you can pay for it if you like it? Never otherwise people would just take the product and not pay; surely this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a smart way to make money. How about not paying a doctor or lawyer for their service? Not all stores sell tangible products and I bet you that you will be chased and have the cops called on you if you try to make a runner. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between this and something ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâvirtualÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, the doctor spent the time talking to you much in the same way an artist spent their time making a song for you. No I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see the difference; you are still violating their property rights by the fact that the owner does not have control (which access is a part of) of his/her work. Your example doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t work because this is a public forum which you signed an agreement and understood the rules in which this forum operates. So long as I quote to you within this forum and under the rules we agreed to it is perfectly fine. Now if I reproduced your article elsewhere without permission then it is stealing. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s exactly what I said, read the quote. They should be taking it from the perspective that people who steal physical things have no problems downloading songs rather then the other way around. In this case it would be somewhat factual and point out that thieves donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t discriminate between the things they steal; they just take advantage of a situation. Much like what you are doing except they do it far more often and on a wider variety of things.

steal Audio pronunciation of "stealing" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl) v. stole, (stl) stoÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷len, (stln) stealÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ing, steals v. tr. 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. So it would be ok for me to go out to the country and build a house on someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s large property because hey I wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to buy the block of land and I'm not taking anything away from the owners because they don't use it. They still own the land and all but there is just a house on it that I'm using saves me having to buy my own piece of land. Another example would be using someone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s trademark. Would it be ok to bottle my own drinks as Coca-cola, Pepsi etc. and sell them to people? The other company is not losing any money because trademarks are intangible. So why do they crack down on people misusing trademarks? Surely stealing something intangible like a trademark is wrong. By the act of downloading you are indeed using the product; I don't care if the product is physical or intangible. By your logic movies at the movie theatre should be free because you might not buy a DVD of the movie; you just want to see a "sample" (i.e. the whole movie) of the movie. I don't think the theatre is just charging you to use their seats. What do you think the real value of a CD is? It only costs then 10 cents to make a CD so why do they put them in security cases and guard them so much. The intellectual property on the CD is worth more then the CD itself and a copy of the mp3 still retains the most expensive part of the CD, the intellectual property. There is no reasonable excuse to download mp3's. You say you heard new bands through mp3's however all music companies provide fair samples of work. Look on amazon.com they have 40 second samples of every track from the album (and in many cases give away whole tracks from albums, or allow you to stream the entire album from their site), which is plenty of time to get a feel for an artistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s music without resorting to stealing their work. I don't have a problem with downloading music but I do have a problem with people trying to ethically justify it. Stealing is stealing no matter what the object your stealing is. I think that people will take full advantage of a situation where possible so I don't blame you for stealing music because it is sitting in front of you. Take a look at New Orleans, people looted that place the moment the town deserted much the same way you are looting music because there is no one to stop you. While I think the article is stupid in claiming youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re more likely to steal however I think the point they are trying to make is if you don't respect intellectual property then that is no different from not respecting other peopleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s property. If you steal goods then you would have no problem downloading albums (I doubt a single thief would disagree with me here), they should take it from that view rather then a more generalised you might steal if you download music.

So what was the idea? Now you can tell us without worrying about anyone stealing it.

According To Forbes http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/10/20/cz_vq_lr_1020fictionalintro.html Harry Potter made about $2.8 Billion Dollars last year. So could you see why I said in the ten's of millions for a t-shirt license. I would doubt they would do a royalty based licensing because there is too much risk involved in giving rights to an unknown individual. You could create inferior products, promote H.P. in a bad light and you could create legal problems (because it is a spoof of another shirt the companies shirt you spoofed will probably attempt to sue you). They wouldn't want to give rights to some amateur because of the popularity of H.P. and the big risk you have of failure. They would much rather give the rights to a company that makes shirts for 30 other brand names as they would have a good track record and know whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s best for the brand. Look, I'm not saying you can't have dreams but you have to be realistic about them. It is almost impossible for an individual to buy into a popular trademark because it requires huge amounts of capital (usually reserved for big companies). The T-shirt market is already very competitive and you don't make very much money from it, take a look at some stores that sell shirts online and you can get a gist of the prices and how much money they are making. If you want some advice on what to do I would suggest store franchising. Have a look at what is starting to become popular and buy into a pre-existing franchise. For example a few years ago when healthy take-away food was new it would have been a great time to start up a subway's store. Not only you stand to make millions, you also have little trouble with financing a franchise because banks can see the success of other franchises that are currently operating. All you need to do is find a good store location and place your franchise on it. If I made a thread and said I want to be the president of the United States and asked how I would go about becoming the president I would have been laughed off the forums. Yet it requires the same amount of ambition to become the president as it would to start from scratch and end up owning an official license to print H.P. shirts. At least I'm giving him facts about how hard it is to do such a thing instead of just flaming and calling him a n00b. We donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t live in a world where we can achieve anything we imagine. We are restricted to what we can do due to the nature of a capitalistic society. Everything revolves around money and if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have it then you have no power to achieve your dreams.

any idea how much these royalties might run? or how i may go about trying to pay them? Wow you still want to make these shirts well your going to need 10's of millions of dollars for a licence to print these shirts. Seriously it's not going to happen, otherwise every H.P. fan would have had their shirt idea made by now. Where do you see places that sell these fan shirts? Nowhere, because it is too damn expensive and the person that owns the copyrights probably wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to license their trademark anyway.

Umm those bands came to play in Sydney (and most probably in Perth too) in the past year or two. Why didn't you see NIN, they were here only a month ago?

If it is a parody of H.P. and not an actual H.P. shirt then it is protected by law. If it is a really really really (I mean really) funny shirt you might be able to sell a shirt design to an online t-shirt store (but they would only accept designs, I doubt they would be interested in "ideas"). Your other ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅoptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

After playing all 5, you always want to come back to settlers 2. Settlers 1 & 2 are the essence of series and are what I always return to playing. Settlers 3 & 4 are a cross between a Settlers 2 and a Warcraft 2 clone done in a semi-3D engine. Basically this is the start of the decline in quality for the series, it still had some elements of the original settler games but focussed less on them. Settlers H.O.K. (5) is a complete ripoff of Warcraft 3 (but I like settlers 5 better because it isn't as cartoon-ish and has horrible voice acting). I don't see the franchise ever returning to the gameplay of Settlers 2 which is a shame because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what made it great (slow place, planning and good transport networking) however I usually end up playing the new version anyway because of the name.

If your depression is due to a bad event then I'm not too sure that you are depressed myself (of course I don't know anything about but I'm going by statistics), lots of kids get that feeling that they are depressed but for most it's a thing you grow out of (especially for someone your age). I don't think you need to be medicated but just someone to talk about it. However if you have been depressed for 6 months or so then I would start to get worried and wouldn't delay seeing a doctor. You might not think there is a reason why you are depressed but it's there. It took me years after the problem to actually understand the cause of it; it is rarely as simple as people make out or that you see on the T.V. I don't see why you have a problem telling your parents, you tell them when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re hungry or when youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re excited or what work your doing at school. What is such a problem with telling them youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re feeling sad? I don't know which country you live in but over here in Australia all you need to do is sign a form to go on government health benefits and you won't get charged and is completely anonymous. As someone above mentioned you could see a school counsellor/nurse/doctor (if you live in a country without free health) as they are just as helpful. Also if you don't get a lot of sleep or go out of the house or eat well often then this could be a cause of your depression. Get outside for some exercise (maybe start a new hobby doing things outdoors, like swimming, bush walking or something) also sleep and eat well are probably my simplest recommendations in the general sense.

I really seem to like John Cage's works. The pieces he writes give off more emotion to me then the more typical types of classical music. You can get a couple of legal mp3's from this site for free (at bottom of page) http://www.epitonic.com/artists/johncage.html Other then that you will be hard pressed to find any more songs of his without buying albums online (I don't seem to find any of his albums in the city where I live).

Most definitions are drummed into you as a child. Why do you know the shirt you are wearing is red and not blue? Everyone has some concept on what it is to be horrible or to be kind. The objective part is how you choose to assign the value of an action (eg. as being good, bad, indifferent etc.) not the definition itself. For example some see killing animals as wrong but if you were a farmer and you killed animals all the time to protect the farm (crops and animals) you may think killing animals is normal regardless of all the people that hate killing animals. So where does absolute morals play into situations like this where it is bad or good depending on whom you are? To me a set of strict morals just don't work.

Why are you desperate might I ask? Things arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to be magically perfect for you once a girl is willing to go out on a date with you. Your 15 and any relationship you form is not likely to go anywhere as you both of you are immature, change and grow a brain quite quickly. My advice for you would not to get a girlfriend but to create friendships with girls, the experience talking and acting around female friends will help for when you want a more personal relationship when you get a bit older (like 17 or so). If you just want intercourse well itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not going to happen. Females can smell a desperate person a mile away, sorry. At your age there is nothing to gain from a girlfriend that you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t get from just being friends with girls and your hand. (P.S. With spelling and grammar like that I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see how anyone could take you seriously. It only takes two extra keystrokes to turn 1 into one, at the very least donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t abbreviate words)

See my first post on the subject, basically if the opposite gender isn't enjoying what you are doing you better change your action otherwise you are not having kids with them. Not to mention you will probably get assaulted by someone defending their spouse from your distasteful advances on them. It's all trial and error, you hit someone and they run away to hide. You know next time not to hit them if you want them to hang around you.

I'm sorry if it didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make complete sense I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t literally mean no God. How could people live by Christian morals if there was no scripture, messiah or promotion of the religion (in effect there was no God for these people regardless if he was there or not as he had no ability to communicate his presence) for which to tell the people how they should behave? You may as well just say the invisible force of Evolution made them act that way and later on Charles Darwin wrote a book about it. Do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m that ignorant of Christian beliefs? After all God creating the universe is probably the most told story from the bible, do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve lived my life without hearing that story? Stop dodging the questions and flaming me over some minor detail, I probably wouldn't be able to write the rest of my reply if I didn't at least know a little about Christianity. Ohh yeah how many other religious texts have you read bits of? Jewish, Muslim Mormon, Scientology etc. Ohh but everyone has to read the bible. I know more about Christianity then you give me credit for, maybe I even participated in it? Gasp.

I don't really claim to do good things, I just do things. If you perceive them to be good, then they are good. If you perceive them to be bad, well then they are bad. This is the part in where I feel your argument fails. You can't get morals from "Herd instinct" alone because we don't 100% rely on instinct. If we were unable to reason and perceive then I would agree with you that you can't possibly develop the moral system we have from instinct. However instinct is not the only thing we rely on to make decisions, we use instinct in combination with reason and perception. There is never a time for self-sacrifice (it goes against our instinct to preserve our life for one thing) I don't think there are many situations where self-sacrifice is the morally correct thing to do (e.g. one of the few examples for self-sacrifice is for organ donations if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re terminally ill which occurs a fair bit). Please explain to me why sacrifice is morally just. This is beside the point anyway, you lump evolution and survival of the fittest in the same category of instinct when they are completely different concepts. By the way why do you think we can't get moral's from nature, after all we got minds to think for ourselves from nature, it's not like the brain isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t made up of stuff from nature. Moral values can come out of evolution and is quite easy to verify by just from looking at the population as a whole. For example If you wanted a life partner would you look for someone that: A. Is nice to you and treats you with respect B. Makes your life a living hell C. Might just kill you for no reason The vast majority of people would choose A. and as a result are more likely to find a partner to have offspring and hence survive. It is all about maximising potential partners and choice A. would be a good choice because it creates more opportunities rather then the harm B. and C. will have. You can also be B. or C. (and there are people who like options B. and C. over A.) but you are less likely to find a suitable partner and hence less likely to survive. The qualities that we want in other people depend entirely on our DNA. For example you might not think someone who regularly cuts your skin open with a knife is a good partner but if our DNA was different and gas built up under our skin regularly and the only way to get rid of it is slowly through a cut (or risk dying from your skin bursting) then having a partner that released the gas for you would be a desirable trait. This is just an example which turns a negative trait into a positive one due to evolution. Can you tell me one trait that the majority of people look for in partners which is harmful rather then beneficial for survival? If you can find one of these negative traits then it is a sure sign that evolution is not the only answer, which brings me to the next part. Another determining factor of morals is, as you put it social convention. This is similar to evolution as if you follow the social convention then you are even more likely to find a partner. If it is ingrained on every mans mind that blonde women are the best then being a blonde woman is going to get you further then not being blonde. But being blonde isn't going to get you far in all parts of the world where culture is different. Maybe having long straight black hair is good; it is all relative to the culture. That being said a Nazi society is just as morally acceptable as any other society. It may be repulsive to you but I bet all the NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s thought being a Nazi was the best thing ever otherwise why would they want to be NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s in the first place? It's not like God said being a Nazi is good in Germany until the world decides it's bad, it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make sense. It also doesn't make sense that there was a civilisation before Christianity. According to you that there is no right or wrong without God, how could people have lived before Christianity; it would have been full of random murders and neglect and we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have seen anything as organised as a city. How about all the cultures that are not Christian how did they get their morals to be so similar to ours. There are probably a couple more that I have forgotten about but letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s see what you have to comment on about this.

- Yeah this was in 1995 two years before square. FF7 is horrible compared to Toy Story. this is an actual ingame shot You shouldn't compare screen shots from different genre's. Goldeneye is known to be just as bas as Quake1 in the visual department. Try something it's own size like Baldurs Gate 1. This looks just as good as FF7. I think Baldurs Gate, Ice Wind Dale and Planescape Torment would like to have a word to you, pretty amazing stories and artwork if you ask me (These are D&D style games).

cant destroy matter without destroying energy also. matter is energy, just a different form. Yes you can destroy matter but you can't destroy energy (see nuclear fusion/fission which releases radiation in return for a smaller atomic mass). Energy from destroyed matter just thins out, like spreading a bit of butter across a piece of toast, the butter isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t gone but it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t in one large clump anymore. E=mc^2 is an equivalence equation for both energy and matter. Might I state that you can have energy without mass (e.g. messenger particles such as photons). An Objects momentum is stated as: E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 (this equation is especially useful for relativistic objects such as photons compared to the approximation p=mv which many people understand momentum as) Substitute 0 for mass and it turns out: E = pc or E/c = p Which means mass-less objects can carry momentum and also have an energy value associated with it.

Oh, come on dude. Tokyo Game Show? Being held in Japan? Yeah? In four days. Nintendo's president Iwata will deliver a speech, unveiling new info on the Revolution. It's also something to look forward to by Playstation fanboys, since a trailer will be shown of Metal Gear Solid 4 running on actual PS3 hardware (no pre-rendered stuff, in other words) and will give some info on it. Not to mention Microsoft's Robbie Bach will also deliver a keynote speech and have playable games at TGS so it's going to be an exciting week for console news.

http://secondlife.com/whatis/ What is Second Life? Overview Second Life is a virtual world - a 3D online persistent space totally created and evolved by its users. Within this vast and rapidly expanding place, you can do, create or become just about anything you can imagine. Built-in content creation tools let you make almost anything you can imagine, in real time and in collaboration with others. An incredibly detailed digital body ('Avatar') allows a rich and customizable identity. A powerful physics simulation running on a backbone of hundreds of connected computers and growing with the population allows you to be immersed in a visceral, interactive world that as of April 2005 covers more than 12,000 acres and 20,000 owned plots of land. The ability to design and resell 3D content, combined with the ability to own and develop land and a microcurrency, which can be exchanged to real money means that you can build a real business entirely within Second Life. http://spore.ea.com/ http://www.gamespy.com/articles/595/595975p1.html A few months ago, Will Wright's presentation of Spore at the Game Developer's Conference absolutely floored us. Imagine a game that starts with single-celled microorganisms and allows you to control the evolution of a species all the way to galactic conquest. I'm not too sure what you are trying to describe since you were a little vague but I think these games may be similar to the one youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re thinking about. To put it simply, no matter what idea youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve had it's probably been pitched before. Not to mention coding a game is extremely hard you really need a university degree to start coding it. Even then you need dozen's of people to help out with things such as visuals, sound and the game engine. It would cost you millions to make a game in the same quality as WoW or EQ2. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve even had an idea for a game where it would be an MMO where your main sources of income is by building buildings while you also destroy the enemies. Basically a few corporations that battle it out with each other to dominate the construction business. It sounds a little odd but who wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have fun blowing up buildings or escorting shipments of supplies or finishing that construction contract for a mounted machine gun on a building before enemy re-enforcements come. It might be fun to think up about ideas for games but unless you are willing to dedicate yourself to years of work to learning to program and creating a program that might not even make any money or get any interest whatsoever you should just keep it to your imagination. Even now IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m having trouble writing a program to solve a maths equation (getting rounding errors), I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t honestly imagine what kind of problem I would have programming a game. But if you really want to make a game read tutorials on how to program in C++, when you start to see how much there is to even to say hello I think you'll quickly change your mind.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=178372530&p=y78373345 Australia will send $10m (ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì6.1m) and a team of 20 disaster experts to the US to help with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the prime minister John Howard said today. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThere should not be an assumption that because America is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a major challenge and a major crisis,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

They still had to take somethingawful.com down :( However the point that they are still out there when the place is in ruins with high crime and no food and petrol is beyond amazing for anyone in a 1st world country. It also brings up the point that many people living in the 3rd world live in desolate hell holes and yet they still carry on with living. Apart from the initial loss of life from the flood I don't see the place too much different from the poor parts of the 3rd world. We should be counting ourselves lucky that we would never have to face this kind of living.

My aim here is not to persuade you because this is all opinion after all but I will try and explain my ideas in a little better detail then my always cryptic and lazily written posts. Raising conscious beings for the purpose of testing medicins on them is unethical in my eyes - they have a right to exist, to feel emotion and to be intelligent. One cannot deny them these rights, this would be a violation of the human rights act signed by the UN. Notice how you said unethical in your eyes; almost everyone a few hundred years ago (even the U.N., if it existed that is) would have thought it would be unethical to give women, black and gays equal rights but you only need to go back to our parents/grandparents before you start to see this discrimination. People once thought it would be wrong to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâmixÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ with the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâinferiorÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ races maybe in the future we will come down another step from our ladder of self-righteousness and allow ourselves to be experimented upon. After all what puts up above animals, they too are just creatures wondering the earth like us. I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see this happening anytime soon but with the advances of genetic technology and the downfall of religious extremism found in places such as America, maybe we could come to an agreement that not all people have the right to a life. After all, the only thing you need to do is not have a child in order to deny someone the right to a life. Would it be such a stretch to say that keeping someone locked up and unaware of the environment around them would be similar to letting your genetic information go to waste by not having children? After all the outcomes for both would be similar, the child would not exist in the conventional sense. Your argument about intelligence being nurture (ie: taught) or an illusion (ie: nonexistant) is flawed. For one, there should have been someone who was intelligent first, and taught this to his/her children. This cannot have been the case - who would have taught him/her he/she was intelligent? It also clashes with people who are mentally handicapped but have mentally healthy children - who taught them that they were intelligent? Another thing, if we have the illusion that we are intelligent, that implies that there must be someone or something who really is intelligent, and able to make that distinction. I daresay you are not going to tell us you are the all-knowing all-seeing person who does so? A bit later you claim that people and/or animals are/seem intelligent because they fit our set of rules for being described and/or thought of as Intelligent. The philosophical debate that should follow here is: is that the same or not? You imply it is not, and therefor this is some kind of failure. I would argue that if someone fits all our so-called criteria for him/her being intelligent, than he/she is so. If you still thought your bird was not intelligent, you must have had a reason to think of it that way, ie a criteria that the bird didn't meet. What about you? Do you think you are only considered intelligent because you meet criteria? What is the difference between someone who truly is intelligent or who fits the criteria? Wouldn't you say that if there is a difference, then our criteria are flawed? And you would have determined that exact flaw if you knew the difference, thus adding another criteria, thus proving that there is no difference between the idea (Plato) 'intelligent' and our word for it? FWIW, this is the argument countless philosophers, Wittgenstein among them, would use against your argument. I'm curious as to your explanation why the word differs from the idea in this case You start off by learning intelligence from the environment around you, so the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâfirstÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ person would learn from the environment and other people. Prehistoric man relied just as much on instinct then knowledge, it has always been conveyed to us in history classes that they discovered things by accident (such as cooking and tool making) after which they would pass down to the next person. If you remove someone from the environment and their parents then they have no to chance to learn anything (at most they will learn that food appears at certain times). You tell me, born and lived in a white padded cell what would you know, what would your behaviour be like and what events will drive your emotions? http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0 Here is a list of children raised by animals and in all cases it describes the child taking on animal characteristics, the most extreme condition would be the Gazelle boy who could run 52-54 km/h. If a person was raised by a white padded cell the most logical conclusion would be they would take on no characteristics of humans/animals they would only have the instinct that everyone is born with. Now considering that we know that animals can think and convey emotions like ourselves wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t it be at least fair to place this isolated child at the same level as animals since the main difference between them and us is what we teach our children? In response to the illusion of intelligence well just think about all the information we know and all the stuff out there that we still donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know. We may have a decent understanding of things on the surface but when we get to the fine detail a lot of information is left blank. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more (it appears that) all the intelligence in the world can not save ourselves from the fate of the universe. We are tied to this universe and we are powerless to change the way it works (the laws), we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t just quit the universe and do something else. The laws of the universe seemed to have existed since creation so it begs the question what is the system that creates the rules and the universes, things we may never know. If the universe died would our intelligence be recognisable? Would it still stand against the universe and everything outside of it? To simply put there are few things we do know 100%. As they say death and taxes but I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even be too sure of those things existing in the distant future. There is something that is truly intelligent be it a set of equations or a god or whatever but it exists outside our universe and therefore outside our reality. Animals do have relative intelligence (and yes you could say it is the same intelligence) but do fall short by our standards. For example, my bird could whistle and dance about to mean things like wanting to come out and play but it could never learn and understand the English language to hold a real conversation. Like I said before our intelligence pales in comparison to what we should call intelligence. If you represented our intelligence by a balloon and an animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s intelligence by a golf ball and walked you walked few thousand light years away, they would both look like tiny dotÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s practically useless to try and determine which one is bigger because they look exactly the same. What if my criteria for intelligence was, having (as a collective) a complete understanding of the universe and all possible understanding to anything outside it, I would not say it is a flawed definition since it is the limit of everything we could know. As a matter of fact none of us are truly intelligent by the criteria yet it does not mean we still canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make the criteria since we will know that we will know everything when the ability to research further is completely exhausted (i.e. data collected on everything in the universe to a perfect resolution and a 100% accurate model to describe it). Now, if the user enters a word ("Apple") in the prompt, this code will fail horribly - you can't calculate the faculty of a number (and the variable type wouldn't fit, but that's a bit hard to explain if you know nothing about programming). In other words, this small program has a bug. It doesn't always work correctly. Now, a simulation should always work correctly. You argue that it may not, to which my answer would be: make better simulations. If it doesn't work, it's not good enough. I work in software development projects. I know it's hard, and with big projects even impossible, to make bug-free code, and that some bugs go unnoticed for a long time. This is a live-and-learn situation. You cannot prevent that from happening, not even with animal testing. As research progresses, simulations become more and more accurate, to an extent that they will provide more certainty than animal testing. For this we should research, it's the only thing that will make medicins better than they are now - you cannot improve living beings, but it's quite easy to improve codes or other simulations. (I can understand simple code since I study computational science [using programming to solve scientific problems]) That is the problem with computer simulation is either too perfect (It canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t account for the uncertainty that is inherent in nature) or that it is programmed with an ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâequationÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ that is indeed inaccurate itself. It is currently technically impossible to code some sort of chaos into the computer system and we are forced to use pseudo random number generators by using a set of equations and seeds, it may be impossible to decipher the original seed but the point remains that randomness on the computer is a set of instructions which does not mimic the nature of reality. The equations we have might work for nice simple things for example NASA can use Newtonian mechanics to land a shuttle on Mars pretty accurately but the equations itself are horribly wrong. A computer simulation can not simulate the condition that over time an animal will form a reaction to a foreign chemical since all it can do is a lookup of all the know combinations of chemicals and determine that the chemical is indeed safe. But all animals are dynamic and things in the future may spark some sort of problem which is overlooked by the program. To be honest I have never heard of a program that is able to simulate something as dynamic as nature (otherwise it would have been adopted by everyone). Why would people continue animal testing if there were a better, cheaper and more reliable alternative available? This is what it boils down to as there would be no logical reason for animal testing to continue or even be let alone be legal. That's an unfair comparison, you do have an idea what it could do to you - it was developed as a cure, there is a reasonable theoretical explanation as to what it would do. It's not a subject X or something like that... Even if it wasn't thoroughly tested, lots of people would use medicins that may cure them as opposed to resigning to the fact that they will have to live with their illness forever or even die because of it. Ok what happens if someone discovers a new pigment of colour which blows everyone else out of the water (there was a time when you were restricted to certain colours for things like cloth dyes), you would have no idea if it caused a reaction or even worse caused a permanent injury since it is new and experiments have not been done on the chemical. Do you just release the product and hope for the best or do you test it on subjects for a reasonable period of time to be certain of its safety? Hum. I don't understand what the last sentence in this paragraph has to do with the former two. Yes, intrinsic value is a somewhat emotional thing. You have to accept that humans have emotion, it is part of us, part of our brain, our thinking, our entire life. You cannot ignore the fact that humans have emotion, that's irrational Yes but the point is we shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t force ideaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s on others if you know your opinion is a bias one. For example I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care if it is found animal testing is good or bad since I have nothing to lose emotionally from it. However if it is someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s job to test on animals or your one true passion to go out and save injured animals you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t expect that your opinion is going to be the absolute truth or even remotely close to it. Objectivity generally gives you better clarity on the issue (the reason why we have sport umpires from a neutral country or you send your complaint to a court) and you should at least try to reason with the opposition before making any judgement. I have written essays about issues from the point of view of the opposition and gave conclusions in favour of the opposition (even though I remain completely unconvinced by their arguments). I feel it helps you understand why you choose your opinion and why they choose theirs and makes you research and critically examine the flaws in your arguments which you might completely overlook if your are passionate about the subject. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t completely remove emotion but you can take steps to reduce its bias. (By the way that paragraph was addressed to the person who I quoted and was more about some simple advice rather then a single point)

They are not saying 'no pets' what they are saying is that people should get pets, but not if they are going to neglect them. To often are animals being left in extreme conditions, being caged all day, leashed up with not attension, abused, and not fed properly. They are not saying Hey everyone let your beloved animals go into the wilderness, because we can't treat them like slaves. Its so sad, that in todays world there are idiots breeding animals for cash, when there are so many animals overpopulating shelters and pounds all across the world, and these people are only producing more, The animals in the shelters are just as capable of giving love and affection that a 'pure bred' animal could give. Its horrible. Wait a minute here! And the Meat and Dairy industries DONT!? That is exactly what they do, just on a much more enourmous scale! Go out what do you see, Hamburgers on billboards, McDonalds luring kids in with their playgrounds and toys everywhere, and the ever so popular celebrity endorsed "got milk?" adds on television. If Peta is so guilty for putting out the message that there are more healthier and compassionate alternatives to Meat and Dairy, then The Meat and Dairy industrys are so much more to blame for using propaganda, or feeding information into kids. Comon man, i don't know about the rest of the people, but im kinda questioning where you are getting your info... after all this guy is pro- testing on humans that are in a coma... :roll: YIKES! Do you really think I'm making this up to be cool or something? :roll: Here are some quote I got (first google search I done searching for the info). "In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners? "I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâí enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223. "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50. "In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals. "You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990. ... and so on and so on, you can clearly see they don't want you having a pet. For the targeting of kids. Date October-November, 2001 The News Story: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) targets elementary school children with a campaign to persuade them to give up milk. PETA also hands out trading cards citing negative health effects of drinking milk such as obesity, flatulence, acne and excess mucous. Media Coverage: Numerous TV, radio and newspapers across Ontario. Our Registered Dietitian's Response * As a Registered Dietitian, I support Health Canada's recommendation of eating 2 to 4 servings of Milk Products every day as a part of a balanced diet. * Milk has energy and 15 essential nutrients. It's packs a lot of nutritional power. * What children drink is important to their health. A recent study in the US shows that drinking milk resulted in children meeting their recommended intakes of vitamin A, folate, B12, calcium and magnesium.(1) * Children, especially pre-teens and teens, are at a critical point in their bone development. Milk is the gold standard food for building bones. Milk has 6 bone-building nutrients - calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein, magnesium, and phosphorus. Key Messages For Your Clients Credible medical and health organizations all support the consumption of milk, including Dietitians of Canada, National Institute of Nutrition, Canadian Pediatric Society and the Canadian Medical Association. To rebut specific trading cards: Obesity (Chubby Charlie) * Individual foods don't make people fat. This is an issue that is affected by other lifestyle factors such as physical activity. * A recent study in the International Journal of Obesity concluded that children with higher intakes of calcium and milk had lower body fat.(2) Lactose Intolerance (Windy Wanda) * There are varying degrees of lactose intolerance. Many lactose-intolerant people can drink small amounts of milk with meals spread throughout the day.(3) Cheese and yogurt, which contain very little lactose, are also good choices. Acne (Pimply Patty) * There's no scientific proof linking individual foods to acne.(4)(5) Other factors like genetics, skin type, hormones and pollution play a part in causing acne. Acne can also be made worse by stress, too much heat and touching the face.(6) Mucous (Lougie Louie) * Studies have shown that drinking milk does NOT cause mucous production.(7) Higher-fat milk and soy beverages may create the illusion of more mucous in the mouth due to their full-bodied texture.(8) * Researchers in Australia showed that people who believed milk causes mucous were more likely to report these symptoms. These people were given two drinks - one soy-based, the other milk-based - with similar flavour and texture. Participants reported similar symptoms regardless of the drinks.(9) From: http://www.nutritionthatworks.org/hp/nutrition/news_nutr-archive.html and here is a news article about it http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1076 It is one thing to promote healthy eating but it is another to completely lie and give children the idea that the reason they are fat, have acne etc. is because of dairy products. Foods that are advertised (eg. Mc DonaldÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) are free to say what they like much in the same way as veggie-burgers are allowed to be advertised. They are however not allowed to lie about their products which from the above you can clearly see they do. Before you call me a liar again please take the time to actually google the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅfactsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ