ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Bljak, crvi, ja ću ostati na bubama. Bube makar mogu u fritezu

demit!!!!

vienna this morning.

Vegetarijanci s Tajlanda sebi probadaju obraze sabljama, pištoljima i modelima brodova

Roštiljaju.

 

Nema pravde. Crnka je bila lepša od plavuše i pre trideset godina, kao što će biti i za trideset godina. A možda će, opet za razliku od nesrećne plavuše, za trideset godina samo ona biti živa.

Ali od kada je duzina zivota bilo kakav argument bilo kome? Osim Mehmetu.

Najdželina slika je stara, odnosno, iz mlađih dana. Mada je uvek bila lepa, naročito kad sve u kujni radi golim rukama. Ova druga je sigurno zdravija, zasićena vlaknima i micelijama i blago onome s kime živi. Neće je oplakivati, kao Najdželu Najdželin.

Valjda je jasno da je privlačnija Gillian 

Dobro, eto ti je pa jedite kupusa, a Najdžela i ja ćemo se već snaći.

kakva manipulacija fotkama i rečima, dođavola 

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 15-11-2012, 22:08:13
Valjda je jasno da je privlačnija Gillian 

Meni njen osmeh uliva strah. Dobro je dok se drži voća i povrća.

Krampe su uvek krampe makar na livadi pasle maslačak 

Crnka, nasuprot, je -Wow

Slabo se ovde ceni karakternost koju život iskleše, vidim ja.

Sad se ne šalim : Nigella deluje umiljato, sva je kao sočna jabuka (ne neko meso), dok Gillian ima leden pogled, šiljat nos i neprijatno istaknute zube, morala bi me delima uveriti da njen karakter nema veze sa onim što njeno lice kazuje.

Odavno nisam videla ovako veštu manipulaciju, zaista. Samo čitam komentare i brojim uspehe autora u izazivanju mržnje prema vegatarijancima i ženama, ženama u godinama, ženama vegetarijankama, "podlim ženama sa šiljatim nosem", "ružnim" ženama... a da proslave "ženstvenost", "žensku lepotu", "žensku umiljatost", mesožderstvo, nikotinožderstvo, alkoholožderstvo itd.

Ovo je pre svega podla nameštaljka ženama, sa namerom da se jave žene i opljuju ovu "stariju", "ružniju", "zdraviju" (pa samim tim i "iritantniju"), a da podrže muškarce u tvrdnji da je ženina jedina uloga da bude lepa i sluša muškarce (otelotvorene u nezdravom načinu života).

Fuj.

Zašto je Najdželina ishrana nezdrava. Fora je samo u načinu pripreme hrane i u njenoj količini, kao i u fizičkoj aktivnosti.

MOj deda 80 godina doživeo, mesožder i pio alkohol, ženina baka, 84 godine doživela a od 16 puši cigare.

Quote from: D. on 16-11-2012, 00:31:36
Odavno nisam videla ovako veštu manipulaciju, zaista. Samo čitam komentare i brojim uspehe autora u izazivanju mržnje prema vegatarijancima i ženama, ženama u godinama, ženama vegetarijankama, "podlim ženama sa šiljatim nosem", "Ružnim" ženama... a da proslave "ženstvenost", "žensku lepotu", "žensku umiljatost", mesožderstvo, nikotinožderstvo, alkoholožderstvo itd.

Ovo je pre svega podla nameštaljka ženama, sa namerom da se jave žene i opljuju ovu "stariju", "ružniju", "zdraviju" (pa samim tim i "iritantniju"), a da podrže muškarce u tvrdnji da je ženina jedina uloga da bude lepa i sluša muškarce (otelotvorene u nezdravom načinu života).

Fuj.

Не разумем шта се ти буниш. Јбт, овде на форуму ти се према женама понашаш и обраћаш им се као да сте равноправне или с висине или просто - вређаш.

С друге стране, према извесном броју (малом, додуше) мушкараца или си веома опрезна у опхођењу чак и кад се не слажете или им се бесрамно увлачиш. Тако се не понашаш ни према једној жени, према њима се у најбољем случају односиш као да сте равноправне.

Дакле, твоје "мишљење" кад су (полне) манипулације у питању потпуно је лицемерно.

Најџела је добра риба, ова друга делује зло. Крај приче.

Sliku nisam ja napravio samo sam je okačio, možda je i neka žena kreator iste.

Quote from: Barbarin on 16-11-2012, 01:01:19
Sliku nisam ja napravio samo sam je okačio, možda je i neka žena kreator iste.

možda, ali žene se od malih nogu uče da su jedna drugoj konkurencija.

Samo ako su ih mame učile tako.

A što se tiče starosti na slikama, ukucajte sami imena u googlu i odaberite da vam se prikažu samo slike, pa sami prosudite. A možete otići i na Najdželin sajt gde ima sveže snimljenih recepata

Quote from: Barbarin on 16-11-2012, 01:10:11
Samo ako su ih mame učile tako.

ova izjava, zapravo, ide meni u prilog, a ne tebi.

Ja nisam napisao ni za čije priloge, to je tako.

ne znači ništa to što si napisao?

Quote from: D. on 16-11-2012, 01:10:58

Quote from: Barbarin on 16-11-2012, 01:10:11
Samo ako su ih mame učile tako.

ova izjava, zapravo, ide meni u prilog, a ne tebi.

Meni lično ne znači ništa. Ako neka žena gleda kako druga izgleda i ogovara je, to je od nekog videla, pa sad dal od bake, mame, tetke, strine, od neke rodbine muškog roda vrv nije, moguće i da jeste al sumnjam da je to uticalo nešto posebno, al žene kad se upoređuju i međusobno ogovaraju je strašno, išao sam u gimnaziju pa znam kako to izgleda, al znam i da nisu sve žene iste i da ima onih koje zabole peta šta se o njima priča iza đoška.

Jao, D. ! Tako si me pogrešno razumela ! Verujem da tvoja osećanja ne dopuštaju da ono što ću reći dopre do tebe, ali da pokušam :
-starost, sama po sebi, nije ružna, pa ni tzv. ružnoća nije prosto ružna
-ono što smatramo zdravim životom ne daje nužno rezultate, ima nečega i u nasleđu, a još više u našem doživljaju vlastitog života
- karakter se vidi, naše lice i telo govore ko smo i nema tako glupog muškarca koji će se u pogledu ženine ''lepote'' prevariti, samo ako je zaista pogleda- tu kozmetika i fotošop ne pomažu
- nije nam svaka žena konkurencija, već samo ona sa kojom se poredimo
-ne svode se svi odnosi među ljudima na muško-ženske i odnose manipulacije

Mene tvoji ispadi gneva ne vređaju, ne napreži se da mi odgovaraš.

meni se čini da si "gnevnija" od mene, jer ja se nisam nikome konkretno obratila, nikome na ličnom nivou, rekla mu/joj da ne vidi od "osećanja", optužila za gnev...

jednostavno, fotka je manipulativna i normalno je da ljudi nasedaju.

a ovo "nije nam svaka žena konkurencija, već samo ona sa kojom se poredimo", to mi je pomalo smešno, pa ću ovako "gnevna" da izbegnem preganjanje u nedogled. 

 

Pustite te vaše apstraktne rasprave nego dajte još malo Gillianinih slika, taman sam završio sa doručkom (soja burger sa povrtnim prilozima u integralnoj lepinji) i spreman sam za malo samozadovoljnog programa! Lepo je biti sam u kancelariji!

Šta će ti Gillian? Gledaj svaki dan u ogledalo i kad napuniš 51. videćeš je.

Ono jeste, sise su mi sve prominentnije. To je od te soje koja podstiče lučenje estrogena.

rucam!!!

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 16-11-2012, 16:02:38
Ono jeste, sise su mi sve prominentnije. To je od te soje koja podstiče lučenje estrogena.

Gledaj u manje ogledalo.

 

Indija: Ko jede meso - postane lopov i silovatelj

Vegeterijanci već odavno upozoravaju na štetan uticaj mesa po zdravlje ljudi, ali su autori jednog indijskog udžbenika za osnovce otišli korak dalje, upozoravajući đake da će konzumiranjem mesa postati lažovi, lopovi, pa čak i silovatelji.

Neobična moralna pouka sadržana je u udžbeniku za 11-godišnjake sa uputstvima za održavanje zdravlja i higijene, kako tela tako i duha.

U odeljku o ne-vegeterijancima, autori navode da osobe koje jedu meso "lako slažu, još lakše prevare i zaboravljaju dato obećanje". "Ti ljudi su nepošteni i govore ružne reči, kradu, tuku se i odaju se nasilju i čine seksualne zločine", ističe se u knjizi.

U delu posvećenom braku, koji je, takođe, izazvao kontroverzu u javnosti, ženama se savetuje da nađu muža između 18. i 25. godine, jer će time "izbeći ogovaranja".

Uprkos duboko ukorenjenoj kulturi vegeterijanstva i verskoj zabrani konzumiranja goveđeg mesa, Indijci sve više jedu meso.

Prema podacima Organizacije Ujedinjenih nacija za hranu i poljoprivredu, prošlogodišnja potrošnja mesa u Indiji je iznosila oko 5,5 kilograma po glavi stanovnika, što je dosad najveća količina od kada su počela ova merenja.

Sad bar znamo ko će u kafani da siluje, a ko da bude silovan. I, čuvajte tašne i džepove.

PETA je poznata po bizarnim nastojanjima da privuče pažnju, ali ovde su u pravu: ćurke stvarno nisu ništa skrivile pa da bi sad trebalo da budu "pomilovanje"   PETA to Obama: Don't Pardon Turkeys 

Quote
It's a White House tradition with a century and a half of history behind it, but PETA is asking the White House to skip it this year.
Tomorrow President Obama is set to pardon two turkeys - Cobbler and Gobbler - just as every president since George H. W. Bush has. The tradition finds its roots in a moment of sympathy Abe Lincoln's son, Tad, had for their table's turkey back in the 1860s.
Now Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, says the turkey pardon has got to go.
"It makes light of the mass slaughter of some 46 million gentle, intelligent birds and portrays the United States' president as being in some sort of business partnership with the turkey-killing industry," Newkirk wrote in a letter sent to President Obama today. "Turkeys do not need to be 'pardoned'-they are not guilty of anything other than being born into a world of prejudice. They are innocents who should be respected for who they are: good mothers, smart birds, and interesting animals."
"You understand so well that African-Americans, women, and members of the LGBT community have been poorly served throughout history," Newkirk writes, "and now I am asking you to consider other living beings who are ridiculed, belittled, and treated as if their sentience, feelings, and very natures count for nothing."
Those are turkeys she's talking about.
When asked if the comparison of turkeys with minority Americans was a little extreme, PETA spokesperson Ashley Byrne answered that turkeys feel pain and fear, just like humans.
"Everyone deserves to be free from suffering, and that includes turkeys," Byrne said.
So will the White House forego the fowl tradition and opt for Tofurkey? Not likely.
Last year PETA similarly took issue with the term "pardon," asking the White House to say "spare" instead. But the White House went along with its usual use of the p-word .
Byrne said this Thanksgiving gives Obama a new opportunity to connect with his constituency and go vegan like another Democratic president - Bill Clinton - who gave up his beloved hamburgers, all meat in fact, for health reasons after leaving office.
"With more Americans than ever cutting meat out of their diets, we hope that the president could see this as a way to get with the times," Byrne said.

Dakle, vegetarijanci koji su to isključivo iz etičkih razloga, imaće uskoro (?) prilike da jedu guilt-free meso:

Inside the meat lab: the future of food

Quote
With billions of mouths to feed, we can't go on producing food in the traditional way. Scientists are coming up with novel ways to cater for future generations. In-vitro burger, anyone?

The future feast is laid out around a cool white room at Eindhoven's University of Technology . There is a steak tartare of in-vitro beef fibre, wittily knitted into the word "meat". There are "fruit-meat" amuse-gueules. The green- and pink-striped sushi comes from a genetically modified vegetarian fish called the biccio that, usefully, has green- and pink-striped flesh. To wash this down, there's a programmable red wine: with a microwave pulse you can turn it into anything from Montepulciano to a Syrah. For the kids, there are sweet fried crickets, programmable colas and "magic meatballs". These are made from animal-friendly artificial meat grown from stem cells: packed with Omega 3 and vitamins, they "crackle in your mouth". Yum.
None of this is quite ready to dish up. The meatballs at the Eindhoven future food show are made from Plasticine; the knitted steak, appropriately, from pinky-red wool. But the ideas aren't fantasy. Koert van Mensvoort, assistant professor at the university, calls them "nearly possible". Van Mensvoort – who is also the brains behind nextnature.net, a must-see website for technological neophiliacs – put his industrial design undergraduates together with bio-tech engineers, marketing specialists and a moral philosopher, tasking them to come up with samples of food that is, technologically, already on our doorstep.
The truth, though, is that artificial steak is still a way off. Pizza toppings are closer. The star of the Dutch research into in-vitro meat, Dr Mark Post, promised that the first artificial hamburger, made from 10bn lab-grown cells, would be ready for "flame-grilling by Heston Blumenthal" by the end of 2012. At the time of writing it is still on the back burner. Post (who previously produced valves for heart surgery) and other Dutch scientists are currently working over the problem of how to turn the "meat" from pieces of jelly into something acceptably structured: an old-fashioned muscle. Electric shocks may be the answer.
What's cooking? An example of 'nearly possible' fantasy food. Photograph: Observer
This quest is key to the future of food. It's not what can be done but what we will accept. Some scientists warn that trying to copy the meats humans are used to is futile – another symptom of our ignorant and unsustainable nostalgia about food. "It's simplistic to say 'natural is good', to reject globalisation and hark back to a mythical past when food was still 'true and honest'," says the Dutch intellectual Louise Fresco, a former head of food- innovation research and an advisor to the UN.
"It's the default thing to do, to try and replicate what you know," warns van Mensvoort. "It's not how you innovate. We started with horseless carriages, but in the end what we got was cars. 'Natural' is the biggest marketing scam, and the most successful, of all."
The technological problems of producing the new hi-tech foods are nothing compared to the trouble the industry is having with the consumers – the "yuck factor", as the food technology scientists across the world like to put it. Shoppers' squeamishness has turned the food corporations, from whom the real money for R&D will have to come, very wary, and super-secretive about their work on GM in America. There's energy behind these projects because of the certainty that 9 billion human beings cannot possibly go on eating food, especially meat, produced in the traditional way. The planet can't take it. Dutch food companies need to cater to a population that eats more pork than any other in Europe, but they do not publicly fund Koert van Mensvoort's work at Eindhoven, or any of the artificial-meat research. That's done by the Dutch government.
Van Mensvoort is contemptuous of the food corporations' nervousness, especially when so much is at stake, pointing out that "if the industry sees a word like 'pharmaceutical sushi' they say, 'You can't put our name near that!' They're afraid." I have first-hand experience of this: at a scientific conference on food and nano-technology (engineering at sub-molecular level) an executive from Europe's biggest food company begged me not to print the fact that he was there.
It's all Monsanto's fault. "It was a historic mistake that GMO started with herbicides, and that the US government gave the corporations the freedom to introduce them," says Professor Fresco, who wants to feed not just the rich, but the hungry all across a future world of 9 billion people. Monsanto, the Dr Frankenstein of our time, certainly generated appalling publicity around its callous and careless marketing of GM pesticides in the United States and in India. The public's subsequent collapse of faith in bio-tech science, says Fresco, has not just put the brakes on new foods for the rich world. It's also damaging the fight to end hunger. Hundreds of millions of Africans who depend on an unreliable staple, such as cassava, are deprived of the technology that could make it disease- and pest-resistant. GM rice could raise productivity by 40%.
"African scientists say, 'Don't you dare bar us from this technology,'" says Fresco. There are risks, she agrees, but she believes we're better able to monitor them than ever before. Though the scientists in Holland avoid the term GM, the quiet consensus is that the technology is coming, the world needs it and that Europe needs to get real about it or be left behind.
Could ethical concerns ultimately drive public acceptance of the new food technology? Cor van der Weele, Professor of Humanistic Philosophy at Wageningen University, is convinced that's the case, with artificial meat at least. "People will see the moral benefits of cultured meats. Taking stem cells from a pig rather than killing millions of pigs in factories is already a more attractive idea to consumers." She quotes studies of the viability of growing meat in sunlight-fuelled "bio-reactors" placed in desert areas: the reduction in resources is staggering. "It would require 1% of the land and just 2% of the water that traditional meat production does. And it would involve a 90% reduction in greenhouse gases," she says.
Eating real meat in 2035 could be as morally questionable as eating foie gras – and about as expensive. As Dr Mark Post says: "A meat-eater with a bicycle is much more environmentally unfriendly than a vegetarian with a Hummer."
All we know for sure is that future meals are going to be more expensive, and won't come in a pill. That job is technically impossible: even the Pentagon's battlefield R&D department has given up trying to cram 2,000 calories into one capsule (it would weigh about half a pound). Besides, we like eating. And though the food industry is brilliant at selling us things we don't need, the customer is still king.
This steak is a bit... stringy. An example of 'nearly possible' fantasy food. Photograph: Observer
Our desires in food are laden with paradox. We love novelty, but are transfixed by nostalgia and tradition. We want to pay less while getting ever better quality. We want natural and healthy, though the two are not necessarily the same. We want to eat better than previous generations, but we revere what those generations ate. Nostalgia, neophilia, hypochondria and snobbery drive the hunter-gatherer today, all sauced with deep scepticism about science, supermarkets and the dark machinations of the "food-industrial complex".
None of that seems likely to change over the next 25 years. But what will is the supply of food – more radically than at any time during the 20th century. Climate change and the end of the era of cheap fossil fuels for transport and fertiliser are altering the food system. The world's three most important food crops – rice, wheat and maize – are largely grown in the countries most at risk from rising temperatures, and the predictions are stark. Maize, for a start, can't be grown above 30C.
All food futurologists agree we can't go on eating the way we have. But though the organic lobby is convinced that back to basics could solve the world's problems, no serious scientist believes traditional farming alone will work. And so we will have to accept the new and "unnatural" if we want to stay fed. The public already accepts many things as natural that are not – from the bacteria-generated slime that gives bulk to low-fat mayonnaise to the chemicals that taste more real than the real thing (have a look at the label next time you buy "truffle oil").
Author Josh Schonwald has found US bio-tech researchers are already far ahead with the nutrition of the future. As he reveals in his book, The Food of Tomorrow, the labs at the University of California-Davis are gene-splicing to create "grapes spiked with jellyfish, tomatoes spiked with carp..." and lettuce that will last on the shelf for weeks. There may already be pigs genetically engineered to grow up to five times faster. Notoriously – it was the subject of a Greenpeace campaign – there is a tomato made to last longer by using Arctic flounder genes, while in Israel a lemon basil plant crossed with a tomato has tested well with consumers.
In Schonwald's view, all that the industry awaits is a relaxation of government regulation that will make development of these foods financially feasible. In the course of writing his book, Schonwald was converted. He began as a technosceptic: now he reckons that categorical rejection of GM is "reckless, dangerous and inhumane". It's the promise of adapting crops to get essential vitamins to millions of the poorest children that sold GM to him.
But, historically, hi-tech seems to let down the poor. Chemical fertiliser and pesticide has created dependency and pollution. Medical breakthroughs are for the rich world: drug companies spend more researching erectile dysfunction than they do malaria. But breeding and mutating food species, whether in a lab or on the farm, is the only convincing plan anyone has for feeding the whole world.
Something has to give in our present food culture. It doesn't seem possible that food can ever be as cheap again as it was circa the year 2000. In Western Europe we now spend between 10% and 15% of household income on food – 60 years ago it was 60%. Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at London's City University, says cheap food has been unrealistic, because at the moment we don't actually pay its real price: "We've externalised the costs on to the environment, far-off places and cheap labour throughout food chains."
Population growth alone is going to push up the price of grain; the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation reckons the planet will need to produce 40% more by 2050, while climate change is already affecting the great bread-baskets of the world. Lang has told the UK government that the oil-dependent food culture is over and that trading bio-diversity for food justice "will lead to Armageddon". When the future food arrives, most of us won't have any choice about what we eat.

Moći će da štrikaju hamburgere.

Here It Comes ... The $375,000 Lab-Grown Beef Burger

QuoteIf you take some scientists' word for it, the biggest agricultural revolution since the domestication of livestock is starting on Monday—in an arts center in London. At a carefully orchestrated media event, Dutch stem cell researcher Mark Post is planning to present the world's first test-tube hamburger. Its patty is made from meat that Post has laboriously grown from bovine stem cells in his lab at an estimated cost of $375,000, just to prove a point: that it is possible to produce meat without slaughtering animals.
Some details of Monday's event are still secret, but Ogilvy, the PR agency hired to handle Posts's publicity, says that the meat will be cooked and then eaten by two volunteers in front of an audience of invited journalists. (It also says that Post, who works at Maastricht University, is not available for interviews until then.) Speculation is rife that the anonymous U.S. billionaire who has bankrolled Post's research project will step forward. And of course, there is the biggest question of all: What will the burger taste like?
Artificial meat research has received lots of media attention, yet so far has produced little anyone could actually taste. Scientists in the field are excited but also apprehensive about the upcoming presentation. "The moment could be historic," says Cor van der Weele, a biophilosopher at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, who has done research on public attitudes toward cultured meat. How people react to the stunt will have huge implications for the future of the research, she says. "If anything unexpected happens, it could backfire."
Henk Haagsman, a veterinary researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands who has collaborated with Post, says that he was initially skeptical of the event; now he thinks it may be the right way to grab the public's attention and raise money for research to propel the field forward. However, the spectacle could eclipse the science, he says: "As soon as it turns into a circus for media, people may mix this up with illusionists or magicians."
The idea of culturing meat in the lab is nothing new. In his essay "Fifty Years Hence" published in 1931, Winston Churchill wrote: "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium." Modern-day scientists say they know how to fulfill that dream: Stem cells taken from an animal could be cultured and used to grow millions of tons of meat, Post says. In theory, at least, a couple of animals could feed the world.
The benefits could be enormous. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, global meat consumption may increase from roughly 228 million tons in 2002 to about 465 million tons in 2050. Cultured meat could vastly reduce animal suffering and stop livestock from taking up huge tracts of land and polluting the atmosphere with methane and other greenhouse gases that they emit. In a 2011 study, scientists at the University of Oxford and the University of Amsterdam estimated that cultured meat may need 35% to 60% less energy, occupy 98% less land, and produce 80% to 95% less greenhouse gases than conventional meat. In an interview late last year with ScienceNOW, Post said he realized the potential of lab-grown meat as soon as he heard about it. "The societal impact it could have is way more than any of my biomedical research of the last 25 years."
There are many hurdles, however. Despite several attempts, scientists have not been able to culture embryonic stem cells from cattle, pork, or chicken. "So far, we have embryonic stem cells from mice, rats, humans, and monkeys—and that's about it," Haagsman says. One way forward would be to use small molecules to turn adult cow cells into so-called induced pluripotent stem cells that could be used instead, he suggests.
There are other problems: Cultured meat is now grown in medium with fetal calf serum, a supplement made from blood collected at slaughterhouses; scientists have yet to find an alternative that doesn't involve dead animals. Guiding stem cells to develop into muscle cells only is also a difficult task. And as soon as scientists grow a piece of meat more than half a millimeter thick, it will need blood vessels to supply cells with oxygen and nutrients and keep them from dying. A lab-grown rib eye or sirloin steak, with its complicated architecture of muscle fibers and fat cells, is still decades away, Haagsman says.
Instead, Post has gone for minced meat, produced not from embryonic stem cells but from myoblasts, stem cells found in adult muscle tissue to replace dead muscle fibers. He has grown tiny pieces of beef muscle in petri dishes; according to a press release, 20,000 of these shreds are needed to build a 5-ounce burger patty.
"This is not the way we would produce it in the future," Haagsman, in part because myoblasts' ability to divide is more limited than that of embryonic stem cells. Post also doesn't have an alternative for fetal calf serum yet, and differentiation into muscle cells needs to become more efficient, Haagsman says. "This is more of a demonstration project."
Post isn't the only researcher hoping to relocate meat production from the farm to the lab. Gabor Forgacs, a researcher at the University of Missouri, aims to use 3D printing technology to build bigger pieces of meat from muscle cells. Modern Meadows, the company he founded, announced last year that it had received $350,000 from the foundation of PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.
But in general the field has suffered from "an extreme lack of funding so far," says Van der Weele—which could change after the London event. At the same time, "you could get a general atmosphere that this is a kind of Frankenstein food," she says, adding that much will depend on the words and images the media use to portray the event. To Van der Weele, Monday's burger tasting will not be just an interesting culinary experiment but a psychological one as well.
Kai Kupferschmidt will be live-tweeting from the event. To keep tabs on the latest on artificial meat, follow Kai at @kakape.
A live video feed of the event will be available at www.culturedbeef.net.

Pošto nemam zvučnike, ne znam tačno šta se ovde dešava ali kapiram da je baš za ovaj topik

Mitchell and Webb - Dinner Party

Hm, ima tu nešto onog Skalopovog o toleranciji, al izedoše mačku na kraju, nesrećniče!!! 

Neljudi.

http://banoosh.com/blog/2013/05/29/animal-rights-protest-in-barcelona/

http://www.upworthy.com/this-video-makes-grocery-shopping-feel-like-a-scene-in-a-horror-film-3

Ala smaraju sa tim isečkom iz Samsare, ako je to najjači utisak iz filma onda su autori omanuli, ima toliko boljih stvari.


Sad pogledah ponovo, i primetih jednu stvar, sve one fabrike za proizvodnju mesa su iz Azije, a onda onaj šoping na kraju iz Amerike. Malo paradoksalno, trebalo je da se to snimi u istoj zemlji. Samo što mislim da je u Amerikama zabranjeno snimanje u takvim postrojenjima.

Što se mene tiče šoping i gojazni Ameri su manje-više suvišni.