Google Chrome

Well, I downloaded Google Chrome the other day onto my laptop and have been using it ever since. I don't know why it is, but I really love google "stuff".  My RSS reader, my blogs, my i-google page are all really good and now Chrome has me smitten as well.

Oh, yes, I have been around the web and read what everyone has been saying about it - and it bothers me there is so much negativity.  When Microsoft bought out Vista, it was the same, doom and gloom.  No one had much good to say about it at all, and now they same is happening with Chrome.

Let me tell you some stuff, okay?  First of all, I have tried to download other browsers besides IE7 onto this laptop, I have gone all the way through and at the last minute they say it wont work on my machine.  No explanation, or anything. Grrr....  But Chrome downloaded, and although it took a bit more than the few seconds they said (it was exactly 40 minutes), it works.  

And it is neat and tidy, and it is discrete.  No dialogue boxes.  If Chrome has anything to say to you a little box drops down below the Address bar and asks you the question, then disappears.  It is not obtrusive.  Furthermore if I choose to ignore it, it goes away.  Not like a dialogue box that waits until you have closed it to let you do another things.

The tab system is just so much better than new windows.  New windows spawn a new browser, whereas a new tab does not, therefore it is not chewing extra bandwidth.  

It is fast.  For my laptop, it is quite fast.  Okay, maybe not FTL, but at least when I click on something, I don't have to twiddle my thumbs waiting while the browser decides that it is going to have a really good look at the website, prior to opening it for me.  Nope, Chrome just opens it up and there it is.  

I haven't had it long enough to know if it is as secure as they say it is, but seeing as all the other stuff they bragged about is there, I am working on the assumption the security is there as well.

As I use it, I will keep you informed.

Animal Rights II ....

Aparently the Spanish Government has given the "Great Apes" rights. What this actually entails I am not sure about, because the idea is so ludicrous. Europe is passing alot of strange and stupid laws lately. One country, I think it is Sweden, has given plants "rights". I guess saying this is stupid is not the same as it being stupid.

To give something "rights" automatically means that the thing given "rights" has the capacity to understand those "rights". So I would like someone, obviously a little brighter than myself, to explain how non human creatures/things are capable of understanding "rights"?

How do you explain to a great ape that bashing another great ape to death is not on, because the other great ape has the same right to life as you do? How do you explain to bonobos that child sex is not acceptable when bonobos have sex with their young from a very early age? Child sex is not acceptable to humans, so why should it be acceptable to great apes? And bonobos are considered to be more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.

Great apes are not proto humans. They have never evolved into humans in the past, do you think they will evolve into humans in the future? Why would you think that?

The people who introduce these ideas into a pliant society are misguided. They do the animals no favours and do their society no favours. The animals have no understanding or concept of what are now their "rights", they are an added burden on society, because they can no longer be kept in captivity for a start, nor can they be killed if they develop into pest proportions. They cannot be handled as pets, per se. And I guess if a severe enough drought came and people began to starve, a) the people could not eat the apes, nor b) could allow them to starve, even though people are starving.

Does that mean if a female great ape is having trouble having a baby she can go to hospital?

Do they have the right to form unions?

Do they have the right to a bank account and an ability to earn money?

Can they gather on street corners and hold a protest?

What does giving an animal "rights" really mean?

Anecdotal Evidence ..

It has been a while.

I want to discuss some things about horses that I have observed over a few years. The setting of these "incidents" is within the confines of a farm, even to a paddock. It involves only two horses so far, one of which I owned and the other I saw on a video. The behaviour was so remarkably similar that I have thought about it for a while to come to the basic conclusion that I have.

The "incidents" involve two stallions, one actually a three year old colt, but the other is about eight or nine years old. Both animals were raised very close to humans and have lived as domestic animals all their lives. The older stallion is a breeding animal, the colt was old enough to breed but not the opportunity as he was isolated with just his dam as company.

Both "incidents" involve the motion of rearing, standing on the back legs and walking a few steps. These actions were done voluntarily and in the presence of humans. The stallion was playing around with a human in his yard and involved cantering around his paddock, then going to the human and rearing up next to him. There was no threat in the stallion to the human. The colt was doing the rearing and walking while holding a feed bucket and throwing it around.

The colt would take the bucket by its handles in his mouth, as the handles were the easiest way to hold the bucket. He would rear up and take five or six steps forward. Because of my close interaction with this colt, I really felt that he was imitating the upright walking of humans. When I saw the stallion doing the exact same thing in the presence of his human, I realised he was doing it as well. Showing the human he could walk upright as well.

It may not seem unusual at first that a horse would behave in this way, considering that both animals have spent all their lives with humans. When you think about it deeper, you would realise that it is indeed unusual for an animal to think like this. First of all the action of rearing is not an easy one for a horse. It has a rigid spine (unlike a flexible spine of, say, a cat) and is a grazing animal. Rearing is often seen in young horses as part of their play, both colts and fillies do it. Mares rarely rear once they are adults, although they are still capable of doing it. Well fed domestic mares will rear in play sometimes, but not often. Mares are quieter in that they think mostly of either feeding a foal or just wandering looking for grazing. A stallion in the "wild" will rear as a threatening behaviour towards other stallions/horses. Rearing is used by stallions in fighting as a position of height can allow the stallion to gain an upperhand in a fight and defeat a challenger. These are the main natural uses of rearing in horses. Rearing for no apparent reason other than play just is not usual.

For these two stallions to rear up and actually walk on their rear legs only is very unusual and indicates to me that there is a deal of thought going on with the animals. The imitation of humans this way is unusual. Very few animals other than primates are capable of imitation of humans.

As to why I concluded that this was actually what the two stallions were doing, I must admit I cannot be certain, other than the way the walking was done. And the need for approval of both horses afterwards. My own colt came up to me afterwards and was cocky and acting in his way of telling me he was clever. It is a body language he developed for me. Body language among horses is important as it is their main means of communication.

The other stallion was beside his human when he performed the "incident" and afterwards made some cocky behaviours similar to my colt and then repeated the whole thing. It was as though both stallions needed to know they had been seen doing what they had done and afterwards wanted to know if the act was good to the human opinion.

Thinking and the ability to think is something humans believe is solely their domain. Horses were domesticated as beasts of burden and for transport, particularly during military conflict and speed. An ability to think/reason is not required on the part of the horse. However, both of these stallion do not do alot all day. They have time to think. My colt worked out that he could stand behind a shed when it was feeding time and jump out at me to give me a fright (from not expecting him to do this). He never resorted to biting or kicking when he did this, just jumped out, waited for my reaction and then trotted away, as though he was laughing.

The colt was a registered Thoroughbred, and the stallion is a registered Arabian. Both breeds are reputedly "hot blooded", and the dam of my colt is spooky even though we have tried many things to de-spook her. The colt has since died, although the stallion is still alive.

If this incident had just been my colt doing it, I would perhaps have thought I was a bit one eyed in thinking him smarter than he really was. Having seen another horse act in the same way, when the two animals had never met in any way, shape or form nor was either stallion related to each other in any way. I have never had personal interaction with the stallion. I saw the stallion on a video that appeared to have been filmed from a mobile phone.

Picking on other people's blogs

One of the Blogs of the Month is a delightful blog called "Bonobo Handshake". It is an Australian woman working with Bonobo's in the Congo. The blog is lovely, the Bonobos so really cute and funny. It is a life's work worth supporting and following.

That these people are doing a great job with animals that are or may be soon endangered is not in doubt. Their love for the animals is obvious. Their training and intelligence will most likely save these animals from extinction, all of which is to be mightily applauded.

However.

These are animals, not proto-humans. No matter how close their genetic make-up is to humans, no matter what they do like using tools and having sex for no real reason other than the pleasure of it. If the were proto-humans they would not be bonobos. The would have "evolved" into humans not bonobos. Whatever they do, while smart, will not develop into humankind. No matter how hard we wish for it. Not even in several million years.

Using human anologies for their care may not be the best thing for them, either.

Still, I am not a scientist, so what would I know?

Animal uses in Organic Systems

I have been gardening lately. We use a bit of Permaculture, some Bio-dynamics and potter with what we like. We have 6 and 1/2 acres here, which was not cared for all that much prior to our moving here, although you can see at some stage someone started to make some lovely gardens.

I don't use chemicals at all on my gardens, with the proviso that the manure that comes from the horse, probably has some chemicals. This is because the grains used to form her feedstuffs were probably sprayed at some stage. But we don't add to this.

We have added tons of manure to our gardens, we had two horses here for over three years, and even now, her ladyship has about six to nine per day. I will not go into the digestive processes of horses here.

Now there are some advocates within the organics "movement" who do not feel that companion animals and horses are useful animals. Okay you mostly do not eat your cats and dogs, nor do we traditionally eat horses. In many places in the world they do, and with relish.

However, I think these animals are as useful as any dual purpose cow or chicken any day. I do not feel cows nor chickens are very useful as watch animals yet cats, dogs and horses are excellent early warning systems. They have exceptional hearing and sense of smell. They also have quite obvious body languages if you care to take the time to learn these for your particular animals.

Horse manure in the quantities even one horse produces it in is a valuable organic resource. Horses are also capable of providing traction - useful for larger scale organisations. Horses, being single hoofed animals are also very good for treading organic waste, such as pulled weeds, partially composted leaves etc, into the soil - both when it is wet and when it is dry.

I guess this would be also applicable to donkeys.

Horses also reproduce themselves and can provide milk if required. Their milk is quite sweet although not as nourishing to humans as cows milk is. Tartars make it into yoghurt, cheese and ferment it as well.

I am also of the opinion that dog, cat and horse fur (hair) can be used in weaving and felted cloth. All animals develop a thick warm winter coat of considerable length and as it sheds can be collected and incorporated into threads. Main and tail hair is quite strong and can be used to enhance rope fibres and some other uses that nylon can be put to.

Cats and smaller dogs are excellent mousers. They can also be encouraged to eliminate feral birds, for example, sparrows. If you go to all the trouble to grow food and then put it buy, you do not want your storage area raided by foraging rodents. Mouse traps are not all that useful with large numbers of mice. The smaller and medium dogs can be effective rabbit hunters. You can either use the rabbit bodies for feed - yourself or your animals - or dispose of the corpses. Rabbits are not a welcome animal anywhere because of the environmental damage they do. Most dogs love to hunt.

Dogs of any size can be effective deterrents for intruders. They do not necessarily have to attack people, but appearing quite ferocious can be very helpful. A really determined bad person isn't going to let a dog of any kind impede whatever bad they are going to do, but a novice or nuisance person can be deterred by a ferocious appearing dog.

Dogs are also useful for getting their owners out doing exercise.

So people who do not think these types of animals have a place in organic systems really should think again about their usefulness. Just because we choose not to eat them as well.

Chances are.....interesting

A dose of the 'Flu

I have not written for quite a while because I like to have some serious thoughts on a matter before writing it here. I need to have some time to do that, and time is at a premium for me at the moment.

But the issue of influenza has raised its head, and some of the devastating effects that it is having. There is a human version that has killed eight people that I am aware of, and there is the horse kind that is impacting Thoroughbred breeding and now maybe even the races.

My first thought when I heard of children in Australia dying of influenza is that there was something a little wrong. This strain of the 'flu must be of a much different type to usual. But no, it is a variation on the influenza virus.

Now to my knowledge, influenza is curable. There is a product out that you take for about three days and it is gone. It is an Australian invention and is available here through doctors and pharmacies. So I really would like to know why people in Australia are dying of influenza? It really does not make any sense whatsoever.

Then there are the horses in Quarantine. They are shuttle stallions. They have come from overseas. Equine influenza was not known in Australia. Our horses have been spared this horrible disease. I don't think the cure available for humans is adapted to horses, although if my mare caught it, I would certainly try to use it on her. She does not need to be sick.

I know it only lasts for about 10 day, but it considerably weakens the animal for quite a while afterwards. The shuttle stallions who have it will still be required to meet their breeding commitments once they leave quarantine. Being Thoroughbreds, they are required to breed naturally. Therefore I have to wonder if this is going to shorten their lives in any way. I know all care is given to these magnificent animals but as so often happens to them, the financial value of their breeding capabilities far outweighs their actual physical and psychological value.

It also seems to me rather nasty that the people who benefit from these stallions and their breeding are not putting some of the money those horses are bringing in to them into more veterinary research into diseases like this. It is their own industry they are allowing to be devastated. An industry which brings in billions of dollars and employs thousands of people. The people can at least do something about poor working conditions, the horses cannot.

It seems to me also, that there is much stupidity in the husbandry of animals these day. Birds are killed if they have bird 'flu, even though it doesn't kill the birds and is not interspecies transferrable. Sheep and cows are killed if they have foot and mouth disease, even though there is a vaccine against it. The disease, likewise, does not kill the animal nor is it interspecies transferrable. So what is the mad need to slaughter all these creatures so needlessly? Is it just the inconvenience? Greed and stupidity is what it is. What is the difficulty in vaccinating sheep and cows against foot and mouth disease?

Certainly mad cow disease (BSE) should be eliminated in this way, but surely a humane method could be found to put the animals down. What is the difficulty there? Just poor and stupid husbandry methods. It is about time Departments of Agriculture, particularly in Western countries, realised that death and destruction in these manners is not going to solve the problem, but more humane and caring methods of husbandry are. I am not advocating against quarantines, or any such thing, but I am advocating to someone using their brains.

Alien thoughts, I know ...

Animal Rights -vs- Animal Welfare

I have been looking at animal rights issues for quite a few years now, and I have come to the conclusion that people who want to give animals rights are either very naive or do not have much real contact with animals.

Animals have been an interest of mine all of my life and I have an obsession with horses. I have spent over seven years with the mare I currently have and I spent four years with her son from choosing his sire and going through the pregnancy with the mare and his birth. I have had numerous cats and a few dogs. We currently have a koala living in a tree above our house. We do not interact very much with the koala. I do not consider myself an expert by any means, rather a student of animals. They have such a wonderful and varied life that I find them endlessly fascinating.

I have read much about other animals, including chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins and other "intelligent" species. I have looked up information on the internet and read articles from various journals as well. I feel I am fairly well informed about other animals than the ones in my life.

No matter what any "scientist" says, I truly believe animals form "bonds" with the people they live with. My horses were born in domestication and accept humans as being part of their herd. My mare watches over my grandsons as though she was an aunt to them. She worries when they play roughly and I have seen her attempt to interfer in their games when they have become violent with each other. She can come and go as she pleases, and her first preference is to stand at our back door with her head in the house watching what we are doing and looking around. Part of it is curiousity at human activity, part of it is a desire for company, but there is something more to it, because if the door is closed, she will attempt to open it.

She likes it when we brush her and fuss over her mane as much as we fuss over our own hair. The way I can tell she enjoys it is that her bottom lip drops down, very similarly to when her son used to groom her with his teeth. She makes what we have learnt are "friendly" noises at us and very much tries to interact with us. She gets no other reward than these interactions.
She has other body language that she knows we react to that she uses to "communicate" with us.

As I said, she is free to come and go as she pleases. She could quite easilyt "go bush" as we live next door to a large tract of bushland. There is water there in a creek, and plenty of foodstuff that horses like, so it is not as though she is "forced" to live with us. She chooses to do this. She knows it is all there. She is actually quite concerned about going there. Admittedly there are native animals there that she is not sure about.

But once, when I tried to put my hand near her udder, she kicked me. It hurt and I was quite upset by this, but I never hit her or did anything else to repay her for doing this. I walked away. I knew that she did not want me to touch her in that area of her body. I did not read other body language I know now she would have been giving off before she resorted to kick me. She did not see what she had done was "wrong". The only perception that I had of it being "wrong" was that she kicked me. But she is a horse and that is what horses do when another horse does something to them that they don't want to happen to them. That is her understanding. She is a horse and always will be. I relate to her as an animal, not as a furry fourlegged human. She is an entity in her own right, I believe she has a level of self awareness from various interactions I have had with her. But she is a horse and always will be.

If I was interacting with any other animal, I would also learn to read its body language and the other noises that those animals make to interact with me. It is just what a considerate interactor does. But no matter what animal I interact with, I am aware that it can not be anything else than what it is. It can only act within the ways that it is born to act in. It is not a behaviour or instinct, per se, because human interaction always seems to bring changes to an animal.

For example, I have noticed that horses that are bonded to humans as little foals, are usually smarter than horses that have not bonded with humans, and much smarter than horses that have had any sort of human interaction. There is something that occurs that makes these horses smarter than their other counterparts. Maybe because they are less fearful and more curious. My mare's family has been recorded as domesticated for over 20 generations. That is how far her pedigree traces back. There would be no way of knowing how long the family was domesticated before that.

The people who advocate animal rights really do not understand the concept of what an animal really is. But the first thing is that it is NOT a furry, four legged human of some sort. They are individual entities, but not human. They do not have a concept of "right" or "wrong", they can have a concept of not doing what they are not supposed to do. But that is a human boundary put onto them. If an animal kills another animal it is what the animal is supposed to do. Whether the other animal is a human is not a consideration to the animal at the time of the killing. The animal has no concept of differential of species as we do. It is just a difference from them. I.e. to a horse another creature is just a non horse. They don't even think in terms of words or labels as we do. To assign them "rights" as humans understand "rights" is not realistic. The animal/s concerned just would not understand. To be able to have a "right" the animal must understand the concepts of "right" and "wrong" and they just do not have this concept. Even higher primates really do not understand this concept, although I believe they could probably be taught the concept. However, that would entail training ALL that species or it would be lost on the ones that are not taught. That is not realistic either. It is changing the animals from what they are to what we want them to be. That makes the concept artificial and not really worth considering them as animals. But as what would they then be considered?
Furthermore, there are then the consequences to be considered if a so trained animal does "wrong". How do you explain this to an animal? It is not an animal's way of doing things and interacting with other members of its group, it is an artificial imposition, imposed by humans. It isn't something animals would even choose for themselves, were they capable of understanding.

My mare would not want to go away from us because to her, we are members of her herd. I could not even sell this mare, even though because she is a Thoroughbred and one of her foals won races and has made her valuable. In consideration of her, I would not do this. She would not understand, she would be upset and very distressed. She had bonded with her son so that even though he no longer drank milk from her, they were companions. She was very upset and distressed when he died. Where would she go? This has been her home for so long.

Domesticated animals would not be able to fend for themselves in the wild. It is because interaction with people, even from a distance changes them. They get fed, they get water, they get treatment if they are sick or hurt. Or they get euthanased. They are not left to suffer as they would in the wild. It isn't so much that they "expect" this, it just is.

There are those who object to eating animals. That is their choice. But what else would those animals do? In a few years a good many of them would be extinct. Is that what is really wanted? Mass extinctions.

It sure bears thinking about. It sure bears talking about.