Someone I know online found themselves in pretty much that situation. Their baby-to-be was diagnosed with a rare birth defect and had zero chance of survival. The choices were a) abort now or b) go through a difficult pregnancy and risky birth to give birth to a dead baby. Awful choices to make and ones I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
They opten for the abortion but time was a factor and the hospital couldn't get it done in time. So they went to a family planning center/abortion clinic. Of course, there were protestors outside. On this, the worst day of their lives, when they were heading in to end the pregnancy they had so looked forward to, the protestors thought it was a good idea to shout at them and tell them "You're killing your baby!"
When his wife was taken away for the procedure, he realized he couldn't just sit in the waiting room. He turned on his video phone, walked out and politely confronted the protesters.
The fun part is when the protesters get annoyed at him for bothering them and threaten to call the police. So calling someone a "baby murderer" when you don't know anything about their situation is fine but asking you questions in a polite manner (when he had every right to yell scream and curse at them) is cause for calling the police?
They only go into cryogenic freezing until they are no longer needed. Then they are disposed of by incineration. It would be too expensive to keep all unused fertilized eggs cryogenically frozen for all time.
Just need to point out that, even if a credit card company asks for information, it doesn't mean they verify it. I had my identity stolen. The thief used my name, address, SSN and DOB to open up a Capital One credit card account. They put in the wrong Mother's Maiden Name, but that apparently didn't raise any red flags. Neither did them immediately changing the address to one in a different state or requesting a $5,000 cash withdrawal before the card was activated. Oh, and when I called to report the fraud, they refused to give me any information on the identity thieves. They literally told me "if you go there and shoot them then we'd be liable." Thanks for protecting identity thieves, Capital One! (No, I'm not bitter or anything.)
I'm not an Atheist or Agnostic (I'm Jewish) but that's pretty much sums up my views on what other people think. My neighbors might think I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. More religious Jews might think I'm not being the "best Jew I can be" because I don't follow all of the laws to the strict letter (as defined by them). In the end, I don't try to force my religious views on others and appreciate it when they don't try to force their religious views on me. I'm more than willing to discuss my religion with anybody who is interested, so long as it is a honest interest and not an attempt to open a "save my soul" discussion.
And yes, I've encountered the "save your soul" types. Oddly enough, the most recent encounter was in an elevator at Walmart. Did they really think they'd convert my family between the span of two floors?!!
I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Growing up, we had a nice, big Menorah display that a local synagogue put up. It was found knocked over (while the nearby nativity scene was undisturbed). It was fixed back up and members of the community volunteered to take turns watching it during the night. I remember sitting in the car with my father watching it, making sure that no vandals tried a repeat performance. I can't recall whether or not the vandals were ever caught, but, sadly, this kind of stuff has been happening for a long time.
I was going to say that this sounded fishy. A company would likely lose more money paying a "Hooky Hunter" to track down John Smith calling in sick for 1 day than they would lose from John Smith not coming into work and getting stuff done. But someone who claims that they've injured their back and need 6 months to recover and then are spotted riding a rollercoaster 3 months in should be taken to task.
Ah, thanks. I've never played FarmVille, so I kind of assumed that it was like SimCity and required some form of skill beyond "The Ability To Check In At A Certain Time." Silly me.
The "princess rescue" type games still exist. I'm currently playing Kirby's Epic Yarn. The basic story is that Kirby is sucked into a "yarn-world" thanks to a magical, yarn-based bad guy with plans of taking over Kirby's world. Kirby and the entire world around him look like they're just threads, buttons and fabric. The gameplay is fantastic and not realistic at all. I can't remember the last time I was confronted by someone so I grabbed them, pulled at a loose thread and watched them rip apart into untie into pieces of string.
The simulator-type games might be rising in popularity with some people, but they aren't the only games being made. Nor are they a completely new form of gaming: SimCity, ring a bell?
If a terrorist wanted to hit "Western society" and rack up the body count, they'd send some of their bombers out during Black Friday to Walmarts, malls, and other shops. They would scare people into avoiding stores (affecting the US economy) and would kill more people than your average plane holds. By the TSA's logic, we should go through "Freedom Fondles" every time we walk into a store.
What an expansion of the Walmart greeter role! Get a patdown and groin grab followed by "Welcome to Walmart!"
Considering what happened with the bladder cancer survivor ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/22/national/main7078699.shtml - soaked with his own urine when the TSA agent wasn't careful like the man requested & then forced to board his flight smelling of pee), I wouldn't recommend this. They might somehow pat you down so as to cause a diaper blowout and force you to choose between missing your flight or boarding smelling of poop. (I've had to deal with diaper blowouts when my kids wore diapers & I'm guessing that an adult version is much worse.)
I think increased competition is the reason for those lower prices. Let's say you're in the market to buy a computer. There are maybe a handful of stores in your local area that you could go to to buy one. Those stores will have different manufacturers and models and price comparisons will be tricky (involving a lot of driving back and forth). Now, let's look at the online world. I can load up Amazon.com, NewEgg.com and a dozen other online shops in one browser window. I can look through the selection, narrow my search and compare prices between online shops from the comfort of my home (or work or wherever I happen to be). So while a brick and morter company might have to compete with a small number of shops with little price comparison opportunities, an online shop has a huge amount of competition and a lot of price comparison opportunities. If they don't have low prices, people will flock to other online ships and they'll soon find themselves out of business. (Yes, this even applies to a giant like Amazon.com. If they radically increased their prices, people would slowly flee from them to other shops.)
I've come across porn by accident before. To be fair, this story happened about 13 years ago, though. I had just started a new job and decided to look a book up on Barnes and Noble's website. So I typed www.BarnesNNoble.com into my web browser. Little did I know that the correct URL was www.BarnesANDNoble.com. The domain name I typed (at the time, Barnes and Noble has since taken control of it) belonged to a porn site. Suddenly, I was looking at something that I definitely did *NOT* want to be looking at. Afraid that my boss (who was right down the hall) would wander in an see my monitor, I clicked close. Of course, this being the pre-popup-blocker era it opened another window. And then another one. I closed windows as fast as they opened until I managed to get one before the JavaScript could load.
Of course, nowadays, with popup blockers, parental controls (installable and customizable by the parent), and many people using Google instead of directly typing in URLs, stories like the one above are extremely rare. Still, it could happen occasionally. And when it does, it's the job of the parents to talk to the children about what they saw and how one should react when seeing something like that. (Especially since each parent will be different in their instructions.)
That's what I was thinking too. XP isn't too bad. Yes, it has problems and many people here will argue about how Microsoft programs are the worst written programs on Earth, but when's the last time that Microsoft has required you show them a naked photo of yourself or allow them to feel you up to complete Windows' startup routine? I'll take a hundred BSOD's over one TSA naked photo/groping/jail choice.
At this point, I think that Al Queda could affect our freedom (thus achieving their main goal of interfering with our lives) by releasing regular press releases. "The Al Queda PR department has announced plans to smuggle a bomb into a mall. The Department of Homeland Security has now declared that everyone entering a mall must get an airport security style backscatter scanning or pat down search (aka TSA Groping) before entering. Remember, this is to keep you safe. To protect our freedoms, we must give them up!"
Sure, they'll have to carry out the occasional bombing just to prove they can still do it, but for the most part they can just announce their plans and our own government will react to curtail our freedoms in response.
And then the parents come storming into the school demanding that the teachers be fired for picking on their students and insisting that their kids deserve to get A's (because they showed up in class, not because of their work). Administration won't want to cause a fuss and will try to soothe the parents, not backing up the teachers. Sadly, I've seen it happen before. The result is that good teachers leave the profession and hacks who function as glorified baby-sitters stay. Then the parents wonder why their kid isn't getting a good education.
Exactly. The rules right now are get a naked photo... I mean, backscatter image taken of you. If you refuse this, you get a pat-down. Only the pat-downs have turned into gropings. The TSA has even admitted that this is mainly to discourage people from refusing the backscatter imaging.
So you fly, refuse the backscatter and get groped. The next time, you get a bit more reluctant but refuse again and get a second groping. When you fly a third time, you start getting relucant to be groped again. Eventually, you either 1) get desensitized to the gropings or 2) give up and give in to backscatter imaging. Either way, the TSA wins.
As a parent, I'm frightened about what will happen the next time my family flies. What if one of my young sons happens to set off the detectors? Do I make him get a dose of radiation so a TSA official can essentially have a naked photo of him? Do I let him be groped after telling him that only doctors and his parents are allowed to touch "down there"? That video of the screaming 3 year old being given a feeling up by a TSA official makes me dread our next trip because I know that could be us.
I think the best would be: TSA - Theatre Security Agency. After all, that's what they're best at. Providing "security measures" that make the public think they (the TSA) are doing something when, in fact, nothing useful is being done.
Of course, they're slipping since the latest nude photo or gropping choice is making a lot of people feel less safe about flying. Don't worry though, I hear their new Anti-Terrorism Puppet Show will stop hundreds of terrorists per year.*
* Statistic to be proven true by the fact that hundreds of planes per year don't blow up and were therefore saved by the Anti-Terrorism Puppet Show.
You see, we value freedom above all else. And what do you do with things you value? Do you stick them on a shelf where they can be knocked over and smashed? Of course not. You lock them away in a safe. So only by locking away all of our freedoms can we truly protect them.
NOTE: I was going for sarcasm but I fear I might be accurately describing how some people view freedom.
I don't think my position is contradictory. I think sharing music (without the copyright owner's permission) is wrong. I also think that copying someone's article into your magazine is wrong.
Of course, I think the penalties for the two should be different. The former is done without any commercial intent while the latter is done to make money. If someone took my work and was sharing it out to other people without my permission, I'd be mad and would ask them to stop. If they were selling it to other people and pocketing the money, though, I'd be furious and would file a lawsuit.
The penalties for the former should be restructured so that they are still substantial enough to act as a detterant but not so high as to lead to bankruptcy. In other words, sharing songs without commercial intent shouldn't lead to $62,500 per song fines (like Jammie Thomas-Rasset has received). A fee of 10x the market price of the song would seem more appropriate. This would make Jammie Thomas-Rasset's fine for 24 songs shared between $237.60 and $309.60. (Depending on whether you used $0.99 or $1.29 as "market value".)
Taking someone's work and using it commercially without permission, however, should retain the full penalties of copyright law. In this case, considering the likely distribution size of the Cooks Source magazine, I think the $750 per infringement end of the spectrum would be more reasonable than the $150,000 end. Of course, considering that she also ripped off Paula Dean and others, she would be facing multiple $750 judgements. At one point, I saw a Google Document that listed all of the infringements that people had found. There were, IIRC, around 40 of them. If each of those people got $750 judgements, then Cooks Source would be facing a $30,000 pay out for copyright infringement.
I'd much rather see a magazine pay $30,000 in fines for stealing articles than see a home user have to pay $62,500 for sharing out 24 songs.
Not only do I have eyes in the back of our heads to catch my kids getting into trouble, but I can the ability to sense when they are getting into trouble even when they are out of sight. If they're being extremely quiet, they're likely getting into trouble.
Of course, these "parental super powers" are balanced off by the kids' super powers such as "ability to stretch arms to reach items thought out of their reach" and "ability to tell when mom and dad are having 'alone time' and would prefer not being interrupted."
Slashdot Mirror
Someone I know online found themselves in pretty much that situation. Their baby-to-be was diagnosed with a rare birth defect and had zero chance of survival. The choices were a) abort now or b) go through a difficult pregnancy and risky birth to give birth to a dead baby. Awful choices to make and ones I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
They opten for the abortion but time was a factor and the hospital couldn't get it done in time. So they went to a family planning center/abortion clinic. Of course, there were protestors outside. On this, the worst day of their lives, when they were heading in to end the pregnancy they had so looked forward to, the protestors thought it was a good idea to shout at them and tell them "You're killing your baby!"
When his wife was taken away for the procedure, he realized he couldn't just sit in the waiting room. He turned on his video phone, walked out and politely confronted the protesters.
http://www.daddyfiles.com/2010/07/13/abort-protesters/
The fun part is when the protesters get annoyed at him for bothering them and threaten to call the police. So calling someone a "baby murderer" when you don't know anything about their situation is fine but asking you questions in a polite manner (when he had every right to yell scream and curse at them) is cause for calling the police?
They only go into cryogenic freezing until they are no longer needed. Then they are disposed of by incineration. It would be too expensive to keep all unused fertilized eggs cryogenically frozen for all time.
Just need to point out that, even if a credit card company asks for information, it doesn't mean they verify it. I had my identity stolen. The thief used my name, address, SSN and DOB to open up a Capital One credit card account. They put in the wrong Mother's Maiden Name, but that apparently didn't raise any red flags. Neither did them immediately changing the address to one in a different state or requesting a $5,000 cash withdrawal before the card was activated. Oh, and when I called to report the fraud, they refused to give me any information on the identity thieves. They literally told me "if you go there and shoot them then we'd be liable." Thanks for protecting identity thieves, Capital One! (No, I'm not bitter or anything.)
I'm not an Atheist or Agnostic (I'm Jewish) but that's pretty much sums up my views on what other people think. My neighbors might think I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. More religious Jews might think I'm not being the "best Jew I can be" because I don't follow all of the laws to the strict letter (as defined by them). In the end, I don't try to force my religious views on others and appreciate it when they don't try to force their religious views on me. I'm more than willing to discuss my religion with anybody who is interested, so long as it is a honest interest and not an attempt to open a "save my soul" discussion.
And yes, I've encountered the "save your soul" types. Oddly enough, the most recent encounter was in an elevator at Walmart. Did they really think they'd convert my family between the span of two floors?!!
I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Growing up, we had a nice, big Menorah display that a local synagogue put up. It was found knocked over (while the nearby nativity scene was undisturbed). It was fixed back up and members of the community volunteered to take turns watching it during the night. I remember sitting in the car with my father watching it, making sure that no vandals tried a repeat performance. I can't recall whether or not the vandals were ever caught, but, sadly, this kind of stuff has been happening for a long time.
I was going to say that this sounded fishy. A company would likely lose more money paying a "Hooky Hunter" to track down John Smith calling in sick for 1 day than they would lose from John Smith not coming into work and getting stuff done. But someone who claims that they've injured their back and need 6 months to recover and then are spotted riding a rollercoaster 3 months in should be taken to task.
Ah, thanks. I've never played FarmVille, so I kind of assumed that it was like SimCity and required some form of skill beyond "The Ability To Check In At A Certain Time." Silly me.
The "princess rescue" type games still exist. I'm currently playing Kirby's Epic Yarn. The basic story is that Kirby is sucked into a "yarn-world" thanks to a magical, yarn-based bad guy with plans of taking over Kirby's world. Kirby and the entire world around him look like they're just threads, buttons and fabric. The gameplay is fantastic and not realistic at all. I can't remember the last time I was confronted by someone so I grabbed them, pulled at a loose thread and watched them rip apart into untie into pieces of string.
The simulator-type games might be rising in popularity with some people, but they aren't the only games being made. Nor are they a completely new form of gaming: SimCity, ring a bell?
If a terrorist wanted to hit "Western society" and rack up the body count, they'd send some of their bombers out during Black Friday to Walmarts, malls, and other shops. They would scare people into avoiding stores (affecting the US economy) and would kill more people than your average plane holds. By the TSA's logic, we should go through "Freedom Fondles" every time we walk into a store.
What an expansion of the Walmart greeter role! Get a patdown and groin grab followed by "Welcome to Walmart!"
Considering what happened with the bladder cancer survivor ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/22/national/main7078699.shtml - soaked with his own urine when the TSA agent wasn't careful like the man requested & then forced to board his flight smelling of pee), I wouldn't recommend this. They might somehow pat you down so as to cause a diaper blowout and force you to choose between missing your flight or boarding smelling of poop. (I've had to deal with diaper blowouts when my kids wore diapers & I'm guessing that an adult version is much worse.)
I hear it has such amazing hits at "I'll be watching you (on the naked backscatter scanner)" and "Grope me up before you go-go."
I think increased competition is the reason for those lower prices. Let's say you're in the market to buy a computer. There are maybe a handful of stores in your local area that you could go to to buy one. Those stores will have different manufacturers and models and price comparisons will be tricky (involving a lot of driving back and forth). Now, let's look at the online world. I can load up Amazon.com, NewEgg.com and a dozen other online shops in one browser window. I can look through the selection, narrow my search and compare prices between online shops from the comfort of my home (or work or wherever I happen to be). So while a brick and morter company might have to compete with a small number of shops with little price comparison opportunities, an online shop has a huge amount of competition and a lot of price comparison opportunities. If they don't have low prices, people will flock to other online ships and they'll soon find themselves out of business. (Yes, this even applies to a giant like Amazon.com. If they radically increased their prices, people would slowly flee from them to other shops.)
I've come across porn by accident before. To be fair, this story happened about 13 years ago, though. I had just started a new job and decided to look a book up on Barnes and Noble's website. So I typed www.BarnesNNoble.com into my web browser. Little did I know that the correct URL was www.BarnesANDNoble.com. The domain name I typed (at the time, Barnes and Noble has since taken control of it) belonged to a porn site. Suddenly, I was looking at something that I definitely did *NOT* want to be looking at. Afraid that my boss (who was right down the hall) would wander in an see my monitor, I clicked close. Of course, this being the pre-popup-blocker era it opened another window. And then another one. I closed windows as fast as they opened until I managed to get one before the JavaScript could load.
Of course, nowadays, with popup blockers, parental controls (installable and customizable by the parent), and many people using Google instead of directly typing in URLs, stories like the one above are extremely rare. Still, it could happen occasionally. And when it does, it's the job of the parents to talk to the children about what they saw and how one should react when seeing something like that. (Especially since each parent will be different in their instructions.)
That's what I was thinking too. XP isn't too bad. Yes, it has problems and many people here will argue about how Microsoft programs are the worst written programs on Earth, but when's the last time that Microsoft has required you show them a naked photo of yourself or allow them to feel you up to complete Windows' startup routine? I'll take a hundred BSOD's over one TSA naked photo/groping/jail choice.
At this point, I think that Al Queda could affect our freedom (thus achieving their main goal of interfering with our lives) by releasing regular press releases. "The Al Queda PR department has announced plans to smuggle a bomb into a mall. The Department of Homeland Security has now declared that everyone entering a mall must get an airport security style backscatter scanning or pat down search (aka TSA Groping) before entering. Remember, this is to keep you safe. To protect our freedoms, we must give them up!"
Sure, they'll have to carry out the occasional bombing just to prove they can still do it, but for the most part they can just announce their plans and our own government will react to curtail our freedoms in response.
And then the parents come storming into the school demanding that the teachers be fired for picking on their students and insisting that their kids deserve to get A's (because they showed up in class, not because of their work). Administration won't want to cause a fuss and will try to soothe the parents, not backing up the teachers. Sadly, I've seen it happen before. The result is that good teachers leave the profession and hacks who function as glorified baby-sitters stay. Then the parents wonder why their kid isn't getting a good education.
Exactly. The rules right now are get a naked photo... I mean, backscatter image taken of you. If you refuse this, you get a pat-down. Only the pat-downs have turned into gropings. The TSA has even admitted that this is mainly to discourage people from refusing the backscatter imaging.
So you fly, refuse the backscatter and get groped. The next time, you get a bit more reluctant but refuse again and get a second groping. When you fly a third time, you start getting relucant to be groped again. Eventually, you either 1) get desensitized to the gropings or 2) give up and give in to backscatter imaging. Either way, the TSA wins.
As a parent, I'm frightened about what will happen the next time my family flies. What if one of my young sons happens to set off the detectors? Do I make him get a dose of radiation so a TSA official can essentially have a naked photo of him? Do I let him be groped after telling him that only doctors and his parents are allowed to touch "down there"? That video of the screaming 3 year old being given a feeling up by a TSA official makes me dread our next trip because I know that could be us.
I think the best would be: TSA - Theatre Security Agency. After all, that's what they're best at. Providing "security measures" that make the public think they (the TSA) are doing something when, in fact, nothing useful is being done.
Of course, they're slipping since the latest nude photo or gropping choice is making a lot of people feel less safe about flying. Don't worry though, I hear their new Anti-Terrorism Puppet Show will stop hundreds of terrorists per year.*
* Statistic to be proven true by the fact that hundreds of planes per year don't blow up and were therefore saved by the Anti-Terrorism Puppet Show.
You see, we value freedom above all else. And what do you do with things you value? Do you stick them on a shelf where they can be knocked over and smashed? Of course not. You lock them away in a safe. So only by locking away all of our freedoms can we truly protect them.
NOTE: I was going for sarcasm but I fear I might be accurately describing how some people view freedom.
To paraphrase Apple's slogan: There's an XKCD strip for that! http://xkcd.com/779/
I don't think my position is contradictory. I think sharing music (without the copyright owner's permission) is wrong. I also think that copying someone's article into your magazine is wrong.
Of course, I think the penalties for the two should be different. The former is done without any commercial intent while the latter is done to make money. If someone took my work and was sharing it out to other people without my permission, I'd be mad and would ask them to stop. If they were selling it to other people and pocketing the money, though, I'd be furious and would file a lawsuit.
The penalties for the former should be restructured so that they are still substantial enough to act as a detterant but not so high as to lead to bankruptcy. In other words, sharing songs without commercial intent shouldn't lead to $62,500 per song fines (like Jammie Thomas-Rasset has received). A fee of 10x the market price of the song would seem more appropriate. This would make Jammie Thomas-Rasset's fine for 24 songs shared between $237.60 and $309.60. (Depending on whether you used $0.99 or $1.29 as "market value".)
Taking someone's work and using it commercially without permission, however, should retain the full penalties of copyright law. In this case, considering the likely distribution size of the Cooks Source magazine, I think the $750 per infringement end of the spectrum would be more reasonable than the $150,000 end. Of course, considering that she also ripped off Paula Dean and others, she would be facing multiple $750 judgements. At one point, I saw a Google Document that listed all of the infringements that people had found. There were, IIRC, around 40 of them. If each of those people got $750 judgements, then Cooks Source would be facing a $30,000 pay out for copyright infringement.
I'd much rather see a magazine pay $30,000 in fines for stealing articles than see a home user have to pay $62,500 for sharing out 24 songs.
And computer monitors! They spray thetans right at your face! Or was that photons? Better play it safe and ban monitors too.
Not only do I have eyes in the back of our heads to catch my kids getting into trouble, but I can the ability to sense when they are getting into trouble even when they are out of sight. If they're being extremely quiet, they're likely getting into trouble.
Of course, these "parental super powers" are balanced off by the kids' super powers such as "ability to stretch arms to reach items thought out of their reach" and "ability to tell when mom and dad are having 'alone time' and would prefer not being interrupted."
Duck Season! Fire!!!!!
*walks over to retrieve beak and affixes it back on face*
You're deshpicable!