Ok, that makes sense for peaches, but what if your credit card gets stolen and is used to buy thousands of dollars worth of items, or a gun that gets used in a murder, or something illegal and the person didn't get caught for some length of time because no one ever checks ID? Granted, if you report it stolen, those transactions will be cleared...eventually, but there's a chance that that won't happen until after everything's said and done on the part of the criminal.
As for identity theft, I'm assuming here that you're actually older than 18 and have a credit card of some sort (even if it is a store card), or at least over 16 and have had, or even applied for, a job at one point in time. If someone wants to steal your ID, it'll be in a database along with the other 17 million people the criminal stole said database from. Think about it, any application you fill out and turn in to the company has enough information on it to not only steal your ID, but pretty much erase you completely in the public's eye. They've got, or have access to, every place you've lived, every job you've had, any other name you've legally gone by, any credit card you've ever had, any loans you have had or do have, every living member of your family, your entire medical history, your criminal history, your fingerprints, bloodtype, even your DNA. Granted, some of these would take more work than others to dig up, but everyone keeps records. Hate to say it, but all anyone really needs to steal another's ID is your full name and date of birth. From there, with enough digging and a little social engineering, any other information can be found.
Like I said, criminals go for major companies with thousands, if not millions, of people and their information in stored somewhere. Why get one person's information and get a couple thousand dollars when you can go for hundreds or thousands or millions of people and get millions of dollars?
There's a reason why hackers/exhackers don't worry about identity theft...
Not really. Think about real swordsmen with real armor. If the person is weaker, even if they can penetrate the other's armor, it doesn't mean he'll get to skin (especially if said armor is mail or plate). The same would go with spells; a less experienced caster will have weaker spells than a more experienced one. A character of lower level is considered "weaker" in all regards (strength, spellpower, etc), and therefore is less likely to do much damage to a higher level, even if armor can be broken through (or, in the case of spells, ignored altogether, since spells are generally deflected by resistances).
I think it's common knowledge now that Blizzard's coming out with an expansion to World of Warcraft. With it comes two new races, the Draenai (or, as many fans like to call "Space Paladins") and Blood Elves (the Horde's new "pretty race"), along with a skew of other things that butcher the Warcraft lore.
Just the fact that Blizzard's screwing with the lore of Warcraft has already pissed off most of the games player base. On top of that, Blizzard's also taking each faction's unique classes (Alliance Paladins and Horde Shamans) and giving them to the other faction. So, not only are fans pissed off because the lore got thrown out the window, but many of them are discussing the reprecussions of having these new factors implemented, including the balance of damage/tank/healing classes in raids and the logic issues that come from having Paladins on the "evil" or "tribal" side (this also raises the question of why the "good" side has Warlocks, which are described as anything and everything but good, and why the "bad" side has priests, for obvious reasons) and having Shamans on the "good" or "religious" side.
Chances are, unless Blizzard does something to make just about every one of their 4 or 5 million fans really happy, they're going to lose 95% of their userbase. Why? Because people pay attention to details. Troll the forums for the game (especially the Shaman forums, as they have had the most problems regarding balance) and you'll find breakdowns of things that usually only appear in the design phase of games. Such things include include damage mitigation of armor (i.e. - how much damage can the armor absorb before the wearer takes damage), diminishing returns of non-physical attacks (the more you cast a particular spell at something the more they become resistent and eventually become immune), how stats factor in to things like mana and health regen for various classes and races, and how abilities scale with the character's level.
Granted, not every sci-fi buff is an expert in quantum mechanics, but they generally know enough to be able to question things that would affect gameplay. You'll still have that group of people that will try to find answers to the questions of "how" ("how do dragons fly/breathe fire?" "how does this tiny spaceship carry 20 people?" etc), most of which don't really affect the game. Depending on what it is, many people are rather forgiving on the minor details, but if something's badly overlooked, say, the passage of time between starting and ending a warp jump, then it can take away from the game because it may affect timed missions.
StarCraft was a good sci-fi RTS. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't make a good MMO. Why? The lore is simply too complex and would most likely require too much of a change in the lore to make it a feasible MMO (the Terrans and the Protoss are enemies, but some of the Terrans and Protoss broke off from the main, but didn't necessarily betray them, and everyone hates the Zerg; so what would be playable races? and what classes would there be?). On the other hand, if Blizzard (or even another company) managed to pull it off without destroying the lore, it could make a really good MMO, mainly because it's restricted to a handful of worlds for each race and the races are pretty balanced already, and without having the exact same thing for each race while still keeping the fundamental tech/unit tree (infantry, cavalry-like, cloak detection, seige, cloaked, anti-air, air-to-ground, and a big, expensive, kill-all; though many would argue the Terrans are gimp, but they've got Nukes).
How about Best Buy and CompUSA selling HPs and Compaqs with AMD chips (generally the Turion for laptops and the Athlon 64 for desktops)? And considering AMD is the preferred processor of pretty much everyone I know (enthusiasts that use both Windows and Linux, depending on the task), I'd say you're a little off in your assumption that most of the enthusiast market lies in Linux.
As one of the other posters mentioned, the temporary copying onto volatile media (such as RAM) is desregarded since once the power supply is cut off, there's no more copy.
The key in your arguement about songwriters is the licensing fee. And actually, you can deny a band the right to play your song as long as you don't take the fee from them (if you take the fee, then you no longer have that right).
When you buy a music CD, you don't own the songs on that CD, you own the right to have one copy of that song. Just like when you buy software, you own the right to install that software on one machine depending on license you own (consumer licenses allow one machine, commercial allow more). You basically pay a licensing fee to have that copy, just like a cover artist pays a licensing fee to play a certain song.
And US copyright law is primarily concerned with ensuring not only that they get reasonable compensation, but also to ensure that the work is, in fact, theirs. Technically speaking, any original work that is on a hard copy, such as paper, or certain disks (it gets hairy with digital media, but I think there are certain media that are considered hard copy), or canvas (in the case of artwork), is automatically covered by US copyright law. There are exceptions to this, such as cookbooks and other such compilations, but there's only a handful. Now, your case doesn't hold much water if you don't register your work with the copyright office since you have no legal backing, but it is possible to defend yourself in the case of infringement.
Is it really an abortion if the fetus is already dead? Usually, when the fetus dies from some natural cause, at no fault of the mother, that's called a miscarriage.
Although the vast majority do have partial birth abortions due to health reasons, there are some that do it for other reasons. To me, there's a difference between ensuring your own survival in a situation where both you and your child are likely going to die and voluntarily chosing to have an abortion. In situations where survival or health are not the case (ie - healthy pregnancies), there are other options.
If you read my other posts, you'll see that I'm by no means against legalizing abortion (because of cases like your parents'), nor am I saying it's an easy choice to make, but it's not always a necessary choice. And it's usually rather gruesome and can be hard on the mother.
That's one of the problems that people run into. On one hand, the storyline's good, but on the other, not all the content's acceptable, or in some cases, necessary. I was taught that in crisis situations, people will resort to stronger language to get others' attention and obedience, but that language shouldn't be used in normal situations. With that in mind, although I would rather not have those words at all in a movie I'd like my children to watch, I would deem that the use of one or two select words in certain situations could help get a point across and make sure my kids understood that those words aren't to be used.
Some movies would simply have to wait until the children are older. My mom used to pre-watch the movies I saw. It was frustrating when everyone around me (who were all at least 5 years older than me) would get to see a movie that I couldn't, but in the end I got over it, and eventually was able to watch it. Sometimes, I'd get to watch a movie, but had to close my eyes or leave the room for a minute or two (I know some other people that do that, too).
It just comes back to what you as the parent believe your kids should or shouldn't take in at a certain age. Personally, I don't think some movies, such as most of the good war movies (Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, etc), and perhaps most of the Stephen King movies (which I don't think a young child should be watching anyway, given the general theme of his books and movies, even ones that don't follow the bizarre horror theme, such as The Green Mile) should be edited, at least not for general content (words may be fine). Those are just movies that need to be saved for when the kids are older, though. To me, they're still worth watching.
That was my long-winded way of saying that I agree, overall, with your parenting in this matter.:)
It's still considered copyright infringement because the third party company is taking material that isn't theirs, changing it, and selling it without permission from the copyright owner (although the company could argue that the price pays for shipping and materials). And contrary to what many people believe, when you buy a movie, CD, or game or other software, you don't really own it, you own the right to watch or play it in a private setting (or, in the case of software, install your copy on one machine, generally for private use) and are not allowed to alter it or make money off it in any way (unless otherwise stated in the EULA, which Open Source is usually the only one that allows copying, altering, and redistributing as long as no money is made). If you edit the movie yourself, then, although it's still copyright infringement, you're less likely to get caught as long as you don't redistribute it and/or make money from it (the whole "giving to friends and family" can make that a hairy situation, though). How would you feel if someone else was making money off your hard work?
Or you could get over you fear of 'cuss' words and realize they really aren't any different than any other words.
As soon as the local school districts don't give detention when a child swears, then maybe parent's will "get over [their] fear of 'cuss' words." They're 'cuss' (swear, curse, whatever you want to call them) because various, influential parts of the public finds them offensive.
Because the owner of the copyright of said film doesn't want to sell a version like that, so you can take it or leave it.
Why wouldn't they? Edited version = more sales = more money. And money is what the entertainment industry (and any other business, for that matter, hence the term "for-profit") revolves around.
The government tightened security just about everywhere in some way or another (especially where the government is directly involved). And considering planes aren't the only things that can get hijacked and flight passengers aren't the only people that can be held hostage, it only makes sense that the government would want to cover their own @$$.
That's poor store layout on Wal-Mart's part, to be honest with you, nothing you can really do besides your job on that one. And yeah, if they think about it for a minute, it's really easy for someone to exploit the layout (I couldn't buy an M-rated game one time because I was underage, I'm a nice person and didn't fight it...I just ordered it off Amazon:)...the funny part was that it was an expansion pack...) It's funny to see, though, how many people don't think of things like that.
In my part of the country (and in my store chain), the ones that actually thank you are rather few and far between, but we don't get a lot of people that get irate, either (thankfully; though those people are usually saved for when they have to pay when their item breaks and the warantee doesn't cover it). Most of the people are rather neutral about it, or are like "this is a bit of an inconvience, but I can deal with it."
It's just interesting when you get stopped for white-out, because you might use it to get high, but you won't be stopped for a sharp utensil that you could use to kill someone.
I'm wanting to say it's something like a two-inch blade, since that sounds about right. Though most places I get knives (other than exact-o knives) from require you to be 18 just to touch them, no matter what size it is (liability thing, and for good reason).
She feels as though she has suffered loss, and she has. She has lost something that was hers, a life that would have existed had it continued further. As heartless as it sounds though, this proves nothing at all. She loved that mass of cells for what it would become. When she lost the mass of cells, she lost that hope, that eventuality, too. It doesn't mean a human died. The potential for a human died. It feels horrible to have to draw a distinction, but there is one, in my mind.
As cold as that statement seems, you do have a point in that it is more that the potential died and not necessarily a human being (although I'm sure I'm not alone in disagreeing, since mass of cells, newborn, or adult, it's still their baby).
Worth noting that any girl I was to get pregnant would have to work very hard to get me to accept abortion as a course of action. It's not something I think I could bring myself to do.
I wish more people were like you. There's so many "men" out there that'll get a girl pregnant and insist she get an abortion as soon as they find out...all because they don't want to take responsibility for something they helped create. If you're as mature in other areas as you have presented yourself in this thread, you'll make a good husband and father some day.:)
This doesn't mean that I would stop others from doing it, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I equate the act with murder.
I wouldn't stop others from doing it, either, although I don't condone it. And I certainly wouldn't choose abortion if I didn't have to. Like I said before, if she wants an abortion bad enough, she's going to get one, whether or not it's legal. Far be it from me to stop her, although I am saddened that anyone chooses to end that potential life (excluding high-risk pregnancies that could leave one or both of them dead if the mother carried the baby to term).
I'm probably further influenced by the fact that I know someone who has had an abortion by the "wire coathanger" method, and quite frankly if keeping it legal and less of a tabboo subject avoids one other person avoid that, it'd be a moral victory in my mind.
I have two things to say to that:
1. Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow
2. That's pretty much the main reason why my vote is for keeping it legal. At least if it's legal, the mother doesn't have to take unnecessary risks.
Pennsylvania's pretty much the same way, at least with rifles and shotguns in the smaller trade shops. It takes longer to pick out what gun you want than it does to actually purchase it.
This is what I meant by "thereabouts". I don't draw a direct distinction. I figured I better say that in case someone came to me with a list of "fringe cases", and didn't realise that saying it would provoke the same reaction!
Ok...Technically, you answered my question, but I think my real question got lost in my wording. Legal or not, if a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she's going to get it. So, laws aside, exactly when does the child become "human life"? When it comes out of the womb and takes its first breath, or when it reaches the point that it could be born, even prematurely? And when does it become morally wrong to have an elective abortion?
Sometimes a human is not dead when their heart stops beating. Why would an unborn child be considered "alive" at that point? This definition is what makes this issue so tricky.
Yes, the devil is in the details... Yes, in some cases you can bring a person back after the heart stops beating, if you can get it to start again before the brain dies from lack of oxygen. This doesn't generally happen unless you're already in a hospital, or close enough to one that the limited bloodflow that occurs with CPR is enough to supply the brain until paramedics can use their resources, or you can effectively use a defibilator(sp?). Heart failure can and does lead to death, otherwise there would be no such thing as heart failure as a cause of death.
I say that a child is "alive" at the moment of conception as it is a living, growing, organism (or entity, if you will). I'm guessing you're not female and you don't have children of your own, or I would suspect some of your views to be different (though maybe not, I'm judging from many different views I've seen and heard). Ask any woman who has miscarried how she feels and I can pretty much guarantee that she'll tell you that it's like having a piece of her soul ripped out of her. And miscarriages are more likely to happen before the heart starts beating and it's still a mass of cells, yet it hurts at least as much as losing a child at any other stage of life. Why would that be if it's just a mass of cells and there is no real life yet?
Actually, there is a species of lizard that is considered to be entirely female (though they're technically hermaphroditic) and reproduce by engaging in what would be considered homosexual behavior (the act "activates" the otherwise dormant reproductive organs that fertilize the eggs).
I'm one of those that believes that "human life" begins at birth (or thereabouts) so I'm predisposed towards legalised abortions in the first place.
I favor legalizing abortions for safety reasons that others have already stated, so I'm not really offended by your viewpoint. I do, however, have a question or two.
1. You said that "human life begins at birth (or thereabouts)"...what's the "thereabouts"? Are you saying that the child of a woman who is within the time frame of delivering, even if it's a premature delivery (let's say, for argument's sake, 7 1/2 months) is considered "alive"? Or is it not until after the child is born, named, and registered with the country's system (ie - given a social security number and has a signed birth certificate, perhaps) that the child is "alive"?
2. Oftentimes, a person is dead when the heart stops beating. So why is the unborn child not considered "alive" when the heatbeat can first be heard (generally at about 10 weeks into the pregnancy)?
3. What about partial birth abortions? The child is carried into the last trimester, but is aborted before birth. At that point, the child is fully developed and pretty much ready to be born.
Keep in mind that not all abortions happen in the first trimester when the baby is still a "clump of cells." Some happen when the baby's been carried almost to term, which is easily the more objectionable one and generally the image that people get when hearing the word "abortion." Though, why women decide to do partial birth abortions is still beyond me (what's the point of spending eight and a half months carrying a baby that you're going to kill just before it's born?)
What's interesting is that what he said actually doesn't follow "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity (which mainly teaches that Satan inspires people to do wrong and so on). It actually read backwards enough to me that I almost thought he was describing Satanism until I re-read it and realized that it was simply a different view on the roles of God/Jesus and Satan. Unless, of course, he worded it in such a way that I'm misinterpreting it, it seems that he, too, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. Which, yes, is possible, although not typically accepted.
I think it's mostly in the inventory system. Anything that is inventoried as an "age-restricted item" will send an error message to the register and requires an employee confirmation (even the self-service registers will get this). So, basically, if you're caught confirming that the person is above the minimum age and they really aren't, then you could be fired (the employee has to essentially log in to be able to authorize the transaction).
Some of the things I've found with age restrictions at Wal-Mart (aside from the obvious beer and cigarettes which are federal law):
Cough Medicine M-Rated Games White-out Paintballs
There are more, but these are what I've been carded on, and they give a rather good picture of some of the more unlikely things with age restrictions.
Then let them get irate. They can yell and scream and swear all they want, all the employees have to do is either a) call their manager (and if the manager doesn't care enough about his line-level employees to back them up in a situation where the employee is right, then it's time to consider a new job), or b) call security. Either way, if the customer gets irate and starts throwing a fit, all they're going to get is a personal escort out of the building.
Hey, it's most stores' policy to check ID when the customer a) buys beer, cigarettes, guns/ammo, etc, b) uses their credit card, or c) buy an age-restricted CD. If the customer doesn't like it, too bad. If they threaten to go somewhere else and never shop here again, more power to 'em. There'll be 10 people walking in to replace that one person.
You'd actually be surprised to find out how many people actually thank you for carding them.
Slashdot Mirror
And as a retail worker, I would consider you crazy, or simply weird, and know that there are a dozen people walking in the door to replace you...
And thus, your little show of protest will be lost in the sea of time and forgotten by lunchtime.
Ok, that makes sense for peaches, but what if your credit card gets stolen and is used to buy thousands of dollars worth of items, or a gun that gets used in a murder, or something illegal and the person didn't get caught for some length of time because no one ever checks ID? Granted, if you report it stolen, those transactions will be cleared...eventually, but there's a chance that that won't happen until after everything's said and done on the part of the criminal.
As for identity theft, I'm assuming here that you're actually older than 18 and have a credit card of some sort (even if it is a store card), or at least over 16 and have had, or even applied for, a job at one point in time. If someone wants to steal your ID, it'll be in a database along with the other 17 million people the criminal stole said database from. Think about it, any application you fill out and turn in to the company has enough information on it to not only steal your ID, but pretty much erase you completely in the public's eye. They've got, or have access to, every place you've lived, every job you've had, any other name you've legally gone by, any credit card you've ever had, any loans you have had or do have, every living member of your family, your entire medical history, your criminal history, your fingerprints, bloodtype, even your DNA. Granted, some of these would take more work than others to dig up, but everyone keeps records. Hate to say it, but all anyone really needs to steal another's ID is your full name and date of birth. From there, with enough digging and a little social engineering, any other information can be found.
Like I said, criminals go for major companies with thousands, if not millions, of people and their information in stored somewhere. Why get one person's information and get a couple thousand dollars when you can go for hundreds or thousands or millions of people and get millions of dollars?
There's a reason why hackers/exhackers don't worry about identity theft...
Not really. Think about real swordsmen with real armor. If the person is weaker, even if they can penetrate the other's armor, it doesn't mean he'll get to skin (especially if said armor is mail or plate). The same would go with spells; a less experienced caster will have weaker spells than a more experienced one. A character of lower level is considered "weaker" in all regards (strength, spellpower, etc), and therefore is less likely to do much damage to a higher level, even if armor can be broken through (or, in the case of spells, ignored altogether, since spells are generally deflected by resistances).
I think it's common knowledge now that Blizzard's coming out with an expansion to World of Warcraft. With it comes two new races, the Draenai (or, as many fans like to call "Space Paladins") and Blood Elves (the Horde's new "pretty race"), along with a skew of other things that butcher the Warcraft lore.
Just the fact that Blizzard's screwing with the lore of Warcraft has already pissed off most of the games player base. On top of that, Blizzard's also taking each faction's unique classes (Alliance Paladins and Horde Shamans) and giving them to the other faction. So, not only are fans pissed off because the lore got thrown out the window, but many of them are discussing the reprecussions of having these new factors implemented, including the balance of damage/tank/healing classes in raids and the logic issues that come from having Paladins on the "evil" or "tribal" side (this also raises the question of why the "good" side has Warlocks, which are described as anything and everything but good, and why the "bad" side has priests, for obvious reasons) and having Shamans on the "good" or "religious" side.
Chances are, unless Blizzard does something to make just about every one of their 4 or 5 million fans really happy, they're going to lose 95% of their userbase. Why? Because people pay attention to details. Troll the forums for the game (especially the Shaman forums, as they have had the most problems regarding balance) and you'll find breakdowns of things that usually only appear in the design phase of games. Such things include include damage mitigation of armor (i.e. - how much damage can the armor absorb before the wearer takes damage), diminishing returns of non-physical attacks (the more you cast a particular spell at something the more they become resistent and eventually become immune), how stats factor in to things like mana and health regen for various classes and races, and how abilities scale with the character's level.
Granted, not every sci-fi buff is an expert in quantum mechanics, but they generally know enough to be able to question things that would affect gameplay. You'll still have that group of people that will try to find answers to the questions of "how" ("how do dragons fly/breathe fire?" "how does this tiny spaceship carry 20 people?" etc), most of which don't really affect the game. Depending on what it is, many people are rather forgiving on the minor details, but if something's badly overlooked, say, the passage of time between starting and ending a warp jump, then it can take away from the game because it may affect timed missions.
StarCraft was a good sci-fi RTS. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't make a good MMO. Why? The lore is simply too complex and would most likely require too much of a change in the lore to make it a feasible MMO (the Terrans and the Protoss are enemies, but some of the Terrans and Protoss broke off from the main, but didn't necessarily betray them, and everyone hates the Zerg; so what would be playable races? and what classes would there be?). On the other hand, if Blizzard (or even another company) managed to pull it off without destroying the lore, it could make a really good MMO, mainly because it's restricted to a handful of worlds for each race and the races are pretty balanced already, and without having the exact same thing for each race while still keeping the fundamental tech/unit tree (infantry, cavalry-like, cloak detection, seige, cloaked, anti-air, air-to-ground, and a big, expensive, kill-all; though many would argue the Terrans are gimp, but they've got Nukes).
How about Best Buy and CompUSA selling HPs and Compaqs with AMD chips (generally the Turion for laptops and the Athlon 64 for desktops)? And considering AMD is the preferred processor of pretty much everyone I know (enthusiasts that use both Windows and Linux, depending on the task), I'd say you're a little off in your assumption that most of the enthusiast market lies in Linux.
As one of the other posters mentioned, the temporary copying onto volatile media (such as RAM) is desregarded since once the power supply is cut off, there's no more copy.
The key in your arguement about songwriters is the licensing fee. And actually, you can deny a band the right to play your song as long as you don't take the fee from them (if you take the fee, then you no longer have that right).
When you buy a music CD, you don't own the songs on that CD, you own the right to have one copy of that song. Just like when you buy software, you own the right to install that software on one machine depending on license you own (consumer licenses allow one machine, commercial allow more). You basically pay a licensing fee to have that copy, just like a cover artist pays a licensing fee to play a certain song.
And US copyright law is primarily concerned with ensuring not only that they get reasonable compensation, but also to ensure that the work is, in fact, theirs. Technically speaking, any original work that is on a hard copy, such as paper, or certain disks (it gets hairy with digital media, but I think there are certain media that are considered hard copy), or canvas (in the case of artwork), is automatically covered by US copyright law. There are exceptions to this, such as cookbooks and other such compilations, but there's only a handful. Now, your case doesn't hold much water if you don't register your work with the copyright office since you have no legal backing, but it is possible to defend yourself in the case of infringement.
Is it really an abortion if the fetus is already dead? Usually, when the fetus dies from some natural cause, at no fault of the mother, that's called a miscarriage.
Although the vast majority do have partial birth abortions due to health reasons, there are some that do it for other reasons. To me, there's a difference between ensuring your own survival in a situation where both you and your child are likely going to die and voluntarily chosing to have an abortion. In situations where survival or health are not the case (ie - healthy pregnancies), there are other options.
If you read my other posts, you'll see that I'm by no means against legalizing abortion (because of cases like your parents'), nor am I saying it's an easy choice to make, but it's not always a necessary choice. And it's usually rather gruesome and can be hard on the mother.
That's one of the problems that people run into. On one hand, the storyline's good, but on the other, not all the content's acceptable, or in some cases, necessary. I was taught that in crisis situations, people will resort to stronger language to get others' attention and obedience, but that language shouldn't be used in normal situations. With that in mind, although I would rather not have those words at all in a movie I'd like my children to watch, I would deem that the use of one or two select words in certain situations could help get a point across and make sure my kids understood that those words aren't to be used.
:)
Some movies would simply have to wait until the children are older. My mom used to pre-watch the movies I saw. It was frustrating when everyone around me (who were all at least 5 years older than me) would get to see a movie that I couldn't, but in the end I got over it, and eventually was able to watch it. Sometimes, I'd get to watch a movie, but had to close my eyes or leave the room for a minute or two (I know some other people that do that, too).
It just comes back to what you as the parent believe your kids should or shouldn't take in at a certain age. Personally, I don't think some movies, such as most of the good war movies (Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, etc), and perhaps most of the Stephen King movies (which I don't think a young child should be watching anyway, given the general theme of his books and movies, even ones that don't follow the bizarre horror theme, such as The Green Mile) should be edited, at least not for general content (words may be fine). Those are just movies that need to be saved for when the kids are older, though. To me, they're still worth watching.
That was my long-winded way of saying that I agree, overall, with your parenting in this matter.
It's still considered copyright infringement because the third party company is taking material that isn't theirs, changing it, and selling it without permission from the copyright owner (although the company could argue that the price pays for shipping and materials). And contrary to what many people believe, when you buy a movie, CD, or game or other software, you don't really own it, you own the right to watch or play it in a private setting (or, in the case of software, install your copy on one machine, generally for private use) and are not allowed to alter it or make money off it in any way (unless otherwise stated in the EULA, which Open Source is usually the only one that allows copying, altering, and redistributing as long as no money is made). If you edit the movie yourself, then, although it's still copyright infringement, you're less likely to get caught as long as you don't redistribute it and/or make money from it (the whole "giving to friends and family" can make that a hairy situation, though). How would you feel if someone else was making money off your hard work?
Or you could get over you fear of 'cuss' words and realize they really aren't any different than any other words.
As soon as the local school districts don't give detention when a child swears, then maybe parent's will "get over [their] fear of 'cuss' words." They're 'cuss' (swear, curse, whatever you want to call them) because various, influential parts of the public finds them offensive.
Because the owner of the copyright of said film doesn't want to sell a version like that, so you can take it or leave it.
Why wouldn't they? Edited version = more sales = more money. And money is what the entertainment industry (and any other business, for that matter, hence the term "for-profit") revolves around.
The government tightened security just about everywhere in some way or another (especially where the government is directly involved). And considering planes aren't the only things that can get hijacked and flight passengers aren't the only people that can be held hostage, it only makes sense that the government would want to cover their own @$$.
That's poor store layout on Wal-Mart's part, to be honest with you, nothing you can really do besides your job on that one. And yeah, if they think about it for a minute, it's really easy for someone to exploit the layout (I couldn't buy an M-rated game one time because I was underage, I'm a nice person and didn't fight it...I just ordered it off Amazon :) ...the funny part was that it was an expansion pack...) It's funny to see, though, how many people don't think of things like that.
In my part of the country (and in my store chain), the ones that actually thank you are rather few and far between, but we don't get a lot of people that get irate, either (thankfully; though those people are usually saved for when they have to pay when their item breaks and the warantee doesn't cover it). Most of the people are rather neutral about it, or are like "this is a bit of an inconvience, but I can deal with it."
Let's see...Diablo, Splinter Cell, Doom, Halflife (and for all of these, that includes their sequals and expansions)....need I go on?
And like another replier to your comment said, it's not the M-rating, but the AO rating they avoid like the plague.
It's just interesting when you get stopped for white-out, because you might use it to get high, but you won't be stopped for a sharp utensil that you could use to kill someone.
I'm wanting to say it's something like a two-inch blade, since that sounds about right. Though most places I get knives (other than exact-o knives) from require you to be 18 just to touch them, no matter what size it is (liability thing, and for good reason).
She feels as though she has suffered loss, and she has. She has lost something that was hers, a life that would have existed had it continued further. As heartless as it sounds though, this proves nothing at all. She loved that mass of cells for what it would become. When she lost the mass of cells, she lost that hope, that eventuality, too. It doesn't mean a human died. The potential for a human died. It feels horrible to have to draw a distinction, but there is one, in my mind.
:)
As cold as that statement seems, you do have a point in that it is more that the potential died and not necessarily a human being (although I'm sure I'm not alone in disagreeing, since mass of cells, newborn, or adult, it's still their baby).
Worth noting that any girl I was to get pregnant would have to work very hard to get me to accept abortion as a course of action. It's not something I think I could bring myself to do.
I wish more people were like you. There's so many "men" out there that'll get a girl pregnant and insist she get an abortion as soon as they find out...all because they don't want to take responsibility for something they helped create. If you're as mature in other areas as you have presented yourself in this thread, you'll make a good husband and father some day.
This doesn't mean that I would stop others from doing it, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I equate the act with murder.
I wouldn't stop others from doing it, either, although I don't condone it. And I certainly wouldn't choose abortion if I didn't have to. Like I said before, if she wants an abortion bad enough, she's going to get one, whether or not it's legal. Far be it from me to stop her, although I am saddened that anyone chooses to end that potential life (excluding high-risk pregnancies that could leave one or both of them dead if the mother carried the baby to term).
I'm probably further influenced by the fact that I know someone who has had an abortion by the "wire coathanger" method, and quite frankly if keeping it legal and less of a tabboo subject avoids one other person avoid that, it'd be a moral victory in my mind.
I have two things to say to that:
1. Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow
2. That's pretty much the main reason why my vote is for keeping it legal. At least if it's legal, the mother doesn't have to take unnecessary risks.
Pennsylvania's pretty much the same way, at least with rifles and shotguns in the smaller trade shops. It takes longer to pick out what gun you want than it does to actually purchase it.
This is what I meant by "thereabouts". I don't draw a direct distinction. I figured I better say that in case someone came to me with a list of "fringe cases", and didn't realise that saying it would provoke the same reaction!
Ok...Technically, you answered my question, but I think my real question got lost in my wording. Legal or not, if a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she's going to get it. So, laws aside, exactly when does the child become "human life"? When it comes out of the womb and takes its first breath, or when it reaches the point that it could be born, even prematurely? And when does it become morally wrong to have an elective abortion?
Sometimes a human is not dead when their heart stops beating. Why would an unborn child be considered "alive" at that point? This definition is what makes this issue so tricky.
Yes, the devil is in the details... Yes, in some cases you can bring a person back after the heart stops beating, if you can get it to start again before the brain dies from lack of oxygen. This doesn't generally happen unless you're already in a hospital, or close enough to one that the limited bloodflow that occurs with CPR is enough to supply the brain until paramedics can use their resources, or you can effectively use a defibilator(sp?). Heart failure can and does lead to death, otherwise there would be no such thing as heart failure as a cause of death.
I say that a child is "alive" at the moment of conception as it is a living, growing, organism (or entity, if you will). I'm guessing you're not female and you don't have children of your own, or I would suspect some of your views to be different (though maybe not, I'm judging from many different views I've seen and heard). Ask any woman who has miscarried how she feels and I can pretty much guarantee that she'll tell you that it's like having a piece of her soul ripped out of her. And miscarriages are more likely to happen before the heart starts beating and it's still a mass of cells, yet it hurts at least as much as losing a child at any other stage of life. Why would that be if it's just a mass of cells and there is no real life yet?
It sounds like, too, that you may have worked for them pre-9/11. They've probably chacked down on that since.
Actually, there is a species of lizard that is considered to be entirely female (though they're technically hermaphroditic) and reproduce by engaging in what would be considered homosexual behavior (the act "activates" the otherwise dormant reproductive organs that fertilize the eggs).
I'm one of those that believes that "human life" begins at birth (or thereabouts) so I'm predisposed towards legalised abortions in the first place.
I favor legalizing abortions for safety reasons that others have already stated, so I'm not really offended by your viewpoint. I do, however, have a question or two.
1. You said that "human life begins at birth (or thereabouts)"...what's the "thereabouts"? Are you saying that the child of a woman who is within the time frame of delivering, even if it's a premature delivery (let's say, for argument's sake, 7 1/2 months) is considered "alive"? Or is it not until after the child is born, named, and registered with the country's system (ie - given a social security number and has a signed birth certificate, perhaps) that the child is "alive"?
2. Oftentimes, a person is dead when the heart stops beating. So why is the unborn child not considered "alive" when the heatbeat can first be heard (generally at about 10 weeks into the pregnancy)?
3. What about partial birth abortions? The child is carried into the last trimester, but is aborted before birth. At that point, the child is fully developed and pretty much ready to be born.
Keep in mind that not all abortions happen in the first trimester when the baby is still a "clump of cells." Some happen when the baby's been carried almost to term, which is easily the more objectionable one and generally the image that people get when hearing the word "abortion." Though, why women decide to do partial birth abortions is still beyond me (what's the point of spending eight and a half months carrying a baby that you're going to kill just before it's born?)
What's interesting is that what he said actually doesn't follow "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity (which mainly teaches that Satan inspires people to do wrong and so on). It actually read backwards enough to me that I almost thought he was describing Satanism until I re-read it and realized that it was simply a different view on the roles of God/Jesus and Satan. Unless, of course, he worded it in such a way that I'm misinterpreting it, it seems that he, too, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. Which, yes, is possible, although not typically accepted.
I think it's mostly in the inventory system. Anything that is inventoried as an "age-restricted item" will send an error message to the register and requires an employee confirmation (even the self-service registers will get this). So, basically, if you're caught confirming that the person is above the minimum age and they really aren't, then you could be fired (the employee has to essentially log in to be able to authorize the transaction).
Some of the things I've found with age restrictions at Wal-Mart (aside from the obvious beer and cigarettes which are federal law):
Cough Medicine
M-Rated Games
White-out
Paintballs
There are more, but these are what I've been carded on, and they give a rather good picture of some of the more unlikely things with age restrictions.
Then let them get irate. They can yell and scream and swear all they want, all the employees have to do is either a) call their manager (and if the manager doesn't care enough about his line-level employees to back them up in a situation where the employee is right, then it's time to consider a new job), or b) call security. Either way, if the customer gets irate and starts throwing a fit, all they're going to get is a personal escort out of the building.
Hey, it's most stores' policy to check ID when the customer a) buys beer, cigarettes, guns/ammo, etc, b) uses their credit card, or c) buy an age-restricted CD. If the customer doesn't like it, too bad. If they threaten to go somewhere else and never shop here again, more power to 'em. There'll be 10 people walking in to replace that one person.
You'd actually be surprised to find out how many people actually thank you for carding them.
Isn't it great? A minor can't go into Wal-Mart and buy white-out, but can walk next door to the craft store and buy an exact-o knife.
Go figure...