Here's something else to consider.

A movie that is rated PG-13 may contain nudity. It may be mild or brief, but it can be there nonetheless. This is especially true when the nudity is not sexually related.

So why is it that a single nipple in a video game warrants an AO rating?

This kind of double standard is exactly the kind of thing that demonstrates that people have an unnecessarily skewed image of what purpose video games serve.

I can't agree more with the video: video games are just as much of an art form as cinema. In some ways, it's even MORE involved, because video games are so much longer than movies, and allow us to form attachments to the characters that are much stronger than might be in a 2-hour film. This allows for an opportunity for more immersive and stronger reactions when things happen to the characters we've become attached to.

So why are these characters all virginal?

If art truly reflects life, then it needs to acknowledge the fact that we're humans, with normal human sex drives. We are sexual creatures, but it's not ALL that we are. Games should definitely be able to afford to explore that side as well.

@Teresa:

How many times now have you been in comment threads where someone's asserted that the owner or the owner's employees can forbid you to take photographs on private property, and someone else has explained (as Zikzak @79 explained to you here) that that's not true?

If private property isn't open to the public but is within line of sight of public areas, you can take photographs of it from the public areas. And as Zikzak so lucidly explained, if you're on private property that's open to the public, the owner can ask you to leave, but not to refrain from taking photographs.

I'm confused. As Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right" states:

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

So do they have a right to ask you not to photograph or do they only have a right to ask you to vacate the premises? I would wager the latter, but I have it from the horse's mouth (so to speak) that states the former.

My music theory teacher used a 12-sided die for our ear-training classes to randomly determine what intervals he should play. He originally used to use two six-sided dice, but a classmate of mine pointed out that he would be weighting himself too heavily around perfect fifths.

*cough* BBSes, not BBSs. :)

@Kieran:

Yes, the older version that's FAR easier to read is this:

Our Father, who 0wnz heaven, j00 r0ck! May all 0ur base someday be belong to you! May j00 0wn earth just like j00 0wn heaven. Give us this day our warez, mp3z, and pr0n through a phat pipe. And cut us some slack when we act like n00b lamerz, just as we teach n00bz when they act lame on us. Please don’t give us root access on some poor d00d’z box when we’re too pissed off to think about what’s right and wrong, and if you could keep the f3i off our backs, we’d appreciate it. For j00 0wn r00t on all our b0x3n 4ever and ever, 4m3n.

Well, technically the Earth is wider at its equator than at the poles, due to the fact that it's spinning and it has a liquid core. At least, that's the way I remember it. So it's not spherical. It's more like an, um... ellipsoid would be the word, I guess?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am what I would consider to be a "thinking man's Christian". I do believe in evolution, but I also believe in God and I believe that the Bible is a fallible document, since it was compiled by human beings, who are inherently fallible.

Now here's where I have the biggest problem with what Shepherd was saying in this video: She's contradicting herself right there in the course of less than a minute. She states that she believes with absolute certainty that the world was Created (capital C), and got cut off before she was about to say "in Seven Days" (my guess, even though technically it should be SIX days... most people don't make the distinction, though). But then she takes the things that were said about the Earth being round and backpedals, saying that it must be "one of those markers".

Excuse me?

The Bible says that the earth is flat. It also says that it has "pillars" and "corners". So right there, she's obviously picking and choosing what to believe.

I have never understood why people can say that obviously PARTS of the Bible are wrong (the parts that deal with slavery, for example), but other parts are right, and yet be the same people who say that they believe "every word" that's printed in it. Not to mention the fact that the FIRST TWO STORIES IN THE BIBLE contradict one another.

Yes, that's right, ladies and gents: the first two chapters in the Book of Genesis are COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY stories of Creation:

(taken from http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/bible3do.htm)

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

So how, exactly, can a person claim to believe what is so obviously a MYTH (in the same vein as the great Myths of the Greek gods), and is told not once, but TWICE, and in a contradictory manner? It's logically impossible to say that you believe "every word" in the Bible.

That's not to say that there aren't valuable lessons in it. The Bible, at its core, is a strong philosophical document, even if not a truly historical one.

I do believe in God. I always have. I believe in God because I can't honestly conceive of a universe in which He doesn't exist. But why is it so hard for people to accept that maybe, just maybe, the people who compiled the Bible and told stories over six thousand years ago were possibly trying to just figure it out, just like we are today?

There are some things that have been said once or twice that I feel the need to re-emphasize.

First off: Mr. Righi was the one who called the police, in response to illegal detainment on the part of the LP guard. The police officer had no reason to demand credentials (notice, credentials differ from identification—an officer may ask you for identification, but not necessarily for credentials), nor search through his bag. That's not to say that Mr. Righi shouldn't have at least somewhat complied with the police officer—I've always been told that it's far better to comply with a cop and fight it later than it is to get shot and not be able to challenge anything.

Secondly: The LP guard stated more than once that he/the store did not suspect Mr. Righi of shoplifting. That statement right there means that there is nothing further that the guard can do and that there is no cause for any further action. The cop should have realized this, too, and immediately demanded that Mr. Righi be released.

I feel that it's important to point out once again, too, that once the exchange of money for the goods takes place, the items in the little plastic bag are no longer merchandise, but rather are now the property of the person who exchanged that money for the goods. The store and its employees cannot demand inspection of that which no longer belongs to it. The most the store or its manager can do is to state that the person may no longer shop there.

I was at the office one day and got my shirt quite dirtied up, but didn't have a spare, so I drove to the nearest Target to buy a new one. When I asked the employee at the counter where the nearest bathroom was so that I could go change, he whimpered that I wasn't allowed to take merchandise into the bathrooms. I informed him that since I had now purchased the shirt, it was no longer merchandise and was now my property. He had no answer to that. I was validated in my belief, too, because when I went to the bathroom there was a sign above the door that stated that customers were not allowed to take unpaid merchandise into the bathroom.

I've read through this whole insanely long page and have seen a lot of people asking what the big deal is about showing a receipt. My only answer is this: I don't show my receipt simply because I don't have to do so. That's the only thing you need to know and it's ultimately the only thing that matters.