While I understand the incredulity of a nerd/geek having kids, there is yet a one-word simple answer... MAGNETS!

Not really. The "Kingdom of the Netherlands" is technically distinct from the "Netherlands". It's like how your "Linux Operating System" is distinct from your "Linux Kernel", which cause some people to hold the position that the former should be called "GNU/Linux" to make it clearly distinct, and not to minimalize the importance of the GNU tools in the OS package.

Likewise, there is some political butthurt that the Kingdom is called "Netherlands", when the Netherlands is only a single part of the Kingdom. Thus, usually in Dutch the Kingdom is referred to as "the Kingdom" (translated from Dutch), while outside of the Kingdom, it's usually more common to refer to the Kingdom as a whole as the "Netherlands". Which isn't really as bad as it seems, most languages colloquially refer to the Kingdom as "Holland", which is an even smaller partition of the smaller partition of the Netherlands. While oft cited as a Synecdoche, it is technically a meta-Syncedoche, in that Holland is just a part of a part of the Kingdom.

A wise policy. ;)

An "emirate" is the Arabic equivalent to a kingdom, so yeah, the UAE as well.

Yes, self defense courses are a perfect choice for my mother, who has bones so brittle that she's 6 standard deviations under the mean bone density.

No, not all women are this fragile, but your wonderfully simplistic advice completely ignores the complex realities of life. The advice for crime victims is almost always universally: "don't fight back, they might kill you for it."

Funny thing about that... a dead man's estate can still sue, and often a great number of things that a person says just before dying become admissible even though they would be hearsay if he were still alive. (Ok, oddly, the belief that one is about to die is really all that is necessary. If Alice who has been shot by all appearances fatally says, "Bob murdered me!" Then even if Alice survives, the statement could be used to impeach a later statement by Alice that Bob had not shot her.)

But still, relying upon the death of your victim to save you, really shows an ignorant position about the law. Dead man do sue (technically their estate, or heirs), their statements can start to be used even though they would otherwise be hearsay if the person had lived, and criminal law doesn't care about either of those.

Eh... not government regulation, but close enough. It's an industry self-regulation. Which usually means that it's only going to get called out if it's something so obviously and blatantly wrong that everyone else goes, "hey! not fair!"

In this case, exaggerating the effects of the makeup make the advertisement useless for evaluating the product. I think their reasoning is totally sound (of course it is, it's industry self-regulation): if your product lengthens lashes, then you shouldn't need to lengthen them further in post production.

Which is entirely the point. You can't evaluate the makeup if it's muddled with other effects.

It's like saying "paint.exe can produce beautiful images; I mean, look at what we produced!" Yet, the picture were later edited with photoshop. How am I to tell how good paint.exe is, when photoshop has made the image far better than it normally would be?

Actually, they're protecting against fraudulent advertising. If I'm looking at an add for mascara, then I should expect that the model is wearing the mascara, and that the effects of the mascara aren't being modified beyond that of the mascara itself.

It's like an ad for a car, where the car has been photoshopped to look nicer. That's not actually the car!

Yes, someone else above is arguing that makeup itself is essentially real-life photoshopping, but then that is kind of the point. If the makeup is working properly, then the advertisements shouldn't need more photoshopping. How am I to evaluate the effectiveness or worth of the makeup, if the makeup's effects are muddled with other effects?

Agreed. I had a shifty landlord, and we were involved in legal process against him (temporary restraining order already obtained). We thought he might be stupid enough to do something stupid, (he had already grabbed a piece of evidence out of my hands and ripped it up IN THE COURTROOM HALLS) but I let my guard down, and he surprised me with how stupid he could be, when he broke into my place and stole my laptop and briefcase with all my legal stuff (including evidence).

My lesson learned? Don't give people opportunity.

Flipping up to the summary though:

The recommendations I've read about this have been: don't attach your purse to your body, and if someone snatches your purse, just let them go. There are horror stories of a woman holding on to her purse, or getting caught up in it, and being dragged a long distance by the person stealing their purse. So, don't ever sling it across yourself, and don't clutch to it too tightly. Your well being and health are more important than your purse (no matter what it contains).

I suppose the same advice could carry over to some stuff carried by guys.

Yes. In English the word "state" refers to a sovereign political entity. The "United States of America" referred to each individual state as an individual and sovereign authority over their own land. However, as the USA has become more unitary rather than distinct, the term "state" in a political sense has experienced a form of semantic shift wherein people believe that it means a political subunit of a larger country.

In fact, the USA as a whole is a state, Germany is a state, the UN is a congregation of states. If you want more fun, The Kingdom of the Netherlands is considered to be composed of four "countries": The Netherlands, Aruba, Sint Maarten, and Curaçao. These collections of smaller politically sovereign entities into a larger politically sovereign entity causes a lot of confusion in this regard.

The word "emulate" carries a connotation that the emulating person is not being genuine.

Your whole "best effort" paragraph does little to make this sound any better. If a young girl from birth were raised as if a boy, and later decided to shurk this rearing and become a woman, would she be putting on her "best effort" to "emulate" a female, because she doesn't share a girlhood?

For your argument to work, it would have to apply equally well to children who have (abusively) been forced to conform to the opposite gender. That physiological conditions are not relevant, but rather the life experiences of those individuals. And what of children who transition early in life? Is this child emulating being a female as well? Even though she has lived full-time as a female since the 5th grade, and was afforded the courtesy of being gender-non-conformant even before that?

It would be folly for one to argue that trans people experience the same upbringing and development as cis people of the gender with which the trans person identifies. However, that does not invalidate the genuine nature of the trans person's gender, and certainly does not warrant the term "emulate". If a transperson is acting genuinely and honestly, then there is no "emulation" going on, they are being an honest representation of a woman, or man.

A transwoman is a woman, a transman is a man. They are not "emulating" their gender. Do they share identical developmental histories? No, but then gay people experience different developmental histories as well, sometimes gender non-conforming even. There is an incredible amount of variation in the world, and singling out one group of people and accusing them of "emulation" of their behaviors is offensive and wrong.

You claim to have trans history, yet you clearly don't show any obvious deference towards the feelings of those people. Black people are not immune to racism against blacks, and women are not immune to sexism against women, and homosexuals? All one need do is point to the all of the anti-gay politicians who turn out to be homosexual to demonstrate that homophobia is not limited to the heterosexuals.

Do transpeople have different histories from cispeople? Yes, they do. But there is no reason why that should depict them as less than genuine, especially considering how vast the differences in development of cisgendered people that can occur without even considering the transgendered.

(BTW, it was abundantly clear that your sexuality included a fetish for MTFs. I just didn't touch on it, because it's entirely irrelevant.)

Yes. Question not applicable. Nothing relevant to this case. Yes, writing a book would adversely affect her privacy as well. Yes, adversely affecting her privacy is obviously a breach of the restraining order.

He voluntarily forfeited his right to speak his mind to others.

Let's take a different example. Say that Alice is being discriminated against by her employer ACME. Alice takes ACME to court, and they eventually decide to settle the case. Alice agrees within the settlement not to talk about the settlement, or the details of the case. Would Alice be in breach of the settlement if she talked about the case? Yes, indeed she would, no matter who she talked to. (There are typically exceptions in these settlements for immediate family, and then confidentiality typically ensures that speaking about it with a lawyer, or to a spiritual adviser to obtain spiritual absolution will not endanger breach of contract.) She could speak to Bob, who lives in a remote village of a small Polynesian island, and she would still be in breach of contract.

The man willingly consented to a restriction against sharing any of her private details with ANYONE, not just her friends, family, or people who know her.

This is a quote from the Declaration of Independence. It has no legal force of law. Also, none of the rights listed in the Declaration are "the right to free speech".

Oddly, these "inalienable" rights are regularly infringed upon by every government:
Life: some governments do not practice capital punishment. However, if they do, they're violating your "inalienable" right to life.
Liberty: all governments maintain arrest, and imprisonment. These would be a prima facie violation of your "inalienable" right to liberty.
Pursuit of Happiness: "Happiness" as used here is actually synonymous with "Fortune". We needn't list all the ways that governments interfere with the ability of people to earn money. (The Slaughterhouse Cases specifically noted that the government has no duty to protect a person's ability to make an income.)

This. I was waiting on the law, which was passed earlier this year, to go into effect. I wasn't aware that it was just the time for the FCC to enact a policy about it, which itself would take a year to actually come into enforcement. :(