Religion is a massive con believed by the gullible. Emancipation comes when people discard beliefs in fairies, goblins and gods.

I'm in Tauranga and have started cycling to work every day it's not raining. It's 20km to work and back, but that's all on the flat so it's easy going. The goal is 100km+ a week. I've learned that if you want your weekend days to last, go for a 15km ride first thing in the morning. By the time 2pm comes around it feels like it's 5.

How many children died from playing with one of these things compared to the bicycle, trampoline, skateboard or surfboard?

How can the submitter get this very simple fact wrong, and how can the approver of the submission let it slip by?

I reckon it means any content that is displayed on what would be typically called a television set. So watching Youtube on an AppleTV is stll "TV", but watching on demand services on a computer is not.

I agree. And to a large extent computer games fall into the same category.

Being forced to pay for services I may not use, or in a manner that is not proportional to my use is not ethical. There are others ways of paying for services that don't involve compulsory confiscation.

Tax is not ethical. Legally avoiding it is not unethical.

In my opinion Voyager is by far the better of the Star Trek versions. Followed by DS9, then TNG. Voyager had a compelling stroyline from the start until the end. They had a purpose, and that gave all 7 series a linked and common plot. And Seven was hot.

Often the word "to" is too short.

Content is content, whether it is published or not. I am arguing that people don't have an abitrary right to someone else's content.

If I make a movie and charge someone to watch it, and offer them some form of time based encryption keys and special software to allow them to watch it, have I published my content? Does someone else have a fundamental right to watch that content? I say that they don't.

If someone can find a way to record or copy it, then good for them, it's my fault for not having a strong enough protection mechanism. They are using their own property to make a copy. The only way to content producers can sop this is to technically prevent copying. That's like trying to stop water from flowing downhill.

You're arguing my case - what you've just said is exactly the way I see it too. Which is why I disagree with very concept of copyright. Copyright limits what people can do with their own property, and I don't believe the state should have the power or authority to place such limits.

Content is content. My point is that one person doesn't have a right to the content created by someone else unless that someone else gives them permission.

You have no right to the content in my daily journal, or the diary of someone else. That's my content and theirs. Claiming that a movie or song is "culture" is laughable. I've not stated that content is "property" - they're your words. But if I produce content of some kind that does not give to a right to view/hear/read it.

You make it sound like you have a fundamental right to content someone else produces. You don't.