Nothing to do with any of that at all. Simply letter of the law stuff and children's rights versus parent's rights under a countries constitution, yep, they are equal. So I am male and these is only one answer for a male when it comes to abortion, I do not support it but it is the women's right to choose. Basically, pretty much I am male and hence abortion, it is most definitely not my right to choose, one way or the other. When you carry the burden and you take the physical health risk, then you get to choose. Now to take the idea beyond birth, would be to get the male to take full legal responsibility and risk for all the child's future behaviour including and especially that child's criminal behaviour, then and only then could the male be considered to have a say in abortion or not.
Social democracies, one person one vote, corporations one person billions of votes, the other person fucking none. So yeah PR=B$. I would much rather public governance than private governance and that is the real issue in question.
Let's be honest by far the bulk of content except maybe landscape channels sucks balls at 4K. Botox dead faces, awful plastic surgery, crappy acting, set flaws, bad special effects, poor camera work, stupid shit like lens flare and the list goes on. Never of course to forget the blatant bullshit of 3D double vision (now there was a truth they managed to hide for years, lying bastards). DRM or more accurately the theft of everyone digital rights pushed under the PR=B$ lies of digital rights management (they really are sick people when they come up with that blatant double speak).
This has nothing to do with anyone's digital rights and everything to do with censorship in hardware, in your home, that you are forced to pay for. Don't pay a licence fee for your wedding videos, see them blocked until you do. Can't play old content on new hardware because you can not transfer it as you are actively blocked from doing because they specifically want to charge you for the same content over and over and over again, well, suck it on up losers. Are M$ evil, you, betcha. Why are the evil fuckers at M$ so desperate for it, monopoly in collusion with a 'PATENTED' DRT (digital rights theft) method, that is the pay off for them, that and a long term plot to become the dominant global publishers and drive most others out of business.
Software wise, iPhones have been rock solid for me, a few minor issues asides. I have not had any major issues like I experienced on the Android devices, such as the browser getting hijacked somehow (with only a couple of regular apps installed), and one Samsung phone that at some point will just reboot every few minutes, with the only fix being a factory reset.
Apple stuff still "just works". Unless it does not do out of the box what you want it to do, then chances are that you're stuffed if you picked iOS. iOS is a walled garden, but sitting here in my comfort zone I can't even see the wall, much less feel it or be bothered by it. Never even considered jailbreaking my phone. I don't like Apple or their business practices all that much, and I wish they'd open up their OS a little, but there is no way I'll switch to Android anytime soon after the decidedly poor experiences I have had with Android. But that is just personal, I know plenty of people who switched from Apple to Android and haven't looked back. Some others have returned to Apple. So perhaps it is mostly a matter of taste after all.
That still does not answer the question of measuring the value or harm of the content and whether it is worth protecting at public expense, nor paying the cost of that fair and reasonable test. Copyprivilege should not be automatic but must pass a public test and pay the cost of that test, to ensure that the cost to society of that artificial unjust protection is measured as being of true value to that society.
What needs to be carefully looked at is interpretive laws and the way they actually work in application. The rich basically use their wealth and lawyers to abuse the poor. Not only can the rich most abusively annoy the poor and get away it, they can also claim any imaginable action of the poor is annoying and ensure the poor are punished for it.
Just to be clear about an understanding of annoyance. A criminal runs up and shoots people in a bank and takes the money. Now don't you think that criminal finds in annoying when police investigate the matter, find out who did it, hunts the criminal down and arrests them. Don't you think the criminal finds the prosecution, judge and jury annoying when the evidence in presented and the criminal is successfully prosecuted. Now don't you think the criminal is extremely annoyed by the correctional services people who will not let the criminal run free to able to commit more crimes.
Be very, very careful of the legal dance with the idea of annoyance because the most glaring example, don't you think investors find it annoying when unions demand better wages and conditions for their workers, extremely annoying, let alone an actual strike. Don't corrupt politicians find protesters to be extremely annoying and look those corrupt politicians actually do seek to prosecute those people expressing their political rights under what are basically annoyance laws under another name.
Don't you get it, it works the American way. Eye for an Eye. One person from a country attacks me, then I am allowed to attack anyone from that country for any reason and in any way, as well as attack all those from that country who would try to stop be attacking some one in that country.
So in computer parlance, let's all play the electromagnetic pulse game because that is really going to work so well for everyone.
Here is a question and what point does a countries espionage agents cease to be their agents and become more accurately double agents working for another country. So did German intelligence do this or did German nationals working as American espionage agents do this. The law would say, that they were not German Agents but American agents who happened to be German nationals working in German intelligence services. The exact same thing applies to most of the others in one eyed, eight blind mice group.
Those double agents are not working in the interests of their country, they are working in the interests of the corrupt US corporations that control the US government. Imagine nine countries intelligence services all managing the global fuck up that has been the 'WAR ON TERROR'. Now how many of them were actually treasonously 'in the know'.
The most noticeable thing about abusive law enforcement actions in the US, only the law enforcement (let's be clear the US does not have police it has law en-FORCE-ment). Not really US law enforcements fault, not really. Some one else is selecting the people to become law enforcers, somebody is training to poor selections to be law enforcers, somebody is setting policy for those poorly selected and badly trained law enforcers, to ensure they act as revenue generating law enforcers. Take a long hard look at the difference between law enforcers in Conservative Government zones and police in Progressive zones. Not just locally but globally, yep, the people you select to run government are smooth talking, self serving, idiotic fuck ups, who are only capable of knee jerk simplistic thinking and voila you get the results you would expect.
The American reaction is like blaming all dogs for some dogs being bad. There is a huge difference in selection and training for a guide dog for the blind and a junk yard guard dog. Conservative American politicians in their ignorance and stupidity are putting junk yard dogs out on the street and getting the results you would expect.
Amongst the over 55s American Exceptiolism runs rife. Their viewpoint, who gives a shit what the NSA were doing to foreigners, foreigners are all sub human only Americans, well, certain Americans are actually human and should get human rights. This extends to foreign countries, only Americans have rights in foreign countries and those foreigners, 'er', 'um', it is up to their government to provide them rights 'AGAINST' the actions of the American government or American Corporations (with tiny defence forces and no nukes, snark, snark, if they try we will kill all that resist and they do exactly that and then fucking celebrate it). Regardless of anything they will say when answering a survey. That is the reality of American exceptional and America has no allies as far as those Americans are concerned, no country whose citizens have rights within their own country if those rights would in any way infringe about Americans in any way shape or form, no matter how much those actions are against the law in American (only when applied to American citizens, well, most citizens of course, exceptions being pretty bloody obvious). Thanks to the internet, America is pretty much advertising exactly this to the rest of the world, winning hearts and minds, not so much.
RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.
regular citizens and paupers were pretty much the same.
No. A citizen was lower upper class.