I was just about to say that it's Snowden's fault this data was leaked to the Christian Science Monitor 10 years ago. So not only does Snowden have data from the NSA, he apparently either has a TARDIS or a time-travelling DeLorean!
Putting aside the issue of whether the guy is telling the truth or if he's even in Scientology, the main issue is that he shouldn't be an Amazon seller in the first place.
He was doing so well with the first few paragraphs- just apologize for the mistake and nicely ask the customer to forgive it and remove the bad review. But then he goes crazy with threats... and from the look of the screen shot, it seems like this was a *public* posting? What kind of crazy is that? Why didn't he at least send that in a private e-mail?
I agree. Like you said, if this service was from "we_tell_you_you_are_fat.com", it would be hailed as a great social experiment.
And like other people are saying, as long as people opt-in (and can opt-out), then what's the issue? Or is this Karl's way of saying TechDirt's UK readers are fat and should use this service? Just kidding. :)
First, they're obviously playing the statistics game. Like the first poster points out, Neilsen can continue to say "95%" of its audience still watches TV, even though they'll define their audience in small print in a footnote. Sure, 95% over the years still looks good, but it's bad when the sample population is falling every year.
And why are the Neilsen ratings still used to determine network advertising rates? This is what gives us "sweeps week" where networks pull tricks to get more viewers (such as celebrity appearances, etc). Yet everyone knows that the sweeps week ratings won't happen every week.
I agree that it's stupid for the government to get involved in an airline-business matter. What's next, Congressional regulation on whether airlines should serve food?
Let's look at the facts: 1) "Airfones" and in-flight phones have been common on airplanes since at least the 1970's. 2) Airfones cost at least $5 a minute. 3) People will be chatty cathys because their own cell phone gives them cheap or free minutes. The obvious answer: set up a $5 per minute wifi system within the airplane. People won't use it because it's expensive and other passengers won't be disturbed.
And wasn't there an issue with cell phones not being able to connect to towers in an airplane travelling at 35,000 feet and going 500 mph? The $5 per minute wifi also solves this issue.
First why did you repeat the typo from the original article? The sentence should be "But it was possibly DUE to the confusion caused by the sudden entrance of the cops...", not "But it was possibly do to the confusion caused by the sudden entrance of the cops...".
Second, how old is the lawyer? You said he's been practicing law for half a century, which is 50 years. If he graduated law school and became an attorney when he was 21, is he now 71? Are there many attorneys in their 70's still practicing law?
Some commenters at Ars make a good point: the statement from Verizon basically says their network is operating as expected, but they don't specifically say they aren't throttling Netflix. Why don't they "state unequivocally" that they're not doing it?
I love how they use Weird Al Yankovic as an example of parody.
First, Weird Al changes the lyrics enough to fall under the "transformative" rule. He doesn't just re-record Michael Jackson's song as "Dumb Beat It", he actually writes all new-lyrics to so with the music.
Second, and most importantly he gets permission from the artist or label. Did "Dumb Starbucks" get permission to do this?
Third, almost as important he pays the original artist a royalty. In fact, Weird Al got into a little trouble when he recorded a parody version of "Gangsta Paradise" because the artist claimed he didn't give Weird Al permission. Yet the artist reversed his position when he saw the payment checks from Weird Al. All of the original artists usually see their songs and CD's go up in sales when Weird Al releases his music, which brings in even more money.
Because of these, artists think it's an honor to be parodied by Weird Al. In fact, Mark Knopfler (of Dire Straits) said Weird Al could only record a parody version of their "Money for Nothing" if he played guitar on it!
Maybe the Dumb Starbucks people show watch VH-1's "Behind the Music" episode on Weird Al before using him as their example.
I wonder if we're finally reaching the point where technology is moving faster than people's ability to understand it. It sounds like the politicians in New Jersey don't comprehend anything about the proposal, including the fact that it's a proof of concept and there's no working code. All the politicians know is "Bitcoin is bad, so anything to do with it is bad", or more accurately, "We don't know much about this Bitcoin concept but we've heard scary stories, so we need to outlaw it."
And, of course, what are they outlawing? Since when does a state AG have power over someone in another state? I can see how a case can be made if the software was installed on a New Jersey resident's computer, but again, there's no working code! If I were the guy's attorney, I would simply send back a letter saying New Jersey has no standing to file anything and not even bother arguing about code, about Bitcoin, or anything else.
When people make speeches about how Google should just delist sites, do they not know (or not care) about other sites? If Google is forced to delist a site, do we think Bing and every other search engine will do the same? Or will they take this as a competitive advantage and start advertising that they don't block sites like Google does? And what's to stop someone from making their own search engine? Or better yet, just use an "underground" one like DuckDuckGo?
How much of his speeches are bullying and how much is "getting off topic"? Every article that talks about about he wants to charge people (or whatever else) is one less article focussing on the NSA's abuses. I think people like him are hoping to steer the conversion enough so people get distracted and don't push for reforms. I just wish more media would push back and call this guy out for what he's doing.
This is legalized extortion again. The choice is pay $X million now to settle or pay $X million times 2 or 3 to your attorneys to fight the case, which you may lose and have to pay the money plus damages for dragging out the case. Sure, it's your legal right to defend yourself, but it'll cost you money that would be better spent in many, many other areas.
How can trademarking a word like "candy" even be legal? I can understand the idea that some companies are making candy-themed games to get into the lucrative candy app market and that King.com needs to protect their brand, but "candy" is too common of a word to copyright.
Again, though, the blame should be laid at the feet of the lawyers who take cases like this. Even if the company executives think this is a good idea, don't the trademark lawyers know this won't work? Do the lawyers simply take the money without advising the client about the law?
" how the metadata program could have stopped 9/11 -- a claim that has been debunked so many times it's barely worth discussing any more."
We all know it's been debunked, but why are network news shows letting this get by? Where's the hard-hitting journalist who will call these people out for this nonsense? But this goes back to the issue of how the media has to play nice to large organizations out of fear that their press credentials will be revoked. Challenge a senator about the NSA? Sorry, you're not invited to the White House correspondent's dinner. And you'll have to sit in the back of the room during any press conference... assuming you're allowed in.
We should all know by now that a defense lawyer's job is to convince the judge or jury that the defendant is innocent (or had reasons for doing something). When there's obvious video evidence, a lawyer will try anything, the most famous of which is "blame the victim". We shouldn't be surprised when some lawyers use outlandish excuses like this.
Compare this reaction to what happened when Ellen Degeneres' screener copy of the "Walter Mitty" movie was leaked. I'm sure this movie was either DVD or Blue-Ray, which would be far more valuable than a cam-corded version. Why didn't the MPAA call in ICE to raid Degeneres' studio for her "movie theft".
Somehow I think this is a poorly-planned publicity stunt for the MPAA, AMC theaters, "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" (the movie the guy was watching), or even Google Glass. First, like other posters are saying, it seems awfully convenient that ICE agents were available to show up at the theater so quickly: "an hour into the movie", as the guy says. It seems almost like a set-up: maybe the guy had been to the theater before and an employee wanted the $500 bounty. Then the theater had the agencies on "standby" in case this happened again.
It also seems like extreme overkill. The article on BuzzFeed makes it sound like there was a team of police and agents waiting for the guy. Yet if someone shoplifts a DVD from a store (which is a real theft), one or maybe two police officers will be called. But as the MPAA wants us to believe, recording a movie will cause much more financial damage than actually stealing a DVD.
In all fairness, this doesn't sound like the usual scam of "send me $2,000 and I'll send you a million". Maybe the lady really thought she was helping him start his own business. And to be honest, she did help him build his business- the business was taking money from gullible people, but still.
So how is it that people who are sworn to uphold the Constitution find it so easy to violate all the amendments? You would think they'd be first in line to demand Snowden be given a fair trial with legal counsel. Instead, they brand him a traitor and want him executed without a trial.
But like everyone is saying, if people at the NSA see nothing wrong with violating the 4th amendment, why not break the 6th amendment and any others that will help their cause? And like any other fanatics, there's no reasoning with them: Snowden is a traitor and he must die. The other question is whether these people think he should be killed as a punishment for what he's done or to send a message to any other would-be whistleblowers?
The Weather Channel operates in basically two modes: For most of the year, the weather is so calm that they have time in their schedule to run reality shows like "Storm Chasers" or "This week in weather history".
Yet when a storm approaches, they get into panic mode and every storm is Snowpocalypse or Wintermageddon or or Super Terrible End of the World We're All Gonna Die Rain Storm.
I can see why people get tired of these ups and downs. If I were a DirectTV customer, I'd vote for a calmer weather channel... or just check my phone where there's no "weather anchor" in a rainy city telling me even more rain is coming.