Just like the drug courier profile that amounts to "a black guy in a nice car driving the speed limit" or the airport profile that is little more than a grab-bag of traits and habits that all of us have to some degree, these things aren't about objectively assessing a situation and identifying the dangerous characters. They are about wrapping an agent's hunches in a veneer of science to protect the system from criticism.
It's not really science? So what, it wasn't meant to be.
Since most users of non-Google search engines are deliberately choosing a non-Google tool, I doubt many of them would undermine their own statement by referring to the search as "googling." I google things on Google. I search for things on other search engines.
As with 15 years ago, I am disgusted with the habitual overvaluation of internet companies that have difficulty turning profits. Twitter does many thing right and I wish them well, but I will not be buying their stock.
MS Word has an auto-summary feature that is disturbingly good, but just because software can create a summary doesn't mean it can recognize a good one.
The day they write software that can recognize and appreciate a pun is the day they can dream about writing software that can recognize and appreciate a sound argument.
This sounds more like the kind of dumbing down we get from standardized testing. And I suppose if they really do want to reduce our children to mindless drones, then this is another step in the right direction
I know what the court would say in disagreeing with me; nevertheless, IMO selling (or even publishing) someone's criminal record constitutes a punishment not determined by the jury and is therefore unconstitutional.
I was wondering that myself. A read of 512(a) and especially (a)(2) may lead to that result--that these agreements place Yourube (typo, but I like it) outside the definition of service provider and unqualified to claim a safe harbor defense.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people would make their photos freely available for a project that seemed interesting.
You touch on another issue that I wonder about--the effect of all this documentation on memory. I have very few memories of my childhood. I also have very few pictures (and those mostly contextless class photos), and no film whatsoever. My daughter, on the other hand, has a multitude of photos and vides documenting most of the events of her life.
How will all that evidence effect her memories of her childhood?
Not all seats are created equal. Even a half full stadium may not have had any $25,000 seats available. But great scott! A $25,000 seat with an obstructed view?!?
Here's the word that needs to be tossed about more in asshole owner sports stories: monopoly. Owners get away with treating fans like dirt because they have a monopoly on their product in their region.
The objections raised seem to me a bit of nibbling about the edges. A vast majority of children do not fall within these objections. Fine, you've identified some potential tweaks, but as an attack on the bill, it is weak tea indeed. This isn't protect the children, it's defend parental rights.
The cries of "nanny state" are laughable silliness, this the the opposite of nanny state.
The problem in this case is that it wan't being used in commerce, but PNC's bigger problem, as you point out right at the end, is that it's descriptive. This term should be (and if challenged, probably will be found) untrademarkable.
So let me see if I have this straight: in response to the problem of people texting during movies, Cinemark creates a system that encourages people to text during movies.
People who don't have smart phones, turn their phones off, or simply don't use them are ineligible for the reward, but a portion of their ticket money will be ised to fund the incentive for bad behavior.
And this is proposed as a better alternative to kicking people out for rude and disruptive behavior?