* Whenever you change a channel, you get ads that border on fraud, such as "10 Crazy Things Obama Won't Tell Homeowners About Their Mortgage". * Whenever you change a channel, half of it will be covered by a pop-up ad until you close it. * Whenever you change a channel, a video will play in the upper corner, drowning out the show you want to watch. * When you change the channel, the show will start playing, but then start and stop as ads are loaded. Or the show will stop completely because it can't connect to the ad-server. * When you change the channel, your TV is infected with malware and won't work until you take it be repaired, yet the TV channel claims no responsibility. (My favorite!)
Since the early days of TV (or even radio), some parents would rather petition the government to "do something" rather than just turn the computer or TV or radio off. If you don't want your kids listening to it, then turn it off, but don't make everyone else suffer for your lack of parenting.
The second issue is this: I would argue that the Amazon Echo is actually doing a good job with kids. Children should know not to be rude to their parents or adults so they're playing with the Echo to see what happens. And if parents think the kids will learn more about manners from the Echo than from mom and dad, then there's a much bigger problem, called "responsible parenting".
Does ERAD care about how clients use their technology? Do they care that LEO's are seizing money without due process? It's one thing to seize someone's money after they've been accused and arrested for a crime, but it's a completely different matter when the police take the money simply because it's there.
And it's yet another thing when ERAD takes a percentage of every seizure. So again, so they know the money is coming from innocent people?
It would be funny if IMDB complied with the takedown request and replaced the movie's page with a big message that said "Information removed due to Copyright Universal". How long do you think it would take the cast and crew and owners of the movie to rip apart Copyright Universal for taking down it's page? Then we might start to see some change in the way these bots issue takedown notices.
It's not surprising when companies use other companies as their source of data rather than verifying it themselves. How many times has this happened in the news industry? Site #1 (such as The Onion) will publish a story and site #2 will take it as gospel and re-print it... even though The Onion is a known satirical site! Then site #3 will re-print site #2's article using site #2 as the "verified source", yet the original data is still bad.
From his opening paragraph, it almost sounds like Jesse Jackson is arguing against cable set-top boxes: National news coverage of the snarling dogs, water hoses and church bombings in the American South were the catalysts to exposing the ugly truths of racism and bigotry in the 1960s. Local news outlets gave new meaning to what the struggle looked like for people on its front lines. To continue: This is why I'm telling everyone to go to Walmart, pay a one-time fee for an HD antennae, and get all the local channels for free without needing to pay monthly fees for a cable box.
The warnings aren't useless. Sure, users ignore and click-through them, but the real purpose is legal: it's so the site's lawyers can say that the warning was in the TOS that the user agreed to, so the user can't sue.
This is probably way too late, but this seems like an obvious solution: "Blue Caribou Cafe... now proudly serving Caribou Coffee." The cafe gets to keep its name and the coffee company gets more customers from selling their coffee.
But this solution wouldn't let lawyers file more billable hours with their client.
First, how are scammer calls blocked but legitimate calls are allowed? By using crowd-sourced software like Nomorobo: people report a phone number as bad and as more people report it, it gets labeled as a spammer and blocked.
Second, I don't know all the technical details, but supposedly all phone calls have internal ID's attached to them so the phone companies know where they come from. It's easy to use software to spoof the phone number that appears on a caller ID, but it's almost impossible to spoof the internal ID. Would it possible for phone companies block calls using the internal ID's?
It's interesting that the First Amendment protects the media against government interference, but there's no such protection against self-censorship. How long will be until editors are told to kill stories because the legal department considers it too much of a risk- not from government agents or jail time, but because it'll offend a 0.5%-er who will use his resources to bury the newspaper in legal bills?
Between this and stories about how Republicans (especially Trump) telling people not to believe the media, it'll be lucky if we have any good reporters left in a few years.
Every time I read a story about someone fighting Google, I have to ask: what about the other search sites? Is France pressuring Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo the same way? How come no one talks about this? :)
I think a good way to generate more outrage from customers is to put the usage caps into terms they understand. After all, what's 300G or 1T a month? Explain that it's 20 30-minute shows on Netflix or 10 full-length movies. Then explain that people will get charged fees if they happen to binge-watch a TV show all weekend long. Is watching all 13 episodes of "Fuller House" worth a $30 overage fee? (Okay, 300G of data may be a lot more than 20 30-minute shows, but you get the idea.)
I was just going to say this. If the argument is between Fox and the person who uploaded the video, doesn't Nintendo have a say in this since it was their video game system that was recorded and uploaded? Maybe they should file a defamation notice since the game's bug could make the game (and their system) look bad.
I'm sure most customer service reps go through training to make sure they never say "Sorry about that, we messed up" or to admit guilt in any way. Instead, like you said, they act like they're doing the customer a favor for things like reversing fees that shouldn't have been charged in the first place. I wonder if this because the legal department figures that admitting guilt could leave them open to some kind of lawsuit.
Axanar was trying to capture the ideas of what Star Trek is about. But Paramount was trying to argue that Axanar was trying to do more than just "capture the ideas": they claimed that Axanar was trying to position itself as official, canon Star Trek.
That's why there was the whole argument over terms like "red shirt", "warp drive", "transporter", Klingon, etc. Sure, Paramount can't own these individual concepts, but when all of them are put together, they form what fans recognize as Star Trek.
The Axanar people could have taken the "50 Shades of Grey" approach and changed all the names so it would be Star Trek in spirit, but without using any of the specific names.
While your response is 100% factual, the problem is that the original article was an op-ed piece in the New York Times, which means it carries a certain level of prestige. This means that more people will believe this nonsense simply because it's printed in the New Your Times, and irregardless of whether it's news or an op-ed piece.
Can you write your own op-ed piece to debunk all these claims? Or would the NYT not run it because it doesn't support their RIAA sponsors?
Why was I paying $16 for a CD where 8/11ths of the tracks were junk? Because the news media conveniently ignores the fact that there was price fixing and collusion in the 1990's to keep CD's at a set price. Like people said then, if all electronics fell in price, why were CD's consistently sold at $19.99?