Sure, but leave any punishment for their action in the social sphere, not the legal one. People refusing to do business with a company who's owners support bigotry and/or racism is fine, but throwing them into a cell or charging them with a crime for doing so isn't.
Yeah, if they can't deliver what they're promising, that's the ISP's problem/fault, not Netflix's. Their job is to deliver what the customer wants, whether that be Netflix or otherwise, and if they can't do that, then either drop what they're promising, or raise prices until they can actually do so.
Sure they may have 'won' in court, but between not being allowed to send out the standard ridiculously overblown threat letters, and their targets having access to legal advice, I imagine they're just going to drop the matter as not profitable enough for their time.
They're in it to shake down accused pirates, nor protect their copyrights or punish the guilty, and if the most they can get is a couple of bucks, and they know they can't just frighten their targets with scary and confusing legal threats into 'settling' for ridiculous amounts, I doubt they'll bother.
'Some may argue that this algorithmic collection of resumes and LinkedIn profiles may be dragging some people under the "intelligence community" umbrella that shouldn't really be there. That's likely true, but this is one of those inescapable outcomes of dragnet operations. They may also argue that turning over this information to the public may cause some of those listed to be subjected to harassment or put them in danger. Also, this may unfortunately be true as well.'
Boy that sounds familiar...
'Some may argue that this algorithmic collection of online activity and communications may be dragging some people under the "terrorists/threat" umbrella that shouldn't really be there. That's likely true, but this is one of those inescapable outcomes of dragnet operations. They may also argue that turning over this information to the government may cause some of those listed to be subjected to harassment or put them in danger. Also, this may unfortunately be true as well.'
They don't like the potential responses or reactions for making such data public? Well as they love to say, 'publicly-posted information carries no expectation of privacy.'
Or in other words: Too bad. If our private data is going to be collected and looked through, your public data is going to get the same treatment.
The pretense behind the opposition to municipal broadband has always been that these laws are necessary to protect taxpayers from themselves, since sometimes (like any business model) municipal broadband doesn't work out.
Makes perfect sense to me, I mean everyone knows that when a private company like Comcast or AT&T accepts a contract and huge pile of cash and/or tax breaks to roll out a broadband or similar network, they always deliver exactly what they promised and on budget, and never under-deliver or over-charge, so with a perfect record like that in the private sector, why would local communities even need to set up their own muni broadband networks?
Why risk taxpayer dollars on the local, possible-to-fail option, when they can use taxpayer dollars on the proven and reliable private option?
And? Does that somehow make it right? Does the fact that others have done the same suddenly shield her of criticism? I don't care if every single person in her position had done the same before her, it would still deserve to be called out when she did it, just like if those who came after her also did the same.
'Other people have done it too' does not make it better, it makes it worse, as it means she should have known better, and yet did it anyway.
This is a non story!!
Correction, it could have been a non-story, had she used the proper email address, or handed over the requested emails in digital format, but her actions in using personal email for professional business, and acting like a child by handing over reams of printed documents instead of the digital format of them is what made it a story.
The only one to blame for this being notable story is her.
If the police aren't allowed to use rounds designed to punch through armored vehicles, armored vehicles of their own to serve warrants or just to drive around and feel like big boys, and weapon mounted knives to deal with pesky people who get too close, how in the world are they supposed to survive their day to day interactions with the public?!
Police have had all of those tools since they were first formed in the US, and the presence of such gear is the only reason they were able to do their jobs without suffering massive casualties on a weekly basis, so clearly taking away their ability to field such items without providing reasoning as to why they need them will lead to a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions!
how much does anyone want to bet that the moment the DOJ has no choice but to hand over the tapes, it will have been discovered that they were "stored improperly" and "damaged beyond usefulness"?
Nah, I'm betting they'll have been destroyed and/or overwritten during a 'routine deletion of old materials'. I mean come on, it's just video evidence of the torture of prisoners, how could that ever be relevant, and therefor need to be kept? /s
how many leaky basements does the executive branch have?
The idea that he may or may not have taken control of the engines of a plane mid-flight? That's bad.
The idea that that's even possible? That is so much worse.
Forget investigating him, they should be going after whatever morons programmed that system such that that was possible, and the airline execs for ignoring the warnings about such a massive vulnerability.
How about the fact that the government is trying desperately to keep the videos secret? If the force feeding really was done 'in accordance with accepted medical procedures', then they'd have no problem handing the evidence of such over(unless perhaps they've come up with a few classified interpretations of those medical procedures).
If what they had done was performed for legitimate medical reasons, they would have no reason to refuse to provide evidence of it. That they are fighting against being forced to do so tells me all I need to know.
Re: 404 Page Not Found! Gone down the memory hole!
It's cute how you think you have any effect on anyone here other than mild annoyance at your childish antics.
Also, you might want to go see a psychiatrist for your problems, as it's pretty clear that you are suffering from an almost debilitating form of obsession regarding Mike and TD. Really, referring to an article a month old, where you dug up a page years old, and that hasn't been updated in a long while, only to use it to try and attack Mike, as though it means anything other than it's old and hasn't been updated in a while? You've got an obsession, and you need to see someone about it.
Given they don't even bother to list party affiliation unless it's somehow important to the story, believing it to be meaningless, instead focusing on what people are saying and/or doing, I'd say that would be true, even if I've never seen a statement where those who write for TD specifically say that they are non-partisan.
...but tends to laud democrats and lambaste republicans.
Probably because of their actions. If the democrats are, more often than not, acting in a manner that those who write for TD support, and the republicans aren't, then of course they're going to seem to be supporting the democrats and being critical of the republicans. That has nothing to do with party affiliation however, and everything to do with what the individuals in question are doing and saying.