Yes, when the grocery store clerk asks you for your information, the correct answer is "No" or "You don't need that". But keep in mind that she has a job to do and she could get fired or disciplined for not collecting your zip code. Or you may hold up the entire line by arguing with a "drone"-level employee who doesn't make the rules.
So just make up a zip code and laugh it off when the cashier says she's never heard of that one before.
So is it safe to assume that these companies provide poor services and they know it, so they think the only way to stop people from talking about the poor service is to threaten them?
And how many people will read those terms and be scared by the legalese? I'm guessing a lot of people, since: 1) It's "in print" so it must be true. 2) A company wouldn't put something like that on their site if if it wasn't true and they weren't willing to do it.
Here's a free tip to the companies: if you provided good services at a fair price, you wouldn't get reviews that were so bad that you had to sue people. Unless of course, your business is actually suing people, then proceed.
As I've been reading stories about this issue, I've found that torture does work, when you define what "work" means. In this case, torturing people wasn't about getting information: it was about revenge for 9/11 and getting back at "them" for attacking us. It didn't matter that 25% of the people tortured were innocent- they were "others" that needed to be punished.
I remember watching a "best horror movies" special that had an interview with the producers of the "Saw" movies. They admitted that they did a lot of research into torture devices in the Middle Ages, most of which were too graphic for even them to use in the movies!
So what happens when Google starts reporting the searches to the UK? Will the producers of "Saw" get in trouble for looking up torture devices? Will producers looking for scientifically-accurate chemicals and bombs for their movies also be reported to the UK?
But, so what if these people are writing a fictional movie- let the police sort them out. But doesn't that take time away from investigating real threats? Or does this mean there aren't enough real threats to justify the time and expense of having a terrorism investigation unit?
Carole Hinder had run a small, cash-only restaurant for nearly 40 years without incident... and ... from April 2012 through February 2013, more than $315,000 in currency was deposited...
So the take-away is that the bank and federal agencies didn't care about her depsoits for nearly 40 years, until April 2012. What happened then? The IRS and FinCEN have been around for much longer than 2012.
But what this also shows is that any company that makes large cash deposits is also vulernable, no matter how long it's been in business.
Here's an idea: can Senator Udall read the entire report (both of them) as a filibuster? Sure, he might get booted out of office, but he was voted out anyway. How much damage would this do, since everything read during a filibuster becomes public information?
You'll never believe what they found hiding in your stomach.
At least those ads are relevant to tech topics. The ads I see are: - This grandma is 70, but looks 40. Click here for the miracle. - Shocking discovery. You'll never believe what they found hiding in your stomach. (with a gross picture of a fish) Click for video. - Know your concealed weapon rights. Click here for more. - This video could start WWIII. Click here to find out.
Luckily, I found the little "x" in the upper-right hand corner that lets me report these as Innappropriate and Irrelevant.
So, we're back to the original point about ads: if the ad is irrelevant and people won't click (or if they'll actively report or block the ad), then what's the point of spending the money to run the ad?
While this is a great post, I disagree with the point that history will not look kindly on them.
History is written by the victors, and in this case, it's the US. Sure, the report will get attention, but Cheney, Bush, and all the CIA heads will never go down in history as monsters. Like other people are saying, they won't even be brought to justice.
And in all fairness, "justice" isn't torturing them like they tortured people. Justice is what you said in your post: accuse them of a crime, bring them into a court of law, and lay out the evidence.
Okay, I'll start the rants about banks and how they seem to prey on people don't have much money to begin with.
It goes something like this: You have $200 in your bank account, you deposit a check for $400, and write two checks: one for $300 and one for $200. By your accounting, you should have $600 total before writing the checks, then $500 in checks, for an ending balance of $100.
However, your bank cashes the checks first, before honoring your deposits: Your first check for $300 is cashed and your balance is now -$100. Then they charge you a $35 under-balance fee. Then they cash your second check for $200 and your balance is now -$335. (They cash your check for your "convenience" rather than bouncing the check.) Then they charge you another $35 under-balance fee. Then they charge you a $35 fee for not having more than $100 in your account. Your balance is now -$405 and they honor your deposit of $400. And your balance is now -$5.
All because you didn't make enough money to keep your checking account above a "safe" threshold. And then people wonder why poor people use check-cashing services and payday loans.
Let's assume the Internet, in it's most popular form, has been around since 1999. That means the "new and disruptive technology" to quickly report news has been around for 15 years. So why is this an issue now? Is the WSJ so desperate for articles that they have to re-hash this argument?
And TV news has also been quicker to report news stories than printed media. Is this also "new and disruptive technology"? I wasn't around in the 1950's, so maybe that's what TV was considered back then.
Here's an idea for them: instead of blaming all the bad things (radio, TV, the Internet, etc), concentrate on adding value to the news so people will want to buy the newspaper. Sure, newspapers and magazines may not be the first to report on something, but they can take their time and do better in-depth analysis.
Where are all the people standing up to him and either questioning his "evidence" or straight-up calling him a liar? Oh, right, because the people in attendance have too much "respect" for a Senator that they'll let him rant about things he knows nothing about.
And I forgot to mention: the publications should check their Google Analytics to see how far their traffic has fallen off due to Google News shutting down. Or rather, they should check Google Anayltics to make sure Google hasn't shut this service off also.
So some people really like the challenge of getting around this kind of DRM? Um, shouldn't that have come up in a meeting before the DRM was installed?
And what kind of company is so arrogant to think their 20 (or even 50) scientists can come up with a DRM system that won't be hacked and broken by their tens of thousands of customers? All it takes is that one person to find the scotch tape solution and post it to Facebook or Twitter or the Kuerig customer forums.
Good for Google for doing this. If a government makes it so hard for a company to do business in a country, then the company has every right to stop doing business there.
But the bigger question is whether other search and news sites have to follow the same rule? Was this a "Google only" tax or will Bing follow? And if the tax applies to everyone, what will happen to all the Spanish publications if NO search engine will list them?
Re: “...more often than not informed by the participants’ recollection of episodes of the TV show...”
Wait, are you saying movies and TV shows are not documentaries on how to get suspects to talk (and how to infiltrate enemy bases and shoot guns)? I'm shocked. I thought everyone learned interrogation techniques from "24" rather than trained psychologists. Then again, I'm studying to be a forensic expert by watching "CSI". And, yes, I try to make witty quips whenever I find a new piece of evidence.
When did this country lose its ability to lead by example? Now, every country in the world can torture people with the excuse of "Well, the United States does it". And what happens when the opposite happens: I can easily see some country like Libya banning torture just to claim they're better than the US.
Could they sue over an impersonation? Sure, people can sue for anything in this country. But how much damage would their own career take? Every time Kevin Pollack does a Shatner impression, more people know about Shatner, which is good for the both of them.
But the bigger issue is why Garcia's rights (of spending 5 seconds in the movie) are more important than the cost and effort all the other people put into making the movie. If she wins, does this mean any actor can shut down distribution of a multi-million dollar movie because of "copyright"?
Whenever there's a story about health insurance companies, a lot of people try to claim that non-profits are somehow better than for-profit companies since it's in their mandate not to make a profit. However, this is completely false: yes, the non-profit companies can't declare a profit on their taxes, but this just means they have to spend all money they take in. Has anyone thought about how non-profit insurance companies can afford to build new wings on a hospital or pay their CEO $10 million a year? That's the money that would normally have been declared as profit.
When did the cable companies care about our bills?
Whether the study is accurate or not, and whether the data is accurate or not, I agree with the question in the next-to-last paragraph: when did the cable companies start caring about our bills? Suddenly it's "bad" when Title II requirements may (or may not) cause the bill to go up, but it's okay when the cable company arbitrarily raises rates? How about knocking a few dollars off the "mandatory fees" and then we'll talk.