And in all fairness, it could be worse: the site could require the use of Flash to do anything on the site. It doesn't matter if you use FlashBlock or if your browser says Flash is a security risk: you either make it active or you can't use the site... and too bad if there are no other alternative websites to use.
If we assume that there's actual voter fraud going on, what's the result? Would the "millions of voters" (as Trump claimed) really change the result? Or would those millions of votes basically match the distribution as the real votes? In other words, how can any party say the fraudulent votes will only help the other party?
I think the issue boils down to one idea: that too many people believe what they see online because it's "in print". For hundreds of years, people would read the newspaper and magazines and assume that every story had been editted and fact-checked to tell the truth. Now comes the Internet with tons of opinion pieces, propaganda, and just plain wrong stories. Yet because people have the idea that "if it's in print, it must be true", they'll believe anything they read.
Just look through your own Facebook newsfeed to see how many people recently shared the old "post this message to stop Facebook from taking your content"... which was never true and which was debunked in 2012! Why do people still believe it? Why can't they spend 10 seconds on Snopes to see that it's completely false?
Then combine this with the media outlets who make money from clicks and advertising, and who don't really care about fact-checking: if it's wrong, they can later add a link to a corrected version of the article. This creates people like Trump who get ahead by shouting the craziest, most offensive things just to get attention.
Then there's the idea that media outlets have to report on every story out of "fairness", though it's usually just to ride the coat-tails of another network to get clicks and ratings: Fox News: Does this video show Hillary eating puppies? We think it does. (An obvious lie, but it gets attention.) CNN: Fox News reports that Hillary was caught eating puppies. We talk with experts about what this means for her campaign. (By "analyzing" the obvious false story, they legitimize it while also getting attention.) Your local news channel: How will Hillary's puppygate scandal affect the nation? Our report at 11:00.
After all this, can anyone *not* believe that Hillary was eating puppies?
How did this turn into a discussion about free speech?
The way I see is a drunk guy said some drunk things while he was drunk and the special-snowflake officers got offended by it. Whatever happened to just throwing the guy into the drunk tank over night, letting him sober up, and then letting him apologize for being a drunk idiot? Like other commenters are saying, did the guy really say anything that any other drunk person would say? And why aren't these officers trained to ignore the drunken rantings of people they're arresting.
Here's a helpful hint: of course some people are going to be mad and unhappy about getting arrested, and they're going to complain about it.
So let me see if I have this straight: people are filing "right to be forgotten" notices with Google to de-index Wikimedia rather than filing the notice with Wikimedia itself?
As has been said many, many times, the "right to be forgotten" is actually "take me out of Google". If people really wanted to be forgotten, they would go after the original source of the information, whether that's a magazine, newspaper, or public website. Then when the website "forgets" the information, there's nothing for Google (and Bing and Yahoo) to index. Instead, people are filing claims with Google, which simply breaks the indexed link, but does nothing to remove the original data.
I'll say it again: this system is asinine and stupid.
At some point, people are going to get sick of these false copyright claims and these organizations' claims will fall of deaf ears, if it isn't happening already. I may have missed something, but I didn't see where they explained the "harm" done by the illegal streaming. On the contrary- as a US citizen, I *want* the rest of the world to see our presidential debates, even if their countries' news stations may not show it.
I'd remind them of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I don't want to repeat too much of it because of copyright concerns.
What I still find amazing is this typical exchange: Reporter: Mr Trump, did you assault these women? Will you apologize for what you did? Trump: Crooked Hillary did worse! She should be locked up for her e-mails. I'll lock her up. Reporter: Yes, but will you apologize? Trump: Those women are liars and it never happened. All of them liars. And I know liars. They're liars. And I'm going to sue them. All of them. Big lawsuits. Reporter: But we have you on tape saying it. Trump: Look, they're liars and that's not good. You know what's not good? Hundreds of illegal immigrants coming over the border everyday. And Obama lets it happen! I would send them all back to Mexico so they won't take jobs. I'll get jobs back and I'll give tax cuts to middle Americans. Reporter: But you still haven't answered the question.
So, here we are, almost a week later, and Trump still doesn't acknowledge that he did anything wrong. How does something Bill Clinton (or anyone) make it right for him to do something? At some point, all adults move past the idea of "but he did it first" argument.
Yes, seriously- his supervisor should be fired. What kind of person has so little work assigned to them that they can try to access porn that much in a day? Where was his supervisor to make sure he was actually doing his work and meeting his deadlines? Or did the guy finish his work and then look at porn? Then why didn't the supervisor give him more work?
I'd like to mention the disinformation campaign by Breitbart and FOX "news": they're running stories claiming that the New York Times hasn't paid taxes in years either.
1) When doing a Google search to confirm the story, the only results I got were from right-wing sites. If this were true, wouldn't sites like CNN, Time, and the Washington Post be talking about it? Oh, right, those are "mainstream media" sites out to get Trump so they won't talk about this story.
2) This is even more false equivalency from the Trump camp. Last I looked, the NYT wasn't running for president and rejecting 40 years of tradition by not releasing its tax returns. The NYT didn't post a loss of over $900 million, spread it out over 18 years, and claim to be a successful businessman (that I know of).
I don't blame these cities for trying, since this is exactly what's happening in the EU, though with countries instead of cities. It works this way: if I sell a product to a customer in France, then I have to collect a "VAT" based on France's rate and pay it to the French government. If a customer in Austria buys the same product, I have collect the Austrian VAT and pay it to the Austrian government.
So, yes, the VAT is based on the customer's address, which may get screwy if a guy from California is on vacation in Salzberg: does he stay at a hotel in Germany or Austria to get a lower VAT? Or is he exempt because he's on vacation?
Large business can adjust their accounting to handle this, but small businesses can either not sell to all the EU countries or they can pay an accounting company to handle the VAT collection and payment for them.
So why shouldn't every US state or every city do the same thing? It's a quick way for them to make money, even if it's a huge burden on businesses.
I think the real reason these people are angry and stresses is that other sellers are selling their product for a higher price and getting away with it. Let's see if I have this right: 1) Seller A lists it on eBay for $50. 2) A customer buys it. 3) Seller A buys it from the Ruckels for $40. 4) The Ruckels make $40, the seller makes $10, and everyone makes money.
I completely understand how customers might feel ripped off if they paid $50 for an item that's sold for $40 on Amazon, but shouldn't the customer have shopped around first?
This was an interesting article. I have an idea for a follow-up article: If the number of viewers or readers can't be accurately measured, how do companies accurately measure the effectiveness and results of an advertising campaign? If a site says it gets 6 million unique monthly views and it charges $200 for a banner ad and it gets 5,000 clicks, how many people actually buy the advertised product and how much money does the advertiser make? Or is this another "dirty secret": companies pay $200 for banner ads to get in front of 6 million "unique views", fully knowing that they might make 1 or 2 sales?
Or has the advertising industry basically brainwashed companies into thinking that they need to get their products "out there" or that any advertising is "good exposure", whether it leads to a sale or not? After all, how did companies measure the effectiveness of highway billboards in the 1920's?
I'm confused. Why are people blaming the government or calling this tyranny?
The fact is that Facebook is a private site with its own rules of what it (or its bots) will allow to be posted. If we don't like it, we should switch to another platform, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, or start something new. And if enough of us start to leave Facebook over these issues, maybe they'll start changing their rules.
This is all part of Trump's plan to make nice with Russia
Mike, although your arguments are well-thought out, I have 2 rebuttals: 1) We live an age of anti-intellectualism. Most Trump and Cruz supporters, and by extension, many Republicans, don't trust scientists or other experts. Instead, they feel things "from the gut", so if Trump is for it, and Obama is against it, then everyone should be with Trump.
2) If we take the assumption that Trump is in league with Putin, then giving the US more control of the Internet will logically lead to more control by Russia and China, which is probably Trump's goal. Then Putin can ask for more power from there. But for now, this is the easiest way for Russia to get a toehold.
Suppose this issue happened in other industries: say you bought a BMW and the battery dies. You go to your local auto supply store and see a Ford battery for $50, which the clerk assures you that it's compatible with your BMW. Congratulations! You just saved money by not buying the official battery from the BMW dealership for $200. We all know how car dealerships like to gouge people, especially the higher-end ones like BMW! Except the battery from the supply store doesn't quite fit, so you have to hammer it in place... then it runs out of a charge after 3 months. Then you complain to BMW that they made a crappy car that won't take Ford batteries.
So for argument's sake, let's assume this happened to HP: customers would use cheap-brand ink, the printer would fail, and then they'd complain to HP or return the printer to the store (in which case, the store would return it to HP). The printer works perfectly, except for the fact that the nozzles can't handle the cheap quality ink.
And here's another example: I have a LEGO set and I have a knock-off-brand set of bricks. The LEGO set was $24.95, which seemed a tad expensive for the content. The knock-off brand was $9.95 for a larger set with more pieces. However, after building each set, I noticed the LEGO bricks are "stickier", firmer, and seem to hold together better. The knock-off brand bricks seems looser, as if they didn't quite get the measurements right or they used poorer-quality plastic. Most of the time, a cheaper price usually means a cheaper quality product.
So is this really a case of HP trying to gouge everyone or are they trying to maintain quality control?
... and any hacker worth his or her salt isn't going to leave evidence of the hack or their ties to a nation state. Yes, but any hacker worth his or her salt can easily plant false evidence that points to almost any party he or she wants the FBI to believe did this. I wouldn't be surprise if officials found "evidence" that they say ties the hack to the Russians. Though the media won't ask if the evidence is real or if they're putting it out there to support a new war with Russia.
Which religious belief is more important: person or country
Here's my issue with all this: whose religious beliefs are more important: the person's or the country's? Should people dress according to their belief or dress according to the country's culture?
And as a more specific example: When Muslim women go to other countries, their religious belief tells them to wear full-body swimsuits on the beach, even if the country's culture is to wear swimsuits with far less coverage. Yet if I go to a Muslim country, my religion says I can wear a bikini on the beach, yet the country's culture won't allow it.
I know this will get a lot of downvotes, but I think Muslim women need to be more careful. Yes, in theory, they should have the right to wear whatever they like, but there's a HUGE amount of Islamophobia (just look at some of the comments to this post, especially about how a guy could dress in a burqa to hide a bomb). Why would women wear something that clearly marks them as "different"? Sure, they're following their religious beliefs, but again, it's a different country with a different culture.
I know PayPal takes it's instructions from OFAC, but come on. Do they really honestly think the following scenario will happen: Note for payment: Thanks for your review of Castro's Cuba. PayPal: Your comment includes flagged words. Although you have no history of sending money to Cuba in the past 10 years of doing business with PayPal, please write an essay about why this transaction should be allowed. Sender: You got me. I'm actually a Cuban sympathizer looking to overthrow the Castro regime and return Cuba to a democracy. And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling comment!
So, like other posters are saying: let this be a lesson to everyone to NEVER including a comment when sending a payment- simply send the recipient a separate e-mail saying the payment was sent. Or if you must include a comment, make it generic like "Payment for services".
Sure, the general public might be ignorant and go along with Trump, but where are the people from intelligence agencies to say they use social media to infiltrate and learn about enemy groups? How do they feel about Trump talking about taking away one of their best tools to track terrorists? What if Trump does become president and he figures out a way to do what he says? Sure, it's a long shot, but last year, it was long shot that he'd become the Republican candidate.
I'm not sure what's worse: that Trump is saying these kinds of things or the fact that there's not much blow-back about it.