Are these lawyers so bored and have nothing more constructive to do than file a trademark for "THANKYOU" and then sue another company over it? I can sort-of understand doing busywork to pad the billable hours, but this is getting ridiculous.
What kind of methodology is the FBI using to "entice" or entrap would-be terrorists? Are they going after dark-skinned people who might have ties to the Middle East (which is an obvious choice)? Are they going looking for white males who have become alienated with the world, such as the shooters in Denver, Sandy Hook, etc?
The problem is that so many things are named after sponsors and companies: Coors Light Stadium, AT&T halftime show, Bank of American bathrooms, "this commercial break brought to you by Ford", and so on. Would people reasonably believe that part of the football team was now sponsored by Orange Crush soda?
And all of that over 7 ounces of marijuana, which is becoming legal in many states? Did the cops have nothing better to do? Or did they really think they just caught themselves a major drug kingpin and searching his luggage would break the drug cartel wide open?
I agree that it's impossible to get a decent president also.
Logically, the most qualified person (man or woman) to run for president would be a CEO of a company. But CEO's only have to worry about their company, not the entire country. And CEO's get a butt-ton of money in salary and stock-options, but the president's salary is fixed.
So, instead, we get popularity contest every 4 years between career politicians, military leaders, and even a real estate mogul/ reality show host.
I think the key phrase is: ... this places Cruz and Duffy... against... the Obama administration Cruz has been fighting Obama almost since day one, with no regard to the damage it does. Remember that this is the same Ted Cruz who forced a government shutdown because he told Congress not to work with Obama over the Affordable Care Act, even though the Supreme Court had already ruled it legal.
I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz read the bill or even know what it does, since the most important thing is that he's against it because Obama is for it.
They're losing revenue... potential revenue, that is
How many people will pick up the free newspaper, read an article, and appreciate the writers or news or comics? Okay, sure, the newspaper is in the business to make money, not educate readers, but there's no way to measure how many people will see something in the newspaper and buy something else because of it.
How much advertising reaches people because of free newspapers? Okay, granted, that doesn't help the newspapers' subscription rates, but it should help their advertising rates. How much more could the paper get for each ad if they could tell companies that a single copy of the paper reaches 5 or 6 people in a cafe? That also sounds like a good way to cut down on the cost of printing.
As usual for studios, it's all about control, as in: They want to control the marketing for the upcoming storylines and what information gets released when. If anyone tries to guess or make predictions and take away from their marketing, then they'll threaten to sue. Sure, they know they're on shaky legal ground and it wouldn't hold up in court, but they know it costs money to defend, so they have no to reason not to file a takedown notice. (Plus, since there's no punishment for a wrongful takedown notice, there's even less reason not to send one.)
When I read stories like this, people are usually quick to point out that the events happened because of "bad cops" or "overzealous cops".
So where are the "good cops"? Did not one single person think it was a bad idea to destroy the house like this? Did no one speak up to say there should be another way of handling the situation? Were they all "following orders" to get the suspect at any cost?
* 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.