Maybe the beer company should ask Fox for some legal support since Bart Simpson may be BART's next target of a lawsuit. After all, there's TONS of merchandise with Bart Simpson's name on it. Maybe people have been thinking "Bart Simpson" is actually "BART Simpson", a stealth way to market the train service!
In my day (which was 4 years ago), we didn't have selfie-sticks: we had tripods. I would put on in on a bench or in a tree, aim it at my wife, set the timer, run over to her, and then the camera would go off. But the risk ask always been that someone will steal the camera or it'll fall over or something else will ruin the shot. Or you can hand your camera to a stranger and hope he doesn't run off with your iPhone 6.
If we're going to ban selfie-sticks because they're less risky than handing your camera to a stranger, then we should ban selfies because they're poor photos.
To be honest, I think Rex Sorgatz is being a busybody just to get attention. Look at me, everyone, I'm complaining about something that's popular!
And I have the same message to him as I have to all busybodies who like to tell people what to do: what gives you right to tell me I have to watch House of Cards only once a week because you're too afraid of spoilers, so Netflix has to change their schedule because of you?
Re: Why yes, I speak jive politician. Allow me to translate...
Let's translate from political-eese:
I've never sent an e-mail. Means: I dictated the message to my staff and they did it. I've never made a phone call. Means: I told my staff to dial the phone for me. I've never driven a car. Means: I've used a driver my whole life.
Hmm... I don't think this sounds any better. So is this person a king or what? Why doesn't he do the same things as everyone else?
I think the bigger issue is how juries (and judges) punish people when they "feel" something is wrong, as in: Thicke and Williams must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be here, so we have to punish them.
This sounds more of a case of someone trying to duck liability and using the copyright issue as a cover. The library owners should know enough about copyright to know they can display artwork like this, but I'm sure someone stepped in and said "There might be a lawsuit from someone at some time, so let's take it down just to be safe."
We all know a lawsuit would fall apart before it got very far, but I'm sure someone figured out that they library would still have to pay a lot of money just to get the case thrown out... and this is money the library probably doesn't have.
I'll see your Obama who is NOT lawfully the US President and raise you: Bush was NOT lawfully the US President because the popular vote went to Al Gore in 2000 and the Supreme Court decided the other way.
And, yes, let's keep debating this issue even though the Bush v Gore issue was 15 years ago and the Obama issue will be over next November when someone else is voted in as President.
I completely agree. I remember watching "How to Train Your Dragon" on DVD and thinking "That would look great in 3D"... but by that time, it was way too late to see it in a 3D theater. Sure, I could buy a 3D TV and 3D player and 3D disc, but it's sometimes easier to just take a trip to the movie theater.
A trip to the theater could then include stopping for dinner or ice cream, which helps the local businesses. Why couldn't the theater partner with the businesses to help each other? For example, why not offer a "dinner and movie" pack? However, I'd bet that offering free or discounted tickets would be against the MPAA's rules of charging full price for a ticket.
"The "millions" ballpark [number] came from an anecdotal report from a think-tank employee who noticed that slightly more Indonesians claim to use Facebook than the Internet, an interesting result that raises a legitimate question about how people think about and use the Internet. Quartz took that and conducted their own (1,000-person, confusingly worded) poll to confirm it, resulting in the misleading headlines you see above. Now, there most likely are Facebook users out there who think it exists outside the Internet, but we're guessing most of them are under 7 and using it exclusively to play Candy Witch Farmers Alliance or whatever."
Why is there such a need to punish sex offenders extra?
Putting aside the very real issues of people being jailed for minor "sex offenses", why does our society force sex offenders to go through this extra nonsense?
How many people get arrested for robbery, are put in jail, serve their time, but they don't have to go on a "violent robber registry". How come they're not branded as robbers for the rest of their life, like sex offenders are? When was the last time a robber went door-to-door telling everyone in the neighborhood that he had just been released from prison for holding up a 7-11? Yet that's what sex offenders have to do.
You might say, "Oh, but sex offenders will keep doing it so we need to keep track of them." Okay, then, prove that sex offenders have a higher recidivism rate than other violent crimes, including robbery.
Wow- I'm amazed there are people that have such wonderful, meaningfull lives that their only complaint in life is that their friends send them text messages in green. The horror! How will they ever go on in life with such a burden?
Seriously, though, like other people are saying: this is simply a color choice based on whether the text message is sent via iMessage or SMS. Would these complainers prefer another color?
And is Apple really trying to get users to hate Android? Apple has more money than any other company in the world, even more than Google. Why would they stoop to this kind of pettiness? Why would their designers secretly choose a "bad" color? And why didn't they choose red, which is even worse than green?
So, time for Occam's razor: either the designers thought green was close enough to blue to signal a change in text messaging or there's a huge conspiracy to get people to switch to iPhones by using a "bad" color rather than use advertising and marketing.
Yet again, this proves the terrorists have won. Why couldn't the TSA agent ask the guy to eat a PowerBar to prove it wasn't a bomb or ask the guy to show off his watch? And in a better world, the agent could pretend to be a techie and get the guy talking about features of the watch. After a few minutes, it would be obvious that the guy was a runner or a very good liar.
But, instead, the terrorists have achieved their goal of making TSA agents live in a world of fear where everyone is treated like a suspected terrorist, any snacks could be bomb material, and any electronics can be a detonator.
I also wish there was a way to hold agents like this personally responsible. Instead, the issue will be handled the sames as when police officers do something bad: the agency or union will pay out, the payment will come out of the agency's budget (which is funded by taxes), and everyone will have to pay a little more to cover the lawsuit. So how is the agent punished? Maybe he's suspended of fired, but does that really balance having a guy arrested and having an arrest record (even if the charges were thrown out), and then lying about it in court?
Actually, this is happening already. When I saw X-Men last summer, I saw ads for the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Best of Both Worlds", which would be shown in theaters. This was a 2-part episode plus some interviews with the cast and crew. Honestly, this would probably be better than some of the later Star Trek movies. ;)
I don't know how much money Paramount or the theaters made, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to show more shows in the theaters simply because the content has already been paid for.
Doesn't this just prove the separation of powers? The legislature writes the laws and lets the police figure out how to enforce it, and they both let the court figure out if the law is even legal or enforceable.
It would be nice if the legislature tried to pass enforceable, good laws in the first place, but that would be too hard compared to "doing something" about an issue.
I can see the press release now: DJI: We ban your drone from flying in Washington. Every DJI competitor: We don't.
Hmm... I wonder which company is going to see more business and income?
And even then, why is it the drone maker's responsibility to force their users to be responsible? It's like a car maker saying you can't drive the car into a certain area. We can debate whether this is for "safety" or "security", but the fact is that people should be able to make decisions like this on their own: if you want to fly a drone into the White House, go right ahead... but be prepared when you're arrested by the Secret Service.
Does this mean that the China King and Toyko King restaurants near me aren't related?! But they both have "King" in the name. That sounds like product confusion to me! And as I look closer, they both serve sweet and sour chicken, General Tso's chicken, and egg drop soup. They must be the same restaurant!
The case will be settled by the police union or even the police department, which will come out of the city's budget, which will mean taxpayers have to pay for this. Then, because the city has to pay the lawsuit, they may cut the budget of the public defender's office, where she works.
There's no incentive for police not to do things like this since they won't be held personally accountable. Oh, they shouldn't do these things because it's the right thing to do? That's a nice dream to have.
On a related note, does the movie industry think picture quality matters or not? Sony (and others) push their curved 4K TV's and super-hi-def blu-ray players for the home market, yet the MPAA still thinks it's okay to send DVD's to their screeners? Why not send them 4K TV's so they get the best viewing experience also?
And if the picture quality doesn't matter, then that would explain the MPAA's need to go after cam-corders: if people see the story, even at a crappy resolution, then they won't go see the IMAX version or buy the blu-ray.