Why can't NBC tell the IOC to move the time to 8:00pm Eastern? I think the "more people will be watching at that time" argument is pretty sound. And, better yet, why can't the opening ceremonies pause every 3 minutes for a commercial break, like football games? I guess paying billions to the IOC to be the official broadcaster just doesn't buy as much as it used to.
Why do I get the feeling that these screening systems are almost designed to have false positives? Combine thid with overzealous prosecutors who have to "do something" about drugs, especially in poor African-American areas. They can threaten people with 2 years in a jail based on the false positive, or offer a plea bargain for only 3 months. Many people will take the plea bargain since they may not have the resources to fight. Then so what if someone's life is ruined- the prosecutor gets another "win".
It's interesting how these tests always seem to favor law-enforcement. Would they use this same test if the stats were reversed and the tests returned false negatives 33% of the time, meaning the testing process said the substance was sugar, but it was really cocaine?
But don't complain when your credit card information gets stolen because Amazon can't encrypt their site. And don't complain when your bank account is drained because banks aren't allowed to encrypt their sites either.
You may be joking, but I can easily see the company doing something like this. Keep an eye out for commercials that say "Do you fall asleep at 11:00pm? You might have night-time-sleepiness syndrome, a brand-new disease. Take Crestor and you won't fall asleep again."
Or, like the article implied, just say everything is copyrighted in the hopes that people will pay the licensing fees without arguing, Though that leads to another issue: if they don't hold the copyright, how can they charge for a license? And can people get their money back if they paid for a license to use something in the public domain?
This right here is a beautiful example of American politics. Newt has been a law maker for years and year and knows that what he's saying is unconstitutional and impossible to implement. But that's not the point. American politics (as proved by Trump) is all about who can make the most outrageous statement that will be picked up by the media talked-about the next day. See, look- this site is even doing it! Then next week, Newt might walk back his comment and say things like he didn't mean it or what he meant was something else. This will then get him more press coverage and attention.
And it's this kind of analysis that needs to spread out to everyone so people wake up to what these data caps really mean. Most people will say that 700 hours a month is just over 23 hours a day and there's no way they can use that much data... until they factor in all the mobile devices and apps and streams for the entire family. Then, like you said, they're using 5T of data without even noticing.
First, isn't it a little misleading for Google to say that paid *anything* to the artists when they actually send payments to the record labels?
Second, here's a hint for the movie studios: if I search for "Watch The Force Awakens", the top results better be Netflix, Amazom, Hulu, iTunes, or any number of legal sites. Oh, wait, it's not available on these sites due to exclusive contracts with a website that has a terrible user interface? Then no wonder people are looking for illegal versions.
Is a site's purpose to deliver an audience to the ad company?
I'm interested in the logic behind the whole process: Why are so many sites concerned more about unique visitors than an engaged community? Is it so they can charge more for advertising? Why? So they can make more money. But then who pays more? The advertising company. Why? So they can get their message or product in front of more people. Why? To increase sales and make more money Ah, yes, but does it?
At what point does this whole process collapse because people aren't clicking on ads and they aren't buying the advertised product? Oh, well, that's okay- at least people are aware of the product. And how does that help if people aren't buying the product and the company isn't making money?
And what does this say about the news site? Are they making content to inform and entertain the readers? Or is entertainment a way of delivering more viewers to the advertisers? If this is the case, at what point does the news site become nothing but click-baity celebrity gossip because that's what brings in the most viewers, which is what the advertisers want?
Of course, that assumes that the lawsuit will actually go anywhere, which seems ridiculously unlikely. Yes, but it already has gone somewhere: the people have hired lawyers, the lawyers have filed a case, and the case has made its way into the media. Like with similar lawsuits, who are the lawyers that are taking these cases? Don't they know that can't win? Is the 1% chance of winning and getting $1 billion decision (or a higher chance to settle) really worth their time and effort to start a case like this? And what happens if the 1% chance of winning comes true and a judge decides that every social media platform is liable for anything that happens on the site? Or do these lawyers not care that the case will set this kind of precedent?
This is a great comment and it's further evidence for my theory that too many people think they're living in an action movie and they need to whip out their gun at any minute. Even if the guy had a gun and even if he was going to pull it out, did the police officer really think there was a going to be a shoot-out in a car? With both people barely 3 feet apart and when the guy still had his seatbelt on?
This is the same thinking of people who say "I own a gun so of course I can shoot back at a shooter in a dark nightclub, full of smoke and loud noises and panicking people even though I rarely go to the shooting range and I've never shot at a real person in my life."
So what's the name of advertising agency that: 1) Didn't create the artwork on their own, which they were probably paid by the dealership to do? 2) Used an image that was "DCMA compliant" (as if that's a thing) instead of getting an image from a real stock photo/ art site? Oh, right, because stock image sites charge fees to use their images. 3) Didn't anyone at the ad agency think it was odd that the "DCMA compliant" site didn't charge any kind of licensing fee? Or did they think this was a good way to save money?
I wonder if it's fair to blame the dealership since they probably assumed (rightly) that anything the ad agency gave them would be fully clear for them to use.
I agree with the other posters that TD should make a case that court cases should not be removed or deleted from the public record. Again, if this person (or this court) can make one case disappear, what's to stop any court from making any case disappear? It becomes too easy to use this case as a precedent to allow a judge to rule that their current case is close enough to this one and it can be deleted from the record.
Yes, the person might have a good reason to not want a court case to follow him or her, but that's why cases are sealed. Okay, sure, the public records will still show that the case exists, but no one can get to the details.
I know this is getting off-topic, but: "not for profit" is defined as "has no money left after spending all incoming revenues on assets and salaries for the for profit corporation".
Isn't this what "non-profit" hospitals do all the time? They take in millions of dollars, but then spend all of it on their CEO and new "research" wings just so they don't show a profit. In this case, I think Peters was learning from the best.
I hate to sound cynical, but I believe most large companies have a mitigation department that checks these decisions for liability. It goes something like this:
CEO: Can we turn off the "choose an OS" feature? Mitigation: Let's run the numbers... okay, if someone brings a class-action suit, it may cost around $2.5 million. We might have to pay the customers an amount also. CEO: And how much is that? Mitigation: Let's estimate it at $9 per person, which could be up to $9 million CEO: Hmm... compared to our billions in revenue each year? Okay, let's do it and claim this as a cost of doing business.