Almost everything in Cotton's statement is a lie. We need more media outlets to cover this story and call out these lies. Instead, we get articles about we should stop refugees from coming into the country because they're Muslims ISIS might be hiding in them.
It's interesting how people talk about gun rights and such, but no one seems to talk about the right of privacy and how this collection of data needs to stop.
I doubt there will be any reporter asking the Rubio campaign these kinds of questions simply because no reporter wants to be thrown off the campaign for asking the "wrong" questions.
And I doubt the pizza restaurant will push for charges since they're getting free publicity for giving the campaign free wi-fi... not to mention the customers they'll get when Rubio supporters come to visit.
So, even though the law can be stretched to say there was a crime, it'll be hard to show anyone got hurt.
Make them a deal: you'll stop using the word "lobbyist" if they'll start calling data caps "data caps". There, now everyone's happy... and customers will actually know that their data plan is capped not by the head lobbyist, but by the "Chief Diversity Officer".
As another poster started to say, but then failed to support: But please think of where animal "personhood" might lead.
Would we extend personhood to cows, chicken, and other animals raised for food? Do they somehow get a say about whether or not they're eaten?
Or does personhood only extend to animals that are similar to us, such as monkeys and gorillas, or to animals that we keep as pets, such as cats and dogs? When does a pig receive personhood- when it's bred to be eaten or when it's bred to be a pet?
And if dogs and cats can get this personhood, why not snakes and lizards? And will I be charged with mass murder when I kill a colony of ants that's received personhood?
Okay, those last examples are getting absurd, but the point remains: once one animal is treated like a person, where do we stop?
Re: Sad to say, but the only REAL way to deal with this is...
I agree, especially when read in this context: That's about 500 students based on the initial stages of the investigation. So how many total students will this come to?
As much as it would hurt all the students, I sort-of wish the DA would simply say "Sorry, that's the law and I have to enforce it". Then maybe we'll see some outrage as that town (and school) get the reputation as home to over 500 sex offenders. How does it work when you have to tell your neighbors that your son or daughter is now a sex offender when their sons and daughters are also sex offenders?
And how does getting a job work out when every single one of these kids are now on the sex offender registry and companies aren't allowed to hire them?
"Sorry, that's the law and it has to be enforced."
Robocalling, or the act of using automated dialers and automated messages, is illegal. The trick is catching the companies using them, especially when they're spoofing their number. Then once the company is caught, the second trick is prosecuting them, especially if they're operating out of Russia, China, or India.
However, it seems like the solution to stopping robocalls is the same as stopping spam: people need to stop buying the products. As soon as robocallers and spammers realize it's not profitable to do these things, then they'll stop.
Who are the people responsible for this and why did they think there wouldn't be a backlash?
Did did they really think the public would approve of paying for police officers to check (and rob) unlocked cars rather than doing traditional police work? Don't the police have enough to do than to wander around a parking lot or people's driveways?
And I agree with one of the previous posters: what's going to happen when a homeowners hears his car alarm go off at 3:00am and finds someone robbing his car? Chances are good that he's going to shoot before the officer can explain that he's being robbed for his own good.
However, this also sounds like yet another example of the old "Let's pass a law that blatantly defies the US constitution. We know the state supreme court will invalidate the law, but it'll take a few years and that gives us plenty of time to do what we want".
I've said before in similar articles, but the obvious solution is to change the name to something that reflects Washington. This way, everyone can save face. For example, the Senators (baseball) or the Capitols (hockey). How about the Washington Representatives, with a cartoon senator on the helmet? Or the Washington Beltways, with a cartoon highway? Or the Washington Monuments, a team so strong they can't be pushed around?
As people are saying, Mein Kampf is copyrighted by the German government, which just muddies the waters.
Instead, how would these Senators react if someone like China told US sites to take down any information that wasn't positive towards the communist government, like coverage of the Tiennamen Square protests? Would the US order the sites down to please the Chinese government? Or would they argue "free speech"?
How does any company, especially a fertility clinic, not have legal counsel? Even if they can't afford a legal department, don't they have someone on retainer? Of the top of my head, I can think of 50 different legal issues that could occur, yet they think it's okay to start looking for a lawyer when they have an issue?
Of course pot is a gateway drug. After pot was legalized in Colorado, the whole state is now hooked on hardcore drugs. Just look at Denver- the whole city is nothing but a druggie wasteland.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen? And Colorado is bringing in tons of tax revenue from the sale of pot? And the number of people in prison has been reduced since they're not arresting casual pot users? Nah, it's definitely a gateway drug.
If they had tried this with bigger teams or at a different time, would the servers have been able to handle it? So instead of people complaining about watching lower-ranked teams, people would be complaining about how the servers went down and connection speeds were down, and so on.
In other words, there's always something to complain about. ;)
The person in the photos would like these photos removed (and presumably the posts themselves). Who should they approach sue about this that their lawyer thinks has the most money? 1. The party that posted the photos and text? Nope, the party that posted the photos probably don't have much money. 2. The website hosting the photos and text? No, they may only have a few million. 3. Google. 4. And Bing... I guess. There we go- they have billions, so let's sue for everything we can.
So I don't think the "marketing strategy" of comparing a tweet about a terrorist attack compares to the "War of the Worlds" broadcast. Far more people care about terrorist attacks in 2015 than they cared about supposed alien invasions in 1938.
I'd like to know the names of the 6,000 applications that won't work with Windows 7. Okay, I can understand if they're using some obscure accounting software or custom-made programs, but 6,000 of them? Or is this the IRS' way of saying they don't want to pay to upgrade Office XP, QuickBooks 2003, Photoshop 5, and so on?
Call me a cynic, but I think this is someone's way of setting YouTube up for a fall. First, Paramount (a subsidiary of Viacom) uploade the movies. Next, Viacom has one of its "find infringing content" subsidiary company file take-down notices with YouTube. Then Viacom resumes suing YouTube for hosting infringing content.
And as for the question of whether these movies would be available online if YouTube wasn't around? Of course! The movies would be available on Paramount's site, playable only with their proprietary video player designed to be as hard to use as possible, preferably on systems running Windows ME with IE 7 or Netscape 5. The low traffic and viewership numbers would then prove to executives that people don't want to watch movies online.
While the response from AT&T may have been heavy-handed, their policy is in line with Disney, ILM, Pixar and other companies.
The problem is two-fold: 1) People think they own every little thing they create and they want credit for it, even if it's an obvious idea that other people could have thought up. 2) We live in such a litigious society that people sue over the littlest thing that companies have to protect themselves. And like other posters said, one or two lawsuits could start to take up a chunk of change, even if the suing-person is wrong.
How many times have we heard stories that go something like this: "I made a suggestion that cast members on this ride should wear hats. Now they're wearing hats and they didn't give me credit for coming up with the idea, so now I'm mad and I'm suing."