I think another problem with fake news is that too many people don't know what to trust any more. How long have the Republicans spent discrediting places like CNN, MSNBC, and even the BBC as the "lamestream media". So if we can't trust the BBC, who do we trust for balanced reporting? Certainly not Fox, which is basically a mouthpiece for the Republicans.
And I see this play out all the time on Facebook: Person #1 posts a link to a website with an obviously fake story. Person #2 posts a link to Snopes showing that the story was discredited 3 years ago. Person #1 then gets upset: "Who made Snopes in charge of the truth? Who are they to say what's right and wrong?"
Yet a 10-second Google search would have shown Person #1 that the story is false before she shared or posted it.
And the problem is that people are ignorant and have short attention spans. Which version will most people read? A) "Congress will allow ISP's to sell your data". B) "But here's the real problem: you can't buy Congress' internet data. You can't buy my internet data. You can't buy your internet data. [Three paragraphs of explanation about the inner workings of Google AdWords.] That's it."
Or, more importantly, which version will the local news station broadcast? I guarantee it's some form of "Congress wants to sell your data. Tonight at 11:00".
Like a lot of posters have said, why bother learning all this stuff to make a ruling when the appeals court may overturn it? It would be better if the judge *was* the appeals court so no technology-ignorant court could over-rule him.
_According to the audit, AEPI’s IT system tasked with handling royalty payments was incapable of producing a report to compare royalties collected with royalties being paid out. _
So you're telling me that the AEPI has been running since 2011 yet they don't have ANY reports to compare income (royalties collected) and expenses (royalties paid)? Either this is beyond gross negligence or it was done on purpose to hide the fact that they're not paying artists their fair share. I would say this "collection agency" should be shut down, but like people are saying, they probably grease the politicians enough to stay in business.
_“How dare these people only pay part-price for the right to watch our movies!” they might yell in a boardroom._ Until, of course, they put the DVD on sale at Wal-Mart for $9.99. Then an entire family can watch the movie for less than the price of 1 person seeing it in the theater. Then again, the studio probably figures that they've made all their money from the movie and DVD sales are a bonus.
I've been saying this same thing every time we hear about a case like this. Either the lawyer doesn't know about copyright, in which case, he needs to go back to law school. Or he *does* know the law and he's ignoring it to take the client's money.
Either way, wouldn't this be some kind of ethics violation?
Yet again, Trump plays to his base and keeps things simplified. Which is easier to understand: * This deal creates more jobs, which means you'll get re-hired instead of those illegal immigrants. * The deal with Charter will result in a capex of $30B annualized over the 10 years which will mean raising bills 5% over the same time.
I'm not sure I'd want to take a multiple-choice test every time I wanted to comment on an article. I think it could get old very fast.
I forget where I read it, but one commenting system (maybe Disqus) came up with a system where people would flag abusive and troll comments. If the comment got enough flags, it wouldn't show up in the discussion. Okay, sure, most commenting systems work that way, but the revolutionary part was that the comment still visible to only the troll. Then if he got enough downvotes, his entire account would be flagged a s troll... but he would still be allowed to post comments.
And since the troll would think his comments were still being posted, he wouldn't complain that he was being "censored"- instead, it would look like people were simply ignoring him. After a while of getting no responses, he'd give up and move on to another website where he'd get attention.
Okay, sure, the officers might get a slap on the wrist or a write-up from the supervisor, but that's not punishment. And sure, the guy might sue, but the lawsuit will be covered by the police union. If the guy wins, the payment will be covered by tax-payer money.
The problem is that most people are sheep and will do what they're told.
Most people tend to fly a few times a year. What this means is that the typical traveller won't protest being fondled once or twice if the alternative is to miss the flight and not make it home on time.
Then the frequent fliers can get something like PreCheck to avoid the groping, which means they have nothing to complain about.
_How often do you see it happen in your daily commute?_ The main reason for running red lights is that the timing is way too short. I used to work in an office off a major road. The traffic light would be green for the side road, but would only stay green long enough to let 3 or 4 cars through the intersection. Then the light would be red for 5 minutes, then turn green again to only let 3 cars through. Now imagine all the people leaving the office at once and this light has 10-15 cars backed up. If you're the 15th car in line, you're looking at 5 sets of 3 cars at 5 minutes... or about 25 minutes simply waiting for that one light to turn green!
I have a suggestion for Tim and Mike: whenever they write stories like this, could they also interview the lawyers and ask why the case was filed.
I know I sound like a broken record on this issue, but I think it's time we started hearing from the lawyers: did they file the case not knowing about parody laws? Or did they know the law and file the case because their client paid them?
Like another poster said, can we blame the government for making roads, which makes it easy to get away?
Can we blame Ford making the getaway car? They should have known that their products could be used for illegal activities and they should have built in more protection. You know, like Napster and other file-sharing software.
Can we blame the DMV for giving Joe Robber a driver's license? He may not have driven the getaway car if he didn't have a license.
Or why not blame Joe Robber's parents for not raising him correctly. Maybe he wouldn't have robbed the bank if they had raised him right.
Let's go in the other direction and say people shouldn't do anything on their own just in case they might get hurt. I still remember a scene from "The Simpsons" where they go a franchise-business expo and a company is promoting a business where people straighten pictures for other people. That's right- some people might get hurt trying to level their own pictures, so it makes sense to hire a professional to do it.
Re: Re: No tax returns, no presidency... You're fired Mr. Scrotum...
I agree- when has Trump ever smiled? Even when he seems to be happy, his face has a smirk instead of a genuine smile.
As for his tax returns, I've read a few sites that speculate that he has a lot of business with Russian oligarchs. Maybe it's all completely legal through his many companies or maybe they're laundering mob-type money or who knows what. But how would the average American feel if they knew Trump was cozying-up to the Russian mob? And if he's cozy with the Russian mob, how does this affect foreign policy, especially with Russia?
Also, how much business does he do in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Why were these countries left off his immigration ban, especially when the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Could he have investments (or debts) with the Saudi family?
I think the Supreme Court should weigh in on this and adjust the list of banned countries, in the name of "national security". For example, when was the last time someone from Somalia or Sudan participated in a terrorist attack on US soil? Instead, we need to ban people from Saudi Arabia, since 12 of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.
Oh, but Trump does business with the Saudi royal family and banning people from that country would hurt his businesses? Sorry, "national security". After all, the people in Saudi are Muslim, and if Muslims from Iraq and Iran are bad, then so are they. And, no, I doubt anyone on Trump's team knows (or cares) about the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.