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.
Actually, law makers should hold gun manufacturers to the same safety standards as car makers. By law, cars must have seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, and other safety features.
By comparison, guns come with a palm-reader so only the owner can fire it, an RFID chip so it can only be used within a certain range of the fob (again, to prevent stolen guns to be used in crimes), and guns are limited to only firing 60 bullets per minute. Oh, wait, NONE of that is happening.
Guns are the only products on the market that are designed to kill, and which don't have any improvement in safety features.
And how does someone tell a migrant boat from a real boat?
I think Mike's sentence sums this up perfectly: how would a random person who actually spotted a boat using such an app be able to distinguish a "refugee" boat from... any other boat?
So, tell us, app-maker, how does a user tell if a "suspicious" speck is a boat of migrants or a fishing boat? Is there a FAQ that covers this? Can people zoom in on the image? And what happens if enough people report the fishing boat speck? Will the app send out the authorities... to the boat which has probably filed their trip with the local coast guard?
So, yep, someone didn't think this through. However, it's slightly better than "Like and retweet this post if you support migrants".
If people can sue Big Tobacco over the willful deaths of smokers, when can people sun Big Gun over the deaths of people got shot? After all, AR-15 rifles are specifically designed to shoot and kill people. And the NRA has knowingly blocked legislation on the grounds that people's 2nd Amendment rights over-ride people's right not to get shot.
Here's something else to consider: isn't there any kind of statute of limitations on posts and pages? How can they complain NOW about posts in 2010 and 2012? Isn't that a little too late, especially since 98% of the traffic to those pages has already come and gone? How much ad revenue can a page from 2010 really be making?
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?