"We’ve got to make sure we don’t ever compromise that relationship with consumers, so we’ll do that in a very responsible way,” Walden continued. “But what we do know is that when you bring that kind of data, that rich set of data from Verizon into the platform, the result you get on targeted advertising is significantly better."
'Oh yeah, we are absolutely focused on customer privacy and making sure that we put the customer first... hey completely unrelated but have I told you how absolutely awesome targeted advertising, something that requires the use of personal data to be effective, is when you have the amount of customer data we collect?'
Verizon really needs to fire whatever idiots they have running PR spin at the moment, you'd think they'd be able to go at least one page's worth of laughable claims before destroying their own argument, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves.
The focus needs to be on making great content and connecting with people, not wielding legal threats as a cudgel.
Which requires that you a) make great or even just passable content, and b) don't see your customers as nothing more than wallets filled with money that rightfully belongs to you, and that just happen to have legs and the mistaken impression that said money is not in fact owed you for your 'masterpiece'.
If on the other hand you have a rubbish game, a burning loathing of your customers, a willingness to act like a thug and the knowledge that most of the time using the DMCA to silence people you don't like works, then legal bullying is hardly a surprising turn of events.
In the opposition, the Chargers are referred to as “Applicant” and LA Gear is “Opposer.” The document lists 22 U.S. trademark registrations owned by LA Gear. The oldest dates back to 1985
I'm guessing that they haven't tried to challenge the Dodgers because if they tried to bring it to court, and the Dodgers have been using it for 60 years it would be really easy to turn it around on them and say that the Dodgers have used it longer, and therefore LA Gear, if anyone, was the one guilty of trademark violation.
If the DOJ actually wanted them to do something about the problem it wouldn't be a request, but a demand, and one backed by a stiff penalty for non-compliance. Imagine that same boneheaded logic applied elsewhere and it's easy to see how weak it was.
"My client is pleading 'Not guilty' Your Honor on account of the law merely asking people not to drive while intoxicated, it does not actually say that doing so is illegal or even bad."
By merely suggesting that the PD put in place a group that might hold the officers accountable, or even present the facade of such, they basically gave the PD all the room it needed to decide that nah, they'd rather not.
A is a 'good citizen' and keeps his/her head down, doesn't make waves, doesn't question those in charge, and as such isn't given much attention by the higher ups.
B is not a 'good citizen'. They speak their mind, question statements made by their betters, and have the audacity so suggest that the government might not in fact have their best interests in mind. As a result should B make too much of a hassle the can look forward to 'investigations', a 'few questions', maybe some 'administrative issues' should they try to fly anywhere or apply for a job that requires a background/security check.
If everyone is guilty of something(and with the insane and near countless laws we have that's pretty much a given) then that gives those with the ability to hand out punishments enormous power, both direct and indirect at their discretion and/or whim.
Re: Re: 'Corruption, noun: What happens in other countries'
Quite right, even if the impossible happened and a politician that was less than absolutely perfect managed to slip through and remain undetected, the flawless legal system would without fail prevent them from causing any damaage, which just makes it even more clear that so much as mentioning the possibility is completely and utterly Un-American and an indication of a seriously warped, perhaps even communist mindset.
Re: 'It's okay to do it to them, they're the BAD GUYS'
It seems McCain has been one of those that actually objected to the CIA's torture program and noted that beyond being repugnant torture isn't effective, so those claiming that it was 'justified' because it produced intel are wrong, so at least in general he's not pro-torture, it's just that he apparently doesn't see Manning's treatment as rising to that level and therefore objectionable.
'It's okay to do it to them, they're the BAD GUYS'
McStain lied about his treatment in Vietnam. No one could have gone through that but yet still advocate to treat others that way.
Not necessarily, as seen in his act of throwing Manning under the bus but rushing to defend Petraeus it's very clear that he's willing to apply different standards to different people, so it would be consistent for him to claim that he was tortured and decry that as a terrible thing because he's from the US and a Good Guy while at the same time advocating and supporting that those dirty terrorists be 'tortured' because clearly they had it coming for being accused terrorists, and as such are Bad Guys, so it doesn't actually count as 'torture'.
Hypocritical and disgusting yes, but it would be consistent hypocrisy and revolting behavior.
No, still demand, as various government agencies and their 'Collect it all' mindsets have made clear there's plenty of people and groups out there that want it all, for 'just in case' reasons if nothing else.
Ah good old poisoning the well, 'If you're smart you'll agree with me, if you're a fool you won't.'
You were doing decently enough before you slipped in that last bit, leading me to wonder if you like undermining your own arguments for some reason, or perhaps you just like throwing out insults and don't care what it does to any argument you might present.
'Corruption, noun: What happens in other countries'
It would be naive in the extreme to think that this is only a problem for China, and that it won't happen with the ever-widening surveillance systems that Western nations want to set up. It's yet another reason not to build them in the first place.
Nonsense, it's happening there because China is filled to the brim with commie-criminal-terrorists, such a system would never be abused in the Holy US of A because our politicians and government agencies are filled with nothing less than genius saints, every one of them a nominee for a Nobel Prize and a confirmed vegan pacifist.
To err or give in to corruption is part of human nature, but here in the Holy Empire we vote in only those that surpass humanity and such petty concerns, so any worry over such base activities taking place here is utterly without support and downright Un-American, which of course no proper citizen would ever even consider doing.
Don't forget the 'crusade' against whistleblowers, the pro-torture, pro-slavery, and pro-mass murder. His 'legacy' is tainted well beyond recovery at this point, this is just a lone point of him actually doing something right for once.
No no, of course not, it's not like anyone would do something like I mentioned, buying an entire series after reading them for free after they were offered by the author himself.
Well, except for that time I did exactly that, which is why I used it as an example. But you know, I'm sure I'm the only person ever to do something like that, it's not like multiple studies have found that pirates tend to buy more than non-pirates.
Because it demolished their 'The public is on our side!' narrative.
Time after time they painted any opposition as 'fringe', any concerns as paranoid and unwarranted, and the bill itself as something the public at large desired with only the criminals objecting to it, so to have massive numbers of people(vastly more than they could manage to get on their side) objecting to it and raising concerns they couldn't just dismiss out of hand honestly(not that they didn't try to dismiss them dishonestly) it slowly but surely exposed the bills as something being bought and paid for by certain companies and industries, not something being put forward to serve the public.
Add in them used to always getting their way via paid off politicians and it was a rude slap to the face that the public can in fact impact the laws and undercut their ability to just buy the laws they want, leading to an emotional backlash against those that upset them, and promises to 'show them' and slip the laws through anyway in ways the public couldn't do anything about.
Quite likely, but it's quickly reaching the point of no-return for them unless they make the switch from gatekeepers to enablers.
Self-publishing is only going to get more popular as the process gets better and new writers show up, so unless they can kill that off entirely(not likely) more and more people are going to look at the 'terms' the publishers offer, realize that they're better off doing it themselves or hiring smaller groups or individuals to handle the bits they don't want to, and bypass the traditional publishers entirely.
The era of 'If you want to be published you must go through the publishers, who hold all the power and get to dictate terms' is rapidly fading, and the sooner they realize this the better a position they'll be in to handle the transition they will have to make if they want to stay in business.
To be fair while CwF+RtB is mentioned in that form fairly often the 'full' name isn't mentioned nearly as much, so I can see someone not understanding what the acronym means if they've only run across it recently, or in 'compressed' form.