They only measure what their customers want, which means advertisers should be reluctant to use the data when figuring out how much to spend.
Case in point: my house was chosen as a "Nielsen household". But we don't have TV service (Netflix and youtube seem to be more than enough for us). Since we don't have cable or OTA service, they don't count us...but every couple of months come round to see if they can survey us.
Either our house is part of their representative sample or it isn't. You can't keep trying to count us but not be willing to take a zero in the dataset.
(Clearly "worse" is the wrong word for everyone but the cable industry). My only choice is COMCAST. It's cheaper to buy internet + TV, so that's what I got. Slightly cheaper still if I chose cablecard which of course I did. So have a cablecard taped to the modem (mine, not theirs) for when I cancel internet service.
I'm in their stats as a cable subsriber but there are no cable advertisers getting any "benefit" from my subscription. This is simply COMCAST cooking the books.
The numbers are even worse: my vacation house was selected by Nielsen to be monitored for TV viewership. Every couple of months the local rep tries to get me to sign up, but then when they realize I haven't bought a TV "yet" they go away and my house is not in the numbers. That's right: if I purchased a TV, even if I never used it, I'd be counted. So national subscriber percentages are artifically inflated too.
In addition to trying to argue that the FCC doesn't have the authority to police such behavior
They should be careful raising this: if they win it, there's a whole raft of FTC lawyers ready to rain down brimstone on them -- with more teeth than the FCC. In fact it might lead to more comprehensive consumer protection. Trust me, Comcast, you have a sweet deal already.
Until she actually allowed Böhmermann to be arrested I actually thought it was a materful troll by Merkel. Because if it had been a civil suit it would simply have Streisanded the hell out of Erdoğan's complaints and make him look even more like a dick. Perhaps that was the intent and she let it get out of hand.
Sure, they don't care if you make a fan trailer and so I assume their lawyers don't think this case threatens Mass Effect either. They just don't want people to think the company supports any candidate in particular -- because that could affect sales.
So it doesn't matter to them if their DMCA claim works or not - it just serves to get their message out to their audience.
It's the first sale doctrine: he sold the clip, so the new owners get to do what they want, even if it's stupid. I don't see that this is any different from, say, me buying a piece of software and wanting to be able to resell it -- or buying an iphone and taking it apart (or gluing it to the wall).
I doubt the story is true. Photo geotagging could be faked (I could construct a tag for the white house and put it in a picture I post to instagram) so is not enough, alone, to reliably locate a site.
But still there are plausible explanations:
But consider that the military already knew the location via other means, and did want to take the building out but didn't want it to get out how they knew. Then this loser posts a photo and "wham" -- now they have a plausible excuse.
Another point: perhaps now some terrorists will strip the location info out...but may will not. So by publicising this, it will encourage the jihadis to avoid social media sites (since the story will become garbled and all social media sites become suspect). This degrades their recruiting and publicity channels, which makes their life harder. If I were a military strategist the trade off might become worth it.
Piracy, a huge international problem, shouldn't be dealt with directly.
Sounds sensible to me. Piracy is a real problem and people are getting killed. It funds terrorism.
I'm glad Weatherley is on it: "Unfortunately, the attacks on ships – and their subsequent looting – has been facilitated by refineries of marine diesel and, ultimately, shipbuilders who do have to step-up and take some responsibility.”
Unless this were an area of some special interest, like a high level of gang activity, I would expect a kid to have a pocketknife. Hell, I always have one, plus a bigger one in the car (along with a lot of other tools, like tire iron, hammer, screwdriver etc), and I am hardly, as far as I am aware, a terrorist.
Since the government impaired the value of RSA (which was purchased by EMC) could EMC sue the government for destroying their asset? Seems like this would fall after the last clause of the fifth amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"