You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but why is it that every time there's a mass shooting, someone or something changes the subject away from the one thing we should be talking about: gun control.
Ever since the Sandy Hook (or maybe before), President Obama has said that mass shootings will not become the "new normal". Well, guess what, without any real discussions about gun control, this HAS become the "new normal". Slate did a piece a while back trying to track all the shootings that occurred after Sandy Hook, but gave up because there were too many.
Now there's yet another shooting and we're banning a flag?! Where's the outrage over guns? How come Wal-Mart hasn't stepped up to say they're not going to sell guns any more because the killer used a gun? Oh, right, "2nd amendment rights".
Why is it not possible to live in a country with 2nd amendment rights AND not have mass shooting all the time? Why aren't more legitimate gun owners stepping forward to help prevent mass shootings?
Is Taylor Swift the most powerful woman in the tech industry? No, especially when there's always a reason why a company like Apple decides to negotiate. But it's a good story and most media outlets are falling over each other for the best click-baity headline.
No, the real problem is that the media is playing up how this is a "win" for artists. One local news station said this problem is best exemplified by how Spotify played Pharrell's "Happy" around 43 million times in one month, yet his royalty payment was only $2,700. Um, isn't there a HUGE step missing? Like, how much did Spotify pay his label and why the label only sent him $2,700?
Nope, it's an easier story to tell when it's a female, teenybopper singer versus a multi-billion, multi-national corporation.
I'm all for ending revenge porn, but I think Google de-listing any site is a stupid idea, and this includes the "right to be forgotten".
It seems like most people, including Google, have forgotten one important thing: Google is the Internet version of a card-catalog (and this is very important): removing something from a card catalog does not remove the source. Okay, sure, removing something from Google makes it harder to find, but people will still find it if they look hard enough. And making something harder for everyone to find makes it harder for law enforcement to find and arrest the people breaking the law.
So by all means, de-list the revenge porn sites and force them onto the dark web, where it's even harder to find the people who run the site.
Seriously- at what point do these regulations become so unwieldy that companies stop doing business in these countries?
If Germany tells Amazon to create a "only after 10pm local time" filter, why can't France or China? Should Amazon have to create rolling filters for each country and time zone? What about competing sites? Will a smaller bookstore now have a competitive advantage if they don't have these filters (though risking legal action)?
Of course it didn't take long to apologize. The real question is why companies keep repeating the same pattern of: 1) Accuse someone of infringement. 2) Watch the accusation hit the tech news sites and make the company look bad. 3) Issue an apology for something they shouldn't have done in the first place in an attempt to save face.
Why would CBS or Paramount want to help support this when they're pouring money in the rebooted version? Yes, everyone knows Nimoy played Spock in the old series, but I'm sure the studios would prefer to promote Zachary Quinto as Spock.
The problem with trying to sue for libel is that the case won't get anywhere. The media reporters make sure to use weasel words like "accused felon" and "alleged criminal", both of which are factually true since the person has only accused at that point. And since people's criminal history is public record, that's factual also.
The problem is that the media shouldn't lead with these kinds of statements... and they have no reason to stop since it gets views and it's all legal.
1) Is Steam asking customers why they want a refund? It would be helpful to the developers if they knew there was a bug, or if the customer got bored, or if the game was too hard, or the customer just didn't like it.
2) Yes, having a better refund system may increase sales, but how many of those sales will be refunded because people can now treat their purchase as a "demo": they buy, play for 2 hours, then ask for a refund.
3) When the refund is complete, does Steam completely remove the game from the customer's hard drive? I have no idea how these mechanics work, but I wonder how many developers are worried that customers can ask for a refund, but then still play the game. After all, this isn't like a physical product where the store gets the item back in exchange for the refund.
As has been said many times, and as Robert Graham points out, if people think bombs are a threat, then the logical solution is to make people feel safe. How do we do that? By making everyone walk through "security screening". Does this actually catch a terrorist or stop a bomb? It doesn't need to, when statistics say no one will bring a bomb on an airplane anyway. It just needs to make people "feel safe", even though there's a big difference between feeling safe and actually being safe.
I have to agree with the other posters: what did this guy not do all day that drove him to watch porn?
Years ago, I had a job that was basically a "head count" position: a few of us were only there to keep the department's head count up so the manager would retain enough of a budget for the department. Our job was to look at the system code to make sure it was running, which it did 99.98% of the time, and then do whatever we wanted. We all make sure to do constructive stuff so we could keep this kind of job.
But how long has this guy been in a job where he couldn't do anything constructive? Okay, it's bad that he's watching porn all day, but shouldn't some of the blame go to the employer for not giving him enough to do? And if there's not enough work to support his position, why not let him go? Oh, right, like I just said- letting him go would cost the department in "head count".
To be fair to cable companies, airlines do this also, and they're much worse since they're trying to compete on price. For example, a ticket from Orlando to Miami might be listed for $50. But then there's a "seat reservation" fee, then a "checked luggage fee", then a 9/11 security fee, then a landing fee, then a mandatory airport fee. Before you know it, you're paying $200 for a ticket advertised for $50.
And this is perfectly legal! It makes me wonder why more companies don't do this.
If these guys were artists at Marvel Comics, then it's probably safe to assume they knew some rough history about the characters. Even if they didn't know the exact details, the editors would fill them in about which armor Iron Man wore and for what mission.
Then something happened and they're no longer at Marvel Comics.
Then "Iron Man 3", "The Avengers", and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" come out and they all make tons of money.
Yet who has ever heard of Radix? Why haven't any producers come to these guys to give them $200 million to make a movie?
Conclusion: these guys need some marketing and it's less expensive to file a lawsuit against Disney/ Marvel than it is to buy some billboards advertising their comic. Sure, the lawsuit will be squashed before opening arguments, but look at how we're all giving publicity to Radix.
I was wondering when the next bad video game would come along. It's been about 20 years since the media blamed everything on "Doom", so something needs to take its place. I thought it would have been Quake or Diablo or some other monster/ shooting game. Who would have thought it would be a creative, free-world game?
Isn't SoundCloud located in the US? And if so, doesn't that mean they have to follow all US laws?
But if they don't want to apply the US' fair-use laws, does that mean they can pick and choose which laws to follow? Suppose some country gives them tons of money to block another country's feeds? As a private company, is it still their right to do as they please?
But consumers have the right to take their business elsewhere.
How is Vereb even in office after such a blatantly unconstitutional move?
I know that's probably a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway: because we live in a society where people want to be protected from anything that might offend them. Then politicians pander to this feeling by saying they're only targeting criminals with the new laws. Then people get behind the law because they'd rather not be offended than have a constitutional right to free speech.
I'd love to see a test run of this law. What happens when the supporters themselves are accused of offending someone and they get hit with a lawsuit? Oh, whoops, they didn't think it would apply to them.
I hope this offends a lot of potential customers and costs Branson a lot of sales he'd have otherwise expected. The problem is that companies lie Virgin Group as so big that even a few million protesters won't put a dent in their income. And can you get a few million people to stop using Virgin products and services? Otherwise, there's no downside to Virgin filing notices like this.