At some point, people are going to get sick of these false copyright claims and these organizations' claims will fall of deaf ears, if it isn't happening already. I may have missed something, but I didn't see where they explained the "harm" done by the illegal streaming. On the contrary- as a US citizen, I *want* the rest of the world to see our presidential debates, even if their countries' news stations may not show it.
I'd remind them of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I don't want to repeat too much of it because of copyright concerns.
What I still find amazing is this typical exchange: Reporter: Mr Trump, did you assault these women? Will you apologize for what you did? Trump: Crooked Hillary did worse! She should be locked up for her e-mails. I'll lock her up. Reporter: Yes, but will you apologize? Trump: Those women are liars and it never happened. All of them liars. And I know liars. They're liars. And I'm going to sue them. All of them. Big lawsuits. Reporter: But we have you on tape saying it. Trump: Look, they're liars and that's not good. You know what's not good? Hundreds of illegal immigrants coming over the border everyday. And Obama lets it happen! I would send them all back to Mexico so they won't take jobs. I'll get jobs back and I'll give tax cuts to middle Americans. Reporter: But you still haven't answered the question.
So, here we are, almost a week later, and Trump still doesn't acknowledge that he did anything wrong. How does something Bill Clinton (or anyone) make it right for him to do something? At some point, all adults move past the idea of "but he did it first" argument.
Yes, seriously- his supervisor should be fired. What kind of person has so little work assigned to them that they can try to access porn that much in a day? Where was his supervisor to make sure he was actually doing his work and meeting his deadlines? Or did the guy finish his work and then look at porn? Then why didn't the supervisor give him more work?
I'd like to mention the disinformation campaign by Breitbart and FOX "news": they're running stories claiming that the New York Times hasn't paid taxes in years either.
1) When doing a Google search to confirm the story, the only results I got were from right-wing sites. If this were true, wouldn't sites like CNN, Time, and the Washington Post be talking about it? Oh, right, those are "mainstream media" sites out to get Trump so they won't talk about this story.
2) This is even more false equivalency from the Trump camp. Last I looked, the NYT wasn't running for president and rejecting 40 years of tradition by not releasing its tax returns. The NYT didn't post a loss of over $900 million, spread it out over 18 years, and claim to be a successful businessman (that I know of).
I don't blame these cities for trying, since this is exactly what's happening in the EU, though with countries instead of cities. It works this way: if I sell a product to a customer in France, then I have to collect a "VAT" based on France's rate and pay it to the French government. If a customer in Austria buys the same product, I have collect the Austrian VAT and pay it to the Austrian government.
So, yes, the VAT is based on the customer's address, which may get screwy if a guy from California is on vacation in Salzberg: does he stay at a hotel in Germany or Austria to get a lower VAT? Or is he exempt because he's on vacation?
Large business can adjust their accounting to handle this, but small businesses can either not sell to all the EU countries or they can pay an accounting company to handle the VAT collection and payment for them.
So why shouldn't every US state or every city do the same thing? It's a quick way for them to make money, even if it's a huge burden on businesses.
I think the real reason these people are angry and stresses is that other sellers are selling their product for a higher price and getting away with it. Let's see if I have this right: 1) Seller A lists it on eBay for $50. 2) A customer buys it. 3) Seller A buys it from the Ruckels for $40. 4) The Ruckels make $40, the seller makes $10, and everyone makes money.
I completely understand how customers might feel ripped off if they paid $50 for an item that's sold for $40 on Amazon, but shouldn't the customer have shopped around first?
This was an interesting article. I have an idea for a follow-up article: If the number of viewers or readers can't be accurately measured, how do companies accurately measure the effectiveness and results of an advertising campaign? If a site says it gets 6 million unique monthly views and it charges $200 for a banner ad and it gets 5,000 clicks, how many people actually buy the advertised product and how much money does the advertiser make? Or is this another "dirty secret": companies pay $200 for banner ads to get in front of 6 million "unique views", fully knowing that they might make 1 or 2 sales?
Or has the advertising industry basically brainwashed companies into thinking that they need to get their products "out there" or that any advertising is "good exposure", whether it leads to a sale or not? After all, how did companies measure the effectiveness of highway billboards in the 1920's?
I'm confused. Why are people blaming the government or calling this tyranny?
The fact is that Facebook is a private site with its own rules of what it (or its bots) will allow to be posted. If we don't like it, we should switch to another platform, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, or start something new. And if enough of us start to leave Facebook over these issues, maybe they'll start changing their rules.
Mike, although your arguments are well-thought out, I have 2 rebuttals: 1) We live an age of anti-intellectualism. Most Trump and Cruz supporters, and by extension, many Republicans, don't trust scientists or other experts. Instead, they feel things "from the gut", so if Trump is for it, and Obama is against it, then everyone should be with Trump.
2) If we take the assumption that Trump is in league with Putin, then giving the US more control of the Internet will logically lead to more control by Russia and China, which is probably Trump's goal. Then Putin can ask for more power from there. But for now, this is the easiest way for Russia to get a toehold.
Suppose this issue happened in other industries: say you bought a BMW and the battery dies. You go to your local auto supply store and see a Ford battery for $50, which the clerk assures you that it's compatible with your BMW. Congratulations! You just saved money by not buying the official battery from the BMW dealership for $200. We all know how car dealerships like to gouge people, especially the higher-end ones like BMW! Except the battery from the supply store doesn't quite fit, so you have to hammer it in place... then it runs out of a charge after 3 months. Then you complain to BMW that they made a crappy car that won't take Ford batteries.
So for argument's sake, let's assume this happened to HP: customers would use cheap-brand ink, the printer would fail, and then they'd complain to HP or return the printer to the store (in which case, the store would return it to HP). The printer works perfectly, except for the fact that the nozzles can't handle the cheap quality ink.
And here's another example: I have a LEGO set and I have a knock-off-brand set of bricks. The LEGO set was $24.95, which seemed a tad expensive for the content. The knock-off brand was $9.95 for a larger set with more pieces. However, after building each set, I noticed the LEGO bricks are "stickier", firmer, and seem to hold together better. The knock-off brand bricks seems looser, as if they didn't quite get the measurements right or they used poorer-quality plastic. Most of the time, a cheaper price usually means a cheaper quality product.
So is this really a case of HP trying to gouge everyone or are they trying to maintain quality control?
... and any hacker worth his or her salt isn't going to leave evidence of the hack or their ties to a nation state. Yes, but any hacker worth his or her salt can easily plant false evidence that points to almost any party he or she wants the FBI to believe did this. I wouldn't be surprise if officials found "evidence" that they say ties the hack to the Russians. Though the media won't ask if the evidence is real or if they're putting it out there to support a new war with Russia.
Here's my issue with all this: whose religious beliefs are more important: the person's or the country's? Should people dress according to their belief or dress according to the country's culture?
And as a more specific example: When Muslim women go to other countries, their religious belief tells them to wear full-body swimsuits on the beach, even if the country's culture is to wear swimsuits with far less coverage. Yet if I go to a Muslim country, my religion says I can wear a bikini on the beach, yet the country's culture won't allow it.
I know this will get a lot of downvotes, but I think Muslim women need to be more careful. Yes, in theory, they should have the right to wear whatever they like, but there's a HUGE amount of Islamophobia (just look at some of the comments to this post, especially about how a guy could dress in a burqa to hide a bomb). Why would women wear something that clearly marks them as "different"? Sure, they're following their religious beliefs, but again, it's a different country with a different culture.
I know PayPal takes it's instructions from OFAC, but come on. Do they really honestly think the following scenario will happen: Note for payment: Thanks for your review of Castro's Cuba. PayPal: Your comment includes flagged words. Although you have no history of sending money to Cuba in the past 10 years of doing business with PayPal, please write an essay about why this transaction should be allowed. Sender: You got me. I'm actually a Cuban sympathizer looking to overthrow the Castro regime and return Cuba to a democracy. And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling comment!
So, like other posters are saying: let this be a lesson to everyone to NEVER including a comment when sending a payment- simply send the recipient a separate e-mail saying the payment was sent. Or if you must include a comment, make it generic like "Payment for services".
Sure, the general public might be ignorant and go along with Trump, but where are the people from intelligence agencies to say they use social media to infiltrate and learn about enemy groups? How do they feel about Trump talking about taking away one of their best tools to track terrorists? What if Trump does become president and he figures out a way to do what he says? Sure, it's a long shot, but last year, it was long shot that he'd become the Republican candidate.
I'm not sure what's worse: that Trump is saying these kinds of things or the fact that there's not much blow-back about it.
I've been posting here for about 6 years and I agree you should keep doing what you're doing. ;)
I don't think it's a good idea for people to game their site to fit anyone else's social-site, for the simple reason that you're always chasing someone else. How many sites "optimized" for MySpace or Webcrawler, but those have died off? How many people optimized their site for LinkedIn, only to see it not quite take off like Facebook. And now Facebook keeps changing their algorithm, which means more website changes.
And how many sites have resorted to click-back headlines just to set themselves apart from the other news sites, only to see everyone else using similar click-bait headlines.
Here's another question: What's the average age of NPR's target audience? What's the average "Internet intelligence" of their audience? Have they considered that many of their visitors may be older and not have, or more importantly don't want, to use Facebook or Twitter? This is basically NPR's way of saying they don't care about people who don't have these accounts.
Those are nice statistics, but can you show use how many people read the comments? And how many of those people find the comments as entertaining/ interesting as the article? I would wager that many of the regular contributors add more value to the story since they add their own thoughts and opinions.
Mr. Thomas M. Lenard is actually trying to claim that adding a privacy surcharge to what's already some of the most expensive broadband in the developed world will somehow help the poor buy groceries. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have it backwards. I think what he's saying is that poor people won't have to pay the privacy surcharge, which gives them more money to spend on groceries. Of course, he fails to follow-up and say that this means AT&T will continue to collect and mine their data in exchange for *not* paying the surcharge. So this is yet another way the poor get screwed by big business.
Yes, but who pays for all these filings? The companies aren't going to use their own profits: they'll raise the fees they charge customers or they'll make up new fees. I can easily see a new line item on the AT&T bill: "Mandatory legal recovery fee for defending 'thank you': $10 per customer".
That's a great idea. I have some shows on videotape that I recorded back in the 1990's and it's fun to watch all the obsolete technology like 10-10 numbers for calling long distance or the old AT&T "Reach out and touch someone" commercials. Kids of today have no concept of what "calling long distance" even is.