I'm not sure I'd want to take a multiple-choice test every time I wanted to comment on an article. I think it could get old very fast.
I forget where I read it, but one commenting system (maybe Disqus) came up with a system where people would flag abusive and troll comments. If the comment got enough flags, it wouldn't show up in the discussion. Okay, sure, most commenting systems work that way, but the revolutionary part was that the comment still visible to only the troll. Then if he got enough downvotes, his entire account would be flagged a s troll... but he would still be allowed to post comments.
And since the troll would think his comments were still being posted, he wouldn't complain that he was being "censored"- instead, it would look like people were simply ignoring him. After a while of getting no responses, he'd give up and move on to another website where he'd get attention.
Okay, sure, the officers might get a slap on the wrist or a write-up from the supervisor, but that's not punishment. And sure, the guy might sue, but the lawsuit will be covered by the police union. If the guy wins, the payment will be covered by tax-payer money.
The problem is that most people are sheep and will do what they're told.
Most people tend to fly a few times a year. What this means is that the typical traveller won't protest being fondled once or twice if the alternative is to miss the flight and not make it home on time.
Then the frequent fliers can get something like PreCheck to avoid the groping, which means they have nothing to complain about.
_How often do you see it happen in your daily commute?_ The main reason for running red lights is that the timing is way too short. I used to work in an office off a major road. The traffic light would be green for the side road, but would only stay green long enough to let 3 or 4 cars through the intersection. Then the light would be red for 5 minutes, then turn green again to only let 3 cars through. Now imagine all the people leaving the office at once and this light has 10-15 cars backed up. If you're the 15th car in line, you're looking at 5 sets of 3 cars at 5 minutes... or about 25 minutes simply waiting for that one light to turn green!
I have a suggestion for Tim and Mike: whenever they write stories like this, could they also interview the lawyers and ask why the case was filed.
I know I sound like a broken record on this issue, but I think it's time we started hearing from the lawyers: did they file the case not knowing about parody laws? Or did they know the law and file the case because their client paid them?
Like another poster said, can we blame the government for making roads, which makes it easy to get away?
Can we blame Ford making the getaway car? They should have known that their products could be used for illegal activities and they should have built in more protection. You know, like Napster and other file-sharing software.
Can we blame the DMV for giving Joe Robber a driver's license? He may not have driven the getaway car if he didn't have a license.
Or why not blame Joe Robber's parents for not raising him correctly. Maybe he wouldn't have robbed the bank if they had raised him right.
Let's go in the other direction and say people shouldn't do anything on their own just in case they might get hurt. I still remember a scene from "The Simpsons" where they go a franchise-business expo and a company is promoting a business where people straighten pictures for other people. That's right- some people might get hurt trying to level their own pictures, so it makes sense to hire a professional to do it.
I agree- when has Trump ever smiled? Even when he seems to be happy, his face has a smirk instead of a genuine smile.
As for his tax returns, I've read a few sites that speculate that he has a lot of business with Russian oligarchs. Maybe it's all completely legal through his many companies or maybe they're laundering mob-type money or who knows what. But how would the average American feel if they knew Trump was cozying-up to the Russian mob? And if he's cozy with the Russian mob, how does this affect foreign policy, especially with Russia?
Also, how much business does he do in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Why were these countries left off his immigration ban, especially when the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Could he have investments (or debts) with the Saudi family?
I think the Supreme Court should weigh in on this and adjust the list of banned countries, in the name of "national security". For example, when was the last time someone from Somalia or Sudan participated in a terrorist attack on US soil? Instead, we need to ban people from Saudi Arabia, since 12 of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.
Oh, but Trump does business with the Saudi royal family and banning people from that country would hurt his businesses? Sorry, "national security". After all, the people in Saudi are Muslim, and if Muslims from Iraq and Iran are bad, then so are they. And, no, I doubt anyone on Trump's team knows (or cares) about the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.
*Warren was banned for repeating comments in the letter that impugned the character of the now sitting Senator Sessions.* If you're in favor of this result, will you also be in favor of banning Republicans (such as McDonell and Ryan) when they "impugn" the character of a Senator? Why were they not banned when they impugned the character of Obama, who as president, would have a higher status than a Senator?
"The FTC could develop a framework for pursuing fraud news about political propaganda..." That sentence explains why the idea won't go anywhere. What politician is going to vote to make propaganda illegal when they're either using it now or will be using it in the future.
Even if fake news didn't tilt the election, it's still a good way to discredit an opponent.
When I started reading the article, I thought it would be about how Take-Two Interactive accidentally used these two people's faces in advertising, leading the people to be embarrassed or such. Where's the "harm" or "damage" here?
And once again, who's the lawyer that took on this case, knowing full well it wouldn't go anywhere?
By his own admission, the lawyer was simply hired to send out legal threats. This means 1 of 2 things: 1) He doesn't know threats like these aren't enforceable in court. 2) He does know threats like these aren't enforceable in court but took the company's money and sent the threats anyway.
So which option is worse? And when will the court system start punishing lawyers for doing things like this, *especially* when they're "just following orders" instead of following the law.
And all of this goes back to the issue of why one download does not equal one lost sale.
As it's been said over again with downloaded movies: * How many people download a game to try, then find they don't like it or it won't run on their system? Not a lost sale. * How many people collect games and no intention of buying or even playing it? Not a lost sale. * How many people download games to trade with other people for games they want? Not a lost sale.
So, again, why are companies trying to fight these kinds of people instead of focusing on a better customer experience, which people will pay for?
1) I actually wish this site would cover *more* topics and have more variety. Personally, I skip over the ongoing articles about stingrays, FBI e-mails, and such.
2) But more importantly: this is your site and you can write about whatever you want. If people don't like the articles, they can skip over them or go to another site. And if people want to argue politics, there are plenty of sites to do that.
*It's possible to say that this is just the Trump administration hitting the pause button to figure out what's going on before moving forward again* Is it really "possible" to say this? Did Obama or Bush II do this? If not, then I don't think it's a "pause button" as it is "censoring" and "controlling the message".