I'm not sure why a discussion of media bias is appearing in an article about google autocomplete. They are a search engine. They don't even publish anything....oh i get it. you DO think google is "publishing" autocomplete results don't you. its making little headlines just for you. Well a bunch of people have thought that. They even sued google over auto correct search results. So google changed auto correct in its search. Now they remove negative autocomplete statements for EVERYONE. No more defamatory google autocomplete results. Now everyone will be happy.
What do you mean someone created some highly baised "journalism" "showing" that we were editing search results about Clinton and nobody but clinton?
"used the death of American's to promote a false agenda". really weird grammar there. you could have an agenda with false motives, or a hidden agenda, but an agenda is a list of goals. How do you advance a false list of goals? what does that even MEAN?
Anyway, do you perhaps mean like the politician using 9/11 and a few other, random, scattered, rare, terror attacks, overstating the threat and falsely assigning the largest threat to bar an entire religion from entering the United States? Because that's not Hillary.
Why do I find Trump lies worse? Trump doesn't just lie. he lies about lying. He lies, about lying about his lies. ect. Trump appears to change the truth to fit his mood. Like his net worth. its a mathmatical value based on actual physical holdings. But trump adds a value supported by no accounting system - a highly variable intangible that represents his "brand". Like even without all the stuff that makes up the Trump brand, it would still have this ethereal value. and it changes at his whim. And he then says other people are lying if they don't include this "brand value" in his net worth, even though there is no evidence to support its value. And it grows from there. He'll make a policy position and after he abandons that policy position He never made that previous policy decision. Clinton admits when she changes a position. she might not explain herself, but she admits the previous statement. Trump edits, in real time, the past. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
The article is a little unclear in regards to WHAT tax these cities are employing. CA only taxes personal tangible property. Most cities do employ a seperate telecommunications tax that applies to cable, and these cities are claiming that Netflix is just another cable service who should be paying this tax.
thats kinda the whole point. business owners (see trump) like to claim that it was their work, and only their work that made it, and they should get all the benefits. None of this tax me and continue to build the community that built my company on nonsense.
Did you know that there are nearly 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the US? And that to remit sales tax you need a sales tax certificate from the state at minimum? Did you know that most states have more than one sales tax authority? And that sales tax waivers are issued by the state? and that every state has its own policies related to when an individual qualifies as a reseller?
Tracking all of this is terrible, and states in general arent willing to make broad simplifications like maintaining an easily accessable central database of tax rates and jurisdictions in their state.
But all this is besides the point. In ca services are not taxed, only tangible personal property. I really cant understand how it applies to my netflix subscription.
yes...75 cop cars chasing one, possibly armed, suspect who was accused of firing a single shot that produced no bodies is an entirely reasonable and justified force response level. as is firing 137 rounds in the span of 30 seconds. /sarc
You know how "threatened these cops felt? one of them got up on the police car, completely exposing himself to return fire, so he could get in on the extrajudicial murder. There was no goddamn threat and they knew it.
Big companies have never been more profitable. The tax cuts proposed by Trump don't target the small businesses that are supposedly overburdened by taxes, and in gives the lion's share of the benefit to the Big companies who we want to tax. High taxes encourage investment in a business, because the investment back into the business reduces the tax burden. Lowering tax burdens has never been shown to increase business investment, and we can clearly see that wage growth has significantly slowed since the tax cutting Reagan era.
Freeing up big business to be even more anti-competitive by giving them more cash and less regulation does not necessarily help the small businesses that the regulation and taxes are supposedly destroying.
As for regulatory burden - trump has listed a few problems he has with regulation. Like Farm Health and safety standards, the lack of which lead to several major health crisis in his restraunts. Or Food Preperation standards like not serving meat 6 months after its prime - again something trump restraunts have a problem with. Or not contaminating streams that feed into larger water sources with toxic chemicals? He has a problem with that, i guess thinking that small streams are independent from bigger sources.
He wants to 'rank' saftey standards. So whats more important - Food Storage Temperatures requirements for Beef that help prevent E-Coli outbreaks or Cooking Temperature standards for Pork to help prevent parasite infection?
He complains about regulations for dog food, implying that we shouldn't care. But pets tend to be well loved companions whose loss is deeply personal and can be as bad as the loss of any other family member. Medical costs for pets are just as bad as the costs for humans, but insurance is a lot harder to come by. Food safety for pet food to prevent readily preventable disease or parasite infections, and prevent feeding your pet toxic chemicals makes sense, and I am unsure why these costs are supposedly not being borne by consumers. I guarantee you if these regulations are repealed you aren't going to see significant reduction in consumer cost.
It probably fell on deaf ears because his examples of burdensome regulation always seem to have a clear reason they exist, and his details always seem to not match muster. He wants to reduce Tax revenue by nearly a Trillion a year (but he assures us the economy will boom and so he'll only reduce federal revenues by a Half a trillion a year), while at the same time funding the largest infrastructure investment since the initial creation of the Highway system. I dont understand how he plans to get our trade partners to agree to terms which expressly and intentionally favor the US over their own interests. His economic policy assumes that he can, and if he fails his budget doesn't work at all.
The point of the language is to prevent the party supplying the language from creating intentionally vague language which the non-supplying party thinks means one thing, but was 'meant' to mean something very different which gave significant leverage to the party supplying the language.
There is no meaningful distinction between the customer pressing copy and the employee pressing copy. Last time I was at FedEx Office, they did not charge different rates for self vs full service. So there is no difference in the profit they make. no added commercial benefit this lawsuit could recover. Its meaningless.
An identifying Mark is very specific. Changes in such factors as the colors used is enough to be a different mark. Now they are similar, and a court might agree that they are close enough to retain the mark, but by a strict legal reading, the radical changes in coloration combined witht he fact that no 2 color schemes are the same from what i can tell, suggests that this is not an identifying mark.
In my opinion, there is a distinct difference. When you see a Netflix show, you know Netflix paid for it. Youtube Red? You know they paid for it. (have they paid for exclusive content that didn't go under the Youtube Red banner?
With Facebook Live, the choice of streaming venue is assumed to be natural. If someone streams live over youtube Gaming or twitch, you dont assume they are getting paid to use that specific platform. Same with Facebook Live. I never knew that the reason I was suddenly turning off all these Live notifications was potentially because they were getting paid for it. Each one that used it drew attention to that platform. And if they did not naturally choose that specific platform, then my decisions as to which streaming platform I might consider using are influenced. It advertises the platform, because in streaming you don't assume the content is paid for by the platform.
I'm confused. what rights does the IOC claim Mexico violated? Its not copyright, because the person who filmed the video has that. Do they claim like the NFL that despite no contract existing between an attendee of the games and the authoritative body that the authoritative body owns all footage of the event? Im lost.
Could you provide a source on the gun control language? Because my searches online only turn up someone saying "I don’t know that it’s there. I’m just assuming that a guy that’s done everything he can heretofore with his pen, as he said he would do, will do it again when he’s given a blank check", which while provocative, does not cite TPP text leaks, and, despite a lot of rhetoric the only thing I can remember that Obama did 'with his pen', is the AFT clarifying that all gun sales are subject to background checks.
Yes, Mr. Trump. Lets Magically cut off the internet for any terrorists, while keeping the internet up for everyone else. Ive got just the button its just that no one's asked me to use the "no terroists" Button before. Of course, we'll be preventing our intellegence agencies from gathering all that terrorist chatter that is the supposed reason for all that mass data collection, so we'll probably want to shut that down, unless we have some sort of ulterior motive for the collect it all mentality?
Mainly because it is too early for that motion. First there is the injunction as part of the initial filing, then the motion to dismiss, THEN the motion for attorney's fees. And that's assuming the obvious dismissal occurs. You cant file for attorney's fees before the case is over.
I predict it will go to the supreme Court. They will accept the case then punt on the issue of civil forfeiture by ruling with the descent in the appeals case, and ruling they cant issue an advisory opinion/