I still want to know how many people voted _for_ Trump compared to the number of people who voted _against_ Hillary. These voters probably didn't like either candidates' policies, but they thought Hillary would be a worse president than Trump.
I know this is getting a little off-topic, but I completely agree with the phrase above about how we're a vengeful people.
Has anyone been following the case of Markeith Lloyd, here in Florida? He shot a number of people, including some police officers, then ran from police, and then was captured.
It turns out that the State Prosecutor handling the case announced she wasn't going to seek the death penalty. It didn't take long for pundits to argue that she shouldn't do this, even though it's completely within her right as the state prosecutor. I can't say for certain, but she's probably chosen not to seek the death penalty in other cases, but none of those were as high-profile as this one.
Then, governor Rick Scott fired her... because she refused to seek the death penalty for someone who shot police officers. We can argue whether the death penalty is good or bad, but now we have a situation where the governor will step in if he doesn't like how the state prosecutor approaches a case.
The shooter will go to jail for life and probably never be released, but the people of Florida want their pound of flesh for what he did and the governor will make sure he's executed if found guilty.
I think the larger problem with Facebook ads is the irrelevance. Facebook has built its business on being able to data-mine individual users' interests down to the molecule.
If they know I like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Doctor Who, why are they showing me ads for realtors in my neighborhood? Why not show me an ad for "Rogue One" or Doctor Who DVD's? Or why not show me some ads for these kinds of toys? Not only would I click on these ads, but I'd very probably buy something from the advertiser's website.
But the more irrelevant ads they show me, the more likely I am to block them all.
Good for her if she gets more money, but will the officer learn anything from this? Even if she goes through with a lawsuit and even if she wins, the settlement will be paid by the police department (not the officer), which in turn will be paid by taxpayers.
The officer needs to be fired with a "dishonorable discharge" so he can't work in any law enforcement jobs and stripped of any pension he might have. Then he might learn not to abuse his power.
While the business owner's response wasn't the best, let's look at it from another angle: A customer has a technical issue, but instead of asking for support from the company, which may nor may not have fixed the issue, he lashes out and posts a negative review on Amazon and calls the product a piece of ****. What if the company has heard about this issue before and it was a simple fix? Why didn't the customer at least try to get help before posting a complaint? Or maybe this was an issue that the company could fix for future customers.
But instead, the customer decides to post a negative review and lash out instead of actually asking for a solution to his problem.
I think another problem with fake news is that too many people don't know what to trust any more. How long have the Republicans spent discrediting places like CNN, MSNBC, and even the BBC as the "lamestream media". So if we can't trust the BBC, who do we trust for balanced reporting? Certainly not Fox, which is basically a mouthpiece for the Republicans.
And I see this play out all the time on Facebook: Person #1 posts a link to a website with an obviously fake story. Person #2 posts a link to Snopes showing that the story was discredited 3 years ago. Person #1 then gets upset: "Who made Snopes in charge of the truth? Who are they to say what's right and wrong?"
Yet a 10-second Google search would have shown Person #1 that the story is false before she shared or posted it.
And the problem is that people are ignorant and have short attention spans. Which version will most people read? A) "Congress will allow ISP's to sell your data". B) "But here's the real problem: you can't buy Congress' internet data. You can't buy my internet data. You can't buy your internet data. [Three paragraphs of explanation about the inner workings of Google AdWords.] That's it."
Or, more importantly, which version will the local news station broadcast? I guarantee it's some form of "Congress wants to sell your data. Tonight at 11:00".
Like a lot of posters have said, why bother learning all this stuff to make a ruling when the appeals court may overturn it? It would be better if the judge *was* the appeals court so no technology-ignorant court could over-rule him.
_According to the audit, AEPI’s IT system tasked with handling royalty payments was incapable of producing a report to compare royalties collected with royalties being paid out. _
So you're telling me that the AEPI has been running since 2011 yet they don't have ANY reports to compare income (royalties collected) and expenses (royalties paid)? Either this is beyond gross negligence or it was done on purpose to hide the fact that they're not paying artists their fair share. I would say this "collection agency" should be shut down, but like people are saying, they probably grease the politicians enough to stay in business.
_“How dare these people only pay part-price for the right to watch our movies!” they might yell in a boardroom._ Until, of course, they put the DVD on sale at Wal-Mart for $9.99. Then an entire family can watch the movie for less than the price of 1 person seeing it in the theater. Then again, the studio probably figures that they've made all their money from the movie and DVD sales are a bonus.
I've been saying this same thing every time we hear about a case like this. Either the lawyer doesn't know about copyright, in which case, he needs to go back to law school. Or he *does* know the law and he's ignoring it to take the client's money.
Either way, wouldn't this be some kind of ethics violation?
Yet again, Trump plays to his base and keeps things simplified. Which is easier to understand: * This deal creates more jobs, which means you'll get re-hired instead of those illegal immigrants. * The deal with Charter will result in a capex of $30B annualized over the 10 years which will mean raising bills 5% over the same time.
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?