The traditional media outlets have tried to position themselves as neutral and objective reporters; however, they are not, and a large segment of the population has now identified them as having a severe leftist bias. This is why the traditional media is in a downturn. It is also why Donald Trump appears to be continuing his twitter campaign.
Michael Wolff is largely correct, that if the traditional media wants to survive and not simply get bypassed by new formats, then they need to change back to the formala that led to their success. They need to ditch the front page editorials and TV personalities. "Just the facts, sir."
"At some point you have to wonder if CNN is actively trying to be this bad at what it does, or if CNN boss Jeff Zucker is a subversive artist of the highest order, working tirelessly to craft a crushing, satirical look at modern American intellectual dysfunction."
Note quite, CNN is just a leftist fraud masquerading as a news organization. It believes that it is functioning quite well.
And this story continued where the administration ultimately blamed the Benghazi attacks on an internet video for the next 2 weeks, and not that it was a coordinated terror attack. How do we deal with this bias? The job of the moderator is NOT to "fact check" or "take sides" on a debate. It is to get the opinions of the candidates. If one side or another has a problem with the candidate's response to a question, then the candidates can rebut it. If the moderator has a problem with a candidate's response, they can take issue with it afterwards. But definitely no "fact checking" during the debate, no matter how obvious you think it should be. Let the debaters debate.
Basically, some government workers are watching porn all day instead of doing their jobs, and amazingly their superiors are unable/unwilling to fire them. So someone who wrote the language of the spending bill has decided to introduce this anti-porn language as a mandate that either the government IT admins block porn, or else they don't get funding.
There are some people who get tattoos of a pistol on their hip. It can apparently look convincing at a distance and at night. Saying that charges are "common sense" doesn't make them common sense, since the situations faced by officers can sometimes be much more complex than you realize.
I too am confused as to exactly what they are proposing to do about "getting the money out of politics". What law do they think that they're going to pass in order to accomplish this? It sounds to me like they're soliciting donations prior to having a legislative platform, which usually attracts the most insidious politicians.
So a business is trying to claim fair use under copyright because it is a parody. But the problem isn't copyright, it's a trademark problem, which doesn't really have a parody exemption. But the business is trying to claim it isn't a business and that it's an art gallery, and that it's giving away its product for free, and it can therefore claim copyright fair use. In trying to predict what might happen if there is an actual court case, I would assume that the business is declared to be an business despite the way it wants to label itself, and that it violates the Starbucks trademark. However, all bets are off because it could be a false flag attack and we can't really trust judges to see through corporate shenanigans. Fascinating nonetheless because of the complexity!
Here, however, there was a twist. A licensee was the party that filed for a Declaratory Judgment, placing the licensor in a difficult situation since it apparently was not permitted to file a counterclaim alleging infringement since the license remained in effect (but the licensor was receiving no royalties since the licensee decided to pay them into an escrow account). In the panel's view this created a situation where an exception to the general rule seemed both appropriate and fair. It is not that they did not know the law (they did), but an exception was believed to be the better approach (much like Judge Leon in his recent NSA decision).
The licensor also put the licensee in a difficult situation by approaching them and claiming they infringed on their patents, so get a license or else. The licensee had a choice: either pay for the license or else risk a lawsuit. This was actually not such a difficult position for the licensor because their contract allowed the licensee to put the money into a escrow account and challenge the action in court. So the licensee was just following the contract! So who wins? The established case law STILL stands, that the patent holder has the burden of proof that there is infringement.
If Obama, upon entering office, learned from security briefings that he would immediately break his campaign promises, then the honorable thing to do would be for him to resign. But of course Obama is just a career politician. Anyone who believes that Obama has been shocked or outraged over any NSA wrongdoing is deceiving themselves: the only person to suffer any punishment, firing, or prosecution is Edward Snowden.
A few weeks ago as the trial was occurring, this story was covered here, and I called it that there was a good chance for the officers to be found not guilty.
A lot of commenters here are expressing their shock that the jury would acquit, and are trying to offer excuses such as bribery, intimidation, or stupidity. But if check out the audio/video recordings, you can see and hear that the suspect goes absolutely berserk and refuses to cooperate until he's in a coma at the end.
I read most of the order, and it is a series of complex excuse-making. It attempts to confuse the simple language of the 4th amendment with pages and pages of legal interpretations. But I'm going to side with the Occam's Razor principle and point out that no matter how many incorrect judicial rulings the courts have produced, the NSA programs still violate the 4th amendment. The NSA has no probable cause to search and seize the telephone records of ordinary American citizens.
The TSA press release should have said "We are aware that there are working mini pistols and our agents are trained to watch out for them. But this agent was an idiot and blew things out of proportion because she was fooled by a toy and couldn't do a proper inspection." However, all of this would require the TSA to start showing some common sense, and that's something they apparently don't have.
I'm aware that there are other states besides NY in which the perpetrator is responsible for the actions of the police officers. While I'm not familiar with NYC laws, it's likely that they have something similar. The bottom line is that if someone does something stupid, such as jump around in traffic when the cops are out to make an arrest, then the perp will be held legally responsible instead of the cops.
After watching the video from the 15 minute mark to the 22 minute mark, I'm reminded of the Rodney King case verdict where the cops were found not guilty. It's likely that the video will be used in favor of the cops, because although there audio has the homeless guy is screaming in pain, the homeless guy is also going absolutely berserk. He resisted arrest to the end, never complied despite taking lethal force, and the initial two cops could clearly not subdue this guy. A similar thing happened in the Rodney King case in 1992 where the video showed Rodney King continuing to get up off the ground after getting pummeled. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say there's a pretty good chance of these two cops being acquitted.
It looks like the American Academy of Pediatrics is playing politics. They're attempting to build a database of firearms owners by asking patients and storing it in medical records (something anti-2nd amendment activists desperately desire, because it is always the first step for any country that bans firearms.
It appears that much of their safety suggestions just went offline, but nowhere does it mention eliminating swimming pools. So now there are reports of doctors refusing to treat patients based on a parent's decision to not answer questions of whether there are firearms within the home.
Back in 1995 when I visited France they were still using the French Franc as currency. As suggested in a post above, they already did most of the rounding by including it in prices. IIRC the franc was worth, at the time, about 1/5th of a dollar, and the 1 franc coins were carried around like we carry around quarters. During a week's stay the only time I saw centimes (french equivalent of cents) was at the currency exchange counters.
The price for everything, tax included, came out exactly to the franc. It was awesome, because you didn't have to take anything else into account. No figuring out extra tax, no distortion or attempt to sucker people into buying something for $2.99, it was all up-front, and you only had to carry around 1 type of coin. After a few days the centimes stayed at the bottom of my luggage bag back at the hotel.
So this has already done, and apparently proven to be a big success considering that all shops and restaurants across Paris and beyond were doing it, so I'm sure Dunkin Donuts can too.
claiming that the distribution center is owned by a subsidiary, rather than by the e-commerce firm itself (yeah, nice try).
Ownership does not mean presence a presence in a state. For example, if I bought Microsoft stock, that does not mean that I suddenly have a presence in Redmond Washington and I would be subject to their taxes.
that means other states like AZ, NV, WA, PA, OK, KY, IN, FL will all need to charge taxes... Amazon has distribution in all of those states.....
Doing business with a distribution company does not mean having a presence in those states. For example, if I ran a home business and shipped all of the products that I made by FEDEX, then it doesn't mean that I have a state presence in all the states where FEDEX has a presence, and I would still only have a presence in my home state.
This just sounds like a desperate tax grab by states that are in financial trouble when online companies have become efficient and profitable, in contrast to the states themselves which have become bloated and more costly during the same time period.
I am willing to personally rate these investments, while also taking the liability if the investments go bad. But the speculators won't be happy with my ratings. It's not going to be the Triple-A Awesome ratings that they were hoping for. Instead, it would be low ratings that hedge for the risk.
This legislation isn't poorly designed; it is an intended consequence to get those financial institutions who need a high degree of certainty out of unknowable risks. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
I'm sure that investors would love to play with the pensioners' money, with huge funds to make huge bets, and they don't want to be personally liable. But then we don't have the heart to say to the retirees "Sorry, your fund manager lost all your savings, so you get to live on $600.00/month SSI for the rest of your life. Thanks for playing". And there's where we get the "too big to fail" mentality and the taxpayers get stuck footing the bill.
Downgrade the ratings on this junk until your ratings agency can't lose. The laws for certain financial institutions require high ratings because the taxpayers don't want to bail them out, so they need to abandon this market to other groups or individuals who can take on the risk and are willing to lose big. And afterwards if no one steps up to the plate, then it's not a useful market, but instead is proof positive that it was just a scam all along to speculate with a larger pool of money by re-rating junk bonds as triple-A. You can't have it both ways and consider it to be a safe investment even though you can totally lose your shorts, while the big boys aren't willing to sink their own money into it.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Koby.