To be unbiased, I would expect them to call out all of Hillary's lies in a similar fashion.
Her lies are much harder to pin down, which is why they're not called out as strongly. But to give you one example, on the NPR Politics podcast, they played a tape of Hillary claiming that the FBI director said that she told the truth to the public about her emails, and then one of the reporters flat out said "that isn't what Comey said". So yes, the press actually does point out when Clinton isn't telling the truth. They don't use the word "lied" but that's fine, we can make our own judgments about that. CNN isn't calling Trump a liar either.
It was the NY Times front-page bogus "investigative reporting" stories by Judith Miller purporting to expose Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles and the country's (fictitious) alliance with Osoma Bin Ladin that the Bush administration often pointed to as providing ample evidence of the need to invade Iraq.
Step 1. anonymously leak bullshit to NYT Step 2. wait for them to print unverified claims Step 3. cite NYT as evidence for aformentioned bullshit Step 4. go to war for no good reason Step 5. ??? Step 6. Profit!
There was an incident two weeks ago at a mall near me where someone thought that something being dropped on the floor was gunfire so it spooked them, and next thing you know the mall's evacuated and shut down for the day, over *absolutely nothing*. Well done. Well done.
And the people in charge probably defended it as the right decision.
However, there's a crucial difference that factored into the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court's decision on behalf of the players [against EA]: California's oft-abused "right of publicity" law which doesn't contain the same exemptions as Tennessee's.
Isn't the fact that it's about a video game and not a game broadcast significant also?
And I think the decision was "in favor of" the players, not "on behalf of" the players.
The huge problem is we have publicly traded companies, that will be forced to go down this route by the boards. Which means it is inevitable, that it will occur. If they do not they fail.
That's not caused by them being publicly traded though. If Competitor A is cutting costs through automation (and lowering prices), Competitor B will have to do so as well or find a way to distinguish their products enough to justify higher prices. This is true even if Competitor B is privately owned.
you can't really automate backing your truck up carefully through your yard to a specific place that is completely unmarked, so it can be used in the commencing yard work.
Not today, no. But eventually yes. The yard work robots will understand where the yard work is taking place and drive the truck to the best spot for it. They will know if the truck can fit through or not. They will recognize that it's not OK to drive through a flowerbed, and so on. That level of automation will not happen soon, but it will happen.
Unless the market quickly rebels against them, they will quickly become mandatory.
It wouldn't surprise me if they eventually became mandatory, but quickly? Given how quick Congress is lately that would be shocking.
Think of the cash like any other possession. The police stop you (say for speeding) and they ask you whos car this is. You say "I don't know" and well, see how that works out.
How about if you say "it's mine", they say "what are you doing in this neighborhood?", you say "none of your business" or "I felt like it" and the cop impounds your car because it all just smells fishy. I assume you would have no problem with that.