I think people are overlooking some important details: 1. This is a massive loss of ad revenue for them. Instead of reading a story once, then moving on, if you have a comments section, suddenly people are staying longer and returning to the site to engage, and see more ads. Since they are losing readership, and complaining about it, how on earth does it make sense for them to ELIMINATE repeat and extended ad sessions? You can't come complaining to me about being poor when you are losing a simple and useful revenue stream (and as if twitter, facebook, and google need more ad views for themselves, but if you want to gift them to them, it's your own fault).
2. The media outlets are so used to framing the story, that they think that the way they spin it IS the truth. That's how they always get away with saying something that is mutually contradictory like this. They waste their own respect and intellectual capital they used to have to try to spin it, and they are so stuck into thinking they are the ones who can decide the news that they think it will work.
So, now, they lose their revenue stream, their viewership, and more respect from people who see them as they are and who learn not to trust their spin (And every news story has spin based on the adjectives used, there is no such thing as pure impartial reporting anymore, if ever). Go ahead, bury yourselves even earlier, and then when you complain when you say no one is left to staff the investigative units, we can point to you giving up ad revenue, focusing too much on unnamed sources, and the even more obvious slanting of the news than ever before.
Here at United, recent events have led us to make sure we keep our planes, and it's passengers, as safe as possible. To that end, we are asking you to install this little package that will make hackers focus on getting into your system (which we are amazing as easy for them as we can) I stead of ours, because your safety in this aluminum tube is paramount. That, and if you get hacked, it makes our ceo feel better about us getting hacked, since it happens to everyone. And we'd hat to make our ceo cry. Thank you for helping us keep you safe! *notice: unless you happen to have any sensitive information of your computer, and only until you get home anyway, at least we hope, really. But we are sure you don't and will be fine, just fine.
Maybe off topic, but they did ask the question: I always want to think about buying the full album. First of all, I can prove ownership, rather than a nebulous "license" that can be revoked (which is why when I do buy something digital, I immediately back it up somewhere). Second, there are often far better songs on a cd than the popular ones, and I can't always tell in a 30 second snippet (thank goodness for Spotify for taking that restriction away, at least it gives me a chance now). Third, I'm old fashioned and like album art. I also like supporting bands who have had consistently good music, and who try to tell stories with their albums (a few still do this). Yeah, I have cultural add me distraction levels and half the time, most mass market pop stars may have one song I like. In that case, I'm not likely to buy that song anyway. I WILL buy good music for the bands I like. And shockingly, at my local store the cost is not much more than a buck a song. And more often, more of that less profit sale (due to store cut, shipping, packaging) goes to the artist (remember what happened to Eminem with license fees?). So yeah, I still do it. Now get off my lawn!
This is completely overlooking one of the major issues with US healthcare, and its costs.
Drs. order a ton of tests... but you fail to realize why. They have to, or else if something happens, they get sued. For a lot of money. In fact, look into how much of a practices income goes to malpractice insurance a year. The number is astonishing. Tests are how they try to cover their butts in case of a lawsuit.
If you REALLY want to reign in health care costs, simple tort reform where people can't sue human beings who can and will make mistakes for exorbitant amounts of money would be a huge step.
Drs are humans. They do their best. However, like most of us, they will not always do everything perfectly. I wish it were otherwise, but it's true. Taking 25-35% of their income to protect against lawsuits is a ton of money tied up in the insurance companies treasure chests.
(Then again, tort reform where people aren't getting millions from McDonalds for coffee is hot would go a long way towards helping everyone, not just the lawyers and the people who win the lottery of being hurt and cash in)
I'm sorry sir, but you have pieced together your knowledge of our existence based on mosaic theory. Any normal person would have no need to look into our existence. Therefore, you must be up to no good. I think it's time to bring you in for some questioning. Now, let me just gag you, since an innocent person wouldn't need a lawyer. Good, now answer the following yes or no questions. I'm sure you have nothing to hide. Don't worry, we are doing this for your own good. We are serving you by protecting you from yourself. Since you are not on the police force, you must not know how best to protect yourself. Leave that to us. Now then, off to our "discussion" room...
My favorite part about this post is that someone, anyone FINALLY unequivocally admitted they were wrong.
I know it's too much to expect from a government employee, but even a scholar rarely does it.
The fact that he doesn't backtrack, doesn't try to make it sound as if he meant this all along, and doesn't make excuses is exactly the right attitude. It shows integrity and engenders respect.
On the other side are all the double talkers who won't admit they are wrong. I don't trust them, never will. Now, I GET why Obama won't say anything bad about the NSA. He's scared to death of another terrorist attack during his presidency, and it impacting the way he is viewed in perpetuity. If he gives us back our rights, and something happens, he gets lambasted for not doing enough to protect us, and he has no response to that (there is one, but he wont use it). The "Not On My Watch" mentality is why the government is literally afraid to do anything real about this situation.
That's why only the courts can pull off protecting us. Only they are unelected, and aren't pandering in fear of their prestige. The Supreme court gets to answer very precise questions of law, and they are the last step in giving back our rights.
So, I'm happy to admit when Sotomayer was up for nomination, I didn't like her either.. But at least in this, she has my respect.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cryophallion.