I agree- when has Trump ever smiled? Even when he seems to be happy, his face has a smirk instead of a genuine smile.
As for his tax returns, I've read a few sites that speculate that he has a lot of business with Russian oligarchs. Maybe it's all completely legal through his many companies or maybe they're laundering mob-type money or who knows what. But how would the average American feel if they knew Trump was cozying-up to the Russian mob? And if he's cozy with the Russian mob, how does this affect foreign policy, especially with Russia?
Also, how much business does he do in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Why were these countries left off his immigration ban, especially when the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Could he have investments (or debts) with the Saudi family?
I think the Supreme Court should weigh in on this and adjust the list of banned countries, in the name of "national security". For example, when was the last time someone from Somalia or Sudan participated in a terrorist attack on US soil? Instead, we need to ban people from Saudi Arabia, since 12 of the 9/11 hijackers came from there.
Oh, but Trump does business with the Saudi royal family and banning people from that country would hurt his businesses? Sorry, "national security". After all, the people in Saudi are Muslim, and if Muslims from Iraq and Iran are bad, then so are they. And, no, I doubt anyone on Trump's team knows (or cares) about the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.
*Warren was banned for repeating comments in the letter that impugned the character of the now sitting Senator Sessions.* If you're in favor of this result, will you also be in favor of banning Republicans (such as McDonell and Ryan) when they "impugn" the character of a Senator? Why were they not banned when they impugned the character of Obama, who as president, would have a higher status than a Senator?
"The FTC could develop a framework for pursuing fraud news about political propaganda..." That sentence explains why the idea won't go anywhere. What politician is going to vote to make propaganda illegal when they're either using it now or will be using it in the future.
Even if fake news didn't tilt the election, it's still a good way to discredit an opponent.
When I started reading the article, I thought it would be about how Take-Two Interactive accidentally used these two people's faces in advertising, leading the people to be embarrassed or such. Where's the "harm" or "damage" here?
And once again, who's the lawyer that took on this case, knowing full well it wouldn't go anywhere?
By his own admission, the lawyer was simply hired to send out legal threats. This means 1 of 2 things: 1) He doesn't know threats like these aren't enforceable in court. 2) He does know threats like these aren't enforceable in court but took the company's money and sent the threats anyway.
So which option is worse? And when will the court system start punishing lawyers for doing things like this, *especially* when they're "just following orders" instead of following the law.
And all of this goes back to the issue of why one download does not equal one lost sale.
As it's been said over again with downloaded movies: * How many people download a game to try, then find they don't like it or it won't run on their system? Not a lost sale. * How many people collect games and no intention of buying or even playing it? Not a lost sale. * How many people download games to trade with other people for games they want? Not a lost sale.
So, again, why are companies trying to fight these kinds of people instead of focusing on a better customer experience, which people will pay for?
1) I actually wish this site would cover *more* topics and have more variety. Personally, I skip over the ongoing articles about stingrays, FBI e-mails, and such.
2) But more importantly: this is your site and you can write about whatever you want. If people don't like the articles, they can skip over them or go to another site. And if people want to argue politics, there are plenty of sites to do that.
*It's possible to say that this is just the Trump administration hitting the pause button to figure out what's going on before moving forward again* Is it really "possible" to say this? Did Obama or Bush II do this? If not, then I don't think it's a "pause button" as it is "censoring" and "controlling the message".
Are websites so paranoid about the DMCA process that they take anything down with any notice? Why didn't someone look into the claim before taking the mod down? Wouldn't it be obvious that the DMCA claim didn't come from the rightful rights owner?
And even if there's no punishment for perjury, what about other action against people who file a false claim? In this case, shouldn't the other company be kicked off Steam for filing a false claim?
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but has anyone talked about how CBS/ Paramount might be suing to protect their brand-names in the interest of other licensees?
For example, CBS/ Paramount license the Star Trek names, logos, likeness, and so on to comic book companies like DC, Marvel, and Dark Horse. What would happen if they saw people like Alec Peters making Star Trek projects without paying for a license?
This would like how the NFL doesn't want anyone using the words "Super Bowl" unless they're an official sponsor and paid for the rights to use the name.
Maybe the NFL will decide this guy is right and cut down on the number of commercials. It'll then decide that "commercials" only mean 30 second or 1-monute spots... but that ads shown along the bottom or over the action aren't "commercials".
I can easily see a game turning into this: And here's the coin toss, sponsored by Bank of America. When you need money, go to Bank of America. The quarterback takes the ball, sponsored by Toyota, the official truck company of the NFL. Visit their website at... And he throws the ball, This throw sponsored by Tide. When something has to be clean, use Tide. And he catches the ball and calls a time out. This time out sponsored by Rolex.
If customers want to be stupid and not trade-in a phone that explodes, then yes, they have every right to do so. However, when that same phone could explode and burn down their house or explode on an airplane, *or in any way hurt someone else*, then they lose their "right to be stupid".
Here's a hypothetical question that will become real pretty soon: how does this system handle driverless cars? Let's say this is an Uber car with no one in it. And let's say that the car is owned by a person who's letting it drive around on its own to make money. Now suppose the traffic cam takes a picture of it doing something wrong.
Who gets the ticket: the owner, since it's his car? Or Uber, since the car is "on duty" for them? And how does the owner fight the ticket since the traffic cam is at fault because the car was probably doing everything correctly because of its programming?
As the old saying goes, this is easier said than done. Here's the choice: 1) Pay the $150 fine and be done with it. 2) Fight it: go to court, take a day off from work (which will cost you how much?), go downtown, pay for parking, wait until your name is called, listen to the judge's speech about how pleading not guilty may cause you to have to pay the ticket and additional fines, and then risk pleading your case. Oh, and if you're found guilty, you get points on your license, which will raise your insurance rates and cost you more money.
And the poor that are more easily controlled? They're the ones who can least afford to take a day off of work and take the risk of going to court.
At what point are we going to hold lawyers responsible? I see two options: 1) They're not aware of section 230 of the CDA which is why they think Twitter is responsible. 2) They *are* aware of section 230 of CDA and they're filing the lawsuit against Twitter, hoping they can settle out of court and make some money.
Both of these options should be grounds for disbarment.
So let me get this straight: someone in the French office thought it was a good idea to send notices to websites in the US? And someone else signed off on it. Then someone else typed up the notices. Then the legal department sent out the notices. Yet not one single person in this entire chain thought it was odd to send a notice to a website in another country? Now Getty US has to apologize and clean up this mess.
They should all be fired for "we were just doing what we were told".