I find this particularly disturbing for a couple of related reasons. Last year in January, my blog was made private because a third-party extension I was using had become infected. It took several weeks to figure out what the bad extension was and to appeal to have my blog become public again. In the meantime, I lost a significant chunk of my readerbase. I blog about science and technology. I have absolutely nothing that anyone can consider to be adult content. Yet, now I'm scared that Google might mis-flag some of my content as being "explicit" and take down my blog, and that I will then have little to no recourse whatsoever. This goes doubly for other bloggers who write about somewhat more "controversial" (according to Google) topics.
I remember reading a relatively recent article mentioning how many popular works are in the public domain or have been used through fair use; that article mentioned such uses as "quirks" of copyright law. I found it sad to think that people don't realize that the default state is actually free public access, not intellectual monopoly.
I remember reading on Cracked (http://www.cracked.com/article_21756_5-reasons-working-comcast-worse-than-you-think.html) recently that there is no true customer service, only sales and more sales divisions. Maybe that's what the CEO meant when claiming this is a "normal part of being so huge"...?
I'll just post a Seinfeld quote, made by George Costanza, as it seems quite relevant regarding the federal government's stance on polygraph effectiveness. (Plus, it was George's own advice on beating the polygraph.) "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."
For a moment I read the headline as saying that short people are no longer on the no-fly list (implying that they were before). That would have been bizarre, but knowing the DOJ, well, it wouldn't have been totally unexpected I guess.
I thought it was interesting how there was a disclaimer at the top of the article saying that his views were his alone and not meant to be representative of the LAPD's general stance. The sad part is that those views probably are representative. Regardless, I was quite disgusted upon reading this article. He paid some lip service to the ACLU and its "types", yet promptly undermined said lip service with the rest of his article.
Is it really the case though that people would have been *so* much more cooperative if the police acted cordially all along? I mean, I'm sure that if the police had acted cordially all along, things would certainly have been better than what they were when the SWAT teams were in place, but I'm wondering how much of the current positive interactions with the cordial police are more just relief at the SWAT team now being gone.
So how long will it be before a SWAT team shows up at my door on suspicion of a Monopoly bank robbery (and then claims to be immune to oversight regarding that operation because it is a private corporation)?
Are you sure that it's only the usual moral panic that contributed to this moralizing? I wonder if it also has to do with the fact that chess is a foreign game (it has its origins in India and came through the Middle East, after all), because after all, this was the time when attitudes of imperialist superiority were close to their peak in Britain.
If zero-tolerance policies calling for quick suspensions and/or arrests in response to even more minor infractions are rolled back, it would seem obvious to me that suspensions and arrests should drop. Unless there's another statistic that I'm missing, I fail to see how that alone is any more than a marginally positive change. (That said, I do support getting rid of zero-tolerance policies. What I'm asking is for evidence that getting rid of those policies hasn't increased the number of reported incidents that would have resulted in suspensions or arrests under zero-tolerance policies, and separately hasn't increased the number of reported incidents that would result in suspensions or arrests even without zero-tolerance policies.)
And DirecTV shall respond, to thunderous applause, "Cease this hurricane of illogic! You're only bringing a snowstorm of criticism upon yourself. You've clouded up this whole debate; let us work together amicably and let the sun shine once more!"
Many new microeconomic empiricists/econometricists (sp?) have been able to identify causes and effects in policy changes a lot better than in the past. I wonder then: what was the relative impact of Rudy Giuliani's policies against crime (and any expansions under Michael Bloomberg) versus banning lead from gasoline, paint, et cetera? I know that pointing to the elimination of lead sounds a lot nicer than praising any one mayor, but for the sake of science, I really would like to know which it was (or if there was some other lesser-known cause for the crime drop).