Another "how do we maximize the clicks" headline from Giz... and we take yet one more step away from being an actual "news" outlet...

Indians pitchers do throw a lot of strike outs... but I think they're more focusing on all the wind coming off Lake Erie.

If a sniper had taken out Justin Verlander, Jose Valverde, Alex Vila and Miguel Cabrera... and Jhonny Peralto was out with a concussion after walking into a brick wall... the Indians still would have finished the year with more starters on the IR list...

because they're in the middle of the country and have no clue about all the superior ideas generated on the coasts

I hear ya, and am right there with you on the eyeroll - the "correlation does not equal causation" is bad for the same reason the headline is bad - in both instances the substance is being ignored and the writer is being lazy and using a catchy phrase.

I hear ya, and am right there with you on the eyeroll - the "correlation does not equal causation" is bad for the same reason the headline is bad - in both instances the substance is being ignored and the writer is being lazy and using a catchy phrase.

That is a terrible headline and this is a trend with Gizmodo articles. Any time you find any correlation study you gussy it up as a causation proof. Would it have been so hard to say depression and junk food are shown to be linked, rather than eating fast food makes you depressed? It is just bad journalism.

The problem is the way gizmodo does its articles - the title is a rather inaccurate characterization of the study - gizmodo does this all the time just to get more page views.

All aboard the Shitshaw!

Thanks Godwin.

Agreed it was a good read... but he was pretty clear in advocating against fanboyism and arguing that it was bad for progress. Did we read the same article?

So sorry you two negative neds can't enjoy the best event in all of sports. Why on earth would you click through to read this article?

Good save. Yeah, I'd probably walk over and punch the guy in the face and/or break his camera. But I would still be guilty of battery and destruction of property. I just wouldn't care.

FAA regs don't apply to this type of aircraft flying at this altitude...

There is nothing illegal about flying a model aircraft over a public road - though most enthusiasts will advise against it. The only evidence in this case is the report filed, which indicates shots were fired and noted the damage to their aircraft.

The case applies to the highest court's interpretation of "reasonable expectation of privacy" as it applies to aerial surveillance. If you're going to rely on state law to make your argument then you need to do some research on SC law, since IL law would really have nothing to do with this matter. But the IL law…

"do some research" - right back at ya - Wire tapping laws cover interception of electronic communication... i suppose that also covers interception of video footage being communicated, but what electronic communication is being intercepted here?

Are you seriously going to begin a diatribe about logic and reason with an ad hominem attack?

Hasn't this very site edumacated us on aerial privacy in a post not too long ago? I'm surprised there are this many people on here that are this naive on how "privacy" has been interpreted in our country... i'm not saying i agree with the interpretations, but this is the state of our current privacy laws

So now we're comparing this to pedophilia? Seriously?