The trick to the Betteridge law is that when a journalist writes a headline as a question, the question is suggesting what most people find improbable; and the improbable rarely happens.

There's some of that. But that's more about choice of subject matter. A journalist ALWAYS needs to write something that is SOMEHOW different from what the reader believes. (If he's just reinforcing what the reader believes, why should a reader bother reading his output?)

The real trick that leads to qusetion-headlines (that are almost always implying something that's wrong) is different.

When a journalist writes a juicy headline as a question, it's because he couldn't find evidence to support the conjecture, but wants to run it anyway.

Usually this is because he guessed wrong. The deadline is approaching, he's got to publish SOMETHING to stay employed, and he just wasted a bunch of time researching something that didn't pan out. Oops! So he runs his orignnal conjecture and the workup he did on it before finding out that it was either wrong (usual) or maybe right but couldn't be supported in the time available (rarely). He just phrases the headline as a speculation rather than an assertion.

That way his credibility isn't wrecked for the future, he gets to publish something, it's interesting and plausible (even though probably totally bogus), and in those rare cases where it WAS right he's scooped his competitors. However it comes out it's a win for the journalist - though it's a bunch of noise for the readers.

Autodialers don't dial wrong numbers. Only people are capable of that. If the autodialer did it, it was on purpose. The proposed change allows illegal autodialers to lie and say that it was a wrong number when it in fact was not.

That doesn't seem excessive to me. If the call was on a DNC list and they chose to call it anyway, then they have chosen to break the law. Once they break the law, they no longer have a say in the consequences.

The first amendment limits the government from limiting free speech. The first amendment does not guarantee that I, a private citizen, must pay for the infrastructure for the government to make a political statement, nor that I must sacrifice opportunity to listen to their spiel. There is nothing in the constitution protecting government speech to me.

Give the receiver the option. You have received a call, please press 0 to accept this call for free or enter a dollar amount for which you would be willing to take this call. After this call is over, you have the option to remove the charge if , for example, it was your child calling stranded on the road from an unknown number.

The French, like many European countries is more liberal than the United States, and as such, was very progressive about allowing Muslims into the country, letting them live and work and worship as they please. As a result of this kindness, they have been beset with increased crime, riots, bombings and now DDOS. 70% of prisoners in France are Muslims. Only 5 to 10% of the population is Muslim. It is pretty obvious that a strong correlation exists between the Muslims in France and the Blacks in the United States. The difference being that the Blacks were brought here against their will, but the Muslims were welcomed with open arms. Regardless, in both situations, the result has been the same effect. Incidentally, Blacks are not a significant crime issue in Europe. This seems to support that race does not necessarily make you more likely to commit a crime. In the U.S. race is an excuse.

I remember seeing it after they threatened to take my kids away. My twin girls were upstairs asleep when the alarm went off. It was a false alarm, but the police came out anyway and when they questioned my wife and found out she was downstairs with my 3 year old while the two year old twins were upstairs sleeping, they threatened to take them away.
Here is a reference to Washington State law which is equally insane. Hopefully it only applies to foster parents, but there is no reason why foster parent rules should be any different than regular parent rules:
Children under six (6) years of age must sleep on the same floor of foster home as foster parents.

In my state, it would be preferable to leave the kids with a drug addicted parent than to let the equivalent of CPS have them. The kids are more likely to survive with their parents and less likely to get lost. Yes, my state agency has children in their care that they do not know the whereabouts of. And many have died while in the care of the state.

I have had the equivalent agency in my state threaten to take my children. They have never been abused, neglected, or mistreated in any fashion. However, in my state, it is illegal for you to have more than one child. Well, effectively anyway. It is illegal for you to be on a different level of your house than your child, and we had twins and another girl a year older. In order to obey the law, you would have to carry all three of them with you when you put one of them to bed.

When I was in Kindergarten, I walked over a mile to school. In my current school district, you have to live over a mile away to ride the bus. Everyone else must walk or ride with a parent. It is certainly far less safe for 500 cars and hundreds of walkers to descend on the school in a 10 minute period than for 10 buses to do so, but it is far cheaper for the school, so they can invest more money in needless administrators.

When will people understand that death due to an accident that was nobody's fault is different than premeditated murder or someone who would not have otherwise died? Yes, terrorism deserves to be focused on more than accidentally choking on a Big Mac.

The Westboro Baptist people are not even a Church. They are just lawyers trying to provoke people into hitting them or denying them free speech rights so they can sue.
There is no comparison between them and other Christians. You would be better suited to compare typical Christians to David Koresh. I think you will find the normal to nutjob ratio in Christianity is orders of magnitude higher than in Islam.

This.
I'm set pretty good for retirement. However, I am working my butt off. I am now 44 years old. I am already starting to realize that some of the things I enjoy doing: hiking, skiing for example, are beginning to be a challenge for me even now. I don't know if I will be capable of enjoying them at all in 25 years or so when I retire. However, I don't have the time to do them now. I think we have this whole work thing backwards. We should get out there and enjoy life while we are young, and then sit our old, tired butts in front of a computer screen at some desk when we no longer have the energy to enjoy life. Unfortunately, getting the money up front is a bit of a challenge. Some people have figured out how to come out of the right vagina, but I was not one of the clever ones.

Well, if you think about it, if you go and buy a Starbucks every day and an iphone every time they come out, you are spending about $2,500 a year. If you saved that up until retirement, at 1% interest, that is about $140,000. With 3% inflation, that works out to about $37,000 in today's dollars. So I don't think you would be able to retire earlier on it, unless you had managed to pay off your house already and were only planning to live a year.
But you might be able to retire 1 year earlier if you laid off the starbucks and the new iphones. It is all a question of whether 45 years of abstaining is worth one year of not having to work to you.

Does the lack of CGI not disqualify all of the choices? It certainly disqualifies all of the comic book based movies.