"The top hundreds are based on the actual download of torrents, there is no doubt about those numbers unless they are being invented by the website."
I would be interested to find out how they track actual downloads. Also, am I right in presuming that such stats would exclude DHT connections (which raises questions about The Pirate Bay's statistics since they shut down their tracker)?
"Once Congress defines a law that takes away something that used to be free speech, it is no longer free speech"
Then what is the point of the First Amendment? If the only determination for free speech is what Congress passes as a law then the First Amendment couldn't apply to anything.
What do you even mean by free speech? The context you use it in implies it's some type of speech, rather than referring to the right to speak freely. Do you mean protected speech? Because that would make a bit more sense.
"All you're really pointing out here is that might makes right"
No, I suggested nowhere that the general won. That is your strawman. I am worried that you appear not to recognise the distinction between government and country.
"You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order."
Which you hadn't even mentioned as an exception to your supposed rule.
"Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first."
The facts backing up the claims of harm.
"Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said."
That's rich coming from you considering the obvious strawman you started out with. How did I misrepresent you? You haven't said anything contrary to what I was suggesting, if anything you seem to have explicitly confirmed that you believe it's wholly appropriate for Manning to get the death penalty.
"The general population does not care about their diet nearly as much as vegetarians/vegans do. So you take someone that isn't concerned about their diet and compare their iron intake with someone who not only is concerned but is probably specifically concerned with iron (because that should be fairly well known in the vegetarian/vegan community) and claim they suffer the same."
I was refuting the point about supplements or fortified food. There is absolutely no need to take supplements or fortified food. The comparison was merely contributory evidence. It's your burden to prove your statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food.
"As for the vitamin b12 thing, I did a quick google search on it. The first link that mentioned vitamin b12 deficiencies was a myth"
I wasn't contesting that B12 is an issue, I was contesting the statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified foods. Unless pregnant or breastfeeding then it is unlikely that a non-vegan vegetarian would need to take any B12 supplements or rely on fortified foods. Many do, rather than relying on lots of eggs or low fat yoghurt, but it's not a necessary factor in being a non-vegan vegetarian.
That said, you could rightly argue that your statement was referring to the need for pregnant or breastfeeding woman to take supplements; or that you were referring specifically to vegans, whom some consider true or total vegetarians.
"If it's free speech, then it's legal. That's by definition."
Uh, in your previous comment you stated that Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech. If free speech is by definition legal, then how would that work? Are you just writing random crap in contrary to whatever comment you're replying to?
"LOL! Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech."
I hadn't suggested otherwise. I was calling you out on the assumption that free speech is determined by legality. You continue to cling to that flawed notion.
"He's a traitor, in the literal, traditional meaning of the term. "
I don't believe you understand the literal, traditional meaning of the term. If a general turns against a king for the good of their country then they are a traitor to that king, but are not a traitor to that country. In this case, he was certainly a traitor to his superiors and apparently to his government, but that alone does not make him a traitor to his country. His intentions were clearly in the interest of his country and no harm has apparently happened to his country. Are the laws there to protect the government from treason, or the country from treason? I thought it was the latter.
"Privates don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be public information. The chain of command is a tight and unyielding thing for very good reasons. "
If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes. Are you supporting the idea that the armies of eastern countries undergoing revolution should aid their governments in killing civilians, for example?
'The enemy is trying to kill you, and that changes everything about your traditional civilian notion of "it didn't do that much harm". '
We're not talking about "traditional civilian notions", we're talking bout facts. Something lacking in backing up the issue of harm.
"I don't know that a death sentence is needed, in this case, pvt Manning seems more stupid and young than malicious, but it's wholly appropriate. "
Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed.
"Men have been hanged in wartime for so, so, much less."
"Vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food (vitamin b12 deficiencies for example)."
This simply isn't true. Iron is probably the biggest potential issue in a vegetarian's diet, yet vegetarians don't seem to suffer any more from iron deficiency than the general population. We certainly don't need to take supplements or rely on fortified food to maintain a healthy diet. Vegans may be different.
"Also, don't dish vegetarians. They are healthier and live longer lives than carnivores."
I'm vegetarian. While studies show that we tend to be healthier and live longer lives, there is little reason to believe that being vegetarian is a key factor in doing so. As well as being vegetarian I also don't smoke, have never been really poor and exercise a lot.
If you want a reason to be vegetarian then I would suggest considering the economic and ecological impact of food production as more important than any possible health benefits.
"They are mutually exclusive. Jury tampering is not free speech, and vice versa. Since jury tampering is per se illegal, it cannot also be free speech, since free speech is per se legal."
Do you want a merry-go-round tune to go with that logic? What you've said is that the First Amendment is pointless because although "Congress shall make no law", speech isn't protected if there is a law against it.
"Does that make Mike Masnick wrong? It does by his logic."
Technically his logic is sound, so yes, that would make Mike Masnick wrong. As with the headline, the statement would lack enough specifics to completely inform someone as to what it refers to, but it's still technically correct.
"-Argue less.
-Maintain better health.
-Prevent psychological problems linked to anger.
-Use your frustration to get things done.
-Help avoid addictive escapes."
That would make a good skit: you troll a forum and then announce yourself as a doctor selling a solution to the issue of trolls.
"In case you forgot, the reason that you know TAM as TAM is because TAM *did* make an account."
For all I'm aware of such things, you may be TAM, but the point is that they didn't always an account.
"Yeah except we have names, so you can differentiate between us"
It worries me when an AC take issue with me calling them anonymous. They probably just do it to be contrary, but it's an important distinction that effects how people perceive them. The issue isn't about putting a real name out there, it's about having a consistent identity; enabling other commenters to recognise them, and thus treat them, as individuals.
A cynical view may be that the only reason anyone might have for posting regularly without a handle would be to avoid being seen as an individual. I've already heard average_joe's reasons for dropping his name, the supposed personal abuse he received, which could be a valid reason; however, he was noted for the occasional personal attack himself.
The only relevant difference between those who tend to disagree with Mike and those who tend to agree with Mike would seem to be the numbers. I find it hard to believe that posting anonymously is an effective response to having more people disagree with you.
If harassment were a real issue then I could accept that as a reason. If anyone can explain any other reasons then I would be interested to hear them. Regardless, I agree that it should be their choice to make, I just hope they understand how it effects people's perceptions of them.
"Well you can get some anedoctal references for yourself on the various "TOP 100" of P2P websites, currently on the Pirate Bay and SumoTorrent there is only 3 "music" files being shared at the top on each(coincidence?), that means 3%, the others are the same thing, people are not using P2P to download music anymore for some reason."
There are many issues with trying to compare stats for different types of media being shared. One evident from my own experience is the fact that music is more likely to be organised into a library than video. Another is that music tends to have a longer life than TV shows. While a TV show may have 5000 seeds the week it is aired, come back a year later and it may not have any. Ditto to a lesser extent for films.
These factors of course go both ways; I'm not trying to prove the stats under or over represent, just point out that such a basic analysis is probably useless.
"You of course know that based on this results, spammers will be creating tons and tons of fake forums, right?"
Depending on what they actually changed in the algorithm, I think that probably wouldn't matter. The algorithm is likely favouring forums because they hit its criteria for quality content, rather than the fact they're forums.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 28th, 2011 @ 9:25am
It works, but is kinda cumbersome. I had a look for any likely addons that could auto replace leading spaces with nbsps where appropriate but didn't find anything less complicated than greasemonkey. I suppose it's not like people need to post code on Techdirt anyway.
On the post: Leaving A Major Record Label... And Seeing How The Music Business Is Thriving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be interested to find out how they track actual downloads. Also, am I right in presuming that such stats would exclude DHT connections (which raises questions about The Pirate Bay's statistics since they shut down their tracker)?
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then what is the point of the First Amendment? If the only determination for free speech is what Congress passes as a law then the First Amendment couldn't apply to anything.
What do you even mean by free speech? The context you use it in implies it's some type of speech, rather than referring to the right to speak freely. Do you mean protected speech? Because that would make a bit more sense.
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures
Re: Espinel - liar!
In case you're a body language expert, could you explain that one for me please?
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re: Re: Re:
No, I suggested nowhere that the general won. That is your strawman. I am worried that you appear not to recognise the distinction between government and country.
"You're confusing this with the right to disobey an unlawful order."
Which you hadn't even mentioned as an exception to your supposed rule.
"Who's not talking about facts? If we're in a battle, you're on my side, you start tossing the enemy magazines, I'm gonna kill you. I don't need to get shot by those bullets first."
The facts backing up the claims of harm.
"Now you are just trying to misrepresent what I said."
That's rich coming from you considering the obvious strawman you started out with. How did I misrepresent you? You haven't said anything contrary to what I was suggesting, if anything you seem to have explicitly confirmed that you believe it's wholly appropriate for Manning to get the death penalty.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
I was refuting the point about supplements or fortified food. There is absolutely no need to take supplements or fortified food. The comparison was merely contributory evidence. It's your burden to prove your statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified food.
"As for the vitamin b12 thing, I did a quick google search on it. The first link that mentioned vitamin b12 deficiencies was a myth"
I wasn't contesting that B12 is an issue, I was contesting the statement that vegetarians need to take supplements or fortified foods. Unless pregnant or breastfeeding then it is unlikely that a non-vegan vegetarian would need to take any B12 supplements or rely on fortified foods. Many do, rather than relying on lots of eggs or low fat yoghurt, but it's not a necessary factor in being a non-vegan vegetarian.
That said, you could rightly argue that your statement was referring to the need for pregnant or breastfeeding woman to take supplements; or that you were referring specifically to vegans, whom some consider true or total vegetarians.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, in your previous comment you stated that Congress makes tons of laws that take away free speech. If free speech is by definition legal, then how would that work? Are you just writing random crap in contrary to whatever comment you're replying to?
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hadn't suggested otherwise. I was calling you out on the assumption that free speech is determined by legality. You continue to cling to that flawed notion.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Re:
I don't believe you understand the literal, traditional meaning of the term. If a general turns against a king for the good of their country then they are a traitor to that king, but are not a traitor to that country. In this case, he was certainly a traitor to his superiors and apparently to his government, but that alone does not make him a traitor to his country. His intentions were clearly in the interest of his country and no harm has apparently happened to his country. Are the laws there to protect the government from treason, or the country from treason? I thought it was the latter.
"Privates don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be public information. The chain of command is a tight and unyielding thing for very good reasons. "
If that were true then military personnel would be required to be complicit in the most heinous crimes. Are you supporting the idea that the armies of eastern countries undergoing revolution should aid their governments in killing civilians, for example?
'The enemy is trying to kill you, and that changes everything about your traditional civilian notion of "it didn't do that much harm". '
We're not talking about "traditional civilian notions", we're talking bout facts. Something lacking in backing up the issue of harm.
"I don't know that a death sentence is needed, in this case, pvt Manning seems more stupid and young than malicious, but it's wholly appropriate. "
Perhaps you can explain how it's wholly appropriate to kill someone when you don't believe it's needed.
"Men have been hanged in wartime for so, so, much less."
Your point is?
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
This simply isn't true. Iron is probably the biggest potential issue in a vegetarian's diet, yet vegetarians don't seem to suffer any more from iron deficiency than the general population. We certainly don't need to take supplements or rely on fortified food to maintain a healthy diet. Vegans may be different.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Crackpot comment
I'm vegetarian. While studies show that we tend to be healthier and live longer lives, there is little reason to believe that being vegetarian is a key factor in doing so. As well as being vegetarian I also don't smoke, have never been really poor and exercise a lot.
If you want a reason to be vegetarian then I would suggest considering the economic and ecological impact of food production as more important than any possible health benefits.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re:
Do you want a merry-go-round tune to go with that logic? What you've said is that the First Amendment is pointless because although "Congress shall make no law", speech isn't protected if there is a law against it.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated post
Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that Amsterdam is in Denmark? Otherwise, what are you talking about?
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re:
Technically his logic is sound, so yes, that would make Mike Masnick wrong. As with the headline, the statement would lack enough specifics to completely inform someone as to what it refers to, but it's still technically correct.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-Maintain better health.
-Prevent psychological problems linked to anger.
-Use your frustration to get things done.
-Help avoid addictive escapes."
That would make a good skit: you troll a forum and then announce yourself as a doctor selling a solution to the issue of trolls.
"In case you forgot, the reason that you know TAM as TAM is because TAM *did* make an account."
For all I'm aware of such things, you may be TAM, but the point is that they didn't always an account.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It worries me when an AC take issue with me calling them anonymous. They probably just do it to be contrary, but it's an important distinction that effects how people perceive them. The issue isn't about putting a real name out there, it's about having a consistent identity; enabling other commenters to recognise them, and thus treat them, as individuals.
A cynical view may be that the only reason anyone might have for posting regularly without a handle would be to avoid being seen as an individual. I've already heard average_joe's reasons for dropping his name, the supposed personal abuse he received, which could be a valid reason; however, he was noted for the occasional personal attack himself.
The only relevant difference between those who tend to disagree with Mike and those who tend to agree with Mike would seem to be the numbers. I find it hard to believe that posting anonymously is an effective response to having more people disagree with you.
If harassment were a real issue then I could accept that as a reason. If anyone can explain any other reasons then I would be interested to hear them. Regardless, I agree that it should be their choice to make, I just hope they understand how it effects people's perceptions of them.
On the post: Leaving A Major Record Label... And Seeing How The Music Business Is Thriving
Re: Re: Re:
There are many issues with trying to compare stats for different types of media being shared. One evident from my own experience is the fact that music is more likely to be organised into a library than video. Another is that music tends to have a longer life than TV shows. While a TV show may have 5000 seeds the week it is aired, come back a year later and it may not have any. Ditto to a lesser extent for films.
These factors of course go both ways; I'm not trying to prove the stats under or over represent, just point out that such a basic analysis is probably useless.
On the post: Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights
Re:
Keep telling yourself that.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re:
Assuming it is tampering as per the statute, why would tampering and free speech be mutually exclusive?
On the post: Is Google's New Anti-Content Farm Algo Actually Better?
Re: Re: Re:
Depending on what they actually changed in the algorithm, I think that probably wouldn't matter. The algorithm is likely favouring forums because they hit its criteria for quality content, rather than the fact they're forums.
On the post: Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 28th, 2011 @ 9:25am
Next >>