Because he cares about publications of scientific papers? And he has more free time now, possibly because of the pandemic? Seriously, what’s your deal?
Re: Re: Re: SciHub IS a problem -- says the ZOMBIE!
A good portion of the people who comment regularly here aren’t from America, either. Also, this site comments fairly often on places like Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and China.
Re: Can't fit both views into my tiny little mind!
First, if you remove the word “conflicting” from that subject, I think most people would agree.
Second, when you buy a car, you get private legal ownership of that car. Same with smart devices like smart phones or computers. Neither the manufacturer, designer, or retailer/dealer retain ownership of a car or smart device after you buy it. As such, they should have no say with what you do with it afterwards. When it comes to websites like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, they still have complete legal ownership over the website even after you get an account and post something. One analogy would be that they are lending you their car for free while reserving the right to take it back or place restrictions on what you do with it afterwards. Can you not see how that differs from spending money on a car to transfer ownership to you from the seller, and yet the seller still maintains some control over what you do with it?
Re: So you wish to FORCE corporations to act for Public Good...
Question: does the car dealership/manufacturer still own my car after I buy it? What about phone and computer manufacturers? Web-site hosts still own the sites they allow you to use. There’s the difference.
Re: YES OR NO: Even if traffic stops are so bad as you claim,
Traffic stops with reasonable suspicion are fine so long as they don’t go beyond the reasonable suspicion and turn into harassment or a fishing expedition and act reasonably. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and ones that extend beyond where that reasonable suspicion was extinguished are bad. Traffic stops that go far beyond what is reasonable are bad. The problem is that you don’t seem to realize the difference.
Also, maybe you missed all the times Techdirt railed at cops for stopping people who aren’t drug dealers or criminals. Or the fact that cops often act disproportionately to the alleged crime committed and apparent danger presented. Or the times Techdirt have praised certain reform efforts or suggested some ideas for reform.
Re: Techdirt and other "libertarians" expect everyone else to ob
First, leftists, anarchists, and drug addicts are all completely unrelated, and not everyone here falls under any of those descriptors.
Second, as I recall, leftists (and people on this site) have been promoting the common good when it comes to climate change, how to deal with the pandemic, business regulations, health insurance, voting rights, vaccinations, and welfare.
Third, what you’re describing sounds more like the “sovereign citizen” movement and similar people to me than leftists, anarchists, drug addicts, or people on this site.
Finally, we live in a democracy (or republic if you prefer) that is opposed to authoritarianism. It used to be that most people here were at least nominally against such a thing, but apparently that’s changed at least somewhat. Still, I stand against authoritarianism of any kind no matter the intention behind it.
Re: To hypothetical new readers: those two aren't the only ODD.
Of course the fanboys say that gathering incontestable data proves only that I'm crazy.
Yes, because that data proves absolutely nothing, yet you claim it as evidence for something! If I was to collect equally incontestable data about how many Facebook users were born on a Monday and claim that was suspicious, people would call me crazy, too. Such data would be just as useful as yours.
By the way, I reserve that list in hopes that some fanboy will dare me to produce it: then I'll goad them into some commitment.
No one will ever do so because that list won’t prove anything suspicious or noteworthy, and nobody cares. It’s trivia at best.
And what sort of “commitment” would you “goad them into”? What good would it do?
Also, anyone can look up most of the information you’re referring to, so you don’t have any real leverage with that list. It’s just that, again, no one else cares! Many of us are still perplexed about why you do.
Re: Re: @"Thad": purpose of the ZOMBIES is inflate comment numbe
What would even be the point of that? What would they have to gain by “inflat[ing] comment numbers”?
A huge drop in number of comments from 5 years ago is obvious: just click back to yesterday and pick ANY of the links.
Not seeing a huge drop, honestly. Also, nobody cares.
Clearly, not one in a thousand alleged (Maz won't even state numbers anymore) readers comments here, VERY LOW "engagement" for claimed highly influential tech site.
Again, so what? Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of other “influential” sites have similar engagement rates; most people don’t write comments on stuff they view online most of the time. And where are they claiming this site is “highly influential”?
I’ve yet to see any evidence that there is a significant issue with people voting under the assumed identity of a dead citizen. I’ve asked, but no one will back this claim up. Will you?
And if what they’re trying to show is their own experiences with sewage, don’t be shocked to see them present sewage. Context does matter even with sewage. Sewage is inevitable, and where you see it is important to whether it makes sense to criticize it for being there.
I’m not sure it’s evidence tampering either if wrongdoing had not yet taken place before the camera was turned off. Actually, I’m not sure if there is a difference between spoliation of evidence and tampering with evidence.
On the post: To Prevent Free, Frictionless Access To Human Knowledge, Publishers Want Librarians To Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Re: "Bill", you're sure prolix today! WHY?
Because he cares about publications of scientific papers? And he has more free time now, possibly because of the pandemic? Seriously, what’s your deal?
On the post: To Prevent Free, Frictionless Access To Human Knowledge, Publishers Want Librarians To Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Re: Re: Sci-Hub is the solution -especially as it
I’ve heard plenty of people use phrases like those. Not that it’s common, but as an indicator of authorship, it’s severely lacking.
On the post: To Prevent Free, Frictionless Access To Human Knowledge, Publishers Want Librarians To Be Afraid, Very Afraid
Re: Re: Re: SciHub IS a problem -- says the ZOMBIE!
A good portion of the people who comment regularly here aren’t from America, either. Also, this site comments fairly often on places like Australia, Europe, New Zealand, and China.
On the post: Massachusetts Voters Overwhelmingly Support Expanded 'Right To Repair' Law
Re: Can't fit both views into my tiny little mind!
First, if you remove the word “conflicting” from that subject, I think most people would agree.
Second, when you buy a car, you get private legal ownership of that car. Same with smart devices like smart phones or computers. Neither the manufacturer, designer, or retailer/dealer retain ownership of a car or smart device after you buy it. As such, they should have no say with what you do with it afterwards. When it comes to websites like Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube, they still have complete legal ownership over the website even after you get an account and post something. One analogy would be that they are lending you their car for free while reserving the right to take it back or place restrictions on what you do with it afterwards. Can you not see how that differs from spending money on a car to transfer ownership to you from the seller, and yet the seller still maintains some control over what you do with it?
On the post: Massachusetts Voters Overwhelmingly Support Expanded 'Right To Repair' Law
Re: So you wish to FORCE corporations to act for Public Good...
Question: does the car dealership/manufacturer still own my car after I buy it? What about phone and computer manufacturers? Web-site hosts still own the sites they allow you to use. There’s the difference.
On the post: Texas Cops Engage In Millions Of Roadside Searches, Find Nothing Illegal 80 Percent Of The Time
Re: LAW for TD means Looking At Wrong: 20% is WAY above random!
I would expect it to be at least as good as a coin toss.
On the post: Texas Cops Engage In Millions Of Roadside Searches, Find Nothing Illegal 80 Percent Of The Time
Re: YES OR NO: Even if traffic stops are so bad as you claim,
Traffic stops with reasonable suspicion are fine so long as they don’t go beyond the reasonable suspicion and turn into harassment or a fishing expedition and act reasonably. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and ones that extend beyond where that reasonable suspicion was extinguished are bad. Traffic stops that go far beyond what is reasonable are bad. The problem is that you don’t seem to realize the difference.
Also, maybe you missed all the times Techdirt railed at cops for stopping people who aren’t drug dealers or criminals. Or the fact that cops often act disproportionately to the alleged crime committed and apparent danger presented. Or the times Techdirt have praised certain reform efforts or suggested some ideas for reform.
On the post: Texas Cops Engage In Millions Of Roadside Searches, Find Nothing Illegal 80 Percent Of The Time
Re: You're not raising anything that normal people worry about,
Tell that to the people calling police for help only to be assaulted by police when they arrive.
On the post: Texas Cops Engage In Millions Of Roadside Searches, Find Nothing Illegal 80 Percent Of The Time
Re: Techdirt and other "libertarians" expect everyone else to ob
First, leftists, anarchists, and drug addicts are all completely unrelated, and not everyone here falls under any of those descriptors.
Second, as I recall, leftists (and people on this site) have been promoting the common good when it comes to climate change, how to deal with the pandemic, business regulations, health insurance, voting rights, vaccinations, and welfare.
Third, what you’re describing sounds more like the “sovereign citizen” movement and similar people to me than leftists, anarchists, drug addicts, or people on this site.
Finally, we live in a democracy (or republic if you prefer) that is opposed to authoritarianism. It used to be that most people here were at least nominally against such a thing, but apparently that’s changed at least somewhat. Still, I stand against authoritarianism of any kind no matter the intention behind it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: To hypothetical new readers: those two aren't the only ODD.
Yes, because that data proves absolutely nothing, yet you claim it as evidence for something! If I was to collect equally incontestable data about how many Facebook users were born on a Monday and claim that was suspicious, people would call me crazy, too. Such data would be just as useful as yours.
No one will ever do so because that list won’t prove anything suspicious or noteworthy, and nobody cares. It’s trivia at best.
And what sort of “commitment” would you “goad them into”? What good would it do?
Also, anyone can look up most of the information you’re referring to, so you don’t have any real leverage with that list. It’s just that, again, no one else cares! Many of us are still perplexed about why you do.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The current RECORD ZOMBIE has 12 YEAR 1 MONTH GAP!
Again, nobody cares. Also, PeterV gave a perfectly good reason. That you don’t believe it is not his problem.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: @"Thad": purpose of the ZOMBIES is inflate comment numbe
What would even be the point of that? What would they have to gain by “inflat[ing] comment numbers”?
Not seeing a huge drop, honestly. Also, nobody cares.
Again, so what? Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of other “influential” sites have similar engagement rates; most people don’t write comments on stuff they view online most of the time. And where are they claiming this site is “highly influential”?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The true purpose of copyright
I’ve yet to see any evidence that there is a significant issue with people voting under the assumed identity of a dead citizen. I’ve asked, but no one will back this claim up. Will you?
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if what they’re trying to show is their own experiences with sewage, don’t be shocked to see them present sewage. Context does matter even with sewage. Sewage is inevitable, and where you see it is important to whether it makes sense to criticize it for being there.
On the post: How Should Social Media Handle Election Polls That Turned Out To Be Misinformation?
Re:
And how were the relevant polls biased? Do you have evidence for this claim?
On the post: While Social Media Was Quick To Highlight And Limit The Spread Of False Claims Of Election Victory, Traditional Media Just Let It Flow
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orwell Books Were Warnings, Not Instructions
Disinformation is not information.
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Those aren’t truths. At best, they’re opinions.
On the post: Supreme Court Reverses Decision Granting Qualified Immunity To Guards Who Threw An Inmate Into A 'Feces-Covered' Cell
I think you have the wrong document.
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re: Re: Re: spoilation
I’m not sure it’s evidence tampering either if wrongdoing had not yet taken place before the camera was turned off. Actually, I’m not sure if there is a difference between spoliation of evidence and tampering with evidence.
On the post: Internal Documents Show The FBI Is Only Interested In Punishing Anti-Trump Speech By Its Employees
Re: Re: Re: Crawling out on slow day as all bite nails over the
Who cares?
Next >>