That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs. The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
Have you ever studied Prohibition? Here's a Wikipedia link to make it easy for you to read up on how restricting access and use of things works:
I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.
I agree with you that the standard Google adsense ads are ok, blocking them is counterproductive (because websites need income). However, Youtube ads (also operated by Google) have gone way over the line and are way too intrusive; also far too many websites still shove floating divs and the like in your face (in fact, thats something that seems to be increasing), and manually blocking only the intrusive ads becomes far too much effort so invariably all ads get blocked.
It would be nice if someone would develop ad blocking software that allowed for the requests to be sent (hence, money is appropriately distributed) but blocks the actual VIEWING of the elements of said ads. I mean completely removes them from the actual rendered content, but still has a background processing function to make it GET'ed. As far as third party calls from the ad to others, that's a gray area. I'd like to see votes on that.
Can't wait to see the first news story about a kid taking a pill from "Grandpa's automated pill dispenser" and dying from it. Countdown to suits starts now.
How are any of the sources other than hydro renewable?
You interrupt wind flow, capture solar radiation, reduce water and heat released into the atmosphere with geothermal........ All of those have an impact on the environment; butterfly effect increases it over time. More use in more places exponentially increases the butterfly effect.
Now water falling/flowing, that's something you can interrupt and have it pick back up again because of the magic thing called gravity. Do believe that was the first power conversion (generation) method Humans came up with that involved machinery, too. You know, mills over waterways. Windmills came after that, but since only a few small places use them, we aren't able to see the negative repercussions of interfering with and reducing boundary layer winds globally.
I'm wasting my time responding to you, but at least I'm taking responsibility for wasting it myself. I could have just as easily ignored it if I deemed my time was more valuable. Perhaps you should have done that with this article.
At least you openly take responsibility instead of hiding behind the anonymous curtains. I'll +1 beer that.
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe?
When a very heavy vehicle needs to move, it provides propulsion when combined with an appropriate engine. Solar power would have a hard time moving a one ton vehicle, even if it was only supplamental. The idea of a solar powered tank is equally laughable, and POTUS is basically a tank that looks like a limo.
Battery powered (pre-charged), SUPPLEMENTED by solar AS AN EXAMPLE to get people motivated. Apparently I'm not at all clear with my statement.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.
I think the effect it would have on the public is to wonder why he is putting the country at risk by eschewing his expensive protective limo and is instead riding around in a glorified bicycle that provides no protection at all from gunfire or explosives, while being surrounded by a half dozen 8 MPG SUV's.
Or if you're suggesting that he should suspend the laws of physics to allow his current limo to be solar powered (even at night), then yeah, I think he should do that.
Well, solar the SUVs, as well!
Solar is a SUPPLEMENT, not a 100% powering source. The freakin' vehicle doesn't drive around for more than a few miles or for more than a short amount of time. Hell, that's perfect for solar and battery! Beats the people that have to drive 50+ miles to and from work everyday in sticky highway traffic "going green".
My point is to LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
And you know what, while I'm at it... You're saying that the guzzling SUVs and diesel Presidential limo serve a purpose for protection. If that's the case, everyone can say that their fuel-wasting vehicles serve a purpose of some kind for their protection and make up reasons why.
Are you suggesting that some purposes can be justified but the ones of the citizens can't?
If you're not saying that, then what in the hell is the problem with going ENERGY EFFICIENT to set an example?
I just don't get why people have to argue with me on this one. The point wasn't that I'm the begin-all, end-all of decisions. I'm saying that leaders lead and people follow. It's basic logic. I don't understand why mods and comments have to argue with me on this.
Perhaps the car that the President is transported in has more important requirements such as keeping the occupants safe, rather than making political statements. Talk about leading by rhetoric and simple-mindedness...
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe? Explain, please, how with armor on the vehicle already, conversion to battery-powered motors supplemented (not completely 100% power by) solar panels make a Presidential vehicle unsafe? Please explain.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!
Did I say that? No. I said how I think the action of a President can trickle down through the economy when it comes to goods. Did you FINISH reading what I typed or just react to the first statement?
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Complaint about imaginary feminist complaints that will rarely ever show up on Slashdot about topic feminists probably don't care about in 3...2...1... Oh shit! it's already here?!!
It's not like departing under good conditions pays worse than departing under bad ones.
His career just got derailed. Who's gonna hire a guy who presided over the biggest disaster ever at his previous company? Leaving on good terms, or quitting, or resigning, all have the potential for later career opportunities. Getting fired and told you're a complete and abject failure? Not so much.
Conversely, these ex-CEOs usually get hired by other companies for their awesome ideas that just didn't pan out right. Plus, there's a little inside information to be gained from this ex-CEO who promised not to disclose anything. POWER.
A one-time payout at departure...particularly departure for failure...is less than the cumulative pay over time. And it's something he was going to get sooner or later. It's not like departing under good conditions pays worse than departing under bad ones.
..and "BAD" CEOs of companies that were "let go" are in even higher demand with other companies. They'd like to get the fresh ideas and opinions. Oh, and this DRM thing... WOW, we all want to do that. Let's have the ol' CEO who supported this idea come in and give us new ideas about how to accomplish the same task but make it look different.
Whether or not that asshole got sacked, or how he got sacked, isn't important
What's more important is if EA gonna let users enjoy SC5 without been unnecessarily burdened by the online DRM ?
The answer is: "We're going to come up with a more clandestine way to hide the fact that we're going to produce a product with the same effect, only with a different presentation. See, we're fired the guy who made all of this bad happen, so nothing but good things can come from now on."
It's just another play in the proverbial game of chess. Dude got sacked with a buttload of cash just to convince the masses that things are About To Change(tm).
So how about we listen to this post and just stop caring at all. If turning your lights off wont help then why even try, lets turn everything on full blast and leave it on.
Now that idea makes sense. If you have Humans destroy their living environment, they might just say, "Hey, I can't live like this!" Well, then it's too late but hey.. that's how 'sheltered' societies think. At least the point will have gotten across.
Ain't nuthin' gonna happen until the shit's hit the fan and flung so much poo that we ain't gonna see daylight for 1000 years.
I'm not joking. I'm serious. This is how Humans think.
My questions really didn't ask about Slashdot. Commenting and moderation on Slashdot are maybe not optimal, but they are a lot better than on many other sites, e.g. the newspaper site I mentioned. What I really want is for commenting fora that are a lot more broken than slashdot's to improve their systems so they become something more than rant havens for trolls so the comment streams actually begin to contribute something of value the articles that spawn them.
Oh, true, true. Sometimes I wonder what the papers are trying to do when they choose what articles show up on their sites, let alone in their physical papers. Gotta love the 'editorial' section of the one where I live. It's literally, on a bi-weekly rotating basis, some dream-world-left opinion about improving energy or schools by simply willing it so; no work, no money, no management changes... just wishing for a perfect world. Then the following week a hard-right just bitching and complaining about the left and how things would be so much better if things went back to the way they used to be. The comments on the website ensue and all hell breaks loose; 'cept whoever censors posts deleted the source of almost every response. In other words, you have these long comments that aren't about the paper's editorial, but are about some previous comment. There's no such thing as <quote> on the paper's site, though. Talk about nonsense potpourri.:)
So I have a question about what one should do about a forum that is dominated by trolls. For instance, my local newspaper's comments are dominated by right wing trolls and has about 25% of that number of left-wing trolls. There is a minority of respectful comments. All registered participants are allowed to upmod or downmod comments but there are no guidelines and people upmod or downmod based mostly on the degree to which they sympathize with the commenter's opinion.
I find a common problem everywhere is a lack of body AND vocal language. In the typed world, anything can be taken by the reader as they see fit; you're right about that. Whatever falls in line with their initial guy reaction is usually what they base the rest of the read on. There seems to be a consistent lack of thinking and processing. Such processing comes naturally to the Human mind when viewing or hearing another's thoughts, but all bets are off when read.
In such a forum, is it better to: avoid it like the plague
The same is said about bad TV shows, movies, events, etc. It also seems that those who say the worst things about something seem to return and immerse themselves in it repeatedly.
make maximally flameworthy comments in hopes that the forum will fix their commenting system
People have tried that. Slashdot claims even in their documentation that their system is as good as it's going to get with meta-moderation. Unfortunately, meta-moderation doesn't fix events as they occur. For instance, I can make a comment about a person that is related to the topic of an article (and mentioned in it). A reader can see the comment as being negative or positive *with regard* to their own opinion of the person commented on. If they have moderation ability, they can moderate accordingly. The person *who is* moderated will view it as some sort of message from above that they are either horrid or good. It affects emotion (occasionally, and depending on the commenter's mind). Meta-moderation can affect the mod point handout to the moderator in the future but doesn't fix the initial feeling of the commenter who has been modded. That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the connotation, obviously. Some people just don't care emotionally or psychologically but it harms them in the long run due to the meta-moderation system. By that I mean if you are unbiased and moderate based on your unbiased opinion, a meta-moderator can see your moderation as bad and prevent you from future unbiased moderation. E.g. "Killing puppies seems to be the way to solve this problem." -moderated as 'Interesting' because it's actually a solution to the problem at hand, but most all meta-moderators will see that as a bad moderation because they're not THINKING. They're just seeing "killing puppies" and automatically translating that to an evil comment in their mind(s).
complain to management about abusive posts
Management tries to avoid intervening like the plague. They rely on moderation to take care of the problems. It's a broken system but works, as they say, most of the time. Apparently that's good enough. Plus/. is owned by Dice now, so I can logically make a connection to advertising and mobilization being the key goals, not improving the moderation system's code.
complain to management about the commenting system
They'll just ignore it because they've heard complaints probably thousands of times before. It's just supposed to be 'good enough' and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't *have* to comment.
make reasoned and polite posts that might influence others by example?
I *LOVE* it when people actually bother to engage in this. It's even better when the polite posts don't have the 'tone' of scolding or demeaning. It's much better to post comment replies that have the overall message of "I'm
I love 47 U.S.C. 230 Paragraph (e) -- (provided by Cornell Law School)
"(e) Effect on other laws (1) No effect on criminal law Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute. (2) No effect on intellectual property law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property. (3) State law Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. (4) No effect on communications privacy law Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law."
...Prenda just wants proof that lots and lots of unique visitors have viewed the allegedly-defaming content as justification for seeking a giant-size judgement.
Maybe they should do some crying in front of the judge and jury. You know, make it look like it hurts really badly to have common folk calling you an ass when you're an ass.;)
Slashdot Mirror
That's a false analogy. People only want guns because other people have guns. It's a self-perpetuating arms race - there's a demand because there's a supply.
Also, the "War against Drugs" didn't create drugs. The majority of illicit substances were created in a lab, and usually for a completely different purpose to how they ended up being used recreationally.
Have you ever studied Prohibition? Here's a Wikipedia link to make it easy for you to read up on how restricting access and use of things works:
Prohibition in the U.S.
I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.
I agree with you that the standard Google adsense ads are ok, blocking them is counterproductive (because websites need income). However, Youtube ads (also operated by Google) have gone way over the line and are way too intrusive; also far too many websites still shove floating divs and the like in your face (in fact, thats something that seems to be increasing), and manually blocking only the intrusive ads becomes far too much effort so invariably all ads get blocked.
It would be nice if someone would develop ad blocking software that allowed for the requests to be sent (hence, money is appropriately distributed) but blocks the actual VIEWING of the elements of said ads. I mean completely removes them from the actual rendered content, but still has a background processing function to make it GET'ed. As far as third party calls from the ad to others, that's a gray area. I'd like to see votes on that.
Hydro power usually requires man made lakes/dams. Destroys huge amounts of vegetation that ends up being covered in water.
Good point. Pretty much leaves nothing harmlessly "renewable".
Can't wait to see the first news story about a kid taking a pill from "Grandpa's automated pill dispenser" and dying from it. Countdown to suits starts now.
How are any of the sources other than hydro renewable?
You interrupt wind flow, capture solar radiation, reduce water and heat released into the atmosphere with geothermal........ All of those have an impact on the environment; butterfly effect increases it over time. More use in more places exponentially increases the butterfly effect.
Now water falling/flowing, that's something you can interrupt and have it pick back up again because of the magic thing called gravity. Do believe that was the first power conversion (generation) method Humans came up with that involved machinery, too. You know, mills over waterways. Windmills came after that, but since only a few small places use them, we aren't able to see the negative repercussions of interfering with and reducing boundary layer winds globally.
I'm wasting my time responding to you, but at least I'm taking responsibility for wasting it myself. I could have just as easily ignored it if I deemed my time was more valuable. Perhaps you should have done that with this article.
At least you openly take responsibility instead of hiding behind the anonymous curtains. I'll +1 beer that.
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe?
When a very heavy vehicle needs to move, it provides propulsion when combined with an appropriate engine. Solar power would have a hard time moving a one ton vehicle, even if it was only supplamental. The idea of a solar powered tank is equally laughable, and POTUS is basically a tank that looks like a limo.
Battery powered (pre-charged), SUPPLEMENTED by solar AS AN EXAMPLE to get people motivated. Apparently I'm not at all clear with my statement.
You are clearly not a mechanic and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
I defy you to come up with a practical way to make a heavy wheeled armored vehicle solar-powered.
Apparently you don't read other comments before you judge. I said it's "supplemented (not completely 100% power by) solar panels".
I guess I'm a real moron when it comes to mechanics because I clarified something. My bad. So sorry.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.
I think the effect it would have on the public is to wonder why he is putting the country at risk by eschewing his expensive protective limo and is instead riding around in a glorified bicycle that provides no protection at all from gunfire or explosives, while being surrounded by a half dozen 8 MPG SUV's.
Or if you're suggesting that he should suspend the laws of physics to allow his current limo to be solar powered (even at night), then yeah, I think he should do that.
Well, solar the SUVs, as well!
Solar is a SUPPLEMENT, not a 100% powering source. The freakin' vehicle doesn't drive around for more than a few miles or for more than a short amount of time. Hell, that's perfect for solar and battery! Beats the people that have to drive 50+ miles to and from work everyday in sticky highway traffic "going green".
My point is to LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
And you know what, while I'm at it... You're saying that the guzzling SUVs and diesel Presidential limo serve a purpose for protection. If that's the case, everyone can say that their fuel-wasting vehicles serve a purpose of some kind for their protection and make up reasons why.
Are you suggesting that some purposes can be justified but the ones of the citizens can't?
If you're not saying that, then what in the hell is the problem with going ENERGY EFFICIENT to set an example?
I just don't get why people have to argue with me on this one. The point wasn't that I'm the begin-all, end-all of decisions. I'm saying that leaders lead and people follow. It's basic logic. I don't understand why mods and comments have to argue with me on this.
It is possible that any number of threats could be out in the wild.
How would we really know?
Apparently the same way the governmental bodies did. Wait. LOL
Perhaps the car that the President is transported in has more important requirements such as keeping the occupants safe, rather than making political statements. Talk about leading by rhetoric and simple-mindedness...
Since when does diesel fuel make a vehicle more safe? Explain, please, how with armor on the vehicle already, conversion to battery-powered motors supplemented (not completely 100% power by) solar panels make a Presidential vehicle unsafe? Please explain.
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
Yessss... no other president has behaved similarly. OBAMA the DEBIL!! HE THE DEBIL I TELL YOU!!
Did I say that? No. I said how I think the action of a President can trickle down through the economy when it comes to goods. Did you FINISH reading what I typed or just react to the first statement?
This is not a President who leads by example; he's one who leads by rhetoric and simple mind-capturing speaking methods.
If a solar vehicle were actually to be used by the P-rez, it's hard to say what effect it would have on the public, but my gut feeling is it would encourage heavy-pocketed individuals to try and 'catch up' to what the top dogs (gov't) are doing.
Trickle-down behavior ensues. Just a theory.
Complaint about imaginary feminist complaints that will rarely ever show up on Slashdot about topic feminists probably don't care about in 3...2...1... Oh shit! it's already here?!!
The plan is working perfectly! Mwahahaha!
3.....2.......1.......
It's not like departing under good conditions pays worse than departing under bad ones.
His career just got derailed. Who's gonna hire a guy who presided over the biggest disaster ever at his previous company? Leaving on good terms, or quitting, or resigning, all have the potential for later career opportunities. Getting fired and told you're a complete and abject failure? Not so much.
Conversely, these ex-CEOs usually get hired by other companies for their awesome ideas that just didn't pan out right. Plus, there's a little inside information to be gained from this ex-CEO who promised not to disclose anything. POWER.
A one-time payout at departure...particularly departure for failure...is less than the cumulative pay over time. And it's something he was going to get sooner or later. It's not like departing under good conditions pays worse than departing under bad ones.
..and "BAD" CEOs of companies that were "let go" are in even higher demand with other companies. They'd like to get the fresh ideas and opinions. Oh, and this DRM thing... WOW, we all want to do that. Let's have the ol' CEO who supported this idea come in and give us new ideas about how to accomplish the same task but make it look different.
Lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, rep.........
Whether or not that asshole got sacked, or how he got sacked, isn't important
What's more important is if EA gonna let users enjoy SC5 without been unnecessarily burdened by the online DRM ?
The answer is: "We're going to come up with a more clandestine way to hide the fact that we're going to produce a product with the same effect, only with a different presentation. See, we're fired the guy who made all of this bad happen, so nothing but good things can come from now on."
It's just another play in the proverbial game of chess. Dude got sacked with a buttload of cash just to convince the masses that things are About To Change(tm).
So how about we listen to this post and just stop caring at all. If turning your lights off wont help then why even try, lets turn everything on full blast and leave it on.
Now that idea makes sense. If you have Humans destroy their living environment, they might just say, "Hey, I can't live like this!" Well, then it's too late but hey.. that's how 'sheltered' societies think. At least the point will have gotten across.
Ain't nuthin' gonna happen until the shit's hit the fan and flung so much poo that we ain't gonna see daylight for 1000 years.
I'm not joking. I'm serious. This is how Humans think.
My questions really didn't ask about Slashdot. Commenting and moderation on Slashdot are maybe not optimal, but they are a lot better than on many other sites, e.g. the newspaper site I mentioned. What I really want is for commenting fora that are a lot more broken than slashdot's to improve their systems so they become something more than rant havens for trolls so the comment streams actually begin to contribute something of value the articles that spawn them.
Oh, true, true. Sometimes I wonder what the papers are trying to do when they choose what articles show up on their sites, let alone in their physical papers. Gotta love the 'editorial' section of the one where I live. It's literally, on a bi-weekly rotating basis, some dream-world-left opinion about improving energy or schools by simply willing it so; no work, no money, no management changes... just wishing for a perfect world. Then the following week a hard-right just bitching and complaining about the left and how things would be so much better if things went back to the way they used to be. The comments on the website ensue and all hell breaks loose; 'cept whoever censors posts deleted the source of almost every response. In other words, you have these long comments that aren't about the paper's editorial, but are about some previous comment. There's no such thing as <quote> on the paper's site, though. Talk about nonsense potpourri. :)
So I have a question about what one should do about a forum that is dominated by trolls. For instance, my local newspaper's comments are dominated by right wing trolls and has about 25% of that number of left-wing trolls. There is a minority of respectful comments. All registered participants are allowed to upmod or downmod comments but there are no guidelines and people upmod or downmod based mostly on the degree to which they sympathize with the commenter's opinion.
I find a common problem everywhere is a lack of body AND vocal language. In the typed world, anything can be taken by the reader as they see fit; you're right about that. Whatever falls in line with their initial guy reaction is usually what they base the rest of the read on. There seems to be a consistent lack of thinking and processing. Such processing comes naturally to the Human mind when viewing or hearing another's thoughts, but all bets are off when read.
In such a forum, is it better to:
avoid it like the plague
The same is said about bad TV shows, movies, events, etc. It also seems that those who say the worst things about something seem to return and immerse themselves in it repeatedly.
make maximally flameworthy comments in hopes that the forum will fix their commenting system
People have tried that. Slashdot claims even in their documentation that their system is as good as it's going to get with meta-moderation. Unfortunately, meta-moderation doesn't fix events as they occur. For instance, I can make a comment about a person that is related to the topic of an article (and mentioned in it). A reader can see the comment as being negative or positive *with regard* to their own opinion of the person commented on. If they have moderation ability, they can moderate accordingly. The person *who is* moderated will view it as some sort of message from above that they are either horrid or good. It affects emotion (occasionally, and depending on the commenter's mind). Meta-moderation can affect the mod point handout to the moderator in the future but doesn't fix the initial feeling of the commenter who has been modded. That's either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the connotation, obviously. Some people just don't care emotionally or psychologically but it harms them in the long run due to the meta-moderation system. By that I mean if you are unbiased and moderate based on your unbiased opinion, a meta-moderator can see your moderation as bad and prevent you from future unbiased moderation. E.g. "Killing puppies seems to be the way to solve this problem." -moderated as 'Interesting' because it's actually a solution to the problem at hand, but most all meta-moderators will see that as a bad moderation because they're not THINKING. They're just seeing "killing puppies" and automatically translating that to an evil comment in their mind(s).
complain to management about abusive posts
Management tries to avoid intervening like the plague. They rely on moderation to take care of the problems. It's a broken system but works, as they say, most of the time. Apparently that's good enough. Plus /. is owned by Dice now, so I can logically make a connection to advertising and mobilization being the key goals, not improving the moderation system's code.
complain to management about the commenting system
They'll just ignore it because they've heard complaints probably thousands of times before. It's just supposed to be 'good enough' and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't *have* to comment.
make reasoned and polite posts that might influence others by example?
I *LOVE* it when people actually bother to engage in this. It's even better when the polite posts don't have the 'tone' of scolding or demeaning. It's much better to post comment replies that have the overall message of "I'm
So if someone is modded troll, it's a positive thing? It indicates the person is influencing society? Cool.
TP-Link is the cutest name. Toilet Paper Link... It wipes the competition, literally.
Link.. TP.. Legend of Zelda Toilet Paper... I like where this is going.
I love 47 U.S.C. 230 Paragraph (e) -- (provided by Cornell Law School)
"(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law."
...Prenda just wants proof that lots and lots of unique visitors have viewed the allegedly-defaming content as justification for seeking a giant-size judgement.
Maybe they should do some crying in front of the judge and jury. You know, make it look like it hurts really badly to have common folk calling you an ass when you're an ass. ;)