People don't go to search engine landing pages to see the landing pages. They go there for the express purpose of finding somewhere else to go.
So, you're saying they go there?
I would argue that search engines don't really count.
Ah, I see. The people who are presenting these numbers should retitle it not as the biggest or most well-trafficked websites, but rather, they meant to release a report on which are the biggest websites within certain criteria, and obviously they meant to exclude certain types of applications from those criteria. They didn't really mean to measure searching, for example. The inclusion of Google's traffic in the totals was an error on their part.
What else did they not mean to measure, which might incorrectly be in their figures?
I think if we define our criteria wisely, we can make our top 5 list contain whatever websites we want. Who is to say Youtube or Facebook or Amazon would even still be in the top 100?
Jump on the couch as the microwave heats my pizza pie Monitor on, as excitement shivers up and down my spine On the LAN my uncle preserved for me an old machine For fifty-odd years To keep the kernel updated has been his dearest dream
I used to be a criminal too. Then I decided to stop breaking that law.
Yet, still I'm a criminal! Dammit. Oh well, at least the people who bribed my government to define me as a criminal, don't get paid anymore.
Have you considered switching to my version of criminality? It's a hell of a lot more ethical, because you deny power to evil (the movie & TV industry, where they made it illegal to play their products), and you also get to keep that power and then use it however you think best (spending on music, where the lack of DRM keeps playback legal).
Holy crap, maybe that's it! Did the music industry invent video as a diversion? To get people like me all riled up and angry, so we'd righteously spend our money on their product to stick it to the assholes with the other product?
Also, what's with the promises? Why isn't this a law?
It is the law, that they will definitely and absolutely break their promise, guaranteed, if their government tells them to. Promises or not, you don't say Fuck Off to a court order unless you are willing to lose everything that you care about.
If someone does break it, people will just switch to something else. Whatever I'm using for my pirate TV, will also be what I'd use if I ever wanted to download plastic gun plans. (If only I could think of a personally useful application for guns, but until then, I've got my TV.)
Please stop working on poverty until we're sure that we've done everything we can to prevent nuclear war from ever happening. It's ridiculous: you're feeding people, one of whom might some day be the person who presses the big red button!
Fake news is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Teaching children to ignore all their senses, to turn off their bullshit detectors, and instead to try to believe in paranormal explanations for everything, is surely just as harmful. That's like yelling "it's not a fire, stay here and burn to death" in a crowded theater.
How can you possibly outlaw bullshit without also outlawing religious prosthelization? That's like outlawing Bullshit Light while Bullshit Heavy Duty is for sale on every corner. Sorry, but I think when you signed up for America, you agreed that you're ok with people spewing bullshit. It's up to The People to not be automatically programmed by it.
We have faith in ourselves, whether that faith is warranted or not.;-)
If We The People simply can't handle bullshit, then it follows that the First Amendment is a bad idea and should be repealed.
Pizzagate caused a shootout in a restaurant with children present.
No, a fuckwitted douchebag named Edgar Maddison Welch started a shootout in a restaurant. He is responsible for his actions. The rest of us holding him responsible, is why we get to keep the First Amendment. If you diminish his responsibility, you are undermining the legitimacy of the First Amendment.
Accept the inevitability of bullshit, and then fight it. This is the price you pay, and it's actually a great bargain.
Due to crime? You know that US violent crime numbers are way way down, right?
Doesn't matter. What's changed is that people have new ways to deal with crime. 20 years ago you didn't have Uber so you worked with what you did have. In 2018, Uber is an option.
The only thing about the crime rate that matters, is that people percieve it as significantly higher than 0, such that they want to react to it somehow. And if they associate walk/ride or public transit with crime, that's enough to get some people Ubering that otherwise wouldn't have. Ups and downs in the crime rate don't matter unless they're perceptively huge enough to change how people make decisions.
If you can get the crime rate to fall so much, that people don't freak out about having to walk to or wait at a bus stop, then maybe they wouldn't care about all the transportation options. Or if you raised it enough, people might take even greater countermeasures. But merely cutting it half doesn't change how people act at all. They're just taking wild guesses about risks, and it's not like any us can show you our payoff matrices where you can point and say "you're being too risk averse here" or "that's dangerous."
Hey everyone, this guy hasn't even lived through Y2K yet!
20 years. Oh boy, are you going to be in for a wild ride as you catch up. Remember that scene in Back to the Future when the kid tells the doc who the president is in 1985? Well, wen I hit you with the 2018 news, you're going to call me a liar, and I'll just be smugly smiling, temporarily forgetting my troubles because I got to meet a time traveler.
Government should largely stay out of the free market, save where staying out clearly makes things worse.
Well, that won't ever happen, because usually the biggest barrier to repairing things is copyright law with the bonus twist of DMCA. The government is already neck-deep in preventing a free market from happening.
It is silly to suggest the government should abstain from putting loaded guns in manufacturers' faces saying "make it maintainable"..
..Unless you're going to stop putting a loaded gun in consumers' faces saying "don't try to maintain that."
they are the conquered, so everything they do is an attempt to fight for their land. Only the conquerors think otherwise.
Whaddya mean by "otherwise?" Conquerers fight for their land too.
We're all in the same boat on this: we all want maximum/unlimited resources, but we can't all have it. Fighting is nature's dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, nature is known for always coming up with the absolutely worst, cruellest solutions.
So, what do you do about Pizzagate? Worry about how the silly rumor started? Or worry about the kind of people who believe every rumor, the stupider the better?
Tracing the rumor is useless. If people are acting like tools, then treat them like tools.
"What're you in for?"
"I'm a tool. I would attack anyone that anyone else told me to attack. I don't just think violence is the best answer, I think random, unfocused violence against any arbitrary target, whatever, is the best answer! BTW, let's go kill someone, I don't care who."
I am sure in many of the cases they weren't even intending to kill them, just to work them over a little but it really doesn't take much to take something like that too far.
This is the kind of sentence where I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. Are you suggesting these criminals deserve some sympathy?
These people had deadly, malicious intent. Nobody ever "just works someone over a little" unless they're also willing to kill them, ever. If this sounds strange to you, then I think we have found one of the culprits: Hollywood and/or Bollywood. So there: trace done.
India has a serious problem at the moment with malicious rumours spread by social media where the intent is to get people injured or killed.
I can already see where you're going here. You're about to suggest they launch a huge public service campaign, and education reforms, to remind people how important critical thinking is, and that across-the-board, a modern society can't take seriously anything that isn't solidly based on evidence.
tracability with a warrant I don't see as..
You don't see it as necessary since even if you had it, it wouldn't do a single thing to even slightly help combat the problem. Yes, of course...
.. a breach of privacy or security as the person put it out to the world for everyone to see intentionally anyway,
Wait, what? I thought the context of the discussion is that the government wanted to break the encryption on private communications. How did public posts get into this? Surely the government can just read the public post like anyone else, even though there's so little reason to.
what they need to know is who started the whole shitshow X that got Y people murdered.
Posting something stupid isn't even in the same league as believing something stupid, and neither of those things are in the same league as doing something stupid. It looks like this government is trying hard to avoid addressing its public safety responsibilities.
If you're Indian and anti-violence, then of course you're going to want the government to stop wasting its time with this worthless quest, and instead, go after the nutcases who are believing unfounded trolls and then doing what they're told.
PSA: Be Less Programmable. You don't have to do everything you're told to do. You shouldn't believe things that are unsupported by evidence.
Oh, and everyone, please remember to put a kitten into a blender tonight and delight in its agonizing death, because I read somewhere that they're all Satan's little helpers.
You're burning gasoline, which dumps stuff in the atmosphere. You're using public roads, which are heavily subsidized. The people who work at WalMart are also getting food stamps or other welfare. All that for a $1.39 tube of toothpaste.
And the way I look at it is: 95%+ of the voters decided that we should subsidize the roads and the living expenses of low-income workers, and the voters also all agree that we don't want to charge people for dumping stuff into the atmosphere.
That's all a given. Now, from that premise, would you like to pay $1.39 for a tube of toothpaste or would you prefer to rack up most of the same expenses and go somewhere else and pay $2.99? And that's how I end up sometimes visiting Walmart.
they created a derivative work that combined their content with the embedded or in-line linked photo
Whoa there. I really don't think so. I think their page/article would have pretty much worked just as well, with any other photo. It was a photo-agnostic article. (Ok, I haven't actually read the article so I'm talking out my ass, but nearly every other web page that has a photo on it, is like that! Unless the article is actually about the particulars of the photo, like a critique of the lighting or something?)
I guess the derived work question is what it's going to come down to, though. If it's a derived work (which I think is utterly nutty), then I think you're right.
they directed the web browsers to download and display the photo
Is this one of those contributory or vicarious versions of liability? Shit, I always forget about those laws!;-) I could see how that might stick. The user violates the copyright by creating a derived work of both the article and the photo, but it was done at the article's publisher's suggestion? Hmm.. yeah.
It's true! In 2007 I had to pay $5 to open a savings account to get into a credit union. Not just three dollars, not even four. Five whole dollars. My $5.xx (I think it's made less than a dollar interest) is still there in my balance too, mocking me!
I should stick it to my credit union by withdrawing my $5.xx savings, going to a bank, and using that money to pay a fraction of one month's fees.
Huh. My first question was "How did you have as many as 300 employees in the first place?" Perhaps our two questions, when combined, start to paint a coherent picture.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying they go there?
Ah, I see. The people who are presenting these numbers should retitle it not as the biggest or most well-trafficked websites, but rather, they meant to release a report on which are the biggest websites within certain criteria, and obviously they meant to exclude certain types of applications from those criteria. They didn't really mean to measure searching, for example. The inclusion of Google's traffic in the totals was an error on their part.
What else did they not mean to measure, which might incorrectly be in their figures?
I think if we define our criteria wisely, we can make our top 5 list contain whatever websites we want. Who is to say Youtube or Facebook or Amazon would even still be in the top 100?
Jump on the couch as the microwave heats my pizza pie
Monitor on, as excitement shivers up and down my spine
On the LAN my uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty-odd years
To keep the kernel updated has been his dearest dream
I doubt you have any evidence to back that up, but even if you turn out to be right, you know what will happen.
If I'm not allowed to use "the" Internet then I'll just have to use some other Internet (with blackjack and hookers).
So, you're a criminal, eh?
I used to be a criminal too. Then I decided to stop breaking that law.
Yet, still I'm a criminal! Dammit. Oh well, at least the people who bribed my government to define me as a criminal, don't get paid anymore.
Have you considered switching to my version of criminality? It's a hell of a lot more ethical, because you deny power to evil (the movie & TV industry, where they made it illegal to play their products), and you also get to keep that power and then use it however you think best (spending on music, where the lack of DRM keeps playback legal).
Holy crap, maybe that's it! Did the music industry invent video as a diversion? To get people like me all riled up and angry, so we'd righteously spend our money on their product to stick it to the assholes with the other product?
Mid-west small town tourist visits NYC. Makes eye contact on street!!
Grandma gives money to a professional televangelist.
People buy $BRAND products.
Vote for me.
It is the law, that they will definitely and absolutely break their promise, guaranteed, if their government tells them to. Promises or not, you don't say Fuck Off to a court order unless you are willing to lose everything that you care about.
And that is why everyone believes in unicorns.
If someone does break it, people will just switch to something else. Whatever I'm using for my pirate TV, will also be what I'd use if I ever wanted to download plastic gun plans. (If only I could think of a personally useful application for guns, but until then, I've got my TV.)
Please stop working on poverty until we're sure that we've done everything we can to prevent nuclear war from ever happening. It's ridiculous: you're feeding people, one of whom might some day be the person who presses the big red button!
Teaching children to ignore all their senses, to turn off their bullshit detectors, and instead to try to believe in paranormal explanations for everything, is surely just as harmful. That's like yelling "it's not a fire, stay here and burn to death" in a crowded theater.
How can you possibly outlaw bullshit without also outlawing religious prosthelization? That's like outlawing Bullshit Light while Bullshit Heavy Duty is for sale on every corner. Sorry, but I think when you signed up for America, you agreed that you're ok with people spewing bullshit. It's up to The People to not be automatically programmed by it.
We have faith in ourselves, whether that faith is warranted or not. ;-)
If We The People simply can't handle bullshit, then it follows that the First Amendment is a bad idea and should be repealed.
No, a fuckwitted douchebag named Edgar Maddison Welch started a shootout in a restaurant. He is responsible for his actions. The rest of us holding him responsible, is why we get to keep the First Amendment. If you diminish his responsibility, you are undermining the legitimacy of the First Amendment.
Accept the inevitability of bullshit, and then fight it. This is the price you pay, and it's actually a great bargain.
Doesn't matter. What's changed is that people have new ways to deal with crime. 20 years ago you didn't have Uber so you worked with what you did have. In 2018, Uber is an option.
The only thing about the crime rate that matters, is that people percieve it as significantly higher than 0, such that they want to react to it somehow. And if they associate walk/ride or public transit with crime, that's enough to get some people Ubering that otherwise wouldn't have. Ups and downs in the crime rate don't matter unless they're perceptively huge enough to change how people make decisions.
If you can get the crime rate to fall so much, that people don't freak out about having to walk to or wait at a bus stop, then maybe they wouldn't care about all the transportation options. Or if you raised it enough, people might take even greater countermeasures. But merely cutting it half doesn't change how people act at all. They're just taking wild guesses about risks, and it's not like any us can show you our payoff matrices where you can point and say "you're being too risk averse here" or "that's dangerous."
Wow. You are literally 20 years out of date .
Hey everyone, this guy hasn't even lived through Y2K yet!
20 years. Oh boy, are you going to be in for a wild ride as you catch up. Remember that scene in Back to the Future when the kid tells the doc who the president is in 1985? Well, wen I hit you with the 2018 news, you're going to call me a liar, and I'll just be smugly smiling, temporarily forgetting my troubles because I got to meet a time traveler.
John Deere went crying to mama and enacted state violence first, by using DMCA.
Consumers are just asking to use retaliatory violence. The escalation to the use of force was initiated by John Deere.
Don't go around punching people! But if someone punches you, you should strike back, and harder.
Well, that won't ever happen, because usually the biggest barrier to repairing things is copyright law with the bonus twist of DMCA. The government is already neck-deep in preventing a free market from happening.
It is silly to suggest the government should abstain from putting loaded guns in manufacturers' faces saying "make it maintainable" ..
..Unless you're going to stop putting a loaded gun in consumers' faces saying "don't try to maintain that."
Whaddya mean by "otherwise?" Conquerers fight for their land too.
We're all in the same boat on this: we all want maximum/unlimited resources, but we can't all have it. Fighting is nature's dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, nature is known for always coming up with the absolutely worst, cruellest solutions.
Can anyone explain the meaning of this sentence? I literally can't figure out what he's trying to say there.
Totally.
So, what do you do about Pizzagate? Worry about how the silly rumor started? Or worry about the kind of people who believe every rumor, the stupider the better?
Tracing the rumor is useless. If people are acting like tools, then treat them like tools.
"What're you in for?"
"I'm a tool. I would attack anyone that anyone else told me to attack. I don't just think violence is the best answer, I think random, unfocused violence against any arbitrary target, whatever, is the best answer! BTW, let's go kill someone, I don't care who."
This is the kind of sentence where I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. Are you suggesting these criminals deserve some sympathy?
These people had deadly, malicious intent. Nobody ever "just works someone over a little" unless they're also willing to kill them, ever. If this sounds strange to you, then I think we have found one of the culprits: Hollywood and/or Bollywood. So there: trace done.
I can already see where you're going here. You're about to suggest they launch a huge public service campaign, and education reforms, to remind people how important critical thinking is, and that across-the-board, a modern society can't take seriously anything that isn't solidly based on evidence.
You don't see it as necessary since even if you had it, it wouldn't do a single thing to even slightly help combat the problem. Yes, of course...
Wait, what? I thought the context of the discussion is that the government wanted to break the encryption on private communications. How did public posts get into this? Surely the government can just read the public post like anyone else, even though there's so little reason to.
Posting something stupid isn't even in the same league as believing something stupid, and neither of those things are in the same league as doing something stupid. It looks like this government is trying hard to avoid addressing its public safety responsibilities.
If you're Indian and anti-violence, then of course you're going to want the government to stop wasting its time with this worthless quest, and instead, go after the nutcases who are believing unfounded trolls and then doing what they're told.
PSA: Be Less Programmable. You don't have to do everything you're told to do. You shouldn't believe things that are unsupported by evidence.
Oh, and everyone, please remember to put a kitten into a blender tonight and delight in its agonizing death, because I read somewhere that they're all Satan's little helpers.
And the way I look at it is: 95%+ of the voters decided that we should subsidize the roads and the living expenses of low-income workers, and the voters also all agree that we don't want to charge people for dumping stuff into the atmosphere.
That's all a given. Now, from that premise, would you like to pay $1.39 for a tube of toothpaste or would you prefer to rack up most of the same expenses and go somewhere else and pay $2.99? And that's how I end up sometimes visiting Walmart.
Whoa there. I really don't think so. I think their page/article would have pretty much worked just as well, with any other photo. It was a photo-agnostic article. (Ok, I haven't actually read the article so I'm talking out my ass, but nearly every other web page that has a photo on it, is like that! Unless the article is actually about the particulars of the photo, like a critique of the lighting or something?)
I guess the derived work question is what it's going to come down to, though. If it's a derived work (which I think is utterly nutty), then I think you're right.
Is this one of those contributory or vicarious versions of liability? Shit, I always forget about those laws! ;-) I could see how that might stick. The user violates the copyright by creating a derived work of both the article and the photo, but it was done at the article's publisher's suggestion? Hmm.. yeah.
Doe that counter the constipation effects that you get from milk of the poppy?
It's true! In 2007 I had to pay $5 to open a savings account to get into a credit union. Not just three dollars, not even four. Five whole dollars. My $5.xx (I think it's made less than a dollar interest) is still there in my balance too, mocking me!
I should stick it to my credit union by withdrawing my $5.xx savings, going to a bank, and using that money to pay a fraction of one month's fees.
Huh. My first question was "How did you have as many as 300 employees in the first place?" Perhaps our two questions, when combined, start to paint a coherent picture.
In the car analogy, the car was borrowed with permission. Isn't that how the photo got onto Twitter in the first place?