JP Jones 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (424) comment rss

  • On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters

    JP Jones ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 06:19pm

    Re:

    You know...you know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

    - Joker

  • On the post: Justice Department Issues Subpoenas To Reason To Identify Angry Anonymous Commenters

    JP Jones ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 06:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Uh yes (and nice try at a strawman!).

    Strawman. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Fallacy tip: something can't be a strawman argument if it accurately represents your argument. Since you agree with his interpretation of your argument, it is by definition not a strawman.

    And the rest of your statement is so completely stupid I'm not even going to bother trying to address it. You're welcome for the quick lesson on fallacies, though (extra credit: find mine).

    Learning is fun!

  • On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement

    JP Jones ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 05:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Agreed, 100%.

  • On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff

    JP Jones ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 01:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.

    That will never work again in the US.

    Duh. The American Civil War proved that rather decisively. The U.S. has a culture of self defense, much like the Japanese have a culture that reveres the Samurai. I doubt many guys with swords are going to rule in Japan any time soon. Just because something is useless or outdated doesn't mean it doesn't have an important cultural purpose (cough like religion cough).

    Apart from the fact that this is still (justified?) murder...

    There's no such thing as "justified murder." Murder is unjustified or illegal homicide by definition. Killing in self-defense is both legal and justified, and therefore never murder. Which brings me to my next point...

    So is a taser or pepper spray. Martial arts training is also a great equalizer, with awesome health benefits.

    Bullshit. Tasers are typically single shot and have barely any penetrating power. While they will penetrate most standard clothing, a glancing blow means you now have a stun gun, and if a woman is having to fight in close quarters she's already most likely lost. Pepper spray is likewise short-ranged and can easily backfire. It can also be shrugged off depending on the sensitivity and strength of the target.

    And martial arts are a great confidence builder and workout, but do little for actual self-defense. The 5'2" female roundhouse-kicking the big dude unconscious only happens in the movies. In reality a big guy has reach, muscles, adrenaline, and raw strength far above the average female. There has to be a significant difference in training between the male and female to close the natural gap. In real life situations it's nearly impossible for the average woman to fight off a determined male attacker without a weapon.

    That being said, nonlethal weapons do have advantages, but the main one is the fact that it's nonlethal, not anything inherent to the weapon itself. Someone is much less likely to hesitate when using a nonlethal weapon than a lethal one, and in a close quarters situation hesitation can be death (especially if the attacker gains control of the gun).

    You are extremely unlikely to accidentally kill the wrong target with nonlethal weapons as well, which is a bonus. I personally prefer them for home defense for precisely that reason, but I'm also a man living on a military base, so I'm not in a situation where I'm particularly worried about being attacked in my home. If I were a single woman living in a high crime area, however, that gun could save my life.

    I had a problem, so I got a gun. Now I got two problems.

    And there is your problem. You already assume guns are a problem, when in fact they are simply a tool. They're a tool designed to fire projectiles and hit a target. There are plenty of "destructive" tools with productive uses; saws, drills, sandpaper, knives...guns shoot things. They can be used productively, for defense, hunting, or fun, and they can be used for harm, such as murder or suicide.

    When someone misuses a tool, it's never the fault of the tool, it's the fault of the person using it. Blaming the tool is simply scapegoating, because most people don't like admitting that maybe, just maybe, the problem is them. Maybe you don't like them. That's fine, don't get one. But your hang-ups are not my problem.

  • On the post: Bell Exec Urges Public To Shame Users Who 'Steal' Netflix Content Via VPNs

    JP Jones ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 05:41pm

    How is this in any way a moral issue? Do people even know what "morals" are anymore? Since when is "doing something I don't want you to do for my own selfish reasons" a moral violation?

    Here's a fundamental flaw in copyright discussions. You can't discuss morals without discussing intent. Intent is core to moral action. We all instinctively know this. That's why burning a house down intentionally is considered arson and doing it accidentally is, at most, negligence, with significantly different potential punishments.

    The problem is that we've forgotten about intent. I'm not talking about intent to "steal" movies via copyright infringement. I'm talking about the intent of copyright in the first place. Why does copyright exist at all?

    First of all, it's not a "natural right." There is no natural right to own what you create, in fact the entire concept of property implies the opposite. If I create a chair, then sell you the chair, I no longer own that chair. It's yours, and you can do whatever you want with it.

    Likewise, if I tell a joke, and you tell your friends that joke too, no natural right has been violated, even if I thought up the joke. Ideas are inherently meant to be shared; this is also known as "education" or "communication." The whole purpose of communication is transferring ideas to other people, otherwise it would have no function.

    That's what gets me about the copyright discussion. We've created laws around copyright protections...that's not really up for debate. But what is the point of those laws?

    Think of other laws. We have laws against corporate fraud. Why? To protect the public from abuse. We have laws against jaywalking. Why? To prevent people from getting hit by cars. There's a purpose and intent behind laws, even if sometimes that purpose is to make people richer or if the law doesn't actually accomplish its purpose.

    So what's the purpose of copyright? It depends on your country, of course, but in the U.S. we have it in pretty plain language; "to promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts..."

    So if the morals behind a law are in the intent, not the effect, how is copyright infringement immoral? Illegal, sure, but immoral? Are pirates really causing less art to be created? If you believe they are, and many people do, can you prove it?

    I ask this because all the evidence I see is the opposite. Creators create even without monetary incentive and plenty of "copyright" industries exist with little to no copyright protections. In fact, the main beneficiaries I see from copyright are distributers/publishers, who don't create anything, and lawyers, who don't create anything. What exactly are artists gaining?

    So if the intent of copyright is to encourage the creation of intellectual works, and copyright law is at best not affecting the creation of intellectual works, and at worst actively harming those efforts, what moral imperative is there to follow copyright law? If someone made a law that I need to tip my hat to a statue of Walt Disney, and I refuse to do so, have I committed a moral crime, or just broken a stupid rule?

    There's nothing immoral about using a VPN to access information, or to pirate, or any other copying. It's illegal, sure, but I have absolutely no moral imperative to obey your imaginary rights to my copy of something you created. It doesn't make sense in practice, similar to how, after looking for traffic on an empty street, most people will cross the street outside of a crosswalk. Have they broken the law? Sure. Have they done something morally wrong? Only the most bizarre rule-mongers or fanatics would say so.

    That's what I see when people go on and on about piracy and VPNs. A bunch of adults complaining about jaywalkers and calling it trespassing on government property and reckless endangerment.

    Sorry if I roll my eyes and keep walking.

  • On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff

    JP Jones ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 07:27pm

    Re: Re: Guns are force focusing and targeting tools.

    Do hunters in NZ use bows and arrows? Spears maybe? Throwing knives? Or maybe you're more "humane" and just pen up everything and kill it via slaughterhouses?

    Last I checked NZ wasn't a vegetarian nation. So before you get on your high horse about how guns are a tool that's only designed to kill people you might want to stop forgetting about the major other purpose behind guns.

    Also, if you honestly believe you could live freely in your nation without a military force or allies with military force you are hopelessly naïve. The U.S. is a country founded on the basis of people fighting against an oppressive government (ironic, I know). Being able to defend oneself is a core element of U.S. culture, and was considered important enough by our founders to place directly below the right to speak freely.

    Guns have many more purposes besides murder. They can be used to protect you from others who would do you harm. A gun is a great equalizer between the sexes; a woman can defend herself with a gun as effectively as a man, unlike most other weapons. They can be used to teach responsibility and safety. They can be used for recreation and mastery, which in turn can build confidence.

    Just because you don't understand them or want them doesn't mean they have no purpose beyond what your extremely limited view believes.

  • On the post: New Zealand Steps In To Block US Gov't From Stealing All Of Kim Dotcom's Stuff

    JP Jones ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 06:59pm

    Re: Re: And in the meantime, gun enthusiasts in New Zealand don't get to enjoy their hobby.

    And the only people that get shot are hunters.

    The 73 individuals murdered with guns in New Zealand from 2003-2013 beg to differ.

  • On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals… Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background

    JP Jones ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 02:46pm

    Re: Sry but...

    There's a lot of military technology that has since become useful civilian tech, like space travel, satellites, jet engines, radios, radar, duct tape, digital cameras, and the internet. Does the fact they were designed for military use diminish their usefulness in the civilian world? I don't think so.

  • On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals… Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background

    JP Jones ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: apparently

    Touche'. This made me laugh out loud.

  • On the post: YouTube Silences Six Hours Of DARPA Robotics Finals… Because Of One Song Briefly In The Background

    JP Jones ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 02:18pm

    Re: "DARPA, the wonderful government agency"

    That's consistent with my view of him as neo-con / neo-liberal technocrat modernist who's eager for the "internet of things" and full-time surveillance of pesky humans.

    Yup, Mike Masnick, the pro-surveillance guy. That's totally the vibe I get from reading this site. Did your mother forget to rinse the soap off her hands often? Because I think you may have been dropped on the noggin one too many times.

    Clearly you buy into the "business good, government bad" fantasy land. Black-and-white only exists in the real world for children and fanatics, both of which have impaired mental faculties and only one of which has a legitimate excuse. Assuming you aren't a child, grow up and learn to think for yourself.

  • On the post: An Innocent Pressure Cooker Pays The Price In The War On Terror

    JP Jones ( profile ), 28 May, 2015 @ 04:38pm

    Re: Not an overreaction...

    A couple questions...

    1. Why would you consider a pressure cooker a bomb by design? Aren't they designed to cook food?

    2. If you were going to blow up people with a pressure cooker (or anything else) why would you leave your bomb in plain view?

    3. Why not blow up the car instead, which happens to be filled with gasoline?

    Just curious. Having gone through numerous classes on IED (improvised explosive device) identification I do not recall "cooking device in plain view" as an indicator. Recently dug holes, dead animals with wires coming out of them, a single pothole that is filled in around other potholes with discoloration in the road nearby...there are plenty of IED indicators out there, admittedly applying to a combat zone where IEDs are relatively common.

    But a cooker sitting in the back of someone's car? I must have missed that class. Where did you get that training? My guess is from your own fantasy world near your anti-zombie preparations.

  • On the post: Rockstar Ironically Goes On The Trademark Muscle To Silence BBC Documentary

    JP Jones ( profile ), 28 May, 2015 @ 04:11pm

    After dealing with their horrific DRM "Social Club" for GTA V I'm not at all surprised at their hypocrisy. Thank god for The Witcher 3; a better open world game that doesn't bother with that BS.

  • On the post: Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case

    JP Jones ( profile ), 27 May, 2015 @ 05:48pm

    Re: A bit of background, and a question.

    So is the judge saying that the API's in question were such that there was no other way that Google could have implemented the same functionality using different APIs?
    That's correct. The API is essentially something along the lines of "All programs will use port 42 for authentication."

    I think the reason for the confusion is because "API" is used for two different things. There's API as the technical term which is essentially a protocol definition; in other words, a description of what is needed to interact with the function of a different program. There's also API as a programming library, which is a set of functions that perform certain actions.

    For example, DirectX is technically an API, and is a set of instructions for how to interact with various media and input devices on Windows computers. Technically the DirectX API involves no code at all, and won't compile or run anything.

    DirectX also has the Software Development Kit, or SDK, which consists of runtimes and libraries used for specific implementations of the DirectX API. A programmer can call functions from the SDK without writing them manually, which obviously speeds up development. The runtimes are based on the API but they are not the same thing.

    Even programmers will often confuse the two, although in practice it's not so much "confusion" as "unimportant distinction." They will often use the terms "API," "library," "SDK" interchangeably, although all have fairly significant differences.

    The key part is that an API is pretty much a list of variables, dependencies, and a basic structure with "Insert code to do X" here comments. It's sort of like having a book with a cover, some pages saying "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc., and sticky notes with "insert story here." While it may make the basic structure of your book easier, and create limits to what you can work with, in no way is it the same as a completed book.

    In English major terms, basically Oracle is trying to say they copyrighted iambic pentameter, therefore Robert Frost violated their copyright by writing "The Mending Wall".

    In Business major terms, Oracle copyrighted the one-dollar bill's design, therefore strippers violated their copyright by using them in their performance.

    In Political Science major terms, Oracle copyrighted ballots, therefore politicians violated their copyright by using their system to get elected.

    In Law major terms, well, I'm not going to even bother. Clearly lawyers can't understand the concept in the first place, so why waste the effort?

  • On the post: Obama Administration Files Totally Clueless Argument Concerning Software Copyrights In Supreme Court Case

    JP Jones ( profile ), 27 May, 2015 @ 11:00am

    The annoying point is that restricting the use of APIs kind of defeats the major purpose of an API. While APIs are certainly used within closed systems the main use I've seen for an API is allowing different programs to interact with each other. It basically says "this is generally how my program interacts with X" in order to let other programs also interact with X.

    If you're required to get approval and/or pay in order have your program interact with another program that seems like it would severely reduce the value of APIs and discourage program compatibility. As far as I can tell, most of the value in an API is lost if other people can't use it, which makes the argument that copyrighting APIs is good for innovation pretty hard to swallow.

  • On the post: Secretary Of State: We Must Have A Secure Internet; Homeland Security Secretary: A Secure Internet Makes Us All Less Safe

    JP Jones ( profile ), 20 May, 2015 @ 05:28pm

    Re:

    What is the Internet?
    by Secretary of State and Homeland Security Secretary

    The internet is a series of tubes.

    There, I wrote it for them.

  • On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists

    JP Jones ( profile ), 20 May, 2015 @ 02:33pm

    Re: Re: Save Lives?

    Good point.

    Although, when you do the other graph it looks a little bit steeper...

  • On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists

    JP Jones ( profile ), 20 May, 2015 @ 02:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Although I agree, it's sort of a moot point anyway. Until there's some actual evidence that the mass spying programs actually are saving our lives I'll take my liberty.

    If we take this to a logical extreme for fun, the question then becomes why doesn't the government just lock everyone up in solitary confinement? They're unlikely to be killed there.

    Huh, the U.S. has the highest prison population in the world. I guess it's a work in progress?

  • On the post: FBI Investigating Chris Roberts For Hacking Flight WiFi, Taking Control Of Engines

    JP Jones ( profile ), 18 May, 2015 @ 04:58pm

    Re: Re: From bad to worse

    Obviously. If no one admits there's a problem, there isn't a problem, right?

    Right, guys?

  • On the post: Senate Fight Is On Over NSA Surveillance Reform

    JP Jones ( profile ), 15 May, 2015 @ 11:34am

    Re:

    Biological and nuclear weapons are effective too but we seem to have a little reluctance to use them. Why? Because we don't want them used on us, either. So we ban them because even potentially saving American lives by using weapons of mass destruction rather than ground troops is a secondary concern to the ethical ramifications of these weapons and our desire to avoid having these weapons used against us.

    Guess what? Mass spying is similar. We don't want to be spied on by our own government, even if it is to protect us. It's all too easy for that power to be used with the best of intentions for all the wrong reasons. After all, once we've "fixed" the terrorist problem, why not use it to hunt down drug cartels? Drugs are bad, right? Next let's identify those illegal immigrants; they're breaking the law, too! Hey, we can use this to easily identify people speeding, let's start fixing that issue...

    Woah, wait. You're going to start tracking me for speeding tickets? I'm not sure how I feel about that...you're arresting me for copyright infringement? Jaywalking? Spitting on the street? Get off my case, I'm trying to live here!

    Be careful justifying something just because it's effective (especially when it's not, but that's another issue). There are plenty of people out there who truly believe that no one should be allowed to break the law when living on a daily basis means breaking the law. In a country with 2.4 million people already in prison, more than any other country in the world, you might want to be careful what you wish for.

  • On the post: Patent Troll's Frivolous Attack On Startup Forces Startup To Sell Out To Another Patent Troll

    JP Jones ( profile ), 15 May, 2015 @ 11:18am

    Re:

    It's simple then...require them to patent the code used to accomplish the task.

    Oh, wait, there's a problem...different languages can have the same results. So instead, require them to submit everything in compiled assembly, on written pieces of paper.

    Then watch and laugh at the patent office try and figure it out. I wonder how long before we'd lose software patents?

Next >>