John85851’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Red Light Cameras On The Decline, As Everyone Realizes They Don't Make Roads Safer, They Just Make Money

John85851 ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2013 @ 04:31pm

Why not look at the cause of the traffic instead

Ah, yes, the old idea of using a simple fix to a complex problem. Instead of using red light cameras (or even police officers on the corner), why aren't we asking why people are running the lights. Is there too much traffic for the road? Are the lights taking too long to cycle and people are getting impatient, etc?
But, it's much easier to install a red light camera than to redesign the road to deal with the traffic.

When I commute home, there are sections of the road with 4 traffic lights within 2 miles ans stretches of road with no light. Can anyone guess what happens at rush hour? Traffic from one light backs up through the other light, yet traffic completely breaks up in the open stretch of road. My unscientific conclusion: traffic lights cause traffic, which causes people to get impatient, which causes people to run red lights. Therefore, the solution is to figure out how to do away with the traffic lights.

On the post: Appeals Court Upholds Life Prison Sentence For Iraqi 'Terrorist' Caught In One Of The FBI's Own Terrorist Plots

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2013 @ 02:47pm

Re: Doesn't bother me a bit

You're absolutely right. We need to keep this "war" going by finding and accusing Muslims before they become "terrorists". After all, this is WAY more easier than trying to figure out why so much of the Middle East hates the US. Could it be because of our foreign policy and imperialism in the area? Nah. Could it be because we invade sovereign countries and topple their leadership in an attempt to force our values on a section of the world that's descended from empires that are thousands of years old? Nah. All Muslims are bad and they should be killed. End of discussion.

And where do we get the idea that all Muslims are bad? There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world yet we judge all of them based on the actions of a few terrorists. That would be like saying all Catholics are evil because of the Spanish Inquisition or that all Christians are evil because of the Crusades.

What would happen if this issue happened in Iran or Iraq? People in the US would lose their minds about how the "evil government" had ensnared an innocent American. Yet over here, many people are fine with the idea, as long as it catches an evil Muslim.

On the post: Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil… Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2013 @ 03:05pm

Hyperbolic headlines

The problem with today's media is that there's so many stories that every outlet needs a catchy (or hyperbolic) title to get attention. Which sounds better: "Snowden writes open letter to Brazil" or "Snowden to spy on US people in exchange for asylum in Brazil and probably $1 billion to enjoy Carnivale". At least they didn't go with the typical link-bait headline of "You won't believe what Snowden did to Brazil" or "10 things you need to know about Snowden and Brazil".

On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case

John85851 ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2013 @ 02:49pm

Right to discriminate, but wrong reason given

The photographer is a private business and can chose whom to do business with, or not do business with. Sure, it might be discriminatory, but like many people are saying, aren't there other photographers in town that would be happy to do the job, and I assume be happy to get the income?

Photography is a creative service, hence the free speech issue. However, this further supports the idea that the photographer has every right to refuse service to a client if he doesn't think he can do a good job. How is this any different from refusing to do a wedding shoot on a volcano? "Sorry, it's too dangerous" "No it's not- you're discriminating against volcano lovers". Okay, that's a stretch of an example, but still.

As for the posters asking if they had a business, could they turn away blacks and gays?
Sure- it's your business and you can choose whom to serve and whom not to serve. But you need to be ready for the consequences, such as negative publicity, loss of business, and so on. And you would have no right to complain when a competitor opens and "steals your business" because they cater to the people that you're excluding.
Or like another poster said, simply say "we're closing for a private event".

I think the problem with this story is that the photographer said she couldn't do the job because of religious reasons, which made the couple angry, which started the fight. If the photographer had simply used a more generic excuse such as "I'm booked that weekend" or simply "I'm not available, but let me recommend someone else", none of this would have happened. Then, of course, the photographer saw she was facing a lawsuit, so she had to claim it was a free speech issue and get the ACLU involved. I'd be willing to bet that these are the kinds of people who would take their argument to the Supreme Court simply on the principle, rather than agreeing to use another photographer.

On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones

John85851 ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2013 @ 02:49pm

Why not apply this to everything?

Would this law apply to other collectible markets, such as comic books? I can imagine DC Comics would love to get a cut from the next auction of Action Comics #1 or Detective Comics #27 which sell for $2 million each.

But why stop at artwork? Why can't law apply to any product that goes up in price? If I own a house, sell it for $70,000, but then the next buyer sells it for $100,000, should I get a cut of that? How about the buyer after that? Can I get a cut from every buyer who's ever lived in any house that I've owned?
Who's going to maintain this kind of paper trail to make sure everyone is paid what they owed? Will all 10 previous owners of a house show up at closing to get their cut? What will this do to the price of goods if every person gets a cut of the sale? What will this do to society- will it create an entire class of people who do nothing but collect royalties on things they've owned in the past?

On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest

John85851 ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2013 @ 02:39pm

Look- it's a distraction!

Why is everyone arguing whether or Snowden does something weird or unusual? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, this is exactly what the NSA wants us to talk about: if we're talking about meaningless crap like this then we're not getting to the core issues. I want to know the details from the NSA about how many terrorists they actually stopped with all this spying, or why they think they have the power to spy on Americans and violate the Constitution, and how this affects large tech companies.
Oh, look over there- Snowden had a pet cat. Why would a guy have a cat? Don't you think that's weird?

On the post: You Don't Own What You 'Bought': Disney And Amazon Play The Role Of The Grinch In Taking Back Purchased Film

John85851 ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2013 @ 02:37pm

Just say it's a rental not a purchase

This issue seems to come up fairly often. When will Amazon finally decide to just tell people that they're *renting* a movie and they don't own it like a DVD? It may be forever or it may be until the copyright owner decides they don't want anyone to have it any more. This way, the customer expects that they don't own the movie and it could be pulled at any time.

Compare this to the physical world: what would happen if Amazon or Disney came to our homes and took back (or "stole") a DVD that we legally purchased just because they now offered it in Blue-Ray? Then how is buying a movie but storing it online any different? Why do companies get away with "licensing" or "renting" when they call it a "purchase"?

On the post: Lawsuit Claims Accidental Google Search Led To Years Of Government Investigation And Harrassment

John85851 ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2013 @ 02:58pm

This guy has a mental illness

A friend of mine had schizophrenia and the stories he told me sound very similar to what this guy is claiming. My friend also worked at a defense contractor, which is probably what sets the paranoia started in the first place.

To a schizophrenic, random and simple events become part of a bigger conspiracy. Did a guy on a subway really yell that phrase five times? Or was he singing loudly to himself, but was interpreted to become part of the larger "conspiracy". And, of course, any random conversation also gets woven into the conspiracy, even if it's about something trivial.

If I were the lawyer, I'd get this guy the mental help he needs instead of starting a lawsuit... then again, as we all know, some lawyers will take any case just for the money or attention. Maybe the guy doesn't have a case and maybe the lawyer thinks he can use this as a way to make bad laws illegal.

On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web

John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2013 @ 02:54pm

Does he have jurisdiction to do this?

First, since when goes a state district attorney have any power over a multi-national corporation? That would be like the Mississippi AG telling Apple to change how Safari works. All of the examples he talked about were Google complying with *country's* laws. Is he really saying every US state can now tell Google what to do?

Second, I think Google should start acting like any company: if someone doesn't want your service, then take your business elsewhere. What would happen if Google turned off all of their services to everyone who used an IP address in Mississippi? I think Mississippi users need Google more than Google needs those customers.
After all, isn't this the easier way to deal with local politicians? After all, they don't have any jurisdiction over a service or product that's not offered in their location.

On the post: Scammy Company Trying To Get Writers For Major Sites To Engage In Pay-To-Link Arrangements

John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2013 @ 02:50pm

Don't these sites have editors?

I was contacted by some of these people to put their links on one of my software tutorial site's pages. The requests were odd: they wanted me to link the word "computer graphics" to a university's library's site or link the word "tablet" to Wacom (or something like that). I still have no idea how this affects their company's SEO or rankings.
Or is this an "open the door" strategy: they pay for innocent sounding links at first, get the website owner (or writer) hooked on the income, get the writer to ignore where the links go, and then hit them with the real links?

The bigger issue is why a "professional" journalist would fall for such blatantly poor e-mails? I understand that not everyone speaks English, but if you're approaching an English-speaking person with a business deal, shouldn't you learn more than a few basic phrases? And don't get me started on how business e-mails should be spell-checked and grammar checked. Shouldn't a poorly written e-mail be the first sign that something is a scam?

Or does this go back to the greed of writers who don't think they're getting paid enough by the website, so they think they need to make some extra income? Or do the writers really not know this is a breach of ethics? Do they not understand that their article is the property of HuffPost, the Tribune, etc, and they can't go around putting their own links into stories?

And where are the editors? Doesn't anyone check the articles (especially for links like these) before they're posted? Or do the writers have access to upload stories without being screened by editors? If this is the case, then we have a much bigger issue than just inserting a few links for $50.

On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels

John85851 ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2013 @ 02:48pm

What happens if they remove your channel?

I've said this before in other "a la carte" threads, but:
Who says which channels are crap? I may not watch the 10 golf channels, but I suppose someone else does.

The problem with a la carte pricing is that cable providers will start making deals with the content providers (or the other way around) where the cable provider has to guarantee X number of subscribers or they won't carry the channel. After all, if no one watches ESPN Golf 3, why should the cable company pay ESPN to carry it?
The bigger problem comes when you're the only one watching a channel and the cable company removes it. Everyone will then get upset that their favorite channel was taken away... and you know that the people who complain will be the ones who don't know about Hulu or other Internet-based services.

On the post: Teenager Pays Hundreds Of Dollars For A Picture Of An Xbox One

John85851 ( profile ), 10 Dec, 2013 @ 02:53pm

The buyer should have some responsibility

A few things to consider:

1) If the buyer has ANY doubt at all, especially when paying $500 for a box or picture or whatever, why didn't he contact the seller first?
Like the example posted by theangryetailer: is it really fraud if a person list a videotape for sale, the customer orders it, and then complains he wanted a DVD? Why didn't the customer ask if the seller had a DVD before ordering?

So, yes, I think buyers need to take on some responsibility, again, especially when they're paying $500 for something.

2) In my years on the Internet, I've found the PayPal is quick to offer a refund to a customer, especially when that customer calls his credit card company and says the PayPal transaction is fraud. At that point, the credit card company takes the money from PayPal, so PayPal has to take the money from the seller.
There's no discussion about how the seller was selling something correcting, nor is there any appeal: PayPal lost their money, so the seller will lose the money also.

And, yes, this is how buyers can scam sellers.

Some people are claiming that this is a scam because this seller intentionally put the item in the wrong category to confuse people. In my opinion, the seller put the photo in the Video Game section because he was selling to that market. How many people would have seen it in the Photo section?
For example, if you're selling a comic book from the 1940's, do you put it in Comic Books, Collectibles, or Rare Items? (Sorry, I don't know the exact category names.) You choose the category where you think will get the best results.

On the post: Texas Police Set Up Checkpoints To Collect Blood And Saliva From 'Volunteers'

John85851 ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2013 @ 03:02pm

It's a test to see how far they can push civil liberties

The real "apology" should be:
"We're sorry everyone is irritated, but every few years we need to push the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure and people's civil liberties to see who would push back against this policy. The test was a success: we found that people don't like to be passively searched. We'll adjust our technique and try again in a few more years. Again, thank you for your voluntary, but coerced, participation."

And as is always the case in situations like this, people are well within their rights to leave, but who's going to argue with someone with a gun and power of arrest? As soon as you leave, the cop could decide to charge you with speeding away, reckless driving, endangering people, or anything else.
Or he might be having a bad day (or resent that he's been assigned to this duty) and he's going to liven up his day by handing out tickets to anyone who doesn't listen to him.

On the post: The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters

John85851 ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2013 @ 03:40pm

Camcorded movies are not a threat

Look at it from supply and demand: if you were downloading a movie on The Pirate Bay, which would you rather have: a crappy camcorded movie with horrible audio and people coughing in the background or the HD 1080i, Dolby 7.2 version burned from a screener's Blue-Ray?
And as uploaders quickly get "downvoted" because of their crappy camcorded copy, they'll stop uploading. And if there's no market for camcorded movies, why do it at all?
There we go- the "problem" of camcording movies has solved itself.

Until the MPAA cracks down on the leaks from their screeners (or leaks of the studio's own master copy), then I don't want to hear about the "evils" of camcording.

On the post: How China Is Going Global With Its Censorship

John85851 ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2013 @ 03:16pm

Isn't this similar to what the US does?

I think it was only a matter of time until we saw something like this. After all, if the US government can influence other countries' use of the Internet (based on policy from the MPAA and RIAA), then why shouldn't other countries do the same?

I'm just waiting for the day when a US official says China or North Korea or Iran is being "outrageous" about trying to control the internet when it's the US who puts pressure on other countries to enforce copyrights.

On the post: How Trademark Law Can Finally Kill Dan Snyder's Racist Dreamworld

John85851 ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2013 @ 02:56pm

Pick a name that has something to do with Washington

I think at this point, the owner is being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

No matter what people might think of the word "Redskins", the fact of the matter is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Washington DC. Why not use a name like "Senators" (baseball) or "Capitals" (hockey)? Technically "Wizards" (basketball) doesn't fit either, but it's better than "Bullets".

And why doesn't someone fight the name-changing battle from this angle (and maybe appeal to the owner's vanity of picking his own Washington-related name) instead of beating him up over a racially-charged word. Like I said, he's stubborn and more people who fight him, the more he'll stand his ground and defend his position.

On the post: As Silk Road 2.0 Pops Up, The Government Needs To Avoid The Temptation Of Moral Panic

John85851 ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2013 @ 03:12pm

Legalize and tax it

Here's a radical idea: legalize it, but tax it to death.
How many people will shop at the Silk Road simply because it's illegal and the government tells them not to?
How many people will shop at the Silk Road when they realize they have to pay a 60% sales tax? The vendors selling there can lower the prices all they want, but customers won't want to pay the high sales tax... and look what happens: the government kills the business without making anything illegal.

It's like the argument for legalizing marijuana: the government gets income from taxes, it doesn't have to spend money on arresting people and moving them through the criminal justice system, and it can regulate quality.
This happened with Prohibition in the 1920's, so why can't the government learn from it?

On the post: You'd Think NSA Employees Would Know Better Than To Hand Out Their Passwords, But Many Gave Them To Snowden

John85851 ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2013 @ 03:10pm

A sys admin is the authority in most companies

This seems like it should be a story on computer security not a story on Snowden.

It goes back to the fact that sys admins are an authority figure in most companies, which means people will give them their login information without thinking about it. After all, it's the company's property and the company's computer, so why shouldn't the employees let the sys admin have their login information? Do employees have any right to privacy on their work computers while in the office? If not, then why is this even a story?

Because it's yet another non-story to distract from the larger issue. And if the NSA can discredit Snowden as a "password thief" then less people may believe what he has to say.

As tech-savvy people, we should get the word out that sharing passwords with the sys admin is very common.

On the post: TSA Security Theater Makes Unwilling Co-Star Out Of 3-Year-Old With Rare Medical Condition

John85851 ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2013 @ 07:15pm

The terrorist's next plan

[sarcasm]
Well of course the TSA is correct. After all, this is a great approach for a terrorist: first, plant a bomb on a 3 year-old and claim it's a medical condition. Next, tell the TSA agent about the condition and that you're bringing "formula" (which is actually explosive) onto the plane.
Then comes the masterful part of the plan: after you've been caught, you talk your way out of it. Remember, you get bonus points if the TSA supervisor and police have to be called in because of the "medical condition".
No one would suspect a terrorist of doing all these things, which is why it's so stupid it could work.
[end sarcasm]
Oh, wait, there's never been anything close to a documented case of a terrorist using a child to bomb an airplane? And every child that claims to have a medical condition actually has that condition? So, what? The TSA has a country to protect. They can't let facts get in the way.

On the post: School Suspends Students For Playing With Airsoft Guns In Their Own Yard

John85851 ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2013 @ 02:46pm

There is a precedent

Although this situation is a wild over-reaction, there is a precedent for what the school is doing. When I was kid in school (years ago), we were told that "school grounds" included the school bus and the bus stop. This was to let kids know that if they saved their fighting until they got off the bus (instead of fighting at school), they would still be suspended.
But when did "school grounds" extend to 50 or 70 or 100 feet from the bus stop?

John85851 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1635)