Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Never finish (Score 1) 172

by anagama (#48947399) Attached to: George R. R. Martin's "The Winds of Winter" Wiill Not Be Published In 2015

My opinion will be unpopular, but I think RRMartin is just milking it at this point. I've listened to all the books published so far as audiobooks, and my experience was that the first two books were very fun, and then it started to drag out -- more and more characters introduced, the same sort of imagery and conversation patterns repeated, and time just stopped moving altogether. By the last book, I was just bored silly and it was all I could do to trudge through it.

RRMartin got famous, got money, and has been milking it, extending it, trying to make sure it never ever ends. I'm interested enough in how the story turns out, should it be finished, that I will read the wikipedia synopsis of it. But I would never deal with the whole repetitive unabridged bullshit ever again.

NOTE: I've only seen the first season of the TV show, and I liked it a lot. The TV show is quite likely way better than the books because there are some natural constraints in that context. I won't pay for the shows though. I don't want to give RRM anything -- he took a promising interesting story, and is just torturing it now for the money. Fucker.

Comment: Re:In other news... (Score 2) 262

by anagama (#48947317) Attached to: The NSA Is Viewed Favorably By Most Young People

On the one hand I sympathize with everything you say. On the other hand, so what? Why does everyone need to do something that will keep their name around for the ages -- maybe it's enough that they don't cause active harm. Not every person is going to be a Turing, a Vonnegut, or a Michelangelo making works that will endure for the ages. It isn't possible, and besides, on a long enough time scale, even the great works will mean nothing at all. I don't think it is wrong to say that even the Einsteins of the world, are just monkey-button-pushers -- people like that just push them in more mesmerizing patterns than I can, just like I can push them in more mesmerizing patterns than others can, etc. etc. That doesn't make me any less a MBPer than anyone else. I will admit that I sometimes feel condescending toward lower level MBPers, but if I zoom out to a great distance, the destruction of the solar system or the heat death of the universe for example, the difference between any one person's button-pushing and any other's button-pushing become indistinguishable and utterly irrelevant.

Comment: Re:Possible reason (Score 1) 262

by anagama (#48947181) Attached to: The NSA Is Viewed Favorably By Most Young People

The "my days" thing might be valid. Young people have grown up in a world where surveillance is expected, and thus it doesn't rub them wrong so much older people like myself. To put this in another context, racism for example, I would say that for the most part, generational characteristics don't change, they die with their members. Today, most people would be shocked and outraged to see a drinking fountain with a "Whites Only" sign over it, but in 1950, it would be common. The difference between now and then is that most of the people who saw that as right and proper, are dead now. They didn't learn to live a non-racist life through education or the law -- they kept on being racist until death made them irrelevant. That's good of course.

This can work negatively as well however, and the younger generations, if this study and others like it are true, don't really care about the constitutional privacy protections us fogies do care about. What that suggests, is privacy protections will continue to erode over time as people in my generation (and older) start to die off (I'm Gen X for any pop-demographers who care).

Comment: Re:Cam-tastic (Score 1) 152

by anagama (#48914423) Attached to: DEA Cameras Tracking Hundreds of Millions of Car Journeys Across the US

No, the Constitution is not an enumeration of rights you have left, it _is_ an enumeration of the rights the Feds have:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Comment: Re:He's Sort of a Basketcase ... (Score 1) 110

by anagama (#48886615) Attached to: Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

Get off it -- that search warrant was based on a reporter posting a link to data. The underlying issue is that he is being punished for engaging in 1st Amendment activity, the ultimate basis for his punishment doesn't matter to the Feds.

Think of it this way: say you decided to install Chrome on your computer, so you download it from the official location and install it. Then a warrant is issued so the cops can examine your laptop to figure out if you installed Chrome. You're thinking "WTF?" that's not a crime and so you give them some lip. Now you're fucked. They hated you because of some random reason, but now they get to punish you -- that it is for some random reason doesn't matter. That's what happened here -- the Feds were out to get him and they got him.

Comment: Re:who is he? (Al Capone the tax evader) (Score -1, Flamebait) 110

by anagama (#48883021) Attached to: Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

This is /. not People Magazine. It is sort of reasonable to think the usual readership would be familiar with Barrett Brown. Of course there's always wikipedia. Let me tell you how to get there. Go to the Start button and press on the blue "E" icon. That will get you the internets ....

Comment: Re:Be afraid (Score 1) 110

by anagama (#48883001) Attached to: Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

And just so it is clear what level of morality exists among Federal prosecutors, consider this "game" which certainly gets applied in real life:

At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity -- say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Comment: Re:Be afraid (Score 2) 110

by anagama (#48882985) Attached to: Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

Complacency. What freedom haters have for breakfast.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

Aside from statutes, beware the CFRs:

These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

Comment: Re:There is no anonymity (Score 1) 110

by anagama (#48882949) Attached to: Barrett Brown, Formerly of Anonymous, Sentenced To 63 Months

Barret Brown didn't do any hacking. He's a reporter. Reporters are fucking supposed to report the news, not keep it secret. This was just an example of the fact if the Feds want to get you, they have criminal code base so large, nobody can even count crimes let alone fit all of that knowledge into a single brain. Of course, not knowing the law is no excuse (unless you are cop), and having no intent to break the is irrelevant. What this boils down to, is the Feds can fuck you up any time they want if they don't like you. It's called tyranny.

[In 1998, the ABA tried to count crimes contained in Federal statutes but gave up estimating the number to be in excess of 3000.]

* * *

None of these studies broached the separate -- and equally complex -- question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

See also, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" http://www.amazon.com/Three-Fe...

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...