Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Soon, no more bookstores. (Score 1) 176

by felix rayman (#45375325) Attached to: Amazon Gets Blow-Back Over Plan To Sell Kindles At Small Bookshops

Been many a year since I found any good vinyl at a yard sale, and the shops are more shiny than dusty. Sales of new vinyl records in the US have grown about 500% in the last 5 years. Around 2000, I couldn't find a lot of the new music I wanted on vinyl. Things have changed, I can get pretty much anything I want on vinyl now.

Vinyl vs. cloud is a false dichotomy, most new stuff you buy on vinyl you get access to it in the cloud too. Best of both worlds.

Text-only books I will buy digital. Graphic novels, anything with art or other visual content I will kill some trees for. Best of both worlds. Except for the trees I guess.

There are new record stores opening up all over the place, there are independent book sellers that are having record years, there are video rental chains that are opening new stores. You've gotta be quick and you've gotta be smart to stay in business but that's the same as it ever was.

Comment: Re:Java's problem isn't verbosity (Score 1) 577

by felix rayman (#45097655) Attached to: If Java Is Dying, It Sure Looks Awfully Healthy

Haha POJOs.

I love that typical developers using Java, an object-oriented language, got so far down the over-engineering path that they had to make an acronym for those obscure corner cases where you might want to just use....an object.

Although it's true that the Java development community does seem to be header in a much nicer direction lately.

Comment: Re:Would probably be found (Score 5, Informative) 576

by felix rayman (#44892257) Attached to: Linus Torvalds Admits He's Been Asked To Insert Backdoor Into Linux

You are doing something illegal - everyone is. You may not even know what you are doing that is illegal, but if the NSA knows everything you do, they know what you are doing that is illegal.

They aren't going to do anything about it until you do some thing that is legal that they don't want you to do.

If you run for office, they own you.

Comment: Re:At you desk! (Score 1) 524

by felix rayman (#42991317) Attached to: Mayer Terminates Yahoo's Remote Employee Policy

There are jobs where face time is important - there is a lot of knowledge sharing that happens informally just by being in the same office. For those type of jobs, you tell the remote workers either start coming in to the office or find another job.

There are jobs were face time isn't important. For those type of jobs, you fire the US remote workers and hire someone in India, if being able to sort of speak English is important, or some other even more hellish Asian country if it isn't.

Comment: Re:Oritz "terribly upset" (about her career) (Score 1) 287

by felix rayman (#42640569) Attached to: JSTOR an Entitlement For US DoJ's Ortiz & Holder

I don't see how any of your argument applies to the Swartz case. Swartz makes the worst poster boy for criminal justice reform ever.

He was not a disadvantaged minority. He was not poor, was not a "poor looking defendant". He was a rich white college educated adult. He was a faculty member at Harvard University. It was not a case of manufactured or suppressed evidence. There was solid evidence that he committed the crimes of which he was accused. He was not forced to use a public defender.

And most importantly, this was not a good example of the abuse of plea bargaining. The cases where the plea bargain system are most troublesome are the cases where the defendant has to make the choice between a guilty plea and a trial - while sitting in a jail cell unable to make bail. The choice Swartz faced was a fair one. The choice someone makes when faced with a guilty plea to a felony and a 6 month sentence, or who knows how long in jail during the trial and sentencing is much less fair.

As Orin Kerr wrote:

These sorts of tactics have been going on for years, without many people paying attention. If we don’t want a world in which prosecutors have these powers, we shouldn’t just object when the defendant in the crosshairs is a genius who went to Stanford, hangs out with Larry Lessig, and is represented by the extremely expensive lawyers at Keker & Van Nest. We should object just as much — or even more — when the defendant is poor, unknown, and unconnected to the powerful. To do otherwise sends an extremely troubling message to prosecutors that they need to be extra sensitive when considering charges against defendants with connections. We have too much of a two-tiered justice system already, I think.

So much of the response to the case - not yours specifically - seems to be simply tribal. It doesn't seem that people in general care that prosecutors use these powers every day against poor or disadvantaged people. It seems to bother people here that the prosecutors dare use these tactics against one of us.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...