You obviously have no way of empathising or even sympathising with terminally ill people
Those cases are outliers, you can't compare rational self-euthanasia with most suicides.
or those who face a life that is arguably worse than death (in their perception)
The whole point is that most people's lives are not worse than death, but their mental illness prevents them from seeing this.
As for your comments about obeying the law, again someone like Rosa Parks engaging in civil disobedience is in a different league from someone mugging an old lady. Sometimes laws are wrong, and do need to be resisted, but you have to stand up and face the consequences if that's the road you're on.
The red flag of prosecutorial over-zealousness is obvious from the name of the case: "United States v. Aaron Swartz." Not MIT, not JSTOR, not the alleged "victims." United States.
Thus you get >99% conviction rate for all who decide to go all the way through courts. Less than one person of 100 has chance to avoid jail
Wikipedia says 85% in the US as opposed to 80% in the UK. I don't see that as a problem, you would expect. that the majority of cases that got to court had sufficiently strong evidence to make a conviction significantly more likely than not. I would be more shocked if the conviction rate was something like 20%, as that would imply that most prosecutions were brought with only flimsy evidence.
Death does NOT solve any problems -- it just merely DELAYS them. You can't run away from yourself -- sooner or later you WILL be forced to confront yourself. The ONLY fallacy in suicide is the incorrect thinking that somehow you avoided a problem.
That is only true if you believe in either an after life or reincarnation, neither of which can be proved or even convincingly argued for.
"There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life."
Please do not generalize. I've witnessed the suffering of a terminally ill relation who more than once pleaded with me for some drug that could end it all. I find it more disgusting that you'd presume to know some other person's pain well enough conclude that surviving to the end of your natural lifespan is the end-all of human existence.
That is an entirely different case, and you know it.
So you think that breaking into a closet, attaching a laptop and knowingly downloading vastly more data than allowed are arcane offences made up by the Feds in order to trap the innocent Aaron Swartz?
Please. He knew what he was doing, and should have thought of the consequences of what he did.
The suicide is sad, but entirely due to his depressive illness.
His goals may have been noble but his actions were criminal. I really just don't know what else to say or why so many people just don't get it.
He was a young programmer who believed in the things that most slashdotters do (notably that all information should be freely available) so his death is a bit close to home for a lot of people here, It's easy to say that ethics outweigh legality, but much harder when the real world implications of acting illegally are so graphically spelled out.
To take such a plea deal, if it were offered, would require he plead guilty to a felony. That he admit he was wrong, and express remorse.
He would only have to admit he was guilty if he was guilty. If he had committed no crime he couldn't be convicted of anything. Whether you show remorse is a matter for the individual, although it certainly would help to convince a judge that you were deserving of more leniency.
Contrary to the paranoid ravings you get on the internet, the US government can't just arbitrarily convict people with no evidence and send them to prison for the rest of their lives. You do still have a justice system, which may not be perfect, but is still far above the Stalinist show-trial level.
It is a false dichotomy that he must either be innocent and/or justified, or else guilty and deserving of 30 years in prison.
I'd say that some community service or a suspended sentence would have been about right. He didn't rape or kill or physically injure anyone, but then again nor do most white collar criminals.
Well, you're not MIT or JSTOR. *They* didn't press charges, or even pursue civil suits, but the feds did it anyway?
What does it say about the merits of this case that it was "United States v Aaron Swartz?" I'm skeptical as hell -- as you should be -- of any federal criminal case in which the supposedly wronged parties aren't even the plaintiffs.
If someone got caught storing illegal explosives, drugs or whatever in an MIT office, they would face prosecution regardless of whether MIT cared or not.
A crime is a crime, regardless. If I plot to murder someone, it doesn't matter whether the potential victim forgives me.
There are a lot of ethical action which are unlawful and vice versa, a lot of unethical action which are perfectly lawful. I would certainly hear the lecture of somebody which know the difference between ethical and lawful and the ramification.
There are a lot of ethical action which are unlawful and vice versa, a lot of unethical action which are perfectly lawful. I would certainly hear the lecture of somebody which know the difference between ethical and lawful and the ramification.
The ramifications of acting unlawfully are that you might go to prison. It's not difficult.
If your ethics insist that breaking the law is necessary, fine, but be a grown up about it and realise there will be consequences.
the pro-authoritarian, pro-state, pro-law-and-order types
So are you anti-law-and-order? Or just anti-any-laws-you-don't-like?
You don't have to be authoritarian to prefer stability and the rule of law for everyone over pure anarchy and the men with the biggest guns being in control.
I don't disagree, but there is plenty of conspiracy junk blaming Muslims, communists, black people, gays, women, Catholics, liberals, the EU, aliens, Cthulhu, fluoride and ginger-haired people too.
If you dangle somebody from a crane, hundreds of feet above the ground and all those teeny little figures walking about, does that person's heart rate, blood pressure, adrenaline levels, and similar fear responses have any useful correlation to their knowledge of the tensile strength of the steel cable they are attached to?
If I was in that situation, I'd be working on the basis that the bastard who put me there was quite likely to unhook the fucking steel cable at some point.
The question is, why did the friend with the limp and the woman with MS get picked by God for special treatment? And indeed why were they not perfect to start with if God made them?
Yeah, I know, the Fall of Man, blah blah blah. What a load of bollocks.
That's exactly the point. Such a big deal was made about Columbine that it will be in everybody's mind forever (I'll bet you can still recall the names of the two shooters, but that's another problem in itself). It masks the fact that 3x as many children died in car accidents on the same day.
So what? Accidents are...accidental. Deliberately shooting a dozen people is.a notable act of evil. Of course it's more interesting and noteworthy.
If you are any sort of entrepreneur worth his or her salt in today's world I would say that it is almost mandatory to have some sort of web programming skills.
If you are any sort of entrepreneur worth his or her salt you don't waste your time doing work that is better sub-contracted. Do you do all your own accounting, marketing, promotion, health and safety, legal, human resources, secretarial, receptionist and other work? If so, then you may have a point, but it makes me wonder what your definition of an entrepreneur is, other than someone who can't focus on the essentials.
Likewise, "having an idea for a song" is not really adding much if any value to the process of writing it.
Actually, that's not true. You could well have a little riff or hook in your head that just needs fleshing out into a song. A lot of pop songs are basically a good catchy chorus filled out with vaguely meaningful verses and words. I could imagine someone with no musical knowledge humming "if you liked it you should have put a ring on it" and one of Beyonce's people going "yes, we'll have that".
Taking a few singing or guitar lessons isn't going to turn you into a musician. If you're a brilliant guitarist and songwriter who can't get anyone to listen to his songs, it may just be that you can't sing very well. And you probably know it. But not everyone can learn to sing brilliantly.And although I agree that anyone can learn the basics of music same as for programming, where does it get you?
I can tell if someone else is a good singer or not without having to be able to sing myself. As Doctor Johnson' remarked about critics: "You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously have no way of empathising or even sympathising with terminally ill people
Those cases are outliers, you can't compare rational self-euthanasia with most suicides.
or those who face a life that is arguably worse than death (in their perception)
The whole point is that most people's lives are not worse than death, but their mental illness prevents them from seeing this.
As for your comments about obeying the law, again someone like Rosa Parks engaging in civil disobedience is in a different league from someone mugging an old lady. Sometimes laws are wrong, and do need to be resisted, but you have to stand up and face the consequences if that's the road you're on.
The red flag of prosecutorial over-zealousness is obvious from the name of the case: "United States v. Aaron Swartz." Not MIT, not JSTOR, not the alleged "victims." United States.
Are private prosecutions more normal in the US?
Thus you get >99% conviction rate for all who decide to go all the way through courts. Less than one person of 100 has chance to avoid jail
Wikipedia says 85% in the US as opposed to 80% in the UK. I don't see that as a problem, you would expect. that the majority of cases that got to court had sufficiently strong evidence to make a conviction significantly more likely than not. I would be more shocked if the conviction rate was something like 20%, as that would imply that most prosecutions were brought with only flimsy evidence.
What needs to happen is for academics themselves to oppose the whole "expensive paid access" model, like they are doing here in the UK.
as for ethics board? he could've at least argued he's done some actual ground work on the issue of deciding his ethics and going with them
That's a bit like applying to be head of security at a bank, and explaining away your conviction for armed bank robbery as ground work.
Death does NOT solve any problems -- it just merely DELAYS them. You can't run away from yourself -- sooner or later you WILL be forced to confront yourself. The ONLY fallacy in suicide is the incorrect thinking that somehow you avoided a problem.
That is only true if you believe in either an after life or reincarnation, neither of which can be proved or even convincingly argued for.
"There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life."
Please do not generalize. I've witnessed the suffering of a terminally ill relation who more than once pleaded with me for some drug that could end it all. I find it more disgusting that you'd presume to know some other person's pain well enough conclude that surviving to the end of your natural lifespan is the end-all of human existence.
That is an entirely different case, and you know it.
Please. He knew what he was doing, and should have thought of the consequences of what he did.
The suicide is sad, but entirely due to his depressive illness.
His goals may have been noble but his actions were criminal. I really just don't know what else to say or why so many people just don't get it.
He was a young programmer who believed in the things that most slashdotters do (notably that all information should be freely available) so his death is a bit close to home for a lot of people here, It's easy to say that ethics outweigh legality, but much harder when the real world implications of acting illegally are so graphically spelled out.
To take such a plea deal, if it were offered, would require he plead guilty to a felony. That he admit he was wrong, and express remorse.
He would only have to admit he was guilty if he was guilty. If he had committed no crime he couldn't be convicted of anything. Whether you show remorse is a matter for the individual, although it certainly would help to convince a judge that you were deserving of more leniency.
Contrary to the paranoid ravings you get on the internet, the US government can't just arbitrarily convict people with no evidence and send them to prison for the rest of their lives. You do still have a justice system, which may not be perfect, but is still far above the Stalinist show-trial level.
I'd say that some community service or a suspended sentence would have been about right. He didn't rape or kill or physically injure anyone, but then again nor do most white collar criminals.
Well, you're not MIT or JSTOR. *They* didn't press charges, or even pursue civil suits, but the feds did it anyway?
What does it say about the merits of this case that it was "United States v Aaron Swartz?" I'm skeptical as hell -- as you should be -- of any federal criminal case in which the supposedly wronged parties aren't even the plaintiffs.
If someone got caught storing illegal explosives, drugs or whatever in an MIT office, they would face prosecution regardless of whether MIT cared or not.
A crime is a crime, regardless. If I plot to murder someone, it doesn't matter whether the potential victim forgives me.
Illegal does not automatically mean wrong, and in this case I really don't think he was doing anything that deserved prosecution.
If it's illegal, it's illegal and you should expect some form of punishment if you're caught doing it.
If it's wrong, then you should campaign to get the relevant laws changed.
Simply flouting a law doesn't achieve anything.
There are a lot of ethical action which are unlawful and vice versa, a lot of unethical action which are perfectly lawful. I would certainly hear the lecture of somebody which know the difference between ethical and lawful and the ramification.
There are a lot of ethical action which are unlawful and vice versa, a lot of unethical action which are perfectly lawful. I would certainly hear the lecture of somebody which know the difference between ethical and lawful and the ramification.
The ramifications of acting unlawfully are that you might go to prison. It's not difficult.
If your ethics insist that breaking the law is necessary, fine, but be a grown up about it and realise there will be consequences.
If you have a girlfriend you'll have to keep your acts of kindness secret though. They hate that.
With an attitude like that, I imagine any girlfriend you have will be strictly of the inflatable type.
the pro-authoritarian, pro-state, pro-law-and-order types
So are you anti-law-and-order? Or just anti-any-laws-you-don't-like?
You don't have to be authoritarian to prefer stability and the rule of law for everyone over pure anarchy and the men with the biggest guns being in control.
The attitudes of various Middle East countries cannot be taken as simple common knowledge in the same way that the sky is blue.
I don't disagree, but there is plenty of conspiracy junk blaming Muslims, communists, black people, gays, women, Catholics, liberals, the EU, aliens, Cthulhu, fluoride and ginger-haired people too.
If you dangle somebody from a crane, hundreds of feet above the ground and all those teeny little figures walking about, does that person's heart rate, blood pressure, adrenaline levels, and similar fear responses have any useful correlation to their knowledge of the tensile strength of the steel cable they are attached to?
If I was in that situation, I'd be working on the basis that the bastard who put me there was quite likely to unhook the fucking steel cable at some point.
Hold on, you're saying that porn movies aren't entirely realistic I'm shocked.
Yeah, I know, the Fall of Man, blah blah blah. What a load of bollocks.
That's exactly the point. Such a big deal was made about Columbine that it will be in everybody's mind forever (I'll bet you can still recall the names of the two shooters, but that's another problem in itself). It masks the fact that 3x as many children died in car accidents on the same day.
So what? Accidents are...accidental. Deliberately shooting a dozen people is.a notable act of evil. Of course it's more interesting and noteworthy.
If you are any sort of entrepreneur worth his or her salt in today's world I would say that it is almost mandatory to have some sort of web programming skills.
If you are any sort of entrepreneur worth his or her salt you don't waste your time doing work that is better sub-contracted. Do you do all your own accounting, marketing, promotion, health and safety, legal, human resources, secretarial, receptionist and other work? If so, then you may have a point, but it makes me wonder what your definition of an entrepreneur is, other than someone who can't focus on the essentials.
Likewise, "having an idea for a song" is not really adding much if any value to the process of writing it.
Actually, that's not true. You could well have a little riff or hook in your head that just needs fleshing out into a song. A lot of pop songs are basically a good catchy chorus filled out with vaguely meaningful verses and words. I could imagine someone with no musical knowledge humming "if you liked it you should have put a ring on it" and one of Beyonce's people going "yes, we'll have that".
I can tell if someone else is a good singer or not without having to be able to sing myself. As Doctor Johnson' remarked about critics: "You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."