Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 16 Jan 2013 @ 8:54am
IBM
"Witness IBM: for the past 20 consecutive years it has received more U.S. patents than any other company in the world."
I think that IBM is a perfect example of how patents are bad for innovation and the economy.
Over the past 20 years, IBM has been shedding jobs - and outsourcing the ones they have left. They have closed or sold off entire divisions. Their former manufacturing plants are empty and unused. Their offices are ghost towns and sit empty on the commercial real estate market.
IBM used to be a world leader in making new technology. Now the best they can do is try to support stuff that other people make with minimum wage contractors and outsourced call centers.
(Full disclosure - I worked for IBM for a few years and saw my own group (even though we were profitable) reduced and transferred to lower qualified people who offered lower quality service to the customer (who became fed up with it and in-sourced some former members of the team directly to come work for them). I'm not bitter - working there gave me valuable contacts that got me into the better positions that I have now. But to hold IBM up as some shining example shows how tragically out-of-touch with the real world that judge is.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 11:58am
F.T.S.
"There will be more like him and, if the system remains unchanged, they will have their futures extinguished as soon as their actions put them in the firing line."
I go willingly and knowingly into that danger. Some of the things Aaron stood for are worth protecting, even at the cost of my life.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 11:26am
Re: "he wasn't going to get the max"
There had to be some motive on the part of the prosecutor to do this. The injured party even asked that the case dropped, and yet the prosecutor continued. Why? Who stood to gain from this?
The prosecutors stood to gain. Maybe they wanted a promotion, and they need to show felony convictions. Maybe they have political ambitions and need to point to their "tough on crime" or "tough on white collar crime" to get elected. Maybe they wanted a case to point to against "those hacker kids" so they can get a job at a lobbyist firm for the copyright cartel.
Instead of looking at the facts, instead of being fair, instead of using discretion, there was some motive for them not to be reasonable. Whatever the motive, it ends up at either they were corrupt or stupid, and we lost an incredibly promising person.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 10:37am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...
the judicial system has become a game.
No, the judicial system is simply a way of resolving disputes. Disputes between a government and its citizens, or between individual parties. While it should be about finding the truth, the best I can hope for is that it remains civil and fair. It is blindingly obvious that it was neither fair nor civil in this case. But it is not a game - and your characterization of it as such shows that you don't understand that it impacts the lives of real people. This is not abstraction.
Swartz knew what he was doing was illegal. He hid his face from security cameras because he knew his actions were unlawful.
Entering the wiring closet at MIT was illegal, yes. It was trespassing. Trespassing was not charged. As has been pointed out by lawyers and computer security experts, nothing else he did was illegal, and was at worst inconsiderate.
Aaron was extremely intelligent and understood technology and the protocols of the internet at a very fundamental level. If he thought his other actions were illegal, why didn't he cover his tracks? Why didn't he encrypt his laptop? Why did he hack into MIT's network via untraceable (or at least difficult to trace) proxies? All of these were well within his skills.
The fact that the only time he tried to hide himself was when he was trespassing into the wiring closet (and let me reiterate again that this was not charged) is very strong evidence that he didn't think his other actions were illegal.
And I never said there was no difference between 6 months and fifty years. I said that the difference didn't matter - taking away someone's rights for actions which were not wrong is wrong no matter the length of time.
Is the government taking away your right to freedom of speech because you're a lying sack of shit wrong if they only do it for a day?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jan 2013 @ 7:55am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...
Look, I'll be the first to say that the scope of the charges were bullshit. But that's the way the game is played.
That you see this as a game is horrendous. This was a human life. Not some game piece.
If you cannot see that, there is a word that describes you. It is sociopath.
Something people ought to consider BEFORE they do shit that can put them in harm's way.
If the charges against him are bullshit, then why would any rational person think doing what he did would put him in harm's way? Either you were lying when you said you thought the charges were bullshit, or you're lying here.
But at the end of the day, he was offered six months.
Six months or 50 years, it doesn't matter when what he did was not wrong.
So he has a felony conviction, BFD?
When what someone has done is not wrong, and the only party with any possible imaginary harm has urged the state to drop the case, taking away any of someone's rights is a big fucking deal. Unless you don't care about someone's rights, which you've made abundantly clear you don't.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:58am
Re: Re: Re: Avoiding litigation
If they do put the game up they are legally responsible for the content.
They are a service provider, and thus are not. By having this type of approval process, they make it far easier for someone to claim they are liable if something slips through.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 9:50am
Re: Well said indeed
While you and I may be difficult to offend, there are many who are thin skinned or feel threatened with ideas that differ from their own. Speech can be very powerful - the power to change minds and ideas. Those in power, especially the ones where their power is built on lies, are scared of speech that will erode that power.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 7:32am
Re: Re: Re:
And all of those charges were dismissed, because the government handled the case so badly - serious misconduct and illegal evidence gathering. Sound familiar?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jan 2013 @ 6:43am
Re:
I have seen some once good tech sites turn into PR outlets for their corporate owners (The Register comes to mind), but I have never considered either CNET or Ars to be in that category.
Although I'll need to take CNET of the list, Ars is still quality tech news - at least until there is evidence it isn't.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 11:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
You are attempting to play word games. I apolgize for being somewhat flippant in my first foray into this thread. Could we have a real honest discussion now?
Science can certainly prove that evolution is true. There are many completely independent lines of evidence supporting it. There's fossil evidence, geographical distribution of species, genetics and others that all point to the same conclusions. There is more direct evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection than for the theory of gravity, yet I don't see you attacking Newton's theory.
There is also evidence against the typical god that is preached from the pulpit and taught in Sunday school class, yet because the term 'god' is rarely defined in specific terms and means different things to different people, I cannot disprove all forms of a 'god' - I can only disprove some.
For example, a god that intercedes in the world based on intercessory prayer for the sick to be healed is a form of god where there have been significantly controlled studies. Those studies have proven that either such a god does not exist, or has chosen not to intercede when someone is attempting to prove it. This is a result where the absence of evidence where it should be present is evidence of absence.
There are some forms of a god that are consistently described that cannot be completely disproven. There is the deist form of a god, in which this god creates the universe and then lets it be for the rest of eternity, never looking into or altering it. While there is some evidence against this, as I previously mentioned the net energy density, it is not conclusively disproven. There is also a god sometimes referred to as a Cartesian demon - one in which actively interferes in every observation to keep itself hidden - and since science is based upon observation, this god cannot be disproven conclusively. Both of those types of god are extremely different from the typical answer you would get if you asked the average person to describe their god. Both also require explanations significantly more complicated than science's current understanding of the universe, so although I cannot conclusively disprove them, I am reasonably confident that they do not exist.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jan 2013 @ 8:03am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
When have I ever claimed otherwise? There is some compelling evidence - notably the net energy density of the universe being zero - look up physicist Victor Stenger for more info - but not sufficient proof, even for one such as myself who is reasonably confident that there is no god or gods.
Thanks for proving the point that you don't understand how science works, though.
On the post: Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Issa Promises Investigation Into Aaron Swartz Case
Re:
On the post: Former Chief Judge Of Patent Court: We Need To Strengthen, Not Weaken, The Patent System Because [Reasons]
IBM
I think that IBM is a perfect example of how patents are bad for innovation and the economy.
Over the past 20 years, IBM has been shedding jobs - and outsourcing the ones they have left. They have closed or sold off entire divisions. Their former manufacturing plants are empty and unused. Their offices are ghost towns and sit empty on the commercial real estate market.
IBM used to be a world leader in making new technology. Now the best they can do is try to support stuff that other people make with minimum wage contractors and outsourced call centers.
(Full disclosure - I worked for IBM for a few years and saw my own group (even though we were profitable) reduced and transferred to lower qualified people who offered lower quality service to the customer (who became fed up with it and in-sourced some former members of the team directly to come work for them). I'm not bitter - working there gave me valuable contacts that got me into the better positions that I have now. But to hold IBM up as some shining example shows how tragically out-of-touch with the real world that judge is.)
On the post: Beatles' First Single Enters Public Domain -- In Europe
Re: Re: Re: Re: No, it's not theft
Why are you fighting for the freedom of Africans in the American South, when many have escaped slavery and enjoy freedom in the North?
I know I'm getting close to a Godwin here, but that statement is absurd enough to give me some leeway, not to mention the links to trichordist.
On the post: 'Under American Law, Anyone Interesting Is A Felon' - Tim Wu On The Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz
F.T.S.
I go willingly and knowingly into that danger. Some of the things Aaron stood for are worth protecting, even at the cost of my life.
Here's an XKCD that sums it up pretty well.
http://xkcd.com/137/
On the post: Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank & Sold Child Porn & Faced Less Time In Prison
Re: "he wasn't going to get the max"
The prosecutors stood to gain. Maybe they wanted a promotion, and they need to show felony convictions. Maybe they have political ambitions and need to point to their "tough on crime" or "tough on white collar crime" to get elected. Maybe they wanted a case to point to against "those hacker kids" so they can get a job at a lobbyist firm for the copyright cartel.
Instead of looking at the facts, instead of being fair, instead of using discretion, there was some motive for them not to be reasonable. Whatever the motive, it ends up at either they were corrupt or stupid, and we lost an incredibly promising person.
On the post: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe
Earlier example
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...
No, the judicial system is simply a way of resolving disputes. Disputes between a government and its citizens, or between individual parties. While it should be about finding the truth, the best I can hope for is that it remains civil and fair. It is blindingly obvious that it was neither fair nor civil in this case. But it is not a game - and your characterization of it as such shows that you don't understand that it impacts the lives of real people. This is not abstraction.
Swartz knew what he was doing was illegal. He hid his face from security cameras because he knew his actions were unlawful.
Entering the wiring closet at MIT was illegal, yes. It was trespassing. Trespassing was not charged. As has been pointed out by lawyers and computer security experts, nothing else he did was illegal, and was at worst inconsiderate.
Aaron was extremely intelligent and understood technology and the protocols of the internet at a very fundamental level. If he thought his other actions were illegal, why didn't he cover his tracks? Why didn't he encrypt his laptop? Why did he hack into MIT's network via untraceable (or at least difficult to trace) proxies? All of these were well within his skills.
The fact that the only time he tried to hide himself was when he was trespassing into the wiring closet (and let me reiterate again that this was not charged) is very strong evidence that he didn't think his other actions were illegal.
And I never said there was no difference between 6 months and fifty years. I said that the difference didn't matter - taking away someone's rights for actions which were not wrong is wrong no matter the length of time.
Is the government taking away your right to freedom of speech because you're a lying sack of shit wrong if they only do it for a day?
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...
That you see this as a game is horrendous. This was a human life. Not some game piece.
If you cannot see that, there is a word that describes you. It is sociopath.
Something people ought to consider BEFORE they do shit that can put them in harm's way.
If the charges against him are bullshit, then why would any rational person think doing what he did would put him in harm's way? Either you were lying when you said you thought the charges were bullshit, or you're lying here.
But at the end of the day, he was offered six months.
Six months or 50 years, it doesn't matter when what he did was not wrong.
So he has a felony conviction, BFD?
When what someone has done is not wrong, and the only party with any possible imaginary harm has urged the state to drop the case, taking away any of someone's rights is a big fucking deal. Unless you don't care about someone's rights, which you've made abundantly clear you don't.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
On the post: The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be
Re: Re: Re: Avoiding litigation
They are a service provider, and thus are not. By having this type of approval process, they make it far easier for someone to claim they are liable if something slips through.
On the post: The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be
Re: Well said indeed
The pen is mightier than the sword.
On the post: Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?
Re: Re: Re: Your point #2 has always been a problem
Apologies to Gary Larson.
On the post: Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?
Re: Re: Re:
Is it asking too much to base your condemnation of a source on demonstrable evidence of bias?
On the post: Why Bob Woodward And His White House Sources Should Be On Trial Before Bradley Manning
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Handwriting Analysis For Secretaries Of The US Treasury
Re: Secretaries of the Treasury
Rosario Marin would be my choice.
On the post: Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award?
Re:
Although I'll need to take CNET of the list, Ars is still quality tech news - at least until there is evidence it isn't.
On the post: The Lesson Of 3D TV: For 4K TV, The Key Is The Implementation
Start with...
I have an idea. They should start with all those old films where the only copies are decaying in vaults and are at risk to being lost forever.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Science can certainly prove that evolution is true. There are many completely independent lines of evidence supporting it. There's fossil evidence, geographical distribution of species, genetics and others that all point to the same conclusions. There is more direct evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection than for the theory of gravity, yet I don't see you attacking Newton's theory.
There is also evidence against the typical god that is preached from the pulpit and taught in Sunday school class, yet because the term 'god' is rarely defined in specific terms and means different things to different people, I cannot disprove all forms of a 'god' - I can only disprove some.
For example, a god that intercedes in the world based on intercessory prayer for the sick to be healed is a form of god where there have been significantly controlled studies. Those studies have proven that either such a god does not exist, or has chosen not to intercede when someone is attempting to prove it. This is a result where the absence of evidence where it should be present is evidence of absence.
There are some forms of a god that are consistently described that cannot be completely disproven. There is the deist form of a god, in which this god creates the universe and then lets it be for the rest of eternity, never looking into or altering it. While there is some evidence against this, as I previously mentioned the net energy density, it is not conclusively disproven. There is also a god sometimes referred to as a Cartesian demon - one in which actively interferes in every observation to keep itself hidden - and since science is based upon observation, this god cannot be disproven conclusively. Both of those types of god are extremely different from the typical answer you would get if you asked the average person to describe their god. Both also require explanations significantly more complicated than science's current understanding of the universe, so although I cannot conclusively disprove them, I am reasonably confident that they do not exist.
On the post: Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Thanks for proving the point that you don't understand how science works, though.
Next >>