What I do not understand, is how a wireless connection to the public MIT network is so different from a wired one.
It feels like MIT should change their policy and specifically state, that wired connections to their network are Ok.
MIT President on Aaron Swartz
211–220 of 223 posts
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#21235 years in prison for getting access to articles in a library ? Human race is yet to evolve. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#213The university does, what makes sense for a university to do. They do an analysis, and produce a report. What I hope happens afterward is that MIT take in the report and create meaningful changes. This however is not in the nature of universities and is where the challenge will be if MIT want to learn from this tragedy.
What is your basis for saying MIT never changes?
I never said MIT never changes, I said changes are not in the nature of universities, and I base it on a comment made by a professor in law history in Columbia law school.
A university is an institution that tries to teach young people the wisdom of the old. It has always resisted quick changes. If one need an example, one can take a look on how long time it took to adapt electronic aids in classes outside computer science. An other fact is that universities has previously been a place unique with having access to high amount of books (information). This is no longer unique for universities, but many aspects of universities still work as if the main purpose of a university is easy access to a library.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#214Well done Aaron Swartz, now rinse and repeat, if necessary.
Some deaths provide a lot of information to others.
Lets not hang upon death as some sort of bad turn of event >:)
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the fact that someone is capable of disparaging a human being who has passed away and is incapable of self-defence, or the fact that some people apparently agree with the diatribe as witnessed by the upvotes. I don't know about you nor can I or will I speak on the behalf of the real Mr. Swartz, but I've thrown away plenty of opportunities, made plenty of mistakes and done tons of…
Dying does not give you immunity from criticism.
"Dying does not give you immunity from criticism."
Sigh... what about compassion? Are you yourself immune from it?
Is there not even the smallest space in your heart for even a modicum of compassion at this time for parents who have lost a son? For an utterly heart-broken and grieving family? For friends who have lost a colleague? For our very community itself?
Search the fibers of your soul: is this caustic vitriol the only thing of substance that you can find within you? Can you not muster even the smallest warmth of compassion for others who are suffering?
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actually have anything that actually addresses my points?
You don't have any points, just bile.
I disagree. The post contradicts a lot of what we've been told were this man's accomplishments:
- He didn't found Reddit
- He didn't invent RSS
- He did more than just download too many JSTOR articles
Until I read that post, I believed all of those things, as that is what I have read so far.
Speaking ill of the dead isn't classy, but facts are sacred.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#217Sorry but as far as i can tell from reading about this guy his main area of expertise seemed to be throwing away the opportunities that kept chasing him and i find it hard to see why he's held up as such a hero/martyr. First, he didn't create the RSS single-handledly for us. He was part of a committee of about a dozen people that took over RSS from Netscape when they didn't support it anymore. Admittedly that's impre…
I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the fact that someone is capable of disparaging a human being who has passed away and is incapable of self-defence, or the fact that some people apparently agree with the diatribe as witnessed by the upvotes. I don't know about you nor can I or will I speak on the behalf of the real Mr. Swartz, but I've thrown away plenty of opportunities, made plenty of mistakes and done tons of…
> I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the fact that someone is capable of disparaging a human being who has passed away and is incapable of self-defence, or the fact that some people apparently agree with the diatribe as witnessed by the upvotes.
The parent article post is dead - it's been clearly demonstrated that this man has a great deal of people on the internet capable of defending him after death.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#218While it's painful that this is happening now and not a year ago, I'm heartened that Hal is heading the internal investigation. I can't imagine anyone better. He was a major supporter of Star Simpson when most of the MIT administration hung her out to dry. He has as good a chance as anyone at understanding Aaron's goals in liberating JSTOR's archive: he's a founding director of the FSF, Creative Commons, and Public K…
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." -- Hal Abelson.
... coming from someone with a life long career as a teacher and thesis advisor.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I intended to up vote this (downvoted by accident as I am reading on my phone)
I up voted it to cancel your accidental down vote. I have never understood why HN does not let people change a mistaken vote.
Stackoverflow comes close to the same thing, with big warnings if you change your vote that you can only do it once. Maybe it's to prevent us from saying "I liked your comment" and then realizing tomorrow you said something offensive and going back and downvoting all your comments out of spite.
I guess. Doesn't seem worth it, but it's the best I got.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post. We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?
If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot? I'm confused about this too.
Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be huge civil rights issues. A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's head.
Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.