Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

aaronsw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 183 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#101

Post by [deleted] »

xk_id wrote: post #54
mtraven wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might win the prize for most ignorant comment ever on HN. While you can level a number of criticisms at Chomsky, lack of mathematical rigor is not one of them. I would assume people here were If anything, Chomsky is guilty of over-reliance on mathematical formalism in his linguistics.

well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathem…

[deleted]

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#102

Post by xk_id »

CR45H wrote: post #91
xk_id wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathem…

Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.

Duly noted! The lecture is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#103

Post by grandalf »

DigitalJack wrote: post #37

I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food, etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not. If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm m…

People who disagree with Chomsky usually characterize his views as this review does, as blind, wholesale demonization of the United States.

Chomsky's views are in fact the ultimate form of patriotism. he expects more of our nation and isn't sentimentally attached to the kind of hero and "good guy" stories that so many people need in order to be able to sleep at night.

Anyone who truly cares about America will read as much Chomsky as they can and will take action to make the US live by the values that supposedly guide its existence. There are some very inspiring things about the US, but also a very ugly side that much effort is undertaken to hide from view.

So please watch Manufacturing Consent with an open mind and observe the incredible patriot Chomsky for a while before you have the knee-jerk reaction that the reviewer would like you to have.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#104

Post by cdavid »

DigitalJack wrote: post #37

I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food, etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not. If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm m…

While there are many reasons to be careful when reading Chomsky, his description of the rationales/causes of 'war of terror' are quite consensual. They are actually boringly consensual, and it says quite a lot that they are not considered as such.

Thinking in term of good and evil is useless when thinking about world affairs. The US did not spend 100 of billions of $ and 1000s of dead American soldiers for Afghan Women rights (they had no trouble financing/helping the mujahideen when they were fighting against USSR). While the human rights situation in Afghanistan was (is) appealing, the US have no trouble supporting Saudi Arabia, whose record is significantly worse than Iran. The reasons for this situation are painfully obvious.

While terror acts on American are not US' fault, or 'deserved', they are certainly an expected consequence from the US actions (and their allies) in certains areas of the world. Particularly, it was a well known risk when the USA became more involved in Afghanistan in the late 70ies that it could have some bad consequences: it was deemed a worthwhile risk for USSR containment. I unfortunately can't find any reference right now, but there are top foreign advisers on record saying that 11th September was an acceptable price to pay to have contained the USSR 15-20 years before.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#105

Post by polshaw »

javert wrote: post #57
fghh45sdfhr3 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His presumption here is that if the United States changes its behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact, want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. First, It is not the US's fault it got attacked, Gandhi changed British foreign policy with peaceful protests. The terrorists chose…

The analysis of Islamic terrorism in the Amazon review is not wrong. Nor is it wrong to say that Bin Laden explicitly blamed his 9/11 attack on US foreign policy in the Middle East. They are both true and compatible. Chomsky presumes that the US and US foreign policy are evil, when in fact the US is good and US foreign policy is often seriously mistaken (but not evil), with occasional evil individuals in leadership a…

>Chomsky presumes that the US and US foreign policy are evil

Tending towards an anarchist position, he presumes all concentrated power is bad. On what metric is the US government and foreign policy (like any) a clear, unequivocal 'good'? Take Vietnam for example. You seem to have enough issues yourself with overarching, expanding state power, but think these issues stop at the border?

But Chomsky has never called the US, it's government, or it's foreign policy 'evil'. Care to refute a position he has actually taken?. I don't believe he has any bias against the US, it obviously attracts most attention because of it's place as the world's current superpower (and as such holds the most power too).

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#106

Post by Tichy »

DigitalJack wrote: post #37

I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food, etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not. If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm m…

Most people choose the blue pill, a ka it seems Chomsky is not for everyone.

It seems easy to debunk that whole criticism, but what is the point. People believe what they want to believe (which is what benefits them to believe).

Just an example: Islamic Terrorists. Of course fanatics want to kill everybody in the western world or whatever. The question is however, why do people become fanatics. Think about it...

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#108

Post by jonny_eh »

gruseom wrote: post #93
zby wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely convincing. I personally prefer Falkenstein as my Chomsky critic: The spread is a debating tactic where you present a set of supporting arguments so wide and particular your opponents are unable to rebut them all because 1) they have day jobs and 2) they have limited space or time to address them in any particular forum. A champion spreader is Noam Chomsky, who selectively recites facts of world history…

Well that's a new one: the evidence he cites is so voluminous and wide-ranging, there must be something wrong with him.

The problem is the amount, it's the fact that it's wide-spread (i.e. horizontal) but when you examine deeply any one piece you find it to be quite weak, i.e. shallow.

It's a similar technique used by conspiracy theorists and Creationists.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#110

Post by jackpirate »

jacquesm wrote: post #95
jackpirate wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind sharing your experience? I like collecting other people's CO stories, and I've never heard of another computer nerd doing it. If you prefer privacy, my email is mike@izbicki.me. The NY Times did a write up on my court case: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p... ), and I've written up some of the testimony from my hearing on my own blog ( http://izbicki.me/blog/category/relig…

hey Mike, I don't mind, it's long ago and I'm not at all ashamed about it. In the Netherlands, where I was born lots of people were doing it. There was the threat of jail time and there was a bunch of military police sent to pick up people to force them into the army. Lots went to prison or were forced to do a replacement service. I managed to stay ahead of them for quite long but I did have a regular place to stay s…

Thanks. That's the main thing that bothers me about the military too.
Post reply on HN