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

121–130 of 183 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#121

Post by grandalf »

neotek wrote: post #116
grandalf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Al Franken describes it best in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them : "They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do, but in a differenct way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. [We] love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good…

President Obama's war on whistleblowers is generally an attempt to silence the stories that present the US in an unflattering (though true) light. Just mentioning this in case anyone thinks that Franken's quote indicates that the mainstream left actually shares Chomsky's principled stance.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#122

Post by [deleted] »

grandalf wrote: post #103
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 a…

[deleted]

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#123

Post by hackerblues »

CR45H wrote: post #78
hackerblues wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?

The public does in fact own the country's nuclear arsenal. The nuclear arsenal is purely defensive and to be used only in the direst of circumstances in the defense of the nation (i.e. the public). No one individual or group of people has the right to use our nuclear arsenal to enrich themselves. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you're not making a lot of sense. Perhaps you could try to explain you…

[BACKGROUND INFORMATION]

When a person makes a claim like "All X's are Y's" then it is sufficient to provide a single example of an X which isn't a Y to demonstrate that the claim is false. The example is referred to as a counter example.

[THE CONTEXT]

The most reasonable interpretation of the previous commenter which I could identify was:

"When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for...[but it is expect that] the public that paid for it, [must] pay more and more [to use it]."

To restate this in the counterexample language

(1) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public owns]'

(2) 'All [things which the public owns] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'

Which combine to produce the claim

(3) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'

with "knowledge" being one of the things which the public pays for and so "knowledge" being one of the things which the people should be able to freely access and use.

[MY ARGUMENT]

In order to demonstrate the flaw in this claim as just presented#, I brought up nuclear weapons as a counter example. It is an instance of something which the public pays for but of which the public shouldn't have free access to and use of.

[MY POINT]

In order to maintain the truth of the claim the previous commenter must show that my example is not a counter example by arguing that the public should have access to/use of nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, they can agree that the claim as presented is false, and then perhaps provide a different argument for the conclusion that 'the public should get use of the knowledge created.'

---

I hope this clarifies the point which I am trying to make. Regretfully, the hyperbolic inclusion of nuclear weapons plays a key role my argument and so I did not remove it.

---

# I acknowledge that my interpretation of the claim may not have been what the author intended. Statement (1) seems to be strongly implied by the author, but (2) is inferred. The role of the questions in my original reply was to draw out a precise explanation of what ownership entails. But certainly in the case of "knowledge" the person want to be able to access and use the knowledge.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#124

Post by hackerblues »

BrokenPipe wrote: post #73
hackerblues wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?

You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property. They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.

My argument is that the public paying for a thing is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the public should have use of that thing.

Since knowledge creation and nuclear weapons are both examples of things which the public pays for, I defend the comment as it stands. The distinction between IP and physical property does not enter into the claim.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#125

Post by rooshdi »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
neilk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you judge Chomsky by his fans, it is easy to dismiss him as a conspiracy theorist. That's not what he's doing. He's presenting another view of the world where, even in a free and democratic society, the media has institutional, structural weaknesses that cause it to serve power. To amplify certain messages, and attenuate others. It's an attempt to explain how a free society could have committed such atrocities as…

> Nowadays everyone is aware of how badly the media is failing the public. I so hope that you are right about that one.

Here's a recent survey that shows the media's credibility has dropped in the double digits over the past decade:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/further-decline-in-cr...

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#126

Post by CR45H »

xk_id wrote: post #102
CR45H wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Thanks... The video was hilarious but the dude is truly insane. I assure you that, whether you agree or disagree with him, Chomsky has absolutely nothing in common with this guy. Wow! If any other Romanian is reading this, check out that video. After a couple minutes you won't know whether you should laugh or you should cry.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#127

Post by twoodfin »

neilk wrote: post #24
Jun8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your glasses analogy is interesting but I think is misleading, in that it assumes there's a correct way to view things. This approach is one of the major problems I have with Chomsky and other writers like him, i.e. "you have been duped by the (mostly US) media, the military-industrial complex, by the secret powers that may be; here is the real truth about matters". Rather than being presented as the truth, these opi…

If you judge Chomsky by his fans, it is easy to dismiss him as a conspiracy theorist. That's not what he's doing. He's presenting another view of the world where, even in a free and democratic society, the media has institutional, structural weaknesses that cause it to serve power. To amplify certain messages, and attenuate others. It's an attempt to explain how a free society could have committed such atrocities as…

Per Chomsky, suckered into both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.

It would help Chomsky's case a lot if he identified a post-WW2 "good war". Does he think intervening in Korea was a good idea?

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#128

Post by CR45H »

javert wrote: post #53
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…

I pretty much agree with this analysis, minus the dig against atheism. I haven't read Chomsky in detail, but this seems to be an accurate description of what he claims on the surface (e.g. in public interviews). It seems likely that hatemongerers like Chomsky were an influence in leading to Aaron Schwarz's eventual suicide. I apologize for the insensitivity towards Aaron here, but it seems worth saying.

It seems likely that you are an imbecile. Thanks for letting everyone know that you agree with everything the review says about Chomsky despite the fact that you haven't actually read Chomsky.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#129

Post by beagle3 »

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…

> The thing that bugs me about the military and this is something that I really don't understand is the blind obedience expected of the soldiers

There is a level in which it is expected; and at that level, the soldiers are basically pawns in a game, and the only reason they have not been replaced by robots is that we're not sufficiently advanced technologically.

At a higher level (how much higher depends on country and branch), you're actually expected to think, although not to disagree often.

As a corporal, I routinely told my (several level up in the chain of command) lieutenant colonel that, (respectfully and less respectfully), he is talking nonsense, and as long as I was able to substantiate it (I was), it was accepted as criticism. It didn't work as well with his superior (a colonel) - I got listened to once, and basically told to not do that again. Yes, I got to talk to these people often -- as in daily and at least monthly respectively.

But that depends on the culture of the army and branch you end up with - in many places, any individual thinking before you reach captain is reprimanded. I was lucky to be somewhere where it was usually merit that was judged, rather than seniority.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#130

Post by gruseom »

jonny_eh wrote: post #108
gruseom wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've had occasion to examine "any one piece" a few times and found Chomsky's citations to hold up quite well. This sort of criticism has been around as long as he's been publishing on politics and is almost invariably completely determined by pre-existing ideology.
Post reply on HN