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

Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 266 posts

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#141

Post by cjbprime »

cdash wrote: post #133
cjbprime wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the maximum reasonable spend to catch a bomber, for an efficient force? $1M? $100k? The US has a "value of a statistical life"[1] of around $7M, and they had already killed 4 people and injured over a hundred more, so $50M seems like it would be very easily justified. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

I would have to include the economical cost of shutting down a city for an entire day in the cost of the operation as well, I am not sure what that would be though.

Obviously it depends on the GDP of the city -- in this case, perhaps we could ballpark $100M.

I'm not sure this adequately captures it, though; the bombers are said to have talked in front of their carjacking victim about planning to escape to NYC. Shouldn't we include some expected value term of the cost of shutting down NYC, in case they moved there and had to be hunted there too? Seems like the entire country/world has an interest in seeing them caught here.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#142

Post by Thrymr »

Spooky23 wrote: post #61
ck2 wrote: post #4

It took hundreds of police and probably millions of dollars to catch a teenager who didn't even bother to leave the area or go into hiding - and even TWEETED after the event. If we were attacked by real, organized terrorists, we are screwed. I really do not get all the celebration and back-patting, it's disturbing. Oh and while this huge distraction was going on - no background checks for guns, the most basic bill fa…

I guess that it is easy to opine from afar when you have no skin in the game. The government has an obligation to protect public safety, and madmen on the loose shooting policemen and tossing bombs out car windows certainly qualifies as a public safety event. I suppose if Mr. Stallman's home or office were to catch fire, we shouldn't paralyze the immediate area with noisy fire trucks. The background check issue is a…

Afar? The MIT police officer was killed outside Stallman's building.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#143

Post by rdouble »

m_myers wrote: post #138
rdouble wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.

Disclaimer: the following text is written for non-American readers. If you are in fact an American and your statement was simply hyperbole, feel free to ignore. America isn't the wild west. We value our right to keep and bear arms, but not that many people actually carry weapons with them. Most gun owners keep their guns at home. The best numbers I could find [1] indicate 8 million active concealed carry permits; so…

Where I grew up everyone had a shotgun and/or a deer rifle in their truck. I guess I wasn't equating being armed with having a concealed carry permit.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#144

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

Anechoic wrote: post #107
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #31

Boston authorities grossly over-reacted when they were attacked by the Cartoon Network too. So I'm not surprised to see how they handled a real terrorism event. I'm just relieved that they haven't managed to kill any bystanders. I hope people apply some scrutiny to what's happened here. Two amateur terrorist/griefers shut Boston down for days, caused the police to impose a de-facto martial law type curfew. If there a…

Boston authorities grossly over-reacted when they were attacked by the Cartoon Network too Prosecuting the marketing guys for a "hoax" device? Yeah, that was an overreaction. The actual police response response? They shut down the roadway, removed the devices, and reopened the roads. That was an entirely appropriate response. And no, that wasn't a "9/11 changed everything response" - in my occupation (acoustical cons…

The actual police response response? They shut down the roadway, removed the devices, and reopened the roads. That was an entirely appropriate response. And no, that wasn't a "9/11 changed everything response" - in my occupation (acoustical consulting) we often leave equipment in the field for long-term data collection. I've heard stories going back to the 1980's about consultants going back to retrieve their equipment only to find the bomb squad had been called. As such, it's always been good practice to a) get permission/inform the property owner about what you're doing, and b) leave contact information on the equipment so someone with questions can call/email you. The ATHF marketers did neither, and I'm not surprised authorities freaked.

Even after it was obvious that the Mooninite devices were harmless, they persisted in the charade with all the melodrama they could muster. I'm sure they wanted the devices removed, it would have been a potent embarrassment for them. As for asking permission and leaving contact information, yeah, bad form on their part, but still no reason for hamming it up the way they did.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Bolyston St on Monday after the bombing was shut down, but that was pretty much going to happen anyway because of the giant marathon that was happening there. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were normal days. Because of the events that occurred late Thursday night/Friday morning, most of Boston was shut down for much of Friday, but normal operations started up around 6pm (before the manhunt was over). Given that the suspects were engaging in gun fights and had a propensity for using explosives, asking folks to stay in for 12 hours (we're not talking martial law here) is not an undue burden.

Fair enough, I'm far from Boston. The news coverage has been getting a lot of mileage out of the "lockdown" as they call it. I did hear one interview of a person being held at gunpoint for some time who was merely trying to return home.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#145

Post by acabal »

magic5227 wrote: post #34
acabal wrote: post #29

As unfeeling as his statement might sound, he's entirely correct. I told a family member today that the saddest thing about this whole Boston incident isn't the (still very sad and senseless) loss of life and limb, but that it's undoubtedly going to be used as an excuse to further degrade civil rights nationwide in the coming years, to continue to justify state-sponsored human suffering like Guantanamo, and to furthe…

except we havent seen this, so let's focus on the loss and talk about this when we see a disproportionate response

I don't know, haven't we? An entire city shut down, militarized police systematically searching wide swaths of civilian homes, all to look for a guy who caused fewer deaths than a botched bank robbery, a highway pileup, or a hospital MRSA outbreak? Focusing on the loss is fine and appropriate but it's precisely when we focus elsewhere that we lose sight of how utterly over-the-top some of our societal reactions are and will continue to be.

I've been in Colombia when some government buildings were destroyed by FARC bombs. People died, each one was a tragedy, but cities weren't shut down and society didn't let itself be overcome with fear. That's not to say they accepted that violence as OK; but the response was (and continues to be, as the FARC are still sometimes active here) very different.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#146

Post by [deleted] »

pekk wrote: post #140
tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

If you know that people will die, but are simply indifferent to it, the difference between that and actively wishing to murder is at least arguably academic. You are killing people with your choices in either case.

[deleted]

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#147

Post by sk5t »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #104
rdouble wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.

I said generally. Also, even with someone who religiously carries a gun as much as possible it would be unusual for them to carry a full-sized duty pistol and the ammunition that most cops do (stereotypically a Glock 22 w/ a 15 round magazine and 2+ additional magazines, a total of 45 or more rounds). Certainly some folks do but I'd doubt that number is even in the double digits throughout the entire US, excluding of…

Double magazine pouches for concealed carry are not exactly a niche product. I would wager there are tens of thousands of Americans who pack a medium frame pistol and two spare mags.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#148

Post by D9u »

kanda wrote: post #101
tkahn6 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really surprising or disappointing it took 'so long'? I think your understanding of how easy it is to locate people is influenced by fiction and dramatization. One man is tiny compared to an entire city. What can you realistically do if that man decides to hide in a covered boat in someone's yard?

Pretty much what they did. Overwhelming force. That's how the justice system is supposed to work. The problem is that these kids were "organized" after a fashion. They were muslims, discontent, and grabbed up by some radical muslim and told that massacring random americans is the way to heaven. They're very unlikely to be the only ones that believe so. And what choice is there but to move against whatever persons and…

One could just as easily quote Biblical passages which promote violence as one might from the Qur'an.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#149

Post by potatolicious »

pekk wrote: post #140
tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

If you know that people will die, but are simply indifferent to it, the difference between that and actively wishing to murder is at least arguably academic. You are killing people with your choices in either case.

This is the precise attitude GP is railing against.

Are you seriously tabling the notion that "gee, hundreds of Americans will die in car accidents today, oh well" is even in the same universe as "gee, I think I should drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd"?

The difference here is as wide as the ocean, it is anything but academic.

And this is why some arguments cannot be taken seriously. No one is saying that car accidents, heart disease, and cancer shouldn't be Big Deals, but to say that being idle in these matters is tantamount to mass murder is how you get people to stop taking you seriously.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#150

Post by u2328 »

bane wrote: post #110
thedufer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think any sane person could, in good faith, come to that conclusion after reading this. His point is that we don't do things like walk around in Hazmat suits to avoid diseases because that would be completely absurd, so why isn't it more absurd to shut down an entire major city for hours over a threat that is orders of magnitude less dangerous?

No, walking around in Hazmat suits would be completely rational. Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event. Flu is the 9th leading cause of death in the U.S. A Hazmat suit is a perfect and completely rational barrier that completely eliminates that issue from your life - it's better and more full pro…

You're taking RMS's statement out of context. His point was that we not allow fear to overwhelm our senses so that we trade individual rights for security in police states, saying:

"Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny."

You're picking out his statement of proportionality as some sort of logical flaw in his argument, but you're completely missing the main point.

Post reply on HN