Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#211

Post by reader5000 » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:25 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #201

bane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

This is inexcusable, this is madness. So, you're worried more about a few dead people rather than all those people you never heard of dying in hospitals, in motor accidents, and other cause of death? They are someone's aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, etc. Maybe we should connect our emotion to the logic rather than the other way around.

So the logical thing is to ignore mass murderers until their body counts approach deaths from cancer.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#212

Post by tiredofcareer » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:28 AM UTC

reader5000 wrote: post #211

kiba wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is inexcusable, this is madness. So, you're worried more about a few dead people rather than all those people you never heard of dying in hospitals, in motor accidents, and other cause of death? They are someone's aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, etc. Maybe we should connect our emotion to the logic rather than the other way around.

So the logical thing is to ignore mass murderers until their body counts approach deaths from cancer.

The trap is applying logic to being human, when humans are illogical by our very nature. kiba is doing it, and your poignant extrapolation of that logic demonstrates why we "can't think through this one, we have to feel it," as the film quote goes. She was right in that scene and the observation equally applies here, just with slightly different antagonists for the discussion.

Too many engineering types try to apply logic and data analysis to the human experience and it just doesn't make sense. You can't meaningfully talk about death in numbers unless you are counting deaths.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#213

Post by pcvarmint » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:31 AM UTC

I think RMS raises some good points. The response is out of proportion, just as in the Chris Dorner, Randy Weaver, and Branch Davidian cases. There seems to be a mob mentality looking for a small number of suspects to blame "easily" to explain our societal problems, and then everyone's efforts are directed towards lynching those suspects, as if it will rid the world of evil. It merely kicks the can down the road, without addressing real issues.

Other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579687

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#214

Post by Glyptodon » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:32 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #181

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…

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

Quite honestly your admitted emotional swings suggest that you are the one closer to the animal state. Anyone infected by excess emotion is essentially unsuitable as an analyst or arbiter regardless of how immediately salient the circumstance.

Any policy overly informed by an animalistic emotional driver instead of proceeding from some sort of logical principal can't be taken seriously.

I've noticed Easterners often can't deal with life at an easy pace while remaining comfortable with the minuscule nature of their existence and thus have trouble living relaxed lives.

Every incident like this illustrates it. If a cartel bombed a motor-home in New Mexico or something there'd be none of this brouhaha because Southwesterners live with open horizons under a sea of stars and can take a step back and don't need to feel validated by trying to rouse the whole country to a frenzy.

Plus it would be far removed from the self-centered self-important East Coast rush where the obvious route to increased salience seems to be requiring a different outfit for everything.

Please stop clutching fear and start reaching towards increased animacy.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#215

Post by danielweber » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:32 AM UTC

wavesounds wrote: post #71

Carmen Ortiz (Same DA who prosecuted Aaron Swartz) said that because of some public safety exemption loophole they didn't read him his maranda rights.

This doesn't make sense. Cops don't have to read Miranda to you when they arrest you. It's just that anything you say following arrest and prior to Miranda is not admissible in a court of law.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#216

Post by indrax » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:34 AM UTC

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…

That's not how Logic works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#217

Post by marknutter » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:35 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #181

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…

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you responded so emotionally to these terrorist attacks and not the fertilizer explosion.

Is it the loss of life? There was tragic loss of life in both instances.

Is it the presence of a human instigator? Or maybe the presence of evil? Are terrorists somehow a greater threat than fertilizer explosions because they are supposed to be rational, sentient actors? Are they representative of all that is wrong with humanity? Why are they more threatening than any of the myriad dangers lurking around every corner in this world? I genuinely want to know.

Maybe the very fact that these types of terrorist attacks are so infrequent is what scares us the most. They are met with such a media circus that it's very hard for us not to react in a visceral way.

Or perhaps the scariest part about them is that it represents a breakdown in what we consider decent. The more normal the terrorist or mass-shooter ends up being the more scared we tend to be. By all accounts, these kids were popular, intelligent, handsome young men. And yet within a very short span of time they were radicalized and capable of committing these attacks. That scares us to our core, even though its frequency is so small it should be considered mathematically insignificant.

We desperately want our terrorists to be caricatures of every evil villain we've ever seen. That makes it easier to deal with. Of course they would blow people up, they're evil! The truth is, these types of events, although caused by humans, are no more explainable than tornadoes, lightning strikes, hurricanes, earthquakes, or any other natural disaster we have no control over. Fertilizer plant explosions, on the other hand, we feel like we can prevent, and so they are not accompanied by emotion, fear, and vengeance. But trying to prevent the radicalization of every single youth on the planet is no different than trying to hold a tsunami at bay with a bucket.

RMS is not being a sociopath, he's analyzing an emotional situation in an unemotional way. It doesn't mean he's dangerous, or an asshole, or incapable of relating to other human beings. It means he's logical and not prone to lapses in judgement due to heightened emotional responses.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#218

Post by tiredofcareer » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:38 AM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #217

bane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you responded so emotionally to these terrorist attacks and not the fertilizer explosion. Is it the loss of life? There was tragic loss of life in both instances. Is it the presence of a human instigator? Or maybe the presence of evil? Are terrorists somehow a greater threat than fertilizer explosions because they are supposed to be rational, sentient actors? Are they represent…

It's interesting that you wrote that in reply to bane but not me, when a couple of your points specifically call out things that I wrote. Why is that?

Is it because I made the same point without emotion, and he's just a little more wrapped up in it? (Not being snarky, genuinely curious.)

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#219

Post by reader5000 » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:39 AM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #217

bane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. RMS, like any intelligent sentient being is capable of thinking complex thoughts and making good points. But I rail against his thoughtlessness. His constant... sociopathy ...it's why he's ineffective in getting his views across, why he treats people like automatons (well documented) and why he's plain and simply put, "not a good person". I never put it in these terms before, I just always felt "skeeved ou…

Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you responded so emotionally to these terrorist attacks and not the fertilizer explosion. Is it the loss of life? There was tragic loss of life in both instances. Is it the presence of a human instigator? Or maybe the presence of evil? Are terrorists somehow a greater threat than fertilizer explosions because they are supposed to be rational, sentient actors? Are they represent…

I don't work at a fertilizer plant. I do go out in public.

For how many people are the above statements both true?

Now, what is more rational to be concerned about?

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#220

Post by CurtMonash » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:40 AM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #63

CurtMonash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had a helicopter that could detect infrared, which indeed sufficed to find him under the boat, why wasn't that already deployed to look into shed, boats, etc. around the neighborhood? (Including outside the main perimeter.) I doubt the reason was 4th Amendment scruples.

I think you'd need to equip the helicopter with precision grid-flying software/hardware such as is in SAR aircraft and Crop Dusters. FLIR can indeed see "through" some things, but the successful FLIR uses that you see on youtube and TV are usually cases where the pilot has a very small area to search. A comprehensive search of more than a few blocks would need multiple craft and lots of fuel. I agree that the authori…

I wasn't suggesting an exhaustive search of, say, a 20-100 block area.

I was suggesting a search of a prioritized list -- initially based on visual examination of aerial photographs -- of sheds, boats, and other simple structures in the area.