MIT faulted over its support for students • Hacker News Board

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#51

Post by angersock » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:39 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #45

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important advancements in the recent modern world haven't really been scientific in the traditional sense of "scientific advancement." The advancements of the last decade are more like engineering than pure scientific discovery. Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix. Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/am…

> Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix. Linux is a very advanced piece of engineering today, but much of that development was done by professionals hired by companies like IBM and Google. Also, I wouldn't conflate "hacker culture" with open source generally. I'm sure there is a lot of overlap, but I imagine that there are plenty of…

"Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space."

God I hope not!

There's very little reason that one should reflect the other.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#52

Post by harryh » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

xamuel wrote: post #38

rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to think whatever you want. This is about interfering with other peoples' property. Personally, I think people over-romanticize hacker culture in saying it's a key part of technological progress. Scientific advancement is a process that overwhelmingly happens purposefully, not through tinkering. It's DARPA funding defense contractors to invent TCP/IP, not some kids "learning" by breaking into other people…

A lot of the major game-changing breakthroughs result from tinkering. Feynman was already cited above; he attributes his Nobel-winning work to a silly question motivated by watching plates wobble in the cafeteria, or some such thing. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2698

And where was his salary coming from at the time?

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#53

Post by harryh » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 6:15 AM UTC

angersock wrote: post #51

rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix. Linux is a very advanced piece of engineering today, but much of that development was done by professionals hired by companies like IBM and Google. Also, I wouldn't conflate "hacker culture" with open source generally. I'm sure there is a lot of overlap, but I imagine that there are plenty of…

"Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space." God I hope not! There's very little reason that one should reflect the other.

So would you mind handing over your email password so I can go snooping around for a while? I'm not malicious and I won't delete or steal anything. I'd just like to read your private correspondence.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#54

Post by res0nat0r » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 6:58 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #46

tzs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MIT did the opposite in the Aaron Shwartz case, their conduct was in large part responsible for Ortiz & Heyman getting Aaron over a barrel of 30 years in the pokey Swartz was, if he rejected the plea bargain that would have given him a few months at most and went to trial and lost on all charges, looking at around 7 years at the extreme outside, tops, not 30. If you would like the detail on why this is so, take a l…

The feds tore apart his life. They forced his girlfriend to speak out against him. He couldn't trust anyone, his coworkers, the school. They were out for blood, his blood. You want a felony on your record? Say goodbye to financial aid, and look forward to explaining it to everyone that runs a background check on you - if you even get the chance to explain.

Maybe he shouldn't have repeatedly broken the law if he didn't want to deal with the consequences?

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#55

Post by res0nat0r » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 7:05 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #48

tsotha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world. >Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws. Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all…

>Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters. Wrong, on the most basic level. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...

Refocus on the third sentence...

Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.[3]

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#56

Post by tsotha » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 8:39 AM UTC

dalke wrote: post #49

omegaworks wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters. Wrong, on the most basic level. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...

Also wrong because in many states convicted felons are disenfranchised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite... . "As of 2010, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together block an estimated 5.9 million Americans from voting."

Well, thank God for that. Let me rephrase then: Everyone who isn't a complete and total loser gets to vote.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#57

Post by tsotha » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 8:42 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #47

tsotha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. >What about people like Edward Snowden? What about him? If the feds ever catch up with Snowden he'll go to jail, and that's where he belongs. >Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just. Justice is a subjective thing, and that's w…

>Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. [1] Laws are created by people - no, even worse: by committee. Do you think people who have committed no violence on others ought to be stripped of their education and opportunities? >The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else. This…

>Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development.

Great. When I want Lawrence Kohlburg's opinion I'll seek it out.

>This principle is violated time and time again by people in power.

If by "time and time again" you mean "rarely, in the great scheme of things".

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#58

Post by tsotha » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 8:42 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #46

tzs wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MIT did the opposite in the Aaron Shwartz case, their conduct was in large part responsible for Ortiz & Heyman getting Aaron over a barrel of 30 years in the pokey Swartz was, if he rejected the plea bargain that would have given him a few months at most and went to trial and lost on all charges, looking at around 7 years at the extreme outside, tops, not 30. If you would like the detail on why this is so, take a l…

The feds tore apart his life. They forced his girlfriend to speak out against him. He couldn't trust anyone, his coworkers, the school. They were out for blood, his blood. You want a felony on your record? Say goodbye to financial aid, and look forward to explaining it to everyone that runs a background check on you - if you even get the chance to explain.

So they treated him like a criminal? Do tell.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#59

Post by tsotha » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 8:45 AM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #21

rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to think whatever you want. This is about interfering with other peoples' property. Personally, I think people over-romanticize hacker culture in saying it's a key part of technological progress. Scientific advancement is a process that overwhelmingly happens purposefully, not through tinkering. It's DARPA funding defense contractors to invent TCP/IP, not some kids "learning" by breaking into other people…

> Personally, I think people over-romanticize hacker culture in saying it's a key part of technological progress. Scientific advancement is a process that overwhelmingly happens purposefully, not through tinkering. It's DARPA funding defense contractors to invent TCP/IP, not some kids "learning" by breaking into other peoples' property. It's hacker culture that created GNU/Linux (and lots of other free software), not…

Based entirely on work done by professionals at AT&T. Color me unimpressed.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#60

Post by dalke » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 12:13 PM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #56

dalke wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also wrong because in many states convicted felons are disenfranchised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite... . "As of 2010, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together block an estimated 5.9 million Americans from voting."

Well, thank God for that. Let me rephrase then: Everyone who isn't a complete and total loser gets to vote.

I find it very odd that a convicted felon in Kentucky is unable to vote, and considered a "total loser" by you, while someone who did the same crime in Maine has not lost the vote, and so is not a loser.

You can of course define "total loser" to include someone who has been disenfranchised, but that would be an unusual definition that seems deliberately constructed to misinform.