41–50 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively, to avoid labeling the JSTOR downloads as a hack, which has different connotations for Harpers' readers and the public in general as it does here.
It definitely wasn't a "hack", though I wouldn't call it a prank either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right? If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right? If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right? If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…
This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable a…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common, almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are problems with it. In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it. A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injur…
I agree with your point, but treating the symptom must be done in such a way that the problem is still seen to be a problem. Another case in point was when the banking collapse hit, 'leaders' blamed things like 'excess greed' and so on, and dodged the real problem (IMHO). I'm afraid of throwing Ortiz to the wolves, washing our hands and saying, "Well, that's that."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable a…
Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something. The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.
There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).