61–70 of 133 posts
His crime was scraping a website. The accusers killed an innocent man for violating Terms of Service. Who's the real criminal here? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-...
His crime was scraping a website. The accusers killed an innocent man for violating Terms of Service. Who's the real criminal here? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-...
The prosecutors were in the wrong, but they did not kill him.
When I heard what happened I was angry more than anything, and it reminded me to not take progress for granted.
I hesitate to bring this up because it'll probably sound more like criticism than a heads up, and I definitely mean it just as a heads up:
It was very jarring to get to the end of the post and have it followed up by "You should follow me on Twitter." I checked another post and it looks like it's just the footer on the blog, but without that knowledge it jumps out at you.
What did SOPA have to do with Net Neutrality?
No net neutrality: Big companies will be able to afford paying to ISPs to get into "fast lanes", smaller companies will not.
SOPA: Big companies will be able to afford scanning user generated content for piracy, smaller companies will not.
End result is pretty much the same.
Fun fact: For a little while she wanted to run for Governor of Massachusetts (good grief!), but the past of butchered prosecution of Mr. Swartz hunted her and she changes her mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz#Prosecution_of_Aa...
Ortiz continued to pursue the case, comparing Swartz’s transgression to that of a common thief. The lead prosecutor on the case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, compared Swartz to a rapist who had “revictimized” MIT by not taking a plea bargain, according to a later MIT investigation. Heymann was also bothered that Swartz launched a “wild Internet campaign” in his own defense. (He had not done so.) https://w…
Just in case it ever comes to this, if I die, it was NOT a suicide. RIP Aaron, I wish I knew you.
This is a reasonable statement to want to make, but (with a vanishingly small number of exceptions), suicide is not a choice. It's the result of depression combined with loss of inhibition (due to stress, chemical imbalance, or other factors). Your rational state of mind now has no bearing on whether you are capable of taking your own life under certain circumstances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't see why all the scientific paper publishing stuff is allowed to work in the way that it does. I mean, don't a large % of the people doing that research use funding from government grants? If public money was used to produce the research, then the public should have free and available access to it -- we already paid for it.
Ostensibly you are not paying Elsevier to access the research, you are paying them because they obtained the right to copy the paper. That's the loophole that many of the writers use to publish pre-prints from their own homepages. That did not stop the publishers from suing them: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/elsevier-versus-open-access
Just in case it ever comes to this, if I die, it was NOT a suicide. RIP Aaron, I wish I knew you.
I don't consider Aaron's death a suicide, either. It was not exactly a Magnitsky-style beaten-in-prison death, but overly-zealous prosecutors trying to "make an example" of him had more to do with his death than mental illness. Note what happened, in that context, when someone who was not an American political activist did what criminal prosecutors were going after Aaron for: https://www.sciencealert.com/this-woman-h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a reasonable statement to want to make, but (with a vanishingly small number of exceptions), suicide is not a choice. It's the result of depression combined with loss of inhibition (due to stress, chemical imbalance, or other factors). Your rational state of mind now has no bearing on whether you are capable of taking your own life under certain circumstances.
I'm sorry, but then nothing is a choice. This may technically be true, but it's no way to think.
Although I confess I have only read the first chapter or so, the book sets out to convince its readers that many of the things that can go wrong in the human brain ought not to be thought of as bad choices so much as automobiles in need of a part replacement (this metaphor rings true today in the case of, say, depression, which can often be remedied with pharmaceuticals). This may sound rather weak (especially from the point of a prosecutor [1]), but when looking at the details, it starts to make sense in a lot of cases.
For example: in the middle ages, what do you think people thought schizophrenia was?