Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts(pastebin.com)
pastebin.com
Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
http://pastebin.com/DVysCXPj
36 comments
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 failed.
But several senators were quick to voice their desire for no miranda rights.
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 failed.
But several senators were quick to voice their desire for no miranda rights.
Oh and while this huge distraction was going on - no background checks or database for guns.
Background checks are already required for almost all gun sales, including ones at gun-shows. This whole discussion is a red-herring. And what the f%!# good do you think a "database for guns" is going to do? You think the terrorists buy their guns over the counter, with legit IDs and happily register them with the authorities? You expect the terrorists to register their pressure cookers? Maybe we should have background checks for buying those?
And then what? Background checks for buying nichrome wire, because it can be used as a bridgewire in a detonator? A database of Arduinos, since they can be used as timers for bombs?
Or how about a national database of people who guy gasoline, Drano, nails, ball-bearings, lithium-ion batteries, soldering irons, solder...
Better still, let's implement a Great Firewall of America to keep people from accessing subversive content like Inspire magazine, the Unabomber manifesto, the writings of Timothy McVeigh, the Koran, Cryptome, Wikileaks, Paladin Press, Justin Bieber songs, Anarchist's cookbook, Poor Man's James Bond or the Federalist Papers...
Background checks are already required for almost all gun sales, including ones at gun-shows. This whole discussion is a red-herring. And what the f%!# good do you think a "database for guns" is going to do? You think the terrorists buy their guns over the counter, with legit IDs and happily register them with the authorities? You expect the terrorists to register their pressure cookers? Maybe we should have background checks for buying those?
And then what? Background checks for buying nichrome wire, because it can be used as a bridgewire in a detonator? A database of Arduinos, since they can be used as timers for bombs?
Or how about a national database of people who guy gasoline, Drano, nails, ball-bearings, lithium-ion batteries, soldering irons, solder...
Better still, let's implement a Great Firewall of America to keep people from accessing subversive content like Inspire magazine, the Unabomber manifesto, the writings of Timothy McVeigh, the Koran, Cryptome, Wikileaks, Paladin Press, Justin Bieber songs, Anarchist's cookbook, Poor Man's James Bond or the Federalist Papers...
People talk about the "90%" or whatever support that universal background checks had among the voting public. However, ignoring the problems of legislating based on shallow polls, nobody seems to be talking about the 90+% of sherrifs and police officers who believed that neither universal background checks nor a so-called "assault weapons ban" would have any beneficial effect on gun crime.
"As we have discussed, the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly."
- National Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury, February 16, 2013
http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_...
- National Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury, February 16, 2013
http://www.coloradofop.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_...
For another take on gun-control issues from the LEO perspective:
PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013...
PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013...
Well, it's an online opt-in survey so you have to keep that in mind. Also, they didn't directly poll on the question of background checks, which is the subject that gets the 80 - 90% approval rating in other polls. Instead they asked about the effect of "currently proposed White House legislation" and got a much different result.
Those are true points. I just wanted to point out that there isn't necessarily unanimous support for increased gun-control amongst LEOs. And regarding the FOP, I don't have a citation handy, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that a lot of the rank and file police officers differ with their leadership on gun control issues.
90% is some BS fake skewed poll run by some organization with an anti gun agenda. It's not possibly accurate. You can make any poll say anything if you word the question skewed enough.
I own guns. My parents own guns. My brother owns guns.my cousin owns 15+ guns and is a police officer. My girlfriends father owns guns. Some of us belong to the NRA. My brother and cousin going shooting a couple times a month. In some cases, we own guns that would be banned under a lot of gun control laws. My cousins response to Newton was to buy an AR15.
Yet we all support background checks. I don't find the 90% number hard to believe at all.
Yet we all support background checks. I don't find the 90% number hard to believe at all.
Yes, but... if the question on the survey was "Do you support background checks for gun purchases?" you might, indeed, get a 90% "yes" score. But, that question would be bogus vis-a-vis the recent proposal, since background checks are already required for the majority of gun purchases. To get a meaningful response, the question would need to be "do you support even stricter background check rules than are currently in place?" and you'd really need a way to eliminate answers from people who don't know what the current rules are.
So quoting that 90% number might be technically accurate for some specific question on some specific poll, but I'd question whether or not it actually reflects public sentiment on this issue, from people who actually have an informed opinion on the issue.
So quoting that 90% number might be technically accurate for some specific question on some specific poll, but I'd question whether or not it actually reflects public sentiment on this issue, from people who actually have an informed opinion on the issue.
It's not that I'm against background checks per se, it's that they are useless in stopping crime. It's simply a feel good badge we can throw on our sashes.
Plus, if we're serious about reducing gun violence, we limit handguns, not rifles. We can pat ourselves on the back and make us feel better over dead kids, but the real problem in this country with gun violence is handguns. The fact that it's all about "assault rifles" (a meaningless loaded nonsense term) shows that people are not the least bit sincere or knowledgable.
I know 3 places right now I can purchase a handgun without paperwork that are not gun shows.
Plus, if we're serious about reducing gun violence, we limit handguns, not rifles. We can pat ourselves on the back and make us feel better over dead kids, but the real problem in this country with gun violence is handguns. The fact that it's all about "assault rifles" (a meaningless loaded nonsense term) shows that people are not the least bit sincere or knowledgable.
I know 3 places right now I can purchase a handgun without paperwork that are not gun shows.
>Yet we all support background checks.
Sure do love that anecdotal evidence.
Sure do love that anecdotal evidence.
But it's worth sacrificing our freedoms in exchange for (only theoretically improved) safety (from causes of death that we are already extremely safe from - statistically speaking).
You and your neighbors packing assault weapons does not make you "free". It makes you "the Taliban".
That's a weak point. You could just as easily say it makes you "the Northern Alliance", "the French Resistance", "the Black Panthers", or "the Swiss". Weapons do not dictate ideology.
Point wasn't about ideology but way of life. For example, one of the great things about living in a largely gun-free society is that my probability of getting murdered in a drive-by revenge killing tomorrow is pretty low, since I do not belong to an armed faction responsible for an assault on an opposing faction last week.
I think it's disingenuous to bring up the Taliban and then deny you were saying anything about ideology. It was an emotional appeal that buries your true point. You know who else did that? Hitler.
Godwin's Law FTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
I don't own or currently have plans to purchase an assault weapon. I do, however observe that a state in which only the established power may have such things is certainly not free (neither liberated nor without cost).
Tell that to the minute-men (Minutemen), coincidentally originating in Massachusetts.
Why do we bother to have laws at all if people are going to break them?
I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.
I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.
oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.
OR, it could be because they're expensive, ineffective, don't last, and hurt accuracy. Or because most murders are not planned out in advance, in excruciating detail, by criminal masterminds (or even the crooks in episodes of Columbo). Somebody who finds out their spouse is cheating on them and decides to kill them in a fit of rage isn't going to care about a silencer.
Likewise, gang on gang crime over drug deals doesn't seem to involve a lot of stealthy, hit-man style assassination stuff. Those guys don't need silencers.
And the people who do want one and want to avoid your regulations? Well, they just build their own, no license, background check, or anything else needed.
OR, it could be because they're expensive, ineffective, don't last, and hurt accuracy. Or because most murders are not planned out in advance, in excruciating detail, by criminal masterminds (or even the crooks in episodes of Columbo). Somebody who finds out their spouse is cheating on them and decides to kill them in a fit of rage isn't going to care about a silencer.
Likewise, gang on gang crime over drug deals doesn't seem to involve a lot of stealthy, hit-man style assassination stuff. Those guys don't need silencers.
And the people who do want one and want to avoid your regulations? Well, they just build their own, no license, background check, or anything else needed.
It should also be noted that in some European countries, suppressors are required when shooting in a close enough proximity to a neighbor that the loudness could be an inconvenience.
Suppressors are dead easy to make out of household products as is, they just aren't worth more than 2 shots. Likewise, any individual sent as the imaginary "hitman" that everyone seems to believe exists, would probably be aligned with a group with enough finances to either buy legitimate suppressors, or procure them from the black market.
The only people that cannot purchase automatic weapons and restricted modifications (suppressors, grenade launchers, etc) are the poor. The legal roadblocks are overcome (perfectly legally) with money.
Suppressors are dead easy to make out of household products as is, they just aren't worth more than 2 shots. Likewise, any individual sent as the imaginary "hitman" that everyone seems to believe exists, would probably be aligned with a group with enough finances to either buy legitimate suppressors, or procure them from the black market.
The only people that cannot purchase automatic weapons and restricted modifications (suppressors, grenade launchers, etc) are the poor. The legal roadblocks are overcome (perfectly legally) with money.
That isn't the kind of gun violence these emotional responses are trying to stop, though. Situations like Boston and Connecticut are planned incidents. They don't use silencers for the reasons you list because they aren't trying to conceal their crimes, they just want to kill as many people as possible, and silencers hurt accuracy.
People just ignore the slaughter of spouses and mass murder of the destitute on the streets in favor of only focusing on shooting sprees.
The emotional rage murder would be culled by stricter gun laws, but gangs and mass shooters will just go to underground channels to get their armaments if they can't try to get them legally.
People just ignore the slaughter of spouses and mass murder of the destitute on the streets in favor of only focusing on shooting sprees.
The emotional rage murder would be culled by stricter gun laws, but gangs and mass shooters will just go to underground channels to get their armaments if they can't try to get them legally.
It's also important to understand that suppressors are not silencers. Most movies depict a suppressed handgun as sounding like an air rifle: that's just not the case unless you're talking about specially built firearms (integral suppressors, no leaks for gas) with sub-sonic rounds. I am going to guess that very few crimes have the monetary pay-off to justify such an investment (and if they do, the criminals can certainly afford to purchase a CNC machine and manufacture a supresor themselves).
On the other hand, a regular 9mm handgun or a .223/.308 rifle with a suppressor will still be very loud: comparable to a car's engine back firing, a tire blow out, or a firecracker. That's definitely a reduction in noise compared to a regular gun shot, but while one such noise might go unnoticed, a rapid succession of such noises certainly will.
On the other hand, a regular 9mm handgun or a .223/.308 rifle with a suppressor will still be very loud: comparable to a car's engine back firing, a tire blow out, or a firecracker. That's definitely a reduction in noise compared to a regular gun shot, but while one such noise might go unnoticed, a rapid succession of such noises certainly will.
I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.
Murderers rarely use such things
A silencer is cheap and trivial to manufacture from common materials.
I think you overestimate the deterrence of an additional felony charge. "Q. What are you in for? A. Murder... and an unlicensed weapon accessory."
Murderers rarely use such things
A silencer is cheap and trivial to manufacture from common materials.
I think you overestimate the deterrence of an additional felony charge. "Q. What are you in for? A. Murder... and an unlicensed weapon accessory."
Often these trivial laws are passed in order to be catch alls. You might get off on a technicality of a murder charge, but they get you for the illegal silencer.
Remember, they got Al Capone on income tax violations.
Remember, they got Al Capone on income tax violations.
And you think that's a good thing?
Suppressors are legal in all but 11 states if you fill out the paperwork.
Please don't interject facts into this discussion! This is Hacker News, where we should just say what we THINK might be correct, or should be correct, without having any actual knowledge of the subject. That's what real hackers do, right?
BTW it's worth pointing out that some countries like Finland do not regulate silencers/sound suppressors on the grounds that they reduce noise pollution and benefit public health by reducing the risk of hearing damage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland#Related...
BTW it's worth pointing out that some countries like Finland do not regulate silencers/sound suppressors on the grounds that they reduce noise pollution and benefit public health by reducing the risk of hearing damage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland#Related...
The post I was replying to is largely correct. Criminals don't have suppressors because there is no secondary market for suppressors due to regulation. That said, I would guess they wouldn't need or use them even if they were available.
Criminals don't have suppressors because they are a novelty and any gun-owner understands this.
I think you're confusing HN with Slashdot. :p
(At least, I always hoped the level of discussion was more nitpicking... I mean "detail-oriented.")
Also: "The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurence, and is a minor problem" ( http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf )
Also: "The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurence, and is a minor problem" ( http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf )
...without having any actual knowledge of the subject. That's what real hackers do, right?
Not at all. Real "hackers" are intimately knowledgeable regarding the systems with which they work.
Not at all. Real "hackers" are intimately knowledgeable regarding the systems with which they work.
and wait 8-10 months for the NFA background check.
Silencers aren't illegal at all.
And really the proper term is sound suppressor, they're far from silent.
And really the proper term is sound suppressor, they're far from silent.
maybe in your state.
You appear to be angry and marginally psychotic. Willing to bet you have numerous high powered assault rifles. God bless America.
You appear to be somebody who slanders random people you know nothing about, makes medical diagnoses you aren't qualified to make, indulges in lazy, stereotype driven thinking, and lacks the interest or ability to contribute anything meaningful to an otherwise interesting discussion. So I guess that makes us even?
<---- reddit is that way
Surprising to resist one kind of massive state power and then support another. If the US government really didn't want mentally ill people to get guns then the homeless would be off the streets and in prisons or asylums. Instead there was an attempt to criminalize transactions by law abiding people, purely as an expression of media animus against gun owners and with zero concern for false positive rates.
As for popularity, I'd bet "90%" of people would support virtually anything after being subject to four months of wall to wall propaganda by the corporate media and government. It is amazing to me how erstwhile supporters of minority rights now champion the most literal majoritarianism when convenient.
And how do you see the kind of extraordinary show of force we just saw in Boston and conclude that the citizenry should be even more helpless, more disempowered? Life is a Rorschach test, I guess.
As for popularity, I'd bet "90%" of people would support virtually anything after being subject to four months of wall to wall propaganda by the corporate media and government. It is amazing to me how erstwhile supporters of minority rights now champion the most literal majoritarianism when convenient.
And how do you see the kind of extraordinary show of force we just saw in Boston and conclude that the citizenry should be even more helpless, more disempowered? Life is a Rorschach test, I guess.
I'd bet 90% of gun owners would support virtually anything after being subjected to four months of corporate gun industry propaganda. You know, bullshit like how owning a gun "empowers" you.
How much money does the NRA have? How big is the gun industry? How much money does the mainstream media and the federal government have? Or OFA and Soros, for that matter?
Worth a bit of Googling. Methinks you don't have a good order-of-magnitude estimate of how much money is on each side.
Worth a bit of Googling. Methinks you don't have a good order-of-magnitude estimate of how much money is on each side.
The gun industry is $32 billion. Mainstream media and fed government are not on a "side". Soros is $20 billion but a tiny fraction of that is devoted to advocacy. OFA, assuming you mean Obama For America (?), is not a single issue entity. The gun corporations are, and that single issue is maximizing profit.
Do you think the gun lobby helped to write the second amendment?
I'd also like to point out that the gun industry doesn't really run ads in the same way most industries do. I've never seen a single gun ad outside of a gun magazine.
I'd also like to point out that the gun industry doesn't really run ads in the same way most industries do. I've never seen a single gun ad outside of a gun magazine.
Do I think corporate gun interests influence how the 2a is interpreted? Absolutely.
> I really do not get all the celebration and back-patting, it's disturbing.
This is way less about a real accomplishment, and more about what people need to feel. After the bombings, people felt vulnerable and scared. And for the police, I'm sure also embarrassed and angry. Catching this kid is the vindication they all needed emotionally. I'm just glad they didn't get overzealous and kill him, as most manhunts end.
Cops were sending around a photo of the first suspect after he died, saying that seeing it was "cathartic." Apparently another is circulating of the second captured suspect, with the caption "WE GOT HIM." It's like a locker room after winning a football game.
It's true there was danger and violence here, and the death of innocent good people. But the response today was largely about ego and fear of vulnerability. There were literally thousands of SWAT units in Watertown today, going from door to door, publicly demonstrating America's reaction to terrorist attacks. It was about sending a message to the citizens and police of Boston, as well as the rest of the country.
This is way less about a real accomplishment, and more about what people need to feel. After the bombings, people felt vulnerable and scared. And for the police, I'm sure also embarrassed and angry. Catching this kid is the vindication they all needed emotionally. I'm just glad they didn't get overzealous and kill him, as most manhunts end.
Cops were sending around a photo of the first suspect after he died, saying that seeing it was "cathartic." Apparently another is circulating of the second captured suspect, with the caption "WE GOT HIM." It's like a locker room after winning a football game.
It's true there was danger and violence here, and the death of innocent good people. But the response today was largely about ego and fear of vulnerability. There were literally thousands of SWAT units in Watertown today, going from door to door, publicly demonstrating America's reaction to terrorist attacks. It was about sending a message to the citizens and police of Boston, as well as the rest of the country.
I'm also a little surprised at the "WE GOT HIM" and the "its the suspect".
Pretty obviously everyone behave with this as 'hes guilty', so he's not a suspect anymore.
While he very well may be, everyone is supposed to be innocent til proved otherwise by trial and judgement. That goes for everyone. Murderers, thieves, rapists, politicians and rich dudes alike. Oh, and you and I. Hopefully.
While he very well may be, everyone is supposed to be innocent til proved otherwise by trial and judgement. That goes for everyone. Murderers, thieves, rapists, politicians and rich dudes alike. Oh, and you and I. Hopefully.
You're confusing law for the court of public opinion. They are two entirely separate (and mostly unrelated) things.
pretty sure the police is not public opinion - also happens to pretty much related
Note also that the general public should also know better - there is in fact, no confusion. You're simply disagreeing - part of the people I criticize, in fact, then.
Note also that the general public should also know better - there is in fact, no confusion. You're simply disagreeing - part of the people I criticize, in fact, then.
There's also another aspect. The security services has now effectively publicly declared that the chance for a repeat has gone down significantly, at least in the short term. Of course that's a good thing.
I think it's an odd coincidence this happens immediately following my comment six days ago:
> Law enforcement agencies are being lambasted time and again (whether it's valid criticism or not is irrelevant), and they continue to ignore claims of how ineffectual they are. Someone needs to stand up and say "We are here for you and we support you" otherwise it stands to reason that there are dangerous undertones forming.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5544924
It's exactly what that younger gentleman demonstrated -- the police will go above and beyond for you, even to the point of actively impeding normal functions of society.
> Law enforcement agencies are being lambasted time and again (whether it's valid criticism or not is irrelevant), and they continue to ignore claims of how ineffectual they are. Someone needs to stand up and say "We are here for you and we support you" otherwise it stands to reason that there are dangerous undertones forming.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5544924
It's exactly what that younger gentleman demonstrated -- the police will go above and beyond for you, even to the point of actively impeding normal functions of society.
But when hear people cheering "USA" in the after math, it makes you think in a couple years we will be having our own Nuremberg Rallies.
Questioning the State™? Thats a no-no.
But then again, i'm just a lowly peasant, what could i possibly know about anything?
Questioning the State™? Thats a no-no.
But then again, i'm just a lowly peasant, what could i possibly know about anything?
They were actually about to abort the "bruteforce" operation before they got a call that someone had found the suspect in their boat, outside the perimeter. I really hope they evalute the operation properly. A good outcome doesn't necessarily validate the process.
I thought it was really odd that they told people they could go about their business after completing the Watertown search without finding him. It seemed to me at that point the probability of us being injured had just gone up. However, lifting the stay-indoors request turned out to be crucial, because a man spotted the blood on the boat only after going outside for the first time all day.
On the other hand, if they had simply expanded the search area block by block without lifting the stay-indoors request, then they probably would have found him quickly with less risk to Watertown residents. In any case, I agree that it's important for the governments involved to evaluate what could have been done better.
On the other hand, if they had simply expanded the search area block by block without lifting the stay-indoors request, then they probably would have found him quickly with less risk to Watertown residents. In any case, I agree that it's important for the governments involved to evaluate what could have been done better.
I thought it was really odd that they told people they could go about their business after completing the Watertown search without finding him.
You find it really odd we don't live in a police state?
You find it really odd we don't live in a police state?
I think you're misinterpreting my comment. I found it odd that we were advised to stay indoors all day and then told that we no longer needed to stay indoors at the exact point at which danger seemed to be more likely. My comment wasn't saying anything about my opinion as to whether or not the stay-indoors request was reasonable.
But I think it's also worth noting that the stay-indoors request was a request, as far as I know. Every notification that I received was something along the lines of people being asked to stay indoors with the doors locked, and I know people who chose to go outdoors before the request was lifted. The city shut down because people chose to honor the request out of confidence in the judgement and good intentions of the police. I personally chose to stay indoors because I thought the suspect was probably wandering around on foot in the Watertown/Cambridge area and I thought the inconvenience of staying inside for a day outweighed the risk of running into him.
But I think it's also worth noting that the stay-indoors request was a request, as far as I know. Every notification that I received was something along the lines of people being asked to stay indoors with the doors locked, and I know people who chose to go outdoors before the request was lifted. The city shut down because people chose to honor the request out of confidence in the judgement and good intentions of the police. I personally chose to stay indoors because I thought the suspect was probably wandering around on foot in the Watertown/Cambridge area and I thought the inconvenience of staying inside for a day outweighed the risk of running into him.
The suspect hiding in the boat was found directly because the police finally told people to go about their business.
Alternatively, if they had lifted the shelter-in-place order earlier, the guy would have gone out in his yard and noticed something going on in his boat sooner.
Alternatively, if they had lifted the shelter-in-place order earlier, the guy would have gone out in his yard and noticed something going on in his boat sooner.
> On the other hand, if they had simply expanded the search area block by block without lifting the stay-indoors request, then they probably would have found him quickly with less risk to Watertown residents.
On the other other hand, it was getting dark -- the stay-indoors request was lifted an hour from sunset -- and it would have been harder to see the blood without daylight. So maybe they lifted it just in time, or should have lifted it much earlier?
On the other other hand, it was getting dark -- the stay-indoors request was lifted an hour from sunset -- and it would have been harder to see the blood without daylight. So maybe they lifted it just in time, or should have lifted it much earlier?
> However, lifting the stay-indoors request turned out to be crucial, because a man spotted the blood on the boat only after going outside for the first time all day.
And I think that was why they might have decided to allow it. Most people would NOT have felt comfortable going outside until he was caught and by letting people go out they had more eyes and a better chance of spotting him. It worked, and quickly.
And I think that was why they might have decided to allow it. Most people would NOT have felt comfortable going outside until he was caught and by letting people go out they had more eyes and a better chance of spotting him. It worked, and quickly.
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 doubt the reason was 4th Amendment scruples.
Who says it wasn't? Having infrared and having it be easy to find someone who doesn't want to be found with it in an urban environment are different things.
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 authorities seem to lack awareness of the Bill of Rights.
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.
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.
How about celebration for the simple matter that a couple of murderers are off the street, and people can stop hiding in their houses?
Why was it necessary for so many people to be hiding in their houses? I certainly have never seen an entire city shut down and hiding at home because a couple of murders were out there.
Probably, doing so makes it more likely that anyone the cops find outside is the suspect, while lessening the likelihood that a confrontation will lead to civilian casualties.
Also, no one knew how many other bombs there may have been, so public areas still posed an unknown risk.
Also, no one knew how many other bombs there may have been, so public areas still posed an unknown risk.
[deleted]
The Miranda issue was puzzling to me. Apparently (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...) the public safety exception to the Miranda warning was created in a ruling that clarified that statements obtained from an un-Mirandized suspected in response to questions asked by police in the heat of the moment (e.g. "Where's the gun?") were admissible. The spirit of the exception was that the threat of suppressed evidence shouldn't prevent police from asking a question that any reasonable person would ask in order to ensure their safety in the heat of the moment.
Clearly, if you can plan not to Mirandize a suspect, then the public safety exception cannot apply in the first place, so calling for the public safety exception merely makes a mockery of the law. The concluding sentences of the FBI's explanation of the public safety exception are worth quoting in full:
"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."
Clearly, if you can plan not to Mirandize a suspect, then the public safety exception cannot apply in the first place, so calling for the public safety exception merely makes a mockery of the law. The concluding sentences of the FBI's explanation of the public safety exception are worth quoting in full:
"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."
You cannot call for public safety exemption when there is no threat to public safety and the police already stated that there was none.
But let's not kid ourselves, Eric Holder and co give zero fucks about the law or our rights. Fast and Furious anyone?
The problem with this exemption, from what I understand (please correct me if wrong) is that any testimony in this questioning WOULD be admissible in court over some nonsense post 9/11 legalese in some crazy ass bill somewhere.
But let's not kid ourselves, Eric Holder and co give zero fucks about the law or our rights. Fast and Furious anyone?
The problem with this exemption, from what I understand (please correct me if wrong) is that any testimony in this questioning WOULD be admissible in court over some nonsense post 9/11 legalese in some crazy ass bill somewhere.
Perhaps most people might support more background checks in principle, but it's not really close to what people really care about right now: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-thin... Personally I don't support the latest gun legislation because it's not about guns or violence and if it were passed all it would lead to is a round of undeserved self-satisfied back-patting. If people want to get serious on curbing gun violence, maybe they should try their methods in say Chicago first before forcing the whole country to play along. (I know one method that could likely work but it's politically infeasible given the nature of the US's power structure. Are there any methods that can work with the current power structure?)
To be fair, real, organized terrorists would probably be catch up before the bombing, since they would surely be under the radar of some intelligence agencies.
On the other hand, "lone wolfs" cannot be tracked by agencies, and their actions are hardly predictables.
On the other hand, "lone wolfs" cannot be tracked by agencies, and their actions are hardly predictables.
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 completely separate, legislative one. Democracy is a messy thing -- the democrats killed the bills so they could come back and fight another day.
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 completely separate, legislative one. Democracy is a messy thing -- the democrats killed the bills so they could come back and fight another day.
[deleted]
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?
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/or organizations that radicalized their "interpretation of islam". They pointed out that the muslim prophet was a mass-murdering genocidal raider, which is correct, so it's hard to argue against this point. And of course these 2 boys chose to join their prophet's ways, as opposed to denying them. It's an ingenious way for an ideology to create terror, really. You center the ideology around a figure that's described as "perfect"(/holy/enlightened/...), but in reality that figure is a mass-murdering lying cheating bastard. Then of course the vast majority of people will choose to deny that fact (because 90% of people even in the most radicalized islamic country know perfectly well there's nothing good about massacres, and if "the prophet" committed genocide, that means he and his islam is evil), leading to a society that's workable, even if periodic sudden mass-outbursts of violence are unavoidable if you expect people to live in cognitive dissonance, with the associated risk that such an outburst wins over any government in place, destroying everything .
But any preacher can of course trivially use this to get recruits for terror acts against anyone he pleases (anyone he can realistically paint as an enemy of the ideology, which is to say anyone, if the preacher is any good). Now the vast majority of people will choose to maintain their cognitive dissonance and just add this preacher to the list of things they flat-out deny about the world, so the preacher that has just advocated genocide for 30 minutes can easily share dinner with anyone who just listened (When I first saw someone deny in his mind that a door existed to the point that he had to be restrained because he would keep "walking through it". He was hurting himself to the point that restraint + sedation was the only solution. I left that institution still firmly convinced that such people didn't exist, but after a few nights I seem to have come to terms with it).
However some people will chose to end their dissonance, usually under stress, and crucially, at this point they'll have been in the ideology for years and years, with everybody they know telling them that islam is good and great and can't be criticized. Then this "great insight" comes, that they've known about for decades too : islam works by ambushes and genocide, that's how the prophet did it, that's how muslims should do it. And at that point they will be extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" from said preacher, and of course they'll be looking to imitate what their prophet did, and they'll be looking for exactly the kind of mission that the preacher is likely to give them : ambush and kill innocents who are part of a group that "opposes" islam (and the prophet massacred muslims that he accused of allying with an enemy just the same, so no need to worry about killing a few traitor muslims).
No amount of policies can prevent psychological stress, nor by the way, would you want to do that. Stress may be the way to insanity, but it's also the way to improving yourself. Aside from that, of course you can't "end" psychological stress (though of course you can massively reduce it by providing basic needs services). But you'll never minimize it to the point the supply of terrorists dries up. And of course there's going to be points where the economy of the country is stressed, and there's an explosion in the number of candidate terrorists.
As a bonus, any society with this ideology can of course not allow "free" preachers, or any form of freedom of ideology. That would lead to mass acts of terrorism in short order (what we're about to see in Europe and America). So any society where this ideology takes root either becomes a complete monoculture or destroys the "invading" ideology, at great cost.
I bet this is how a lot of the terror ideologies work, not just islam. This seems like it's roughly the same concept as the stalinism and leninism concepts of communism (and of course the lesser ones too, with Castro, Guevara* and Chavez), or things like the Japanese ideology before WWII, and of course nazism, any such person cultus with anything less than a perfect being like Buddha or Jesus, that no rational being can really criticize any actions of (which means that Christian and Buddhist "terrorists" exist, except they do what Jesus and Buddha did, probably leading to self-sacrifice for a noble cause, because these are ideologies where people's cognitive dissonance has to deny the fact that they themselves are not as moral as their ideology). I bet this is what a "meme" virus looks like, like Hitches professed exist.
Of course negative ideologies (where the ideology is morally worse than most human minds that partake in it) like islam would be fundamentally unstable, and will destroy themselves if they don't have (realistic) enemies, or insufficient access to their enemies. But small pockets will survive even then, ready to start again, in slightly different forms. So preventing terror is the exact same thing as eradicating islam itself, problem is that of course you're never going to be able to do that without attacking individuals.
* Guevara is a perfect example. He's a hero of commusnism, but it is well documented he randomly killed people for fun when they can't defend themselves. And that's not all he's reputed to do either.
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/or organizations that radicalized their "interpretation of islam". They pointed out that the muslim prophet was a mass-murdering genocidal raider, which is correct, so it's hard to argue against this point. And of course these 2 boys chose to join their prophet's ways, as opposed to denying them. It's an ingenious way for an ideology to create terror, really. You center the ideology around a figure that's described as "perfect"(/holy/enlightened/...), but in reality that figure is a mass-murdering lying cheating bastard. Then of course the vast majority of people will choose to deny that fact (because 90% of people even in the most radicalized islamic country know perfectly well there's nothing good about massacres, and if "the prophet" committed genocide, that means he and his islam is evil), leading to a society that's workable, even if periodic sudden mass-outbursts of violence are unavoidable if you expect people to live in cognitive dissonance, with the associated risk that such an outburst wins over any government in place, destroying everything .
But any preacher can of course trivially use this to get recruits for terror acts against anyone he pleases (anyone he can realistically paint as an enemy of the ideology, which is to say anyone, if the preacher is any good). Now the vast majority of people will choose to maintain their cognitive dissonance and just add this preacher to the list of things they flat-out deny about the world, so the preacher that has just advocated genocide for 30 minutes can easily share dinner with anyone who just listened (When I first saw someone deny in his mind that a door existed to the point that he had to be restrained because he would keep "walking through it". He was hurting himself to the point that restraint + sedation was the only solution. I left that institution still firmly convinced that such people didn't exist, but after a few nights I seem to have come to terms with it).
However some people will chose to end their dissonance, usually under stress, and crucially, at this point they'll have been in the ideology for years and years, with everybody they know telling them that islam is good and great and can't be criticized. Then this "great insight" comes, that they've known about for decades too : islam works by ambushes and genocide, that's how the prophet did it, that's how muslims should do it. And at that point they will be extremely vulnerable to "suggestions" from said preacher, and of course they'll be looking to imitate what their prophet did, and they'll be looking for exactly the kind of mission that the preacher is likely to give them : ambush and kill innocents who are part of a group that "opposes" islam (and the prophet massacred muslims that he accused of allying with an enemy just the same, so no need to worry about killing a few traitor muslims).
No amount of policies can prevent psychological stress, nor by the way, would you want to do that. Stress may be the way to insanity, but it's also the way to improving yourself. Aside from that, of course you can't "end" psychological stress (though of course you can massively reduce it by providing basic needs services). But you'll never minimize it to the point the supply of terrorists dries up. And of course there's going to be points where the economy of the country is stressed, and there's an explosion in the number of candidate terrorists.
As a bonus, any society with this ideology can of course not allow "free" preachers, or any form of freedom of ideology. That would lead to mass acts of terrorism in short order (what we're about to see in Europe and America). So any society where this ideology takes root either becomes a complete monoculture or destroys the "invading" ideology, at great cost.
I bet this is how a lot of the terror ideologies work, not just islam. This seems like it's roughly the same concept as the stalinism and leninism concepts of communism (and of course the lesser ones too, with Castro, Guevara* and Chavez), or things like the Japanese ideology before WWII, and of course nazism, any such person cultus with anything less than a perfect being like Buddha or Jesus, that no rational being can really criticize any actions of (which means that Christian and Buddhist "terrorists" exist, except they do what Jesus and Buddha did, probably leading to self-sacrifice for a noble cause, because these are ideologies where people's cognitive dissonance has to deny the fact that they themselves are not as moral as their ideology). I bet this is what a "meme" virus looks like, like Hitches professed exist.
Of course negative ideologies (where the ideology is morally worse than most human minds that partake in it) like islam would be fundamentally unstable, and will destroy themselves if they don't have (realistic) enemies, or insufficient access to their enemies. But small pockets will survive even then, ready to start again, in slightly different forms. So preventing terror is the exact same thing as eradicating islam itself, problem is that of course you're never going to be able to do that without attacking individuals.
* Guevara is a perfect example. He's a hero of commusnism, but it is well documented he randomly killed people for fun when they can't defend themselves. And that's not all he's reputed to do either.
One could just as easily quote Biblical passages which promote violence as one might from the Qur'an.
The point may be that the personification of some religions/ideologies can reasonably be considered as morally a significantly better person than "average", like Jesus or Buddha, whereas other religions/ideologies, like Islam, have a morally reprehensible personification.
The point seems to be that in neither case does the "average" follower become any better or worse, but the extremists of those religions are significantly different. In every case the extremists become closer to the idealized figures from the ideology, so Christians are prone to self sacrifice, Buddhists are prone to an ascetic, isolated life, and Muslims are prone to violence if this happens.
Not sure about how it causes mono-culture. It seems to me at the beginning of the 20th century, every region on earth was a mono-culture, no matter it's ideology.
The point seems to be that in neither case does the "average" follower become any better or worse, but the extremists of those religions are significantly different. In every case the extremists become closer to the idealized figures from the ideology, so Christians are prone to self sacrifice, Buddhists are prone to an ascetic, isolated life, and Muslims are prone to violence if this happens.
Not sure about how it causes mono-culture. It seems to me at the beginning of the 20th century, every region on earth was a mono-culture, no matter it's ideology.
Do you actually believe this crap as stated, or were you going to go back and add "and Judaism and Christianity" to that "Islam is a terror religion" stuff you were spewing?
It's the Old Testament that's the terror religion, whether as practiced by Mohammed or by Moses or by the Crusaders.
And Moslems react when they think their religion is under attack just like Christians do. Have a look at some of the IRA types who were into butchering Irish Protestants. They were "defending" the Catholics in their minds.
It's not "kill the infidels to get into heaven". The religion is merely the language they use to frame the real motivation, which can be defensiveness, reaction, or even sheer prejudice.
And not all the bombers are loonies, by the way, not even the suicidal ones. If the official story so far is correct, the Boston two seem to be good planners with a healthy sense of self-preservation.
It's the Old Testament that's the terror religion, whether as practiced by Mohammed or by Moses or by the Crusaders.
And Moslems react when they think their religion is under attack just like Christians do. Have a look at some of the IRA types who were into butchering Irish Protestants. They were "defending" the Catholics in their minds.
It's not "kill the infidels to get into heaven". The religion is merely the language they use to frame the real motivation, which can be defensiveness, reaction, or even sheer prejudice.
And not all the bombers are loonies, by the way, not even the suicidal ones. If the official story so far is correct, the Boston two seem to be good planners with a healthy sense of self-preservation.
What's the maximum reasonable spend to catch a bomber, for an efficient force? $1M? $100k?
A large part of the expense was due to the successful effort to apprehend him without killing him or bystanders.
Tweets aren't precisely geolocated, so that's not really relevant.
A large part of the expense was due to the successful effort to apprehend him without killing him or bystanders.
Tweets aren't precisely geolocated, so that's not really relevant.
> 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
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
So you are saying the 27 people killed by a bomber in Iraq today were worth less than the 4 killed in Boston?
My point was this was one person (okay, two brothers originally) what would have happened if it was a team of people who were organized and actually secretive and didn't use twitter or live out in the open?
My point was this was one person (okay, two brothers originally) what would have happened if it was a team of people who were organized and actually secretive and didn't use twitter or live out in the open?
> So you are saying the 27 people killed by a bomber in Iraq today were worth less than the 4 killed in Boston?
No, the United States Government is saying that, by using the Value of a Statistical Life that they use. So I'm telling you that (by their own terms) they can justify spending a lot of their money on catching someone who has killed several people and intends to kill more.
I do not agree that it makes sense to value US lives at $7M each and developing world lives at apparently less than $2000 each (the approximate price of saving one according to GiveWell). But that's what the link I cited says is the case here.
No, the United States Government is saying that, by using the Value of a Statistical Life that they use. So I'm telling you that (by their own terms) they can justify spending a lot of their money on catching someone who has killed several people and intends to kill more.
I do not agree that it makes sense to value US lives at $7M each and developing world lives at apparently less than $2000 each (the approximate price of saving one according to GiveWell). But that's what the link I cited says is the case here.
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.
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.
Yea I think you would have to include that, its obviously a very complex situation and next to impossible because it requires a lot of uncertainties if you were to try to base a decision purely on monetary value of a life.
I am interested in knowing what extra expenses were taken to ensure the safety of bystanders. Please share. I did see a few reports of peoples' homes and property being shot up in a similar style as LAPD a-la Christopher Dorner.
Stupid and tone deaf.
These guys filled hospitals with people who had their limbs blown off. And they shot cops willy nilly. The fact that only a few people are dead is small comfort. These were some of the most dangerous people in the entire country, comparing their danger to the danger of industry or automobile transit is just silly. Those are very different problems with very different solutions.
These guys filled hospitals with people who had their limbs blown off. And they shot cops willy nilly. The fact that only a few people are dead is small comfort. These were some of the most dangerous people in the entire country, comparing their danger to the danger of industry or automobile transit is just silly. Those are very different problems with very different solutions.
Right, intention is what's important, a guy who's gun accidentally goes off and hurts a few people is not the same as a guy who's actively shooting into a crowd.
It's about mitigation too. It's a classic problem. Let's say you have a guy like Ted Bundy, hypothetically, and you have this huge manhunt and you catch him a few days after his first attack. OK, now you look at the cold, hard numbers and you see that you've spent an enormous amount of effort catching a guy who's only killed a few people. On paper that might look crazy. But in the case of the real Ted Bundy he killed over 30 people across 7 states in 4 years. And if he had never been caught he hypothetically could have killed hundreds.
This is why naive numbers comparisons are just stupid.
Edit: Here's another example I came up with. To date only about 120,000 people have been killed by nuclear weapons. Which is a tiny fraction of the people killed by conventional weapons, or even heart disease. By naive logic we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons, we should worry far more about heart disease, and strategic arms limitation talks should concentrate on the far more lethal conventional weapons.
This is why naive numbers comparisons are just stupid.
Edit: Here's another example I came up with. To date only about 120,000 people have been killed by nuclear weapons. Which is a tiny fraction of the people killed by conventional weapons, or even heart disease. By naive logic we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons, we should worry far more about heart disease, and strategic arms limitation talks should concentrate on the far more lethal conventional weapons.
this is certainly the most intelligent arguement to RMS' case.
But try to tell a bunch of tone-deaf nerds that, if you can get a word in edge-wise between their ranting about how many people are killed by automobiles each year.
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 further enforce money-wasting, civil-rights-violating theater like the TSA... all while real threats to life like car accidents and disease get left behind.
You're wrong. The saddest thing is the loss of life and limb.
The whole point of those rights is to avoid massive loss of life and limb in the long run.
I think there's a reason the us has been relatively stable over a long period of time, and it has everything to do with civil rights that serve as another check to the power of the government. As the balance is tipped in the favor of government power over civil power, the chances for large scale loss of life and limb (civil wars, internal power grabs etc.) increases.
History provides good examples of ever powerful governments, spectacularly collapsing, and crushing way more people than are killed from individuals abusing 'lax' civil rights.
I think there's a reason the us has been relatively stable over a long period of time, and it has everything to do with civil rights that serve as another check to the power of the government. As the balance is tipped in the favor of government power over civil power, the chances for large scale loss of life and limb (civil wars, internal power grabs etc.) increases.
History provides good examples of ever powerful governments, spectacularly collapsing, and crushing way more people than are killed from individuals abusing 'lax' civil rights.
I'm not very convinced by by your slippery slope argument with regard to the US, at least in domestic affairs. (foreign is another matter)
It's probably not a good idea to mix the emotional with the analytical, but when it happens, the emotional wins; we're human beings.
I hate to get moral/philosophical, but utilitarian motives, in the eyes of societal norms, usually is the loosing position. The canonical example of this is the man waiting by the railroad switch who must decide whether to divert a train to certain doom or let the train run over an individual. According to society the man must always divert the train.
It's probably not a good idea to mix the emotional with the analytical, but when it happens, the emotional wins; we're human beings.
I hate to get moral/philosophical, but utilitarian motives, in the eyes of societal norms, usually is the loosing position. The canonical example of this is the man waiting by the railroad switch who must decide whether to divert a train to certain doom or let the train run over an individual. According to society the man must always divert the train.
Your example is situational, and also doesn't come close to his argument.
The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security.
If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage it) you are trying to minimize loss of life, so of course you divert the train and just lose some resources in the crash. That example just doesn't make sense.
The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security.
If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage it) you are trying to minimize loss of life, so of course you divert the train and just lose some resources in the crash. That example just doesn't make sense.
Yes my example was poor; I don't think I got it right, perhaps I forgot the correct form. I guess I just am not sure how this inevitable tyranny manifests in deaths, but I can appreciate the point.
As a side note, these guys might not have even been caught if we were not living in 'the panopticon'.
People die every day. About 150,000 of them. That's nothing special. What is really going to matter in the long run is how we treat the people who are going to keep living into the future.
I'm much more concerned for the living than I am for the dead.
I'm much more concerned for the living than I am for the dead.
I'm torn. I absolutely understand what you are saying and I agree but the problem is that this whole sequence of events cannot be separated from the larger cultural and historical sequence. The saddest thing is absolutely the loss of life but there is a huge part of me that is almost as greatly saddened by the fact that as advanced as we are as a species that we still act like complete and utter idiots when we get together in large enough groups.
[deleted]
Not if the resulting erosion of civil liberties eventually leads to more than ~4 innocents' deaths.
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.
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.
if anything, people seemed to critique that they called off letting people outside too early. its never good enough it seems
going to be used as an excuse to further degrade civil rights nationwide in the coming years
I don't necessarily disagree, but I look forward to RMS's anti-terrorism proposal.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I look forward to RMS's anti-terrorism proposal.
You can read his political notes and get a pretty good grasp.
But to use a metaphor, it's possible to find a bug without knowing what the patch is.
But to use a metaphor, it's possible to find a bug without knowing what the patch is.
if I'm not mistaken RMSs concepts about security are to have essentially none.
You are mistaken. RMS believes that users should control their computing experience. As such, he thinks that university administrators shouldn't restrict access to powerful features, such as the ability to install software, on communal machines.
This is very different from civil safety, or defending against terrorism. RMS takes the (in my mind very reasonable) view that terrorism is not costly if it doesn't provoke an auto-immune response, and that civil liberties are more important than obliterating terrorism.
This is very different from civil safety, or defending against terrorism. RMS takes the (in my mind very reasonable) view that terrorism is not costly if it doesn't provoke an auto-immune response, and that civil liberties are more important than obliterating terrorism.
Is terrorism actually a problem in the US though?
He seems to make the mistake of comparing damage done to response instead of potential damage done to response.
The two suspects, after settings off anti-personnel bombs in a civilian area, executed a police officer, then got into a firefight with automatic weapons, grenades, and more anti-personnel bombs.
They demonstrated the means and the lack of conscience to do a LOT of damage in an urban area. A lot more than the average day in greater Boston's automotive death toll and as such were met with a massive response to prevent that possible outcome.
The two suspects, after settings off anti-personnel bombs in a civilian area, executed a police officer, then got into a firefight with automatic weapons, grenades, and more anti-personnel bombs.
They demonstrated the means and the lack of conscience to do a LOT of damage in an urban area. A lot more than the average day in greater Boston's automotive death toll and as such were met with a massive response to prevent that possible outcome.
Absolutely agree. He'd been seen with another IED, home made hand grenades and automatic weapons in a metropolitan area.
What the fuck else could the police do?
This isn't 'fear of shadows', as Stallman puts it.
What the fuck else could the police do?
This isn't 'fear of shadows', as Stallman puts it.
>4 people killed in a week is not a lot compared with the background
level of deaths in the US. It's not as many as in the Texas
explosion. Car accidents in the US kill around 100 people a day, and
surely grievously injure hundreds more.
============================
Difference being of course, one was a deliberate attack on human life, and the other a very _very_ unfortunate accident.
Stupid comparison to make for the sake of pushing his agenda of "free software". I expected more from someone so smart.
============================
Difference being of course, one was a deliberate attack on human life, and the other a very _very_ unfortunate accident.
Stupid comparison to make for the sake of pushing his agenda of "free software". I expected more from someone so smart.
I hate to say it, but Stallman has a good point. Plant safety cuts into profits, left to itself management will not encourage safe working practice - there must be meaningful oversight by an outside agency.
Thanks to regulatory capture oversight is weak, and this is not an accident but an intended outcome of the political system.
Thanks to regulatory capture oversight is weak, and this is not an accident but an intended outcome of the political system.
Plant safety cuts into profits, left to itself management will not encourage safe working practice - there must be meaningful oversight by an outside agency.
Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high, destroying the entire surrounding neighborhood and killing most of your employees. If I were a plant manager, I'd make sure to put doing all that right at the top of my TODO list.
Or, maybe, just maybe, not everybody who owns/runs a business in a capitalist system is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard, and maybe, just maybe, accidents happen, some of which are damn near unpredictable and unavoidable. And maybe we can't regulate our way to a society where nothing bad ever happens to anybody, ever?
Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high, destroying the entire surrounding neighborhood and killing most of your employees. If I were a plant manager, I'd make sure to put doing all that right at the top of my TODO list.
Or, maybe, just maybe, not everybody who owns/runs a business in a capitalist system is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard, and maybe, just maybe, accidents happen, some of which are damn near unpredictable and unavoidable. And maybe we can't regulate our way to a society where nothing bad ever happens to anybody, ever?
> Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high
You know how this is - most often poor working practice has no immediate consequence. Perhaps a critical patch is installed a few days late, and the website does not get hacked, no adverse consequences most of the time. At some point someone will run the numbers, and conclude that good safety practice isn't that necessary. That's a recipe for disaster. Most everyone here should be familiar with the Challenger explosion and the runup to it.
> maybe, just maybe, accidents happen, some of which are damn near unpredictable and unavoidable.
That's the issue of fault-tolerant design. In an ammonium nitrate plant there is a risk of explosion; they quite simply do not belong anywhere near a town.
You know how this is - most often poor working practice has no immediate consequence. Perhaps a critical patch is installed a few days late, and the website does not get hacked, no adverse consequences most of the time. At some point someone will run the numbers, and conclude that good safety practice isn't that necessary. That's a recipe for disaster. Most everyone here should be familiar with the Challenger explosion and the runup to it.
> maybe, just maybe, accidents happen, some of which are damn near unpredictable and unavoidable.
That's the issue of fault-tolerant design. In an ammonium nitrate plant there is a risk of explosion; they quite simply do not belong anywhere near a town.
At some point someone will run the numbers, and conclude that good safety practice isn't that necessary. That's a recipe for disaster. Most everyone here should be familiar with the Challenger explosion and the runup to it.
That's a fair point in a sense, and I'm not arguing that it isn't beneficial to have some independent eyes looking at things and helping avoid bias. I would argue that it's not necessarily required to regulate that sort of thing and make it the job of government to try and prevent every possible contingency though. I think working to develop a voluntary certification process, something akin to ISO9001, where being certified would be a "badge of honor" and - eventually - all but a prerequisite to doing business, would be preferred.
In an ammonium nitrate plant there is a risk of explosion; they quite simply do not belong anywhere near a town.
That was definitely a sub-optimal design, for sure. I'd be curious to know the history of how that setup happened, actually.
OTOH, to play devil's advocate a little bit... how often do ammonium nitrate plants explode? One could probably argue that the industry actually is very safe if you look at it over the long-run. Or not... I don't actually have those statistics. Just a point of discussion.
That's a fair point in a sense, and I'm not arguing that it isn't beneficial to have some independent eyes looking at things and helping avoid bias. I would argue that it's not necessarily required to regulate that sort of thing and make it the job of government to try and prevent every possible contingency though. I think working to develop a voluntary certification process, something akin to ISO9001, where being certified would be a "badge of honor" and - eventually - all but a prerequisite to doing business, would be preferred.
In an ammonium nitrate plant there is a risk of explosion; they quite simply do not belong anywhere near a town.
That was definitely a sub-optimal design, for sure. I'd be curious to know the history of how that setup happened, actually.
OTOH, to play devil's advocate a little bit... how often do ammonium nitrate plants explode? One could probably argue that the industry actually is very safe if you look at it over the long-run. Or not... I don't actually have those statistics. Just a point of discussion.
Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard.
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners
Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard
Not overtly, but it seems implied by a lot of the verbiage you hear from people arguing for more regulation and blaming business owners for pretty much everything. (Note: I don't mean just here, now, in this very discussion. I'm generalizing based on other experiences)
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.
I would argue that that is an awfully big maybe. Government regulation, however well-meaning, is notorious for having unintended consequences... sometimes even to the point of having an effect totally counter to the original intent.
Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard
Not overtly, but it seems implied by a lot of the verbiage you hear from people arguing for more regulation and blaming business owners for pretty much everything. (Note: I don't mean just here, now, in this very discussion. I'm generalizing based on other experiences)
But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.
I would argue that that is an awfully big maybe. Government regulation, however well-meaning, is notorious for having unintended consequences... sometimes even to the point of having an effect totally counter to the original intent.
I really don't see what this has to do with the Boston bombing or people's reactions to the events of today. I took a different argument to the Holocaust extreme in another comment and it applies just as well here: why should we be "bent out of shape" today about plant safety when genocide kills millions times more people?
If you expected anything from Stallman other than to say something socially tone deaf and head slapping, well... you don't know much about RMS.
I would downvote you if I could because the comparison is certainly not stupid; just because you fear more the will of the others over accidents does not make it stupid.
If for example cars were allowed (mechanically and legally) to only accelerate to maximum 50mph many of those accidents would never happen, but people are not willing to loose their freedom to drive at crazy speeds but somehow they are willing to loose other freedoms for extremely rare events such as terrorism attacks just for the emotional effect it haves over them because it is an attack (and not an accident) with nothing rational backing it up.
If for example cars were allowed (mechanically and legally) to only accelerate to maximum 50mph many of those accidents would never happen, but people are not willing to loose their freedom to drive at crazy speeds but somehow they are willing to loose other freedoms for extremely rare events such as terrorism attacks just for the emotional effect it haves over them because it is an attack (and not an accident) with nothing rational backing it up.
They should be restricted to 4mph and be preceded by a man with a red flag. That would be much more effective than limiting them to 50mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act#The_Locomotive_A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act#The_Locomotive_A...
I have to drive to work, lunch and home every single day, I have to deal with an ongoing terrorist attack almost never.
woosh
+ one of those four people was a police officer
Is killing a police officer worse than killing a "normal" person?
The death of a police officer is no more tragic, necessarily, than the death of anyone else. However, an attacker who is brazen enough and well-prepared enough to attack and kill a police officer is more of a threat to the public. Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed, armored, or trained as police officers, nor are they in near constant contact with police dispatch. Someone capable of and willing to kill police is someone who just doesn't care anymore and is willing and able to kill almost anyone.
Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed
Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.
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 at most ~4% of the adult population has a permit to carry a gun outside the home. And most of those (anecdotally) don't do it often.
[1]: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/7/new-federa...
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 at most ~4% of the adult population has a permit to carry a gun outside the home. And most of those (anecdotally) don't do it often.
[1]: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/7/new-federa...
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.
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 off-duty LE and people working security in some capacity. People who carry concealed tend to choose smaller, lighter guns and not quite as many total rounds, because ammunition is heavy (stereotypically a Kahr PM9 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 14 rounds, or maybe a Glock 26 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 20 rounds).
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 off-duty LE and people working security in some capacity. People who carry concealed tend to choose smaller, lighter guns and not quite as many total rounds, because ammunition is heavy (stereotypically a Kahr PM9 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 14 rounds, or maybe a Glock 26 w/ an extra magazine, a total of 20 rounds).
Most concealed carry people I know use a normal sized 9mm. It's only been very recently that mouse guns have become trendy. Kahr has only existed as a company since the mid 90s. However, I wasn't talking about concealed carry when I made my comment.
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.
Maybe. For single-stack magazines carrying 2 extra magazines can make a lot of sense, but once you get into double-stack magazines on guns with full-sized frames you start talking about a lot of bulk and weight. From my own observation, which is certainly anecdotal, I don't see that being commonplace at all.
It's within the realm of possibility that there are "tens of thousands" of folks who concealed carry with that amount of ammunition, but I would be surprised if that was the case.
Also, even if it is that many, it's still a tiny fraction of the populace. Even in the most enthusiastic pro-gun states only a tiny fraction of the public carries on a regular basis.
It's within the realm of possibility that there are "tens of thousands" of folks who concealed carry with that amount of ammunition, but I would be surprised if that was the case.
Also, even if it is that many, it's still a tiny fraction of the populace. Even in the most enthusiastic pro-gun states only a tiny fraction of the public carries on a regular basis.
The bad guys are also generally more likely to kill the police officer because they know he will kill them as soon as he figures out they would.
The general citizen, even when armed, will often run for his life instead.
The general citizen, even when armed, will often run for his life instead.
In a police state, it is.
Yes, though I may sound cliche, they put their life on the line everyday for us. When you go to work do you need to carry a gun with you and know that you might not come home at night?
Okay, and why is killing someone who is risking their life worse than killing anyone else?
Working as a Police Officer is considerably less dangerous than many other labor-intensive professions. http://open.salon.com/blog/richard_rider/2010/11/08/police_f...
And how do you suppose this broad-brush lockdown could have been avoided? The first ideas that come to my mind involve better surveillance and other privacy intrusions.
In fact, it's pretty unavoidable and perhaps even desirable that government have access to a fine level of information which could be used for utter tyranny. So the energies spent worrying about or averting such threats had best be focused on controlling what government will actually do with the information it has.
http://www.dbms2.com/2010/04/04/privacy-liberty-continued/ on the subject is 3 years old, but I think it still holds up pretty well.
In fact, it's pretty unavoidable and perhaps even desirable that government have access to a fine level of information which could be used for utter tyranny. So the energies spent worrying about or averting such threats had best be focused on controlling what government will actually do with the information it has.
http://www.dbms2.com/2010/04/04/privacy-liberty-continued/ on the subject is 3 years old, but I think it still holds up pretty well.
Even though there is some rather sharp back and forth here, I think it's awesome that this discussion is happening. The points on both sides are really good.
Personally, I don't think this is purely emotional elation. I live in Boston, the bombing happened down the street from me. I think it's important to point out that the disruption here should not just be measured in terms of number of dead or injured. It's the threat to the way we are used to living our life every day, and the perceived threat to the future way we will live our life.
This week, I have..
* Closed down my office because I was afraid for the safety of my employees * Heard from one of my best friends that his former colleague got killed on-duty (Sean Collier) * Listen to my friend express fear because she is planning to take a train to the waterfront for dinner * Had my mom show up out of nowhere to meet me at the airport because she heard there wasn't a way to get into the city
I didn't lose my life. My friends didn't either. I have nothing to complain about. But I want to make the point that there isn't an easy metric to put around the way life has ground to a halt here over the past week (at least none that I know of). We all experienced a type of stress that is hard to capture in numbers. And, we're happy to get our lives back to normal.
Personally, I don't think this is purely emotional elation. I live in Boston, the bombing happened down the street from me. I think it's important to point out that the disruption here should not just be measured in terms of number of dead or injured. It's the threat to the way we are used to living our life every day, and the perceived threat to the future way we will live our life.
This week, I have..
* Closed down my office because I was afraid for the safety of my employees * Heard from one of my best friends that his former colleague got killed on-duty (Sean Collier) * Listen to my friend express fear because she is planning to take a train to the waterfront for dinner * Had my mom show up out of nowhere to meet me at the airport because she heard there wasn't a way to get into the city
I didn't lose my life. My friends didn't either. I have nothing to complain about. But I want to make the point that there isn't an easy metric to put around the way life has ground to a halt here over the past week (at least none that I know of). We all experienced a type of stress that is hard to capture in numbers. And, we're happy to get our lives back to normal.
This is what Stallman wrote right after the suspect was caught.
My personal response is:
There will always be a situation that is worse or where more people died, but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many, where the police and people of Boston were desperate to catch a person throwing explosives and shooting magazines of bullets in their city. Telling people to stay home for a few hours does not seem unreasonable in this situation.
Have some decency and respect for the lives lost, and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.
> but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many,
I think you're right, it is a very emotional time for many. I think he's trying to put that in a more rational perspective so that we, collectively, don't forget about the big picture.
I think you're right, it is a very emotional time for many. I think he's trying to put that in a more rational perspective so that we, collectively, don't forget about the big picture.
The big picture being that Bostoners should just ignore the marathon bombers so they can convene an emergency city council meeting to discuss the threat chemical plants?
I thought I was pretty jaded, but it turns out I have a long way to go still. After the events of this week I was worried about the hundreds of maimed victims, "Uncle Ruslan", the families of those 4 persons killed and the possible backdrop on geopolitics. But judging from Dr. Stallman's comments I should be most concerned about how the TSA might benefit from what happened.
I thought I was pretty jaded, but it turns out I have a long way to go still. After the events of this week I was worried about the hundreds of maimed victims, "Uncle Ruslan", the families of those 4 persons killed and the possible backdrop on geopolitics. But judging from Dr. Stallman's comments I should be most concerned about how the TSA might benefit from what happened.
Bostoners should focus on issues they can influence. Once the bombing happened, besides civilian assistance on the scene, donations, and good will, the public should not have any more concern about the incident unless instructed by the police or given ample evidence to suspect someone as guilty.
It doesn't require the concern of all those who have no further interaction with the event. They gave money, they comforted relatives and friends, they let the police go find those responsible, and they move on. You don't linger on a unique incident with nigh impossible odds of something similar happening again that close to any of them with any similarity to this event.
They can care about pollution, chemical threats (that they can influence via money or time), and the overbearing reach of federal authority.
At this point, unless you are giving time or money to the aftermath or contributing to its investment, you are wasting your time and effort having any further thoughts on the matter. It is beyond your hands and influence then. Spend your time on things that matter.
The people of Boston should not wake up tomorrow any less secure in their wellbeing than the day before. Like Stallman said, the likelihood of dying to some asshole terrorist is so slim you can accurately discount the probability and just tell everyone "you won't die to a terrorist". The chances of you meeting one person that is incorrect for is absurdly small.
What Stallman speaks of is what you can take action about. The dinner table discussions should not be "those two brothers in Boston" that were a discontinuity of expectations but of real issues that you can change.
It doesn't require the concern of all those who have no further interaction with the event. They gave money, they comforted relatives and friends, they let the police go find those responsible, and they move on. You don't linger on a unique incident with nigh impossible odds of something similar happening again that close to any of them with any similarity to this event.
They can care about pollution, chemical threats (that they can influence via money or time), and the overbearing reach of federal authority.
At this point, unless you are giving time or money to the aftermath or contributing to its investment, you are wasting your time and effort having any further thoughts on the matter. It is beyond your hands and influence then. Spend your time on things that matter.
The people of Boston should not wake up tomorrow any less secure in their wellbeing than the day before. Like Stallman said, the likelihood of dying to some asshole terrorist is so slim you can accurately discount the probability and just tell everyone "you won't die to a terrorist". The chances of you meeting one person that is incorrect for is absurdly small.
What Stallman speaks of is what you can take action about. The dinner table discussions should not be "those two brothers in Boston" that were a discontinuity of expectations but of real issues that you can change.
I know what you're saying, but if you're not concerned about what DHS or d-bags like Lindsay Graham or Obama or police might do to erode rights, you're falling right into their trap. Shock doctrine works. I'm not suggesting that this was set up, but never let a good disaster go to waste.
Sure. But maybe, just maybe, it might be possible to have an event like this happen and note a flaw in the government's requirement to "promote the general welfare" which can be corrected without unduly infringing on civil rights.
Because no offense, but Dr. Stallman sounds exactly like that dipshit in charge of the NRA who says that you can't change one single little thing about gun control because that would invite a slippery slope to the government disarming all law-abiding citizens.
Because no offense, but Dr. Stallman sounds exactly like that dipshit in charge of the NRA who says that you can't change one single little thing about gun control because that would invite a slippery slope to the government disarming all law-abiding citizens.
Well he seems to be particularly angry about something related to the locks on the building, so I don't even really know what the hell he's talking about.
There's no doubt that Stallman is intellectually inflexible and completely tone deaf. It's one of his primary virtues, really.
There's no doubt that Stallman is intellectually inflexible and completely tone deaf. It's one of his primary virtues, really.
[deleted]
>but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many
Right, because we should totally let the emotionality of a situation determine whether or not we completely overreact to the situation.
>and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.
RMS (and anyone else) is perfectly within his rights to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. There is no "more appropriate time."
Right, because we should totally let the emotionality of a situation determine whether or not we completely overreact to the situation.
>and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.
RMS (and anyone else) is perfectly within his rights to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. There is no "more appropriate time."
You're right, RMS is perfectly within his rights to say whatever damn fool thing he wants, I'm also within my rights to call him a damn fool when he does.
Surely it's overly reductive to imply -- as he does -- that it's simply the number of deaths, or even the number of deaths and serious injuries combined that should drive our response to these events. The social significance of a truly terrorist act directed at one of the biggest annual events in the Boston area warrants some degree of extraordinary effort, not to mention the public danger of literal bomb-throwers on the loose.
Not to mention inconsistent with his own reactions. I don't think rms spent all day today mourning the Holocaust or the fallen soldiers of the Civil War.
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 are any "professional" terrorists, they are paying attention and taking notes. They will leverage this kind of buffoonery and it will not be funny if they succeed.
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 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.
I'm just relieved that they haven't managed to kill any bystanders.
The "stay home" suggestion (it wasn't mandatory, folks I know in Boston/Boston-area who had reason to be out had no problems being out) probably helped a lot here.
shut Boston down for days
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.
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 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.
I'm just relieved that they haven't managed to kill any bystanders.
The "stay home" suggestion (it wasn't mandatory, folks I know in Boston/Boston-area who had reason to be out had no problems being out) probably helped a lot here.
shut Boston down for days
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.
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.
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.
It less of a "manhunt" and more what I can only describe as dress up. Most of the cops I saw on TV weren't doing anything. I watched a group stand around in the middle of the street. I watched another different group stand around. I watched a group dressed in full Batman-looking-black body armor hang onto the side of the civilian version of an APC and ride it around town. It honestly looked like dress up. They could have quadrupled the number of boots on the ground and it wouldn't have found him faster for that reason—most of the people weren't contributing.
I would hesitate to generalize from what you saw on TV. What you see on TV has a lot to do with where the TV crews are set up and where they're allowed to go, which has to be somewhere safe and not in the way of the people with work to do.
Wow. I agree with RMS 100% on this point. (Should I be worried?) For all of our wonderful attributes, humans are irrational.
Should I be worried?
Depends; you'll probably not want to share this point with strangers. Since we've been repeatedly traumatized as a nation over the fears of 'terrorism' by war-hawks and sensationalist media outlets, many Americans expect a similar level of emotional reactionism from their compatriots. And when they don't get it from you, they turn on you quickly. I don't think it's healthy, but I guess it's understandable from all the mental abuse we've received as a nation since 9/11.
RMS is out there on a lot of things, and he's very blunt with his opinions, but his emotional detachment does serve him well sometimes. The first step of healing from that mental disease we have now is step back a bit and realize the problem. We are addicted to fear.
Depends; you'll probably not want to share this point with strangers. Since we've been repeatedly traumatized as a nation over the fears of 'terrorism' by war-hawks and sensationalist media outlets, many Americans expect a similar level of emotional reactionism from their compatriots. And when they don't get it from you, they turn on you quickly. I don't think it's healthy, but I guess it's understandable from all the mental abuse we've received as a nation since 9/11.
RMS is out there on a lot of things, and he's very blunt with his opinions, but his emotional detachment does serve him well sometimes. The first step of healing from that mental disease we have now is step back a bit and realize the problem. We are addicted to fear.
Ha, thanks for the advice! (Maybe that's why Facebook friend count is plummeting...) In retrospect, the worry stemmed from the possibility of contracting RMS's personality traits. Irrational, indeed.
No, look at the logic from the other angle, by RMSs idiotic logic, because the flu kills more people, the correct response to the attack should have been Bostonians gone about their merry business, but in Hazmat suits to avoid infection.
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 proof than a flu shot.
Here's the list and mitigation strategies if any: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
1 - Heart disease: don't eat foodstuffs that are known to increase the probability of heart disease, get plenty of cardio.
2 - Cancer: avoid all known carcinogens, refined sugars, etc. stay out of the sun (made easy by being in a Hazmat suit all the time)
3 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: avoid exposure to transmission vectors, hazmat suit solves this.
4 - Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): Similar to 1
5 - Accidents (unintentional injuries): Don't participate in risky movements or behaviors, wear a helmet at all times, keep a comprehensive first aid kit on your person with all modern emergency responder equipment. Follow the buddy rule, but don't stay too close, stay away from high probability of injury transport methods.
6 - Alzheimer's disease: no known mitigation strategy
7 - Diabetes: mostly diet, see #1 and 4
8 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: no known strategy, but don't eat foods that might challenge your kidneys
9 - Influenza and Pneumonia: Hazmat suit, solved
10 - Intentional self-harm (suicide): don't do this, solved
and then way down the list...
NNN - Death by terrorism with a probability so low that even during an active terrorist attack RMSs conjecture is to just keep on keeping on with your normal day-to-day routine.
Here's the list and mitigation strategies if any: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
1 - Heart disease: don't eat foodstuffs that are known to increase the probability of heart disease, get plenty of cardio.
2 - Cancer: avoid all known carcinogens, refined sugars, etc. stay out of the sun (made easy by being in a Hazmat suit all the time)
3 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: avoid exposure to transmission vectors, hazmat suit solves this.
4 - Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): Similar to 1
5 - Accidents (unintentional injuries): Don't participate in risky movements or behaviors, wear a helmet at all times, keep a comprehensive first aid kit on your person with all modern emergency responder equipment. Follow the buddy rule, but don't stay too close, stay away from high probability of injury transport methods.
6 - Alzheimer's disease: no known mitigation strategy
7 - Diabetes: mostly diet, see #1 and 4
8 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: no known strategy, but don't eat foods that might challenge your kidneys
9 - Influenza and Pneumonia: Hazmat suit, solved
10 - Intentional self-harm (suicide): don't do this, solved
and then way down the list...
NNN - Death by terrorism with a probability so low that even during an active terrorist attack RMSs conjecture is to just keep on keeping on with your normal day-to-day routine.
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.
"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.
This main point is ridiculous. Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionately to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionately more than the death of a stranger?
A reasonable statement would have been, "Let's not let these deaths be cited as an excuse for tyranny." But what he said was more along the lines of, "Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny." Why should we let the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny influence our emotional reactions to the deaths of friends and colleagues? Instead, let's react however is natural to these deaths, and at the same time ensure that we don't stand for fear-mongering and security theater.
A reasonable statement would have been, "Let's not let these deaths be cited as an excuse for tyranny." But what he said was more along the lines of, "Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny." Why should we let the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny influence our emotional reactions to the deaths of friends and colleagues? Instead, let's react however is natural to these deaths, and at the same time ensure that we don't stand for fear-mongering and security theater.
Well, that's a different issue than what Bain was attempting to argue, but I'll indulge. You said,
"Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionally to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionally more than the death of a stranger?"
You're misrepresenting what he said. He never compared the death of a stranger to the death of a loved one. What he said is that it's silly to raise the tragedy the those who lost their lives in Boston to those who lost their lives in Texas this week. All premature death is a tragedy, but I didn't know anyone personally in Boston or Texas. So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas?
You said,
"But what he said was more along the lines of, 'Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny.'"
What he actually said was,
"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 can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness. I'll admit, RMS is a very emotionally detached person, but that doesn't allow the opportunity to bend his words so that it makes it easier for you to shame him.
"Our response to deaths should scale exactly proportionally to the number? I shouldn't let the death of a friend upset me disproportionally more than the death of a stranger?"
You're misrepresenting what he said. He never compared the death of a stranger to the death of a loved one. What he said is that it's silly to raise the tragedy the those who lost their lives in Boston to those who lost their lives in Texas this week. All premature death is a tragedy, but I didn't know anyone personally in Boston or Texas. So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas?
You said,
"But what he said was more along the lines of, 'Let's not be very upset about these deaths, because then they will be used as an excuse for tyranny.'"
What he actually said was,
"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 can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness. I'll admit, RMS is a very emotionally detached person, but that doesn't allow the opportunity to bend his words so that it makes it easier for you to shame him.
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.
I disagree with you, but I think you're being thoughtful about it.
This is the problem I have with RMS.
Some deaths are more meaningful. Some events are more important.
If a man has a gun pointed at your face, do you ignore it because your singular death won't reach the number of yearly deaths for cancer or car accidents? By RMSs absurdly detached logic, you ignore the gun in your face.
Intention is everything in this issue. A pair of men running around blowing up people and emptying entire magazines in busy neighborhoods trying to murder their pursuers is so qualitatively different from any other quantitatively comparable event where people are killed and hurt without similar intention as to be virtually incomparable. RMS is admonishing us for not comparing the raw body counts.
He would have us walk ignore the gunman with the gun to our head while wearing a hazmat suit and SPF90 sunblock because quantitatively the flu and cancer result in a higher body count than just little old me and I shouldn't be so selfish and not walk around with those protections or I might add to the tally for those kinds of deaths.
Once you start just adding up bodies and comparing the tallies, you've lost the narrative.
I disagree with you, but I think you're being thoughtful about it.
This is the problem I have with RMS.
Some deaths are more meaningful. Some events are more important.
If a man has a gun pointed at your face, do you ignore it because your singular death won't reach the number of yearly deaths for cancer or car accidents? By RMSs absurdly detached logic, you ignore the gun in your face.
Intention is everything in this issue. A pair of men running around blowing up people and emptying entire magazines in busy neighborhoods trying to murder their pursuers is so qualitatively different from any other quantitatively comparable event where people are killed and hurt without similar intention as to be virtually incomparable. RMS is admonishing us for not comparing the raw body counts.
He would have us walk ignore the gunman with the gun to our head while wearing a hazmat suit and SPF90 sunblock because quantitatively the flu and cancer result in a higher body count than just little old me and I shouldn't be so selfish and not walk around with those protections or I might add to the tally for those kinds of deaths.
Once you start just adding up bodies and comparing the tallies, you've lost the narrative.
So why should the deaths of those in Boston be more prolific to me than those that died in Texas?
I don't think prolific is the word you mean, but I'll assume you meant "meaningful" or "emotional." No one is telling you how much you should care about Boston versus Texas. The point is that for those of us who are personally affected by the Boston incident, we resent being told that we should care more about the Texas incident, because it is natural that we would be more upset about the incident that personally affected us.
You can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness.
The change of wording wasn't relevant to my point, I was simply trying to summarize his view. Insert "let's make an effort not to get... as an excuse for tyranny" (his actual quote) for the paraphrased quote that I used, and the point still stands: the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny should cause us to resist tyranny, not to temper our emotional reactions to the deaths of community members.
I don't think prolific is the word you mean, but I'll assume you meant "meaningful" or "emotional." No one is telling you how much you should care about Boston versus Texas. The point is that for those of us who are personally affected by the Boston incident, we resent being told that we should care more about the Texas incident, because it is natural that we would be more upset about the incident that personally affected us.
You can't change the words he used to misrepresent his argument because you didn't appreciate his bluntness.
The change of wording wasn't relevant to my point, I was simply trying to summarize his view. Insert "let's make an effort not to get... as an excuse for tyranny" (his actual quote) for the paraphrased quote that I used, and the point still stands: the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny should cause us to resist tyranny, not to temper our emotional reactions to the deaths of community members.
The point is that for those of us who are personally affected by the Boston incident, we resent being told that we should care more about the Texas incident, because it is natural that we would be more upset about the incident that personally affected us.
Look, if you know someone that was killed or injured, then it obviously affects you more personally than it would other people, and there's nothing in RMS's statement that says otherwise. And if you were effected, you obviously weren't the intended audience (he was replying to a message to stay inside during Boston's pseudo-curfew). However, if your only connection to the event is your geographical proximity, then that does not grant you some sort of higher-level of emotional standing that the rest of us could not make. Every death of an innocent person is a sad, tragic thing; we don't need to be in Boston to understand that.
"The change of wording wasn't relevant to my point, I was simply trying to summarize his view. Insert "let's make an effort not to get... as an excuse for tyranny" (his actual quote) for the paraphrased quote that I used, and the point still stands: the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny should cause us to resist tyranny, not to temper our emotional reactions to the deaths of community members."
No, you're still taking what he said out of context. And your summarization of this comments is not correct. He did not say "temper", that's your word. He said "[...]let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others." Keyword is 'disproportionally'.
I'm, statistically speaking, more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. I could die in a car accident tomorrow. My family would be very sad and traumatized. However, I doubt they would stop using cars to get around. In fact, I'd bet they would take a car to the hospital to come get my body. With the Boston attack though, the authorities said everyone should stay inside in the entire city, because of the violence that happened in a few public places. That's the disproportionality that RMS was trying to point out in his statement.
In that you took that he was said you should 'temper' your emotions is no fault of Stallman. You're attempting to parse out an argument that just isn't there.
Look, if you know someone that was killed or injured, then it obviously affects you more personally than it would other people, and there's nothing in RMS's statement that says otherwise. And if you were effected, you obviously weren't the intended audience (he was replying to a message to stay inside during Boston's pseudo-curfew). However, if your only connection to the event is your geographical proximity, then that does not grant you some sort of higher-level of emotional standing that the rest of us could not make. Every death of an innocent person is a sad, tragic thing; we don't need to be in Boston to understand that.
"The change of wording wasn't relevant to my point, I was simply trying to summarize his view. Insert "let's make an effort not to get... as an excuse for tyranny" (his actual quote) for the paraphrased quote that I used, and the point still stands: the government's supposed tendency towards tyranny should cause us to resist tyranny, not to temper our emotional reactions to the deaths of community members."
No, you're still taking what he said out of context. And your summarization of this comments is not correct. He did not say "temper", that's your word. He said "[...]let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others." Keyword is 'disproportionally'.
I'm, statistically speaking, more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist attack. I could die in a car accident tomorrow. My family would be very sad and traumatized. However, I doubt they would stop using cars to get around. In fact, I'd bet they would take a car to the hospital to come get my body. With the Boston attack though, the authorities said everyone should stay inside in the entire city, because of the violence that happened in a few public places. That's the disproportionality that RMS was trying to point out in his statement.
In that you took that he was said you should 'temper' your emotions is no fault of Stallman. You're attempting to parse out an argument that just isn't there.
> 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.
This seems to hinge on the assumption that we should value our lives infinitely. This isn't particularly logical, however, given the fact that most people do dangerous things. If you are like most people, you probably want to maximize your total happiness over the course of your life, regardless of how long it is. Would you rather be miserable and live to be 80, or live happily until 50?
So if the cost of mitigating such an event happening results in a lower expected net happiness than the cost of of the event happening (including all future happiness) multiplied by the probability of it happening, it would make logical sense to not attempt to mitigate it.
This seems to hinge on the assumption that we should value our lives infinitely. This isn't particularly logical, however, given the fact that most people do dangerous things. If you are like most people, you probably want to maximize your total happiness over the course of your life, regardless of how long it is. Would you rather be miserable and live to be 80, or live happily until 50?
So if the cost of mitigating such an event happening results in a lower expected net happiness than the cost of of the event happening (including all future happiness) multiplied by the probability of it happening, it would make logical sense to not attempt to mitigate it.
That's not how Logic works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
How many commenters in support of this perspective were in the area and part of all this? As someone who was a short distance from the explosions during the marathon, and the focused area of the manhunt during todays lockdown, I'd expect the answer would be none. And if I'm wrong, I'm shocked at the lack of empathy, or even lack of ability to emulate empathy through simple taste and common sense. This is a really disappointing thing for me to see on HN.
"Please don't promote fear of shadows."
Well shit guys we should have got big balls Stallman out there to apprehend the suspect who was known to be homicidal, heavily armed, and possibly wearing an explosive device.
100 people die in cars everyday. That's such an irrelevant statement I still don't fully understand the point. 100 people die in cars everyday so unless a murderer's body count breaches national aggregate auto fatality statistics we shouldn't worry about it? Stallman appears to be confusing "the appropriate resource allocation to the threat of terrorism in general" with "the appropriate resource allocation to an actual active known terrorist".
Well shit guys we should have got big balls Stallman out there to apprehend the suspect who was known to be homicidal, heavily armed, and possibly wearing an explosive device.
100 people die in cars everyday. That's such an irrelevant statement I still don't fully understand the point. 100 people die in cars everyday so unless a murderer's body count breaches national aggregate auto fatality statistics we shouldn't worry about it? Stallman appears to be confusing "the appropriate resource allocation to the threat of terrorism in general" with "the appropriate resource allocation to an actual active known terrorist".
I didn't really hear about any responses to law enforcement entering homes. If they were sweeping the area did anyone refuse entry?
Also really looking forward to the knee-jerk anti 2nd ammendment lobby using another tragedy as a prop.
Also really looking forward to the knee-jerk anti 2nd ammendment lobby using another tragedy as a prop.
As terrorists, these guys sucked. The Swedish guy, even the Columbine schoolboys had a much higher body count.
Still, in economic cost, it was a creditable effort, not on the level of 9/11 but not bad, for two presumed amateurs to shut down Boston for a day.
When you do that, you're giving these guys a lot of power.
Imagine if London had shut down every time there were IRA attackers on the loose.
One comes to expect an extremist point of view from RMS, but I find myself mostly agreeing. What the victims experienced is heartbreaking, and we should honor them by catching the bad guys, and also finding ways to make ourselves more resilient.
Still, in economic cost, it was a creditable effort, not on the level of 9/11 but not bad, for two presumed amateurs to shut down Boston for a day.
When you do that, you're giving these guys a lot of power.
Imagine if London had shut down every time there were IRA attackers on the loose.
One comes to expect an extremist point of view from RMS, but I find myself mostly agreeing. What the victims experienced is heartbreaking, and we should honor them by catching the bad guys, and also finding ways to make ourselves more resilient.
You know I had never thought of the financial damage aspect but you're right on about that.
[deleted](2)
I think it was worth it. The police reacted quickly and caught him alive. Now they can get valuable information out of him, which they couldn't do if he was killed/died from wounds.
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.
They will be questioning him without reading him his Miranda rights and via a loophole it will be admissible is what I've gathered. I think a lot of people are afraid that this an example of us giving up our freedoms out of fear.
I wish I knew more people (AFK) who thought like this...
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 accident, and while it is definitely wrong if those concerns go unheeded, there is not even a remote comparison to the actions of demonstrated sociopathic behavior to harm, kill, and decapitate eight-year-olds watching a marathon. There just isn't. A man waking up one morning and saying, "gee, I'm going to drop explosive devices in the middle of a fucking crowd in Boston" isn't even in the same universe as "our unstable manufacturing process exploded after an accident".
Let's say, for a moment, that Stallman is in effect proven right about the danger of the chemical plant, and that the chemical plant owners, say, willfully traded employee safety for money. That's wrong. However, inability to be appalled by and react accordingly to a human being intentionally killing and maiming fellow human beings using explosive devices on the streets of a populated city during a marathon, demonstrating full intent to kill and complete disregard for the free agency of children as young as 8, and blowing people's limbs off on purpose, is the mark of a sociopath.
You concern me if you present an argument to me along these lines, that we should "care more" about the fertilizer plant or auto accidents on the interstates in a day or ... whatever. I'm more and more convinced lately that the people in my life who have arguments with me like this, including Richard Stallman, are sociopaths, and I'm sorry. I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life, and so should you; the complete disregard of basic social empathy, the understanding of why normal human beings consider the Boston bombings a life-changing event but the chemical plant marginally less so, indicates to me a conscience that is capable of thinking unspeakable things. What else can a conscience like that justify?
Some people can manage being a sociopath long-term, and I think we can all name some examples in the tech industry. It's arguable a bit of sociopath can be a valuable tool for career and business building. I don't think being sociopathic is a death sentence, but it should give you pause when dealing with them, that their conscience leads to hypothetical discussions like this rather than "it's just business" types of transactions in the working world.
None of this commentary considers the media or law enforcement response to the Boston events, which Stallman does discuss, and I do not present an opinion on that point (I do have one, but it clouds the issue). Only the point I've discussed above.
EDIT: I've edited through to adjust a point I mistakenly attributed to Stallman which he really didn't say, but is the logical conclusion. I misread one key sentence in the e-mail that I responded to, and should have paid better attention, and I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing it to my attention; my point still stands in the edited form above, and if you've quoted the prior version, I'd appreciate a second chance at making my point. I'm not going to respond individually to those of you who have quoted the prior version, since it would waste column inches, and I hope you notice my edit and act accordingly.
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 accident, and while it is definitely wrong if those concerns go unheeded, there is not even a remote comparison to the actions of demonstrated sociopathic behavior to harm, kill, and decapitate eight-year-olds watching a marathon. There just isn't. A man waking up one morning and saying, "gee, I'm going to drop explosive devices in the middle of a fucking crowd in Boston" isn't even in the same universe as "our unstable manufacturing process exploded after an accident".
Let's say, for a moment, that Stallman is in effect proven right about the danger of the chemical plant, and that the chemical plant owners, say, willfully traded employee safety for money. That's wrong. However, inability to be appalled by and react accordingly to a human being intentionally killing and maiming fellow human beings using explosive devices on the streets of a populated city during a marathon, demonstrating full intent to kill and complete disregard for the free agency of children as young as 8, and blowing people's limbs off on purpose, is the mark of a sociopath.
You concern me if you present an argument to me along these lines, that we should "care more" about the fertilizer plant or auto accidents on the interstates in a day or ... whatever. I'm more and more convinced lately that the people in my life who have arguments with me like this, including Richard Stallman, are sociopaths, and I'm sorry. I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life, and so should you; the complete disregard of basic social empathy, the understanding of why normal human beings consider the Boston bombings a life-changing event but the chemical plant marginally less so, indicates to me a conscience that is capable of thinking unspeakable things. What else can a conscience like that justify?
Some people can manage being a sociopath long-term, and I think we can all name some examples in the tech industry. It's arguable a bit of sociopath can be a valuable tool for career and business building. I don't think being sociopathic is a death sentence, but it should give you pause when dealing with them, that their conscience leads to hypothetical discussions like this rather than "it's just business" types of transactions in the working world.
None of this commentary considers the media or law enforcement response to the Boston events, which Stallman does discuss, and I do not present an opinion on that point (I do have one, but it clouds the issue). Only the point I've discussed above.
EDIT: I've edited through to adjust a point I mistakenly attributed to Stallman which he really didn't say, but is the logical conclusion. I misread one key sentence in the e-mail that I responded to, and should have paid better attention, and I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing it to my attention; my point still stands in the edited form above, and if you've quoted the prior version, I'd appreciate a second chance at making my point. I'm not going to respond individually to those of you who have quoted the prior version, since it would waste column inches, and I hope you notice my edit and act accordingly.
Yet here's rms doing his thing, making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit.
That is an argument that's not supported by the text.
The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.
As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.
That is an argument that's not supported by the text.
The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.
As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.
Richard Stallman made several points in the linked e-mail. The point that I'm concerned with, and made clear that I'm concerned with, is that the Texas plant is the, quote, "bigger danger" than the Boston incidents. He wrote that nearly verbatim; his evidence for that was backed up in the paragraph prior by citing numbers -- specifically, numbers of people dead. That's what I'm attacking, specifically not reaction to, preparation for, or money spent on these heinous events, as I said quite clearly and will continue to say.
My edit specifically applies to the head of your comment.
My edit specifically applies to the head of your comment.
While intent does matter, the consequence is still the same. People die. Therefore, we should devote effort to reducing incidents of death, no matter what is the cause.
People who kill others intentionally are going to be treated differently than those who ignore basic safety precaution, as a matter of justice. But we must still pay attention to the magnitude of tragedy when it comes to allocating money to reduce probability of death incidents.
That mean, if car accidents kill more than terrorists each year, there should be more money on accident prevention.
People who kill others intentionally are going to be treated differently than those who ignore basic safety precaution, as a matter of justice. But we must still pay attention to the magnitude of tragedy when it comes to allocating money to reduce probability of death incidents.
That mean, if car accidents kill more than terrorists each year, there should be more money on accident prevention.
Agree with your first paragraph. I definitely think we should devote effort to reducing incidence of death, no matter the cause.
Couldn't agree less with the remainder, because you are comparing car accidents and terrorism, which I specifically said is impossible to do; there is no comparison remotely possible between automotive accidents and terrorism.
Couldn't agree less with the remainder, because you are comparing car accidents and terrorism, which I specifically said is impossible to do; there is no comparison remotely possible between automotive accidents and terrorism.
How they cannot be compared? The metric here is the rate of death and the probability of incidents. The goal is to reduce suffering in the most impactful way as possible.
Be careful, applying your engineering mindset to real life. We cannot quantify the human experience. Let's take one tiny minutiae of both incidents with the strong and clear prior warning that there are countless examples of these points: in general, a parent would expect her child to be safer watching the Boston Marathon than standing several feet from a fertilizer plant. That's an expectation that, while your data might consider it irrational, is part of the human experience and why numbers cannot quantify what we feel.
You just can't apply numbers to being human. It doesn't work, it will never work, it's really disappointing to see people try, and I notice engineers try to do it more than most people I spend time with.
You just can't apply numbers to being human. It doesn't work, it will never work, it's really disappointing to see people try, and I notice engineers try to do it more than most people I spend time with.
> That's an expectation that, while your data might consider it irrational, is part of the human experience and why numbers cannot quantify what we feel.
You seem to be claiming an axiom that we should make reality conform to our irrational emotions more than our attempts at rational analysis -- I think what you're hearing from other engineers is that they've experienced the same conflict and have decided that it's the emotion, rather than the rationality, that ought to leave when deciding how to act.
If you disagree, I think that all you can say is that your personal opinion is that life is aesthetically more pleasing when you stop attempting rationality. I think you should try to recognize that this is just an opinion you have, and not some objective truth that everyone else is failing to acknowledge.
You seem to be claiming an axiom that we should make reality conform to our irrational emotions more than our attempts at rational analysis -- I think what you're hearing from other engineers is that they've experienced the same conflict and have decided that it's the emotion, rather than the rationality, that ought to leave when deciding how to act.
If you disagree, I think that all you can say is that your personal opinion is that life is aesthetically more pleasing when you stop attempting rationality. I think you should try to recognize that this is just an opinion you have, and not some objective truth that everyone else is failing to acknowledge.
But the child IS safer at the Boston Marathon, even considering what happened. How many people have attended this event over the years? Now how many have been maimed or killed in those years?
Parents also assume that their children are safer swimming in their backyard pools than standing several feet from a fertilizer plant, yet swimming pools are orders of magnitude more dangerous. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, exactly. Ignore the statistics because they don't account for the "human experience"? What is the goal here, preventing senseless deaths or preserving the "human experience"?
> 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. Cutting corners in the name of profit has a chance of harming someone, and while it is definitely wrong, there is not even a remote comparison to the actions of demonstrated sociopathic behavior to harm, kill, and decapitate eight-year-olds watching a marathon.
I don't really see the distinction here. Active intent vs. passive intent to harm others that means that you known that the actions you are taking will hurt, maim, or kill others and that, one way or another, you are OK with that. To say that passive acceptance of one's actions as leading to the ruining and death of others is not as bad as actively going on and committing murder is silly, either way you are justifying your actions and you had the same end result.
> Let's say, for a moment, that Stallman is right, and that the chemical plant owners willfully traded employee safety for money. That's wrong. However, inability to realize that a human being intentionally killing and maiming fellow human beings using explosive devices on the streets of a populated city during a marathon, demonstrating full intent to kill and complete disregard for the free agency of children as young as 8, and blowing people's limbs off on purpose, is the mark of a sociopath.
If you willingly traded employee safety for sake of profit and knew that doing so could reasonably hurt or kill others, you have demonstrated an intent to kill and demonstrated complete disregard for the free agency of people. That the tactics differ between someone dropping a bomb in a crowd vs. someone abusing their business and employees doesn't change the reality that both are doing something evil and destructive to society.
> You concern me if you present an argument to me along these lines, that we should "care more" about the chemical plant or auto accidents on the interstates in a day or ... whatever.
The point is that there are common issues in our society that cause greater loss of life and damage compared to less frequent events like bombing a crowd or a mass shooting. That doesn't mean that a bombing isn't bad or that it is less important. However, these kinds of events receive much more attention and coverage compared to those common dangers.
> I'm more and more convinced lately that the people in my life who have arguments with me like this, including Richard Stallman, are sociopaths, and I'm sorry. I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life, and so should you; the complete disregard of basic social empathy, the understanding of why normal human beings consider the Boston bombings a life-changing event but the chemical plant marginally less so, indicates to me a conscience that is capable of thinking unspeakable things.
For some, the chemical plant incident is more of a life-changing event than the Boston bombings. We should have empathy to see this and consider that hearing alternative points of view may provide a richer perspective about how these events affect our lives and the lives of others. If you reject anyone who doesn't agree with you about how important the Boston bombing is, you are saying that you are not interested in empathy in the first place because you are placing your experience and sharing of that experience as more important than others.
I don't really see the distinction here. Active intent vs. passive intent to harm others that means that you known that the actions you are taking will hurt, maim, or kill others and that, one way or another, you are OK with that. To say that passive acceptance of one's actions as leading to the ruining and death of others is not as bad as actively going on and committing murder is silly, either way you are justifying your actions and you had the same end result.
> Let's say, for a moment, that Stallman is right, and that the chemical plant owners willfully traded employee safety for money. That's wrong. However, inability to realize that a human being intentionally killing and maiming fellow human beings using explosive devices on the streets of a populated city during a marathon, demonstrating full intent to kill and complete disregard for the free agency of children as young as 8, and blowing people's limbs off on purpose, is the mark of a sociopath.
If you willingly traded employee safety for sake of profit and knew that doing so could reasonably hurt or kill others, you have demonstrated an intent to kill and demonstrated complete disregard for the free agency of people. That the tactics differ between someone dropping a bomb in a crowd vs. someone abusing their business and employees doesn't change the reality that both are doing something evil and destructive to society.
> You concern me if you present an argument to me along these lines, that we should "care more" about the chemical plant or auto accidents on the interstates in a day or ... whatever.
The point is that there are common issues in our society that cause greater loss of life and damage compared to less frequent events like bombing a crowd or a mass shooting. That doesn't mean that a bombing isn't bad or that it is less important. However, these kinds of events receive much more attention and coverage compared to those common dangers.
> I'm more and more convinced lately that the people in my life who have arguments with me like this, including Richard Stallman, are sociopaths, and I'm sorry. I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life, and so should you; the complete disregard of basic social empathy, the understanding of why normal human beings consider the Boston bombings a life-changing event but the chemical plant marginally less so, indicates to me a conscience that is capable of thinking unspeakable things.
For some, the chemical plant incident is more of a life-changing event than the Boston bombings. We should have empathy to see this and consider that hearing alternative points of view may provide a richer perspective about how these events affect our lives and the lives of others. If you reject anyone who doesn't agree with you about how important the Boston bombing is, you are saying that you are not interested in empathy in the first place because you are placing your experience and sharing of that experience as more important than others.
Please do not equate rational behavior with being a sociopath.
If what RMS says is true (and I admit that I have no way to verify that) and that fertilizer plant is responsible for more deaths than the terrorist attack, then it is a more pressing problem. How can you possibly argue that point (unless dead people as such do not worry you and it is just anger or fear that justifies the actions - but then, who's the sociopath?)
Terrorism is hardly the most pressing problem faced by the US. Due to irrational fears we willingly spend insane amounts of money and have our civil liberties curtailed... To protect us from something that statistically hardly kills more people than lightening.
This is all RMS is trying to point out.
Nobody is saying that these terrorists should not be prosecuted, just that should put this all into perspective.
A rational person interested in the well being of the people would tackle issues like lack of healthcare, edudation, obesity, heart disease, unjust wars, poverty, civil liberties, privacy, etc, etc, just to name a few issues, before tackling terrorism.
An irrational person is driven by fear and anger and thus typically acts against his/her own best interest.
If what RMS says is true (and I admit that I have no way to verify that) and that fertilizer plant is responsible for more deaths than the terrorist attack, then it is a more pressing problem. How can you possibly argue that point (unless dead people as such do not worry you and it is just anger or fear that justifies the actions - but then, who's the sociopath?)
Terrorism is hardly the most pressing problem faced by the US. Due to irrational fears we willingly spend insane amounts of money and have our civil liberties curtailed... To protect us from something that statistically hardly kills more people than lightening.
This is all RMS is trying to point out.
Nobody is saying that these terrorists should not be prosecuted, just that should put this all into perspective.
A rational person interested in the well being of the people would tackle issues like lack of healthcare, edudation, obesity, heart disease, unjust wars, poverty, civil liberties, privacy, etc, etc, just to name a few issues, before tackling terrorism.
An irrational person is driven by fear and anger and thus typically acts against his/her own best interest.
His point was that there are better things in life to worry about. An example is chemical plants.
To paraphrase his letter -- your actions should not change based on the events these past few days. Decisions should be made off of data and actual potential to harm, not on what happens to be scary at the time.
To paraphrase his letter -- your actions should not change based on the events these past few days. Decisions should be made off of data and actual potential to harm, not on what happens to be scary at the time.
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.
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.
Plus there's the obvious angle. Accidents are part of life and are random. With any crime there's always the possibility of repeat, or worse, escalation (this was an act of islamic terror, so chance of escalation if this goes unpunished is probably very real).
A society must ensure that crime doesn't pay (because the reason crime is committed in the first place is obviously because it does pay, not necessarily in money, but it does pay). Arrest and punishment is essential for that purpose.
A society must ensure that crime doesn't pay (because the reason crime is committed in the first place is obviously because it does pay, not necessarily in money, but it does pay). Arrest and punishment is essential for that purpose.
By this logic why even try to apprehend the terrorists at all? The death toll was a rounding error in the number of fatal car accidents during the same time period. Since we're not going to do anything differently in response to the fatal car accidents, why should we spend any effort at all trying to stop those responsible for the bombings?
[deleted]
I am not a sociopath. I ask myself if I want to save lives or if I want to feel better.
I get that a motivated attacker is a more alarming threat, but that is because we didn't evolve with chemical plants and car accidents.
If you just want to reduce your alarm and comfort you friends. Then focus on dealing with whatever alarms you. But by my standards that's not caring.
'Be appalled by' is cheap and easy. 'react accordingly' is, I'm sorry but that's probably not what you're doing. There are so many people in the world who have demonstrated full intent to kill that if you reacted accordingly you'd become Batman.
If this is just about what we say upsets us as we go about our daily lives, then we can agree to disagree and there's no reason to think worse of each other.
I get that a motivated attacker is a more alarming threat, but that is because we didn't evolve with chemical plants and car accidents.
If you just want to reduce your alarm and comfort you friends. Then focus on dealing with whatever alarms you. But by my standards that's not caring.
'Be appalled by' is cheap and easy. 'react accordingly' is, I'm sorry but that's probably not what you're doing. There are so many people in the world who have demonstrated full intent to kill that if you reacted accordingly you'd become Batman.
If this is just about what we say upsets us as we go about our daily lives, then we can agree to disagree and there's no reason to think worse of each other.
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 out" by his writings. Logically, he makes lots of sense, but personally he's as connectable as the sidewalk in front of my house. Sociopathy is the perfect term.
Anybody who can sit in Boston the last week, have a cop murdered in cold blood near his office by two men on an active terror event that just murdered and maimed dozens of people a few days before, and upon the conclusion of that event shit out this garbage before the close of the same day is a person so far removed from empathy, from society and from humanity as to be a sociopath.
I've never gone through such a wild swing of elation, joy and exhaustion, then disappointment, sadness and anger in such a short period of time as today. This isn't the kind of frustrating conspiracy nuttery that's so exasperating written by people so lost in their private world as to have lost touch with reality, this is written by a person fully cognizant of their writing and what he's saying, the time in which he's saying it and the tone in which he's saying it.
it should give you pause when dealing with them, that their conscience leads to hypothetical discussions like this.
I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life
Amen, and my first step is to leave this thread after this an never return. My next step is to flag any posts here about RMS. Next is to boycott any events where RMS is to be the speaker and actively lobby events who are thinking about hosting him to rethink that decision based on this writing as well as his piss poor treatment of other human beings in the past.
This is inexcusable, this is madness.
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 out" by his writings. Logically, he makes lots of sense, but personally he's as connectable as the sidewalk in front of my house. Sociopathy is the perfect term.
Anybody who can sit in Boston the last week, have a cop murdered in cold blood near his office by two men on an active terror event that just murdered and maimed dozens of people a few days before, and upon the conclusion of that event shit out this garbage before the close of the same day is a person so far removed from empathy, from society and from humanity as to be a sociopath.
I've never gone through such a wild swing of elation, joy and exhaustion, then disappointment, sadness and anger in such a short period of time as today. This isn't the kind of frustrating conspiracy nuttery that's so exasperating written by people so lost in their private world as to have lost touch with reality, this is written by a person fully cognizant of their writing and what he's saying, the time in which he's saying it and the tone in which he's saying it.
it should give you pause when dealing with them, that their conscience leads to hypothetical discussions like this.
I'm going to make active strides to remove these people from my life
Amen, and my first step is to leave this thread after this an never return. My next step is to flag any posts here about RMS. Next is to boycott any events where RMS is to be the speaker and actively lobby events who are thinking about hosting him to rethink that decision based on this writing as well as his piss poor treatment of other human beings in the past.
This is inexcusable, this is madness.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
I thought it might be the best way to reply to both posts without having to write two since there's no way to reply to multiple posts. The emotion in the second post was definitely what prompted me to respond, though.
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?
For how many people are the above statements both true?
Now, what is more rational to be concerned about?
Replace "work at a fertilizer plant" with "drive an automobile" or "swim in a pool" or "use a bath tub" or with any other seemingly innocuous activity that's orders of magnitude more likely to kill you than terrorists. What is more rational to be concerned about?
Here ya go.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
The detailed statistical list of things to be worried about and in what order.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
The detailed statistical list of things to be worried about and in what order.
I genuinely want to know.
If you kill somebody with an intention to kill them, you are a bad person. If you kill somebody without an intention to kill them, it's tragic, but you probably aren't a bad person.
Why exactly is that hard to understand?
RMS is not being a sociopath, he's analyzing an emotional situation in an unemotional way.
He's bringing forth a dispassionate, disturbingly cold analysis of an event that should be emotional by any psychological norm before the day has even closed out. It's so outside of social norms as to only be classifiable as an emotional disconnect so extreme it has to be the result of a severe psychological disturbance.
Why exactly is that hard to understand?
RMS is not being a sociopath, he's analyzing an emotional situation in an unemotional way.
He's bringing forth a dispassionate, disturbingly cold analysis of an event that should be emotional by any psychological norm before the day has even closed out. It's so outside of social norms as to only be classifiable as an emotional disconnect so extreme it has to be the result of a severe psychological disturbance.
[deleted]
> Why exactly is that hard to understand?
For two reasons:
1) Because it's totally irrelevant. A life is a life. Your life isn't worth more (or less) just because you were killed intentionally (or accidentally). All else being equal, would you rather prevent 100 accidental deaths or 10 intentional murders? Anyone with a shred of morality would save the 100. This isn't "cold analysis". It's prioritizing basic human decency over knee-jerk emotional reactions to sensational events.
2) Because it's inconsistent. If what you really care about is the intent to kill, then you'll focus on run-of-the-mill murders just as much as you focus on sensational bombings. But you don't. So when I try to imagine why you and millions of others care so disproportionately much about the events in Boston, I must eliminate the false reason that "it's because they're intentional." What's left is that you are simply drawn to exciting, sensational, unique events. I can't blame you for that. It's only human. What I can blame you for is having the gall to claim you have the moral high ground. The audacity to condemn people who think rationally about saving lives. It's disgusting to read.
> He's bringing forth a dispassionate, disturbingly cold analysis of an event that should be emotional by any psychological norm before the day has even closed out. It's so outside of social norms as to only be classifiable as an emotional disconnect so extreme it has to be the result of a severe psychological disturbance.
Yes, and 300 years ago it was likely "outside of social norms" to mourn the death of a slave. You're arguing as if behavior being socially normal makes it morally justifiable. That has never been true in the history of the world, and it isn't true today. And one's conformance (or lack thereof) to arbitrary societal norms is certainly not a reflection of psychological disturbance.
You are, quite literally, advocating a herd mentality. Gross.
For two reasons:
1) Because it's totally irrelevant. A life is a life. Your life isn't worth more (or less) just because you were killed intentionally (or accidentally). All else being equal, would you rather prevent 100 accidental deaths or 10 intentional murders? Anyone with a shred of morality would save the 100. This isn't "cold analysis". It's prioritizing basic human decency over knee-jerk emotional reactions to sensational events.
2) Because it's inconsistent. If what you really care about is the intent to kill, then you'll focus on run-of-the-mill murders just as much as you focus on sensational bombings. But you don't. So when I try to imagine why you and millions of others care so disproportionately much about the events in Boston, I must eliminate the false reason that "it's because they're intentional." What's left is that you are simply drawn to exciting, sensational, unique events. I can't blame you for that. It's only human. What I can blame you for is having the gall to claim you have the moral high ground. The audacity to condemn people who think rationally about saving lives. It's disgusting to read.
> He's bringing forth a dispassionate, disturbingly cold analysis of an event that should be emotional by any psychological norm before the day has even closed out. It's so outside of social norms as to only be classifiable as an emotional disconnect so extreme it has to be the result of a severe psychological disturbance.
Yes, and 300 years ago it was likely "outside of social norms" to mourn the death of a slave. You're arguing as if behavior being socially normal makes it morally justifiable. That has never been true in the history of the world, and it isn't true today. And one's conformance (or lack thereof) to arbitrary societal norms is certainly not a reflection of psychological disturbance.
You are, quite literally, advocating a herd mentality. Gross.
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.
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.
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, 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.
Note:I know I promised to swear this thread off, but I'm unbelievably pissed off
rather than being insulting and getting personal, I'll direct you to this part of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579814
rather than being insulting and getting personal, I'll direct you to this part of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579814
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.
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.
You can't meaningfully talk about death in numbers unless you are counting deaths.
And by then you've lost the point.
And by then you've lost the point.
No, ignore them until the "cost" of ignoring them outweighs the cost of doing something.
The question is how to calculate those costs.
The question is how to calculate those costs.
Just remember, there are some people who literally cannot see the emotional difference that's obvious to most. Call it sociopathy or being "on the spectrum" or what have you, for them its like watching a black and white TV picture of a world in color.
They may care very much about life, see two events one with many deaths, one with few, and a everyone inexplicably spending all of their money fixing the few and seemingly ignoring the obvious cheap fixes for the many.
So because they care (and not because they don't) they reach for their superhero capes and go try to help.
They may care very much about life, see two events one with many deaths, one with few, and a everyone inexplicably spending all of their money fixing the few and seemingly ignoring the obvious cheap fixes for the many.
So because they care (and not because they don't) they reach for their superhero capes and go try to help.
So what you're saying is that people who value human life equally -- regardless of whether it's lost "actively" or "passively" -- are sociopaths? That people who advocate for a system that tries to save the most lives possible are sociopaths? What?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying that adhering to some arbitrary societal standard of behavior in the face of tragedy is more important than, you know, saving lives.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying that adhering to some arbitrary societal standard of behavior in the face of tragedy is more important than, you know, saving lives.
You are talking about judging intent, he (and Bruce Schneier) is talking about measuring a reaction. Those are two different things.
The reason why you think that they are sociopaths is because you are conflating both of them.
Their point is precisely that they shouldn't be conflated. Your point seems to be that not conflating them is what characterises them as sociopaths.
The reason why you think that they are sociopaths is because you are conflating both of them.
Their point is precisely that they shouldn't be conflated. Your point seems to be that not conflating them is what characterises them as sociopaths.
I specifically did not address measurement of the reaction and took active measures not to conflate the two, because I'm quite aware that they are easy to conflate. That's what the bottom of my comment is specifically targeting.
I have some thoughts on the response level, both in the media and law enforcement, but I cannot draw a salient conclusion just yet. The media is an easier target than law enforcement in that regard. I think it's better if I leave that discussion to others like Schneier. My issue is the subtext and, on more than one instance, direct suggestion in Stallman's writing, comparing the two incidents in any way.
I have some thoughts on the response level, both in the media and law enforcement, but I cannot draw a salient conclusion just yet. The media is an easier target than law enforcement in that regard. I think it's better if I leave that discussion to others like Schneier. My issue is the subtext and, on more than one instance, direct suggestion in Stallman's writing, comparing the two incidents in any way.
making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit;
No, that's not what he said. He said more people were killed in the "Texas explosion" he hasn't mentioned anything about the cause other than maybe imply that it was not related to terrorism. He also hasn't maligned the plant owners, but rather suggested that technology might be employed to prevent it from occurring in the same manner again, and that the resources we spend on terrorism and the freedom we've sacrificed might be better spent in other ways.
No, that's not what he said. He said more people were killed in the "Texas explosion" he hasn't mentioned anything about the cause other than maybe imply that it was not related to terrorism. He also hasn't maligned the plant owners, but rather suggested that technology might be employed to prevent it from occurring in the same manner again, and that the resources we spend on terrorism and the freedom we've sacrificed might be better spent in other ways.
He's just not scared enough! This is terror, damnit! Get with the program, stallman.
This is very stupid.
The guy who goes to deliberately kill a bunch of people by bombing is probably very much not a sociopath, because a sociopath is someone who sees other people as expendable.
That matches the psychology of someone who doesn't give a shit. Which is your corporate CEO who didn't give a damn about the risks of the chemical plant.
A terrorist bomber may very well care deeply. He might be motivated by hatred. He may be motivated by vengeance. He may think his victims really have it coming to them. He may in fact be the exact opposite of a sociopath.
The guy who goes to deliberately kill a bunch of people by bombing is probably very much not a sociopath, because a sociopath is someone who sees other people as expendable.
That matches the psychology of someone who doesn't give a shit. Which is your corporate CEO who didn't give a damn about the risks of the chemical plant.
A terrorist bomber may very well care deeply. He might be motivated by hatred. He may be motivated by vengeance. He may think his victims really have it coming to them. He may in fact be the exact opposite of a sociopath.
I get his point, it raises an important lesson. But the lock down was fairly voluntarily throughout most of the Boston metro area, perhaps except those areas where active investigations were being conducted. People were outside in Back Bay; I walked by plenty of uniformed officers, none of which asked me to return to my home.
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
Other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579687
[deleted](2)
The point that's up for debate is: Are maimings and killings that are designed to change US govt policy more important than other maimings and killings. I think the answer is yes.
I agree that we don't know yet if that was the aim here. I also would agree that the level of terrorist attacks the west is subject to are too small to make us change any policy at all in the way the terrorists wish.
I agree that we don't know yet if that was the aim here. I also would agree that the level of terrorist attacks the west is subject to are too small to make us change any policy at all in the way the terrorists wish.
once again Stall man says something that is a bit insensitive, a little bit crazy, but very, very true.
Stallman is a God Tier troll.
He is sincere. He is mostly right. (He's predicted quite a lot of the modern computing ecology). He is extreme.
His one post will generate many posts from polarised commenters, sometimes those threads will devolve into bitter angry flames.
Everyone already knows this.
Yet it still happens.
It's amazing. God Tier.
He is sincere. He is mostly right. (He's predicted quite a lot of the modern computing ecology). He is extreme.
His one post will generate many posts from polarised commenters, sometimes those threads will devolve into bitter angry flames.
Everyone already knows this.
Yet it still happens.
It's amazing. God Tier.
[deleted]
rms is rms.
this is not a bad thing.
this is not a bad thing.
@dcurtis: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-- Benjamin Franklin
> 4 people killed in a week is not a lot compared with the background level of deaths in the US
It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event.
There's an expectation of danger while driving a car. There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.
It's not complicated.
It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event.
There's an expectation of danger while driving a car. There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.
It's not complicated.
> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.
You are in the presence of many other human beings. You are always in a present state of danger around everyone, ever. It is naive to think you can predict the actions of others.
I'm not saying be paranoid, I'm saying treat people like people and not faces in a crowd. You don't know their intentions with rare exception to those you actually know.
You are in the presence of many other human beings. You are always in a present state of danger around everyone, ever. It is naive to think you can predict the actions of others.
I'm not saying be paranoid, I'm saying treat people like people and not faces in a crowd. You don't know their intentions with rare exception to those you actually know.
> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.
There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.
There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.
Yes, which is why we don't hold large public events in the middle of a thunderstorm. And when a thunderstorm rolls into major public events, we do evacuate them.
Unless you're trying to say that the odds of being struct by lightning while spectating the Boston Marathon, on a clear sunny day, is high.
Unless you're trying to say that the odds of being struct by lightning while spectating the Boston Marathon, on a clear sunny day, is high.
The odds are higher that a storm will unexpectedly roll in and strike you with lightning than you getting blown up by a terrorist, yes.
There might be some level of expectation of getting hit by lightning during a lightning storm at the Boston Marathon.
Perhaps then we can say there should be some expectation of terrorism as long as the US continues to elect leaders that pursue this sort of foreign policy in the Middle East.
> There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.
Not sure where you're getting your data from.
Not sure where you're getting your data from.
It doesn't matter. People can go indoors if thunderclouds form. Terrorist attacks freak people out because such attacks make people feel powerless to control the risk.
That is a true statement, but what is your point?
The OP said "It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event."
It's an obvious appeal to emotion that doesn't refute the point that terrorist attacks are so infrequent that the average person ought to worry more about, say, slipping and falling in their bath tubs than getting killed by a terrorist.
It's an obvious appeal to emotion that doesn't refute the point that terrorist attacks are so infrequent that the average person ought to worry more about, say, slipping and falling in their bath tubs than getting killed by a terrorist.
I still don't see how that speaks to my point, which has to do with an expectation of danger in different contexts.
So I suppose this would be a red herring on your part, if we're accusing each other of logical fallacies.
So I suppose this would be a red herring on your part, if we're accusing each other of logical fallacies.
[deleted]
My personal response is:
There will always be a situation that is worse or where more people died, but that doesn't mean this isn't a very emotional and trying time for many, where the police and people of Boston were desperate to catch a person throwing explosives and shooting magazines of bullets in their city. Telling people to stay home for a few hours does not seem unreasonable in this situation.
Have some decency and respect for the lives lost, and save your opinions for a more appropriate time.