5 ms·

I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly what yo

I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly what you would expect? Of course she is going to prosecute a credit card thief who has stolen tens of thousands of cards. How does this stack up as added evidence against her?

monsterix 14y ago
Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia: US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise. Quoting from Wikipedia: A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid" C. A graph showing a strange spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-... etc. etc. etc. Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way? I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and hackers lie. Ponder. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... [Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]
- ars 14y ago
  What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted? > No. Surely, something else is broken. Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists." So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it imprison more people. > A graph showing a strange spike There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level, but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no spike. This graph is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1... It shows an increase, but no spike. So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you shall know: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    Increase ? Why does that look to me like a spike ? And are you denying either of these claims ? Because if not it seems like you are just nitpicking to me, the point of the parent is still fully correct regardless of the graph. A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"
    - ars 14y ago
      No, the point of the parent is not correct. The parent is implying that the US manipulates things so that innocent people go to prison. This is not the case. There is also no spike, but rather an increase followed by leveling off. The US does keep people in prison longer than other nations, there is no dispute there. But it does not imprison more people than other nations. This is a subtle but very important difference.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  This is totally irrelevant to what I said.
  - monsterix 14y ago
    Yeah actually the relevant line got weeded out as I progressed with editing, research and more editing. While suggesting to 'know', I got to know it myself too.
laumars 14y ago
RT is a Russian national news service. They're quite anti-US, anti-NATO, etc. I actually quite enjoy the RT TV station - they have some rather amusing reports. However, like all stations, they have their bias. So it's worth noting that their reports against the US should be taken with a pinch of salt (much like how I wouldn't trust any reports from Fox News).
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  RT is seemingly biased yes, mostly on the Russian issues. I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets. But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? Informed people usually see the US foreign policy as very bulling, strong armed and imperialist, and rightly so IMHO. And don't get me wrong, I like many aspects of the US and many people from the US, unfortunately is very hard to be informed and as such the administration is influenced by the few for the benefits of the few.
  - laumars 14y ago
    > I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt I'd already said that: "However, like all stations, they have their bias." > but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets. Which is why I follow RT ;) > But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? I wasn't. I was only advising people about a bias. Which is only fair given the likelihood of myself being one of the few in this thread who actively follows RT - so other readers on here may not be familiar with their editorial style (and let's not forget that the commenter before me did ask why RT may have ran this particular story). Plus, to be fair, if you followed RT yourself, then I'm sure you'd agree that they are very one sided (almost to the degree of Fox News - albeit delivered less like a cabaret!). Where as many other stations and publications (eg BBC News) are a lot more balanced. I'm not trying to imply that the BBC doesn't have their own biases as well - but they are less polarised by it. So it's often worth noting which reporters are more reputable than others (another example: any health scare published in by the Daily Mail has to be treated with a huge amount of skepticism as they have a long history of adding dramatised editorials, skipping over vital facts and misquoting scientific research).
regularfry 14y ago
If the defendant kills themselves before trial, that's a failure to prosecute. If the prosecutor caused that suicide, that must count against them, no?
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  Why would it count against you if you are performing your duties both morally and legally, and something outside of your control and responsibility happens? So, no. This does not count against.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    I have difficulty seeing driving a (apparently innocent) defendant to suicide as morally defensible. Besides, their goal should be conviction, not death. They failed to secure a conviction. They failed.

monsterix 14y ago

Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia: US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise. Quoting from Wikipedia: A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid" C. A graph showing a strange spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-... etc. etc. etc. Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way? I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and hackers lie. Ponder. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... [Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]

ars 14y ago
What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted? > No. Surely, something else is broken. Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists." So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it imprison more people. > A graph showing a strange spike There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level, but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no spike. This graph is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1... It shows an increase, but no spike. So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you shall know: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  Increase ? Why does that look to me like a spike ? And are you denying either of these claims ? Because if not it seems like you are just nitpicking to me, the point of the parent is still fully correct regardless of the graph. A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"
  - ars 14y ago
    No, the point of the parent is not correct. The parent is implying that the US manipulates things so that innocent people go to prison. This is not the case. There is also no spike, but rather an increase followed by leveling off. The US does keep people in prison longer than other nations, there is no dispute there. But it does not imprison more people than other nations. This is a subtle but very important difference.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
This is totally irrelevant to what I said.
- monsterix 14y ago
  Yeah actually the relevant line got weeded out as I progressed with editing, research and more editing. While suggesting to 'know', I got to know it myself too.

laumars 14y ago

RT is a Russian national news service. They're quite anti-US, anti-NATO, etc. I actually quite enjoy the RT TV station - they have some rather amusing reports. However, like all stations, they have their bias. So it's worth noting that their reports against the US should be taken with a pinch of salt (much like how I wouldn't trust any reports from Fox News).

BrokenPipe 14y ago
RT is seemingly biased yes, mostly on the Russian issues. I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt, but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets. But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? Informed people usually see the US foreign policy as very bulling, strong armed and imperialist, and rightly so IMHO. And don't get me wrong, I like many aspects of the US and many people from the US, unfortunately is very hard to be informed and as such the administration is influenced by the few for the benefits of the few.
- laumars 14y ago
  > I think ALL reports from ANY news source should be taken with a pinch of salt I'd already said that: "However, like all stations, they have their bias." > but if anything, you want to read about your nation from non national and possibly independent news outlets. Which is why I follow RT ;) > But how can you blame them for criticizing US foreign policy ? I wasn't. I was only advising people about a bias. Which is only fair given the likelihood of myself being one of the few in this thread who actively follows RT - so other readers on here may not be familiar with their editorial style (and let's not forget that the commenter before me did ask why RT may have ran this particular story). Plus, to be fair, if you followed RT yourself, then I'm sure you'd agree that they are very one sided (almost to the degree of Fox News - albeit delivered less like a cabaret!). Where as many other stations and publications (eg BBC News) are a lot more balanced. I'm not trying to imply that the BBC doesn't have their own biases as well - but they are less polarised by it. So it's often worth noting which reporters are more reputable than others (another example: any health scare published in by the Daily Mail has to be treated with a huge amount of skepticism as they have a long history of adding dramatised editorials, skipping over vital facts and misquoting scientific research).

regularfry 14y ago

If the defendant kills themselves before trial, that's a failure to prosecute. If the prosecutor caused that suicide, that must count against them, no?

jamesaguilar 14y ago
Why would it count against you if you are performing your duties both morally and legally, and something outside of your control and responsibility happens? So, no. This does not count against.
- regularfry 14y ago
  I have difficulty seeing driving a (apparently innocent) defendant to suicide as morally defensible. Besides, their goal should be conviction, not death. They failed to secure a conviction. They failed.