8 ms·
Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts
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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sergiotapia 13y ago>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.
- bung 13y agowoosh
- john_whelan 13y ago+ one of those four people was a police officer
- tolmasky 13y agoIs killing a police officer worse than killing a "normal" person?
- john_whelan 13y agoYes, 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?
- waqf 13y agoOkay, and why is killing someone who is risking their life worse than killing anyone else?
- TWAndrews 13y agoWorking 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_firefighter_work_dangerous_yes_and_no http://open.salon.com/blog/richard_rider/2010/11/08/police_f...
- josephagoss 13y agoIn a police state, it is.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThe 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.
- rdouble 13y agoOrdinary citizens are generally not as well armed Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
- HarryHirsch 13y agoI 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.
- mindcrime 13y agoPlant 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?
- HarryHirsch 13y ago> 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.
- mindcrime 13y agoAt 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.
- ivanca 13y agoI 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.
- gvb 13y agoThey 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_Act_1865_.28Red_Flag_Act.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Act#The_Locomotive_A...
- bane 13y agoI have to drive to work, lunch and home every single day, I have to deal with an ongoing terrorist attack almost never.
- homosaur 13y agoIf you expected anything from Stallman other than to say something socially tone deaf and head slapping, well... you don't know much about RMS.
- ck2 13y agoIt 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.
- ryanhuff 13y agoHow about celebration for the simple matter that a couple of murderers are off the street, and people can stop hiding in their houses?
- cdash 13y agoWhy 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.
- krapp 13y agoProbably, 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lurker14 13y agoWhat'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.
- moioci 13y agoSurely 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.
- emily37 13y agoNot 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.
- mikegreen 13y agoNever confuse actual security with the theater of security. It is the latter than our country wants, or at least our politicians say we want.
- lurker14 13y agoToday's effort was actual security.
- magic5227 13y agoThis 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.
- deweerdt 13y ago> 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.
- mpyne 13y agoThe 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- homosaur 13y agoI 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.
- jstrate 13y agoI 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.
- homosaur 13y agoNooo, they wouldn't do that would they?
- emily37 13y agoI heard/read that for homes with inhabitants present, the inhabitants were asked if they would like their homes searched. I'm not sure if they searched empty homes, but if they did, then they probably believed it to be exigent circumstances.
- asciimo 13y agoWow. I agree with RMS 100% on this point. (Should I be worried?) For all of our wonderful attributes, humans are irrational.
- bane 13y agoNo, 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.
- thedufer 13y agoI 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?
- bane 13y agoNo, 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 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.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoStupid 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.
- bane 13y agoRight, 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.
- rayiner 13y agoBut 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.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoIt'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.
- kurd_debuggr 13y ago
- zipfle 13y agorms is rms. this is not a bad thing.
- CurtMonash 13y agoAnd 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/ 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.
- mbell 13y agoHe 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.
- ra 13y agoAbsolutely 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.
- acabal 13y agoAs 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.
- magic5227 13y agoexcept we havent seen this, so let's focus on the loss and talk about this when we see a disproportionate response
- magic5227 13y agoif anything, people seemed to critique that they called off letting people outside too early. its never good enough it seems
- acabal 13y agoI 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.
- bane 13y agogoing 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.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoBoston 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.
- Anechoic 13y agoBoston 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.
- 13y ago
- ewbuoi 13y agoI wish I knew more people (AFK) who thought like this...
- bane 13y agoWhat an unmitigated asshole...seriously RMS, go fuck yourself. (I had something more pithy to write but I think this captures the essence better)
- chj 13y agoSeriously... You are just too weak to hear some honest opinions.
- tkahn6 13y ago> 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.
- marknutter 13y ago> 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.
- tkahn6 13y agoThat is a true statement, but what is your point?
- marknutter 13y agoThe 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.
- tkahn6 13y agoI 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.
- kevincennis 13y agoThere might be some level of expectation of getting hit by lightning during a lightning storm at the Boston Marathon.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- icelancer 13y agoI highly doubt it. EDIT: The parent comment was along the lines of "Well RMS wouldn't think this way if HIS legs were blown off."
- sansui 13y agofeeling a need for self-gratification i see...
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoYou've not been paying attention to RMS; and the houses riddled with bullets are probably shot with errant police ammunition.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- platz 13y agoOf course, now that he's been caught, this is much easier to say.
- mpyne 13y agoYes, I can definitely see absolutely no possible way that a bunch of people leaving their houses to go to work or run errands in the morning could possibly have made it any more difficult for the police to find Tsarnaev. And there definitely would have been no additional risk of police getting antsy and shooting the wrong person, nosiree.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wavesounds 13y agoCarmen Ortiz (Same DA who prosecuted Aaron Swartz) said that because of some public safety exemption loophole they didn't read him his maranda rights.
- danielweber 13y agoThis 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.
- wavesounds 13y agoThey 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.
- 27182818284 13y agoIt 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.
- GHFigs 13y agoI 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.
- hkmurakami 13y agoonce again Stall man says something that is a bit insensitive, a little bit crazy, but very, very true.
- beezee 13y agoHow 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.
- technoluster 13y agoI 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.
- hhaidar 13y agoI 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.
- vladig17 13y agoEven 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.
- tiredofcareer 13y agoI'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.
- RockyMcNuts 13y agoAs 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.
- homosaur 13y agoYou know I had never thought of the financial damage aspect but you're right on about that.
- chj 13y ago@dcurtis: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
- reader5000 13y ago"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".
- pcvarmint 13y agoI 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5579687
- DanBC 13y agoStallman 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.
- aj700 13y agoThe 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.
- nohorse 13y agoHis sig says Skype is nonfree. What does that even mean? Stallman is a kook and lives in an alternate reality. Pay no attention to him.
- nohorse 13y agoHis sig says Skype is nonfree. What does that even mean? Stallman is a kook and lives in an alternate reality. Pay no attention to him.