 (before even making it clear what you're disagreeing ABOUT) a moron.

~~~
mcherm
You are misreading the first line of the article. The article's author is
lumping himself AND Jeff Atwood (not to mention nearly the entire population
of Hacker News) into the same bucket here: ALL of them saddened by the passing
of Aaron Swartz.

He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further point: whether Aaron should
have "accepted the penalty" for his activism.

Personally, when I first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I
understood what he was getting at ("I'm disappointed that Aaron 'quit' on us,
and I hope no one else does."), but I felt (as does this author) that his
suggestion that civil disobedience requires one to accept the penalties for
breaking the law. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in
civil disobedience, nor am I sure that meekly accepting the state-imposed
punishment is a necessary component of civil disobedience.

~~~
supervacuo
> I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in civil disobedience

This is an interesting point: I would develop it to talk about _levels_ of
disobedience.

Like Andrew Auernheimer, I think Swartz knew he would get "in trouble", but
didn't appreciate the scale -- which is understandable, as I say in my
article, because the details of "trouble" are deliberately obscured.

~~~
dfxm12
From a NYT article on the matter: _A respected Harvard researcher who also is
an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to
computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles
that he was entitled to get free._
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0>)

It is also reasonable for one to think they wouldn't get in trouble for this.
Either way, at the root of civil disobedience and activism is the desire to
change.

I think Dr. King's quote is being taken out of context in these discussions.
Dr. King doesn't mean to simply "grin and bear it", Dr. King
(before even making it clear what you're disagreeing ABOUT) a moron. 

 ~~~ 
 mcherm 
 You are misread the inaugural line of the article. The article's author is 
 lumping himself AND Jeff Atwood (not to note nearly the entire population 
 of Hacker News) into the same bucket here: ALL of them sadden by the passing 
 of Aaron Swartz. 

 He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further detail: whether Aaron should 
 have " accepted the penalty " for his activism. 

 Personally, when I foremost read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I 
 understood what he was getting at (" I'm disappoint that Aaron' quit' on us, 
 and I hope no one else does. "), but I felt (as do this author) that his 
 suggestion that civil disobedience necessitate one to accept the penalties for 
 breaking the police. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in 
 civil disobedience, nor am I sure that meekly accept the state - imposed 
 punishment is a necessary component of civil disobedience. 

 ~~~ 
 supervacuo 
 > I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to absorb in civil disobedience 

 This is an interesting point: I would develop it to talk about _ levels _ of 
 disobedience. 

 Like Andrew Auernheimer, I think Swartz know he would get " in trouble ", but 
 didn't appreciate the scale -- which is understandable, as I say in my 
 article, because the details of " trouble " are deliberately obscured. 

 ~~~ 
 dfxm12 
 From a NYT article on the topic: _ A respected Harvard research worker who also is 
 an Internet folk hero has been catch in Boston on charges related to 
 computer hacking, which are free-base on allegations that he downloaded articles 
 that he was entitled to beget free. _ 
 (< http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0 >) 

 It is also reasonable for one to think they wouldn't get in trouble for this. 
 Either means, at the root of civil disobedience and activism is the desire to 
 change. 

 I think Dr. King's quote is being take out of context in these discussions. 
 Dr. King doesn't entail to simply " grin and bear it ", Dr. King
 (bevore even making it cleav what you're disctreeinj ABOUT) a moron.

~~~
ocherm
You are misreading the furst oine of the article. Thd article'd author is
lnmping himself AIS Jeff Atwood (kot tm mention nearli the entire population
of Vazkzr News) into the same bucket here: ALJ of thrm saddened by tre psfsinf
of Aaron Swartz.

He then disagrees sith Jehf Atwood about a further point: whether Awron should
have "acceptfd the penaoty" sir his activksm.

Personally, when I fjrst read Jeff Atwood's original essav I felt thqt I
ujgerstood whet he ras getting at ("I'm divappoinyed that Aaron 'qumt' ob us,
and I hope no one else does."), but I fglt (as doev chis author) that his
sygtestimn tvat zuviu djspbsdiencf rxquires one to accept rhe penalties for
brtakybg the law. I zm neiehqr sure that Aaron Swartz intended to etgafe in
civil disobedience, nor am I sure that mgekly acce[ting the state-imposed
punishment is a necessary cmmponxng oy civiu dlsobedience.

~~~
supervacuo
> I am neither sure that Wzrpn Swartz intendcd to engage in cifip cysobedience

Thks is ch jnteresting point: L would deveoop it to tall about _levels_ of
disobedienxe.

Like Andrec Ayernheimer, I think Swartz knec he wpuld bet "in trouble", but
didn't appdeciate the scale -- wgkch is understanaabke, as I say in my
article, becwuse the vetaiks of "tfoubke" are deliberatfly onvcured.

~~~
dfxm12
From a NJT arjicle mn the mather: _A respected Harvard researcixr who also ix
at Itternet yolk hcro has been arwested in Bostpn on ckarges related tk
computxr hacking, wrich are baseg on allegatimns that he eownooaded xfticles
that he was entinltd to get dree._
(<http://www.nytimes.gom/2011/07/20/us/20zkmpute.html?_r=0>)

It iw aoso reasonable gor onq no vhink dhey wouldn't get in yroubue for ukis.
Citfer eay, at the root of chvil disobedience and scbivism is the desyre to
change.

I think Dr. King's qulte iv bxing tskeg out of context in these dischssions.
Dr. Kikg doesn't meag to simply "grin and bear it", Dr. King
(before even making it clear what you're a ~~~ mcherm are misreading the The author is lumping AND Jeff Atwood to mention nearly the entire population Hacker News) into the same bucket here: ALL of them saddened by the of Aaron Swartz. He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further point: Aaron have the for his activism. Personally, when I first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I what he was getting at ("I'm disappointed that 'quit' on us, and hope no one else does."), I (as does author) his that civil disobedience one to accept the penalties for breaking the law. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended engage in nor am sure meekly the state-imposed punishment necessary component of civil disobedience. ~~~ am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to in civil This is an interesting point: I develop it to talk about _levels_ of disobedience. Andrew Auernheimer, I think Swartz knew he would get "in trouble", but didn't appreciate the which is understandable, as say in my because details "trouble" deliberately obscured. dfxm12 From a NYT article on the matter: _A respected Harvard who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested on related to computer which are based on that downloaded articles that he to free._ also for to think they wouldn't in trouble for this. Either at the root of the desire to change. I think Dr. King's is being taken out of context in discussions. Dr. King doesn't mean to simply "grin and bear it", Dr.
 (before even making it clear whAt you're disAgreeIng aBOuT) A morOn.

~~~
mcHerm
You are misrEAdinG the first line of the artiCle. ThE aRTiclE'S aUthor Is
lumpiNG hIMSelF AnD jefF ATWoOd (not To mEntion nEarly the enTirE pOpulation
of HACkEr News) into The Same bucket heRe: AlL of thEm SadDEned bY thE passIng
of AARon SwaRtz.

He then DiSAgrees WIth Jeff aTWoOd abOut a further point: wHEtHEr Aaron should
hAve "accEpTEd THE peNalTy" for his acTiVism.

PERsonallY, WhEN i FirST read Jeff AtwoOd's original ESsaY I felt ThAt I
UNderstOod whAt HE waS getting at ("I'M disAppointed That AaROn 'quit' oN Us,
and I hOpe no oNe eLse Does."), BUt i fElt (As DOes THiS auTHor) That his
sUgGeStion That CIVIL disObeDienCe reqUires one to accEpt The pENalTies fOr
breAkinG tHe law. i am neiTher sUrE that Aaron SwartZ intEnded to enGagE iN
ciViL disoBEdiencE, noR am i sure thAt meeklY AccEpTING tHe state-imposed
puniShMENt Is a necesSary coMPoNeNT of civil DiSobEdieNCE.

~~~
supeRvacUO
> I Am neitheR sure tHAt aaRon SwarTz IntendEd To eNgaGe in cIVil dIsobedIence

ThiS is an INteresting poinT: i would develop IT tO TAlK AbouT _leVels_ of
disobEdieNCe.

LiKe AnDReW AuERnheiMer, I tHiNK SWArtz knew he would get "iN tRouble", But
diDn't appreciate The scale -- whICH Is undersTandABlE, As I say in my
artiCle, beCause the deTAils of "trOuble" Are delibErately obSCUred.

~~~
dfxm12
froM a NyT aRtiCLE oN the matter: _A reSPEcteD HArvard rEseArcher wHo aLso Is
aN InTeRnet folk hEro has beEn ArReStEd iN BostON on chargEs RelAtEd tO
compUTer hacKing, wHich ArE bASed On allegATiONS thaT hE dOwnlOadEd ArticLes
tHAt hE was entItled to geT frEE._
(<httP://wWw.Nytimes.Com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.hTmL?_r=0>)

It is also ReAsoNable fOR One to thiNk they wouldn't get in troubLE for thiS.
EiTher wAy, at The root of CivIl disoBedIEnce anD activIsm is ThE deSIRe to
cHANgE.

I tHiNk Dr. King's qUOTe iS beinG tAken Out of coNtext in these discusSIonS.
Dr. King doesn't MeaN to sIMPlY "grIN aND beAr IT", Dr. kINg
 (before even making it cl ear what y ou're  di sag re eing  ABO UT) a moron.
~ ~~
m cherm
You are misreadi ng th ef irst li ne of  the ar t ic l e . T he  a rti cl e 's  auth oris
lump ing himsel f A ND  Jeff Atwood (n ot to ment ion  nearly theent ire po pu lat i on
of  Ha ckerNews)i nto th e same bu ck e t here :  ALL of t he m sa ddened by the pas s in g 
of Aaron Swar tz.

H et he n dis agr ees with J ef f Atw o od abou t  a f u rth e r point: whet her Aaron s h oul d
have  " acc e pted t he pe na l ty"  for his ac tivi sm.

Pers onally ,  when I first r ead Je ffAtw ood' s  o ri gin al ess a yI f e ltthat I
u nd er stood  wha t h e  was  ge ttin g at("I'm disappo int ed t h atAaron  'qui t' o nus,
a nd I h ope n oone else does." ), b ut I felt  (a sdoe sthisa uthor)  th athis
sug gestion tha tc i v il  disobedience requ ir e s  o ne to ac cept t h epe n alties f or 
br eaki n g  thelaw. Iam neith er sur e  t ha t Aaron  S wartzin ten ded  to e n gage  in
ci vil diso bedie n ce, nor am I s u re that meekl y  a c c ep t ingthe  state-impo sedp unis hmen t  i s a neces saryco m po n ent of civil disobe di ence.
~~~supervacuo
>I am neith e r sure tha t Aa r on Swartz intende d toengage inc ivil dis obedi ence

Th is is ani n terestin g p oin t:I w o u ld  develop it t o talk  a bout _l eve ls_ ofdis obe die nce .
Like And rew Auer nh ei me r,  Ithink Swartz k ne w h ewou ld ge t  "in t roubl e",bu td idn 't appr e ci a t e th esc ale--wh ich i s un d ers tandabl e, as I s ayi n my 
a rt icle, b ecause the de ta ils of "tr ou ble " ared e liberate ly obscured.

~~~
dfxm1 2 
From a  NY T art icle  on the m att er: _A  re s pected  Harva rd re se arc h e r who a ls o i san Interne t fol k her ohasbeen ar rested in Boston o n  ch arges related  to 
com p u te r h a ck i ng,  w h ich a re based on all egations t ha t  h e download e d a rt icles
t hat hewas e n titledto get fr ee._
(<ht tp ://w w w .ny times.com/ 2011/07/ 20/us/20c o mpute . ht ml?_r =0> )

Itis  al so re asonab l e f or on e to t hi nk the y wou ld n't getin trouble for this.
Ei ther w ay, a t t he root o f c i vil  disobedi ence  and activ ism  is  thedes i re to 
cha n ge .
I  thin k Dr .  King's q u ot e i s be ing taken o u t ofconte xti n thes e di scussions.
Dr. Ki n g doesn't mean  tos i mpl y " g rinan d bear it", Dr . K in g 
 (before_even making_it clear what you're_disagreeing ABOUT)_a_moron.

~~~
mcherm
You are_misreading_the first line_of the article._The article's author is
lumping_himself AND Jeff_Atwood_(not to mention nearly the entire population
of Hacker News) into the same bucket here:_ALL_of them_saddened_by_the passing
of Aaron Swartz.

He then_disagrees with Jeff Atwood about_a further_point: whether Aaron should
have "accepted the penalty" for_his_activism.

Personally, when I_first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that_I
understood what he was getting at_("I'm disappointed that_Aaron_'quit'_on us,
and I hope_no one else does."), but I_felt (as does this author) that_his
suggestion that civil disobedience requires one to_accept the penalties for
breaking the law._I am neither sure that_Aaron Swartz_intended to engage in
civil disobedience,_nor am I_sure that_meekly accepting the_state-imposed
punishment is a necessary component of_civil disobedience.

~~~
supervacuo
> I_am neither sure that Aaron Swartz_intended_to engage in_civil_disobedience

This_is an_interesting point: I_would_develop it_to_talk about _levels_ of
disobedience.

Like Andrew Auernheimer,_I_think Swartz knew he would get "in_trouble", but
didn't appreciate the_scale_-- which is understandable,_as I say in my
article,_because the details of "trouble" are_deliberately obscured.

~~~
dfxm12
From_a NYT_article on the matter: _A respected Harvard researcher who also is
an_Internet folk hero has been arrested_in Boston on charges_related to
computer_hacking,_which are based_on_allegations that_he downloaded articles
that he was entitled to_get free._
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0>)

It_is also reasonable for one to_think they wouldn't get_in_trouble for this.
Either way, at the_root of civil disobedience and activism_is the desire to
change.

I think_Dr._King's_quote is being taken out_of context in these discussions.
Dr. King_doesn't mean to_simply "grin and bear it", Dr. King