ZenPro

Exactly.

I understand the situation.

The sentence offered was exactly 6 months. So it was quite as low as 6 months. It was 6 months.

Suicide is not an understandable outcome. It was rash, irrational and abnormal. There is nothing more to discuss. You are simply wrong. the best part is, you know it as well. We both know you know it.

You showed me two cases where it happened. I can show you over 100,000 cases this year where it didn't happen. I can show you millions of cases where it didn't happen. I can show you 10's of millions of cases where it didn't happen. Literally, every single prisoner in prison didn't kill themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...

I never referred to you. Never even linked to your comment directly. Was talking about HN in general.

I also never asked you for any data. I would suggest learning to read before you try and form arguments. Like learning to crawl before trying to sprint.

I couldn't care if the prosecutor killed them with his bare hands. You disagreed that suicide is abnormal.

Post the data that suggests suicide is normal and stop running from your earlier statements.

Another one of those classic HN threads whereby tech geeks attempt to "improve" something you clearly understand very little about and end up being schooled by those with experience.

1. As has been covered; the team names on screen represent home and away not the side of the pitch. This format has been in use for decades and cannot be improved. Every football fan in the world understands it. You are 0/1.

2. Thanks for the blinding suggestion of putting the team formation on the screen before the game begins. If only every football game had such a thing already. Oh wait, it does and has done since the 1970s. You are 0/2

3. The clock design is unintelligible. The idea of the clock onscreen is purely to give you information when you glance at it, not to detract from the action on screen with measurement bars and large typefaces. 0/3

4. You completely misunderstood about red and yellow cards. Straight reds can be given, they are not always 2 yellow cards. 0/4

5. Football does not need space for double digit scores. 0/5

6. Who cares about possession mid-game? You fail to grasp that half time is for analysis. 0/6

7. Stoppage time is not fixed. It is the referees perception and is affected by events during stoppage time itself. The countdown bar is useless. 0/7

8. the beauty of football, most fans would agree, is the lack of stats and quantative analysis. Midfielders are not ranked according to passes attempted/completed or defenders by tackles successful. Football is subjective and heuristic and the fans and the sport itself is happy to embrace that. Infographics only ever get trotted out when a manager needs fired. 0/8

9. Football is the most popular sport in the world (by a massive margin) with the worlds biggest network television providers optimising every single aspect of the on and off-screen experience. Children in african villages, Brazilian favelas and Norwegian forests understand it intuitively. Any design change you could make would be minutely incremental and certainly not grounded in Web 2.0 or 3.0 type principles. You can see this attitude displayed in the hostility of football fans to american-style video refereeing. It would destroy the pace of the game. Football is subjective, anecdotal, memory based and contentious. It's why we love it. If you attempt to data-fy it the consensus will find another channel (IMO).

I have not even touched on television types, sponsorship and branding, the terrible choice of icons you chose (why is there a basketball in your icon set??) and other things.

I love design attempts but don't redesign a sport you clearly don't understand. Customer Development comes before User Development. Understand my sport before you attempt to understand my UX needs.

...and how has that backed up anything you have said?

I already know Schwarz killed himself. I already know the prosecutor was zealous.

So, either post the aggregated data that shows accused parties kill themselves prior to trial or simply STFU. I am not joking it really is embarrassing for you.

You are clearly a moron. Not just wrong but an out and out moron.

Posting a link to a story from the Daily Mail is the argumentative equivalent of shooting yourself in the face.

Widely regarded as the worst newspaper in the United Kingdom. Please don't respond. You are seriously embarrassing yourself.

Oh dear moody moody moody.

1. He was facing 6 months for a plea bargain. Several other lawyers have already commented here how felony charges are listed sequentially as maximum sentencing but that is not how years are applied. It is now becoming boring to have to school you.

2. You have given absolutely fuck all data to support anything of interest. Please provide the data that says people facing a criminal trial have a tendanecy to kill themselves. Let's forget "normal" etc. Just a tendency will be sufficient.

3. I am smug. I am smug because a prick like you decided to try and nitpick my comment and you embarrased yourself.

4. I didn't troll. You are just wrong. Suicide is not normal. Schwarz killing himself was not normal. The end.

Oh dear -

1. Misunderstanding of felony charges are stated and subsequently sentenced. Check.

2. Misunderstanding of compared suicide rates to criminal sentencing. Check.

3. Comnplete misreading of my sarcasm reagrding lack of data. Check.

You are just emabrassing yourself, honestly.

You could have every data point in the world suggesting the factors that contribute to suicidal feeling.

None of it proves criminal sentencing results in the normative behaviour of suicide. Again we are returning to common sense, we know that criminals are not killing themselves on masse.

This is getting stupid now. You are clearly not trolling and genuinely think you are on to something.

Suicide is not normal neither is it normal for anyone to kill themselves in response to the potential of being found guilty.

It happens, but it is not normal.

Please feel free to continue arguing. It is interesting to watch someone logically eat their own argument.

So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?

OK. The world is awash with people receiving a criminal sentencing and then killing themselves. It's unfortunate we don't have any data whatsoever to disprove that...

Well done, Sir. You win the internet today. Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in prison is completely normal.

Nope. The point was a snark which does more to embarrass the poster than myself.

I posted a link to someone else's legal disclaimer as an example of how legal advisory services protect themselves. They used it to try and paraphrase my own comment back to me, unsuccessfully.

You could subpoena HN but it would display a startling lack of understanding about ISPs, legal process, HN and the Internet.

One, a subpoena has to be delivered in person...

It hasn't annoyed me. Clarity of language is crucial in discussing the law.

How can you offer legal advice without even writing correct English?

In the UK you can vote them out as a Director but it is difficult to get rid of them as shareholders.

Some co-founders simply let themselves get booted but still cash in at a later date without have actually accomplished anything.

The power that (coders/doctors/mechanics/opticians/dentists/security professionals) is reminiscent too. That is why we people gain a trade.

HN would be in uproar if someone wrote a blog saying - hey you don't need a CTO to launch your tech startup, just read my blog on Visual Basic and away you go.

Start ups ask people to invest their lives into the enterprise. The least you could do is get proper fucking legal advice to ensure your employees and co-founders are covered.

Or don't. And get raped by either the taxman or a VC legal counsel.

Depends if you consider the blog and subsequent invitation on HN to be an offer to treat - acceptance being the implementation of said advice.

Without a legal disclaimer then the blog could theoretically be held accountable as they positioned themselves as the authority and invited action.

Are you a moron? Who would you sue - the username?

This ^^ +10

Are you the copywriter? The grammar and spelling is shocking.

Since you failed to even add a basic legal disclaimer to your own blog I will pass. Unless of course you are stating that your blog constitutes legal advice and I can sue you if things go wrong for me...

Every law student will attest that nothing replaces the advice of actual legal counsel. Even lawyers get a lawyer when they need one since you need someone with expertise that up to and including that minute.

If you want example of a sterling legal disclaimer then check out

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/aboutus.aspx#Disclaimer

A website dedicated to providing legal information.

haha voted down for saying suicide is not normal.

Stay classy HN :-)

You have misunderstood me. My point was sexuality is never a choice. Acting on impulse is a choice; suffering from impulse is not.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I have written before you embarrass yourself further.

I never brought race into the equation. In order for suicide to be considered the norm it would have be the de facto standard for living organisms. Roughly, 50.1% of all living creatures. I can cite 7 examples that back up my claim - Movement Respiration Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion Nutrition

Common sense also tells us that suicide cannot be normal behaviour otherwise all biological organisms would eventually degrade to 0 lifeforms.

If my words are hurtful it is because time and time again we see posters on HN tossing out absolutely junk statements that they think are well-informed. When pressed they resort to an argumentative form of

Present [ALL] evidence [EVER] or I reject reasoned opinions.

Normally the follow us is something along the lines of

*Your [SOURCE/RESEARCH/DATA] is flawed because of [UTTERLY INTANGIBLE REASON].

There comes a time when, as a person and a member of society you have to accept that we are not living in a simulation but that the evidence in front of you is actually satisfactory.

Suicide is not normal. It was ludicrous and silly for you to toss out a random objection to my statement.

Just to be clear; your assertion is that no human being make a reasonable or educated guess about their behaviour in a situation that is unfamiliar?

That is your assertion?...because it is nonsense if it is. As humans we make effective, educated guesses about unfamiliar scenarios all of the time.

I also don't physically need to be charged with wire fraud to know that I would not take my own life over it leaving behind my children. Children, if convicted today, I would be able to see again before Christmas.

However - if you want to get [really] meta over the subject then your logic defeats itself.

Unless you have actually been me how can you know that I am not completely accurate in my assessment of myself?

Your stated position has rendered you unable to disagree with me. Since you are not me.

50.1% of all living things for it to be biologically normal.

50.1% of human beings for it to be emotionally normal.

But; let's also add your comment is nonsense. I don't need empirical data to state suicide is not normal.

I am a human being, that is alive and capable of reason.

The HN propensity for immediately crying foul at lack of empirical evidence is almost child like.

Are you that incapable of applying reasoned judgement to your daily life?

On another tangent; Why do you think sexuality is a choice? That statement alone shows you are not equipped to discuss the issue with any thing resembling common sense or informed opinion.

You are just tossing out a bunch of arbitrary control questions that mean nothing.

Why should people be nice when calling out armchair scientists for writing utter unsubstantiated bullshit?

You want nice? Fine. Give everyone the downvote ability.

If the forum is still elitist then expect people to respond adversely to bullshit.

Good luck with that as a Court Reporter.

Almost all journalists start out at regional or local publications covering Courts. It is considered the apprenticeship of mainstream news journalism.

Not sure why you have been voted down.

Oh wait, I do. This is Hacker News; where surface experts abound on every subject and you best not ask for facts, veracity or credibility.

I cannot get around the fact that he was offered leniency (6 months in a low security prison) in return for a plea bargain.

He rejected that deal, opting instead for a trial in which prosecutors would have been forced to justify their pursuit of him.

Fair enough - noble and principled if a little foolhardy.

Then he committed suicide.

Given the choice of ending my life or taking 6 months in jail; I know which is the more mentally stable option to take.

Normal life is not suicide.

I say that as someone who has talked two people out of suicide. Suicide not a normal emotional, biological or mental state for any living creature.

What exactly is wrong with judging someone through a large canon of blog posts?

I am sure you would have no trouble judging the mental state of the Westboro Baptist Church members through their blog posts.

That is true to a point. But the spectrum is only a public resource under specific conditions and Aereo has not met those conditions according to the law and legal institutions we have empowered to make those decisions.

I have read some of your previous posts and they are exceptionally well written.

However, I await the idiotic HN consensus about to be posted below this comment stating -

a. Judges are <insert slur> old men b. Old people don't understand technology c. Silicon Valley could solve the entire world if we just let it

What? Seriously...what?