Scratch

no it isnt
i heard about him killing himself
GOVERNMENT, QUIT BEING SCARED OF HACKERS

Last edited by zubblewu (2013-01-14 20:15:21)

veggieman001 wrote:

/unconfirmed

Plus DDoSing isn't hacking, anyways

They didn't DDoS AFAIK, they did legitimately deface at least two MIT web sites.

Also to my knowledge he was not a "hacker," he downloaded pages off of a blog with "intent to redistribute." The US Government dropped charges, while MIT continued to hold them against AaronSW.

RIP Aaron.

(For those of you who don't know him, he was a co-founder of Reddit and DemandProgress, as well as co-authoring a large portion of RSS 1.0. He just recently committed suicide.)

i had heard he was a hacker (to an extent at least), although he was prosecuted for… downloading documents in a perfectly legal manner. hooray. there's a moral here, kids; never download anything from the Internet ever!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!

veggieman001 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

/unconfirmed

Plus DDoSing isn't hacking, anyways

They didn't DDoS AFAIK, they did legitimately deface at least two MIT web sites.

Also to my knowledge he was not a "hacker," he downloaded pages off of a blog with "intent to redistribute." The US Government dropped charges, while MIT continued to hold them against AaronSW.

RIP Aaron.

(For those of you who don't know him, he was a co-founder of Reddit and DemandProgress, as well as co-authoring a large portion of RSS 1.0. He just recently committed suicide.)

Oh, okay, I didn't see that.

And yeah, RIP. He was a great person.

(and, technically, not a co-founder of Reddit)

Co-owner who made a large amount of money selling the site.

ImagineIt wrote:

haxcharsol wrote:

Huh.
I wondered why Scratch was down. I thought it was just my Internet.

+1

+1

That would be Anonymous.

yes those are guy Fawkes/vendetta masks. anonymous typically wears them

I thought it was down for something to do with scratch 2.0

Here's how MIT reported the incident.  Reading the comments to the article, there is some confusion as to whether it was a DoS attack or not.   

You can read the MIT president's response over here.

A very sad thing indeed.

67589jun wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Here's how MIT reported the incident.  Reading the comments to the article, there is some confusion as to whether it was a DoS attack or not.   

You can read the MIT president's response over here.

A very sad thing indeed.

I though anonymous hated reddit, they complain all the time about it. Yet they have to DoS the website the co-founder had stolen info from. I believe all information on the internet is free, no matter who says, but stealing this much, especially from MIT is just unheard of!

Well, not everything is quite free. JSTOR, like many other websites that are repositories for information, do charge a fee for full access of certain papers. I can't blame them for doing that, though - maintenance and upkeep of a huge collection of peer-reviewed information is not easy, after all.

PonyvilleSlugger wrote:

To be honest Anonymous are quite bigoted, if they disagree with something they'll just take it down and their excuses are always "the internet should be free".

I'd much rather have an internet where I could write something, charge for people to use it (for upkeep etc.) and that's it, with people who download and release it stopped because it's not fair that someone gets to take away my profit for something I've done just because they want it for free.

Exactly. Why on earth should something be free just because it's on the internet? You have to pay for books, so why shouldn't you have to pay for that same information just because it's on the internet? It's ridiculous.

My understanding is that JSTOR is charging much more than the small costs for upkeep, hosting, etc, but I haven't been able to find prices by searching around the webs, or their site. I could be wrong about this - if someone would like to do the research, I'd be grateful.

The point, as I understand it, is that the creation of most of the scholarly articles on JSTOR was funded, at least in part, by the US Government. That means they were paid for by our tax dollars. That being the case, I have to agree that they should be 'free' - we've already paid for them. The cost of running a website to make pdfs available is pretty small, all things considered. So I don't see that as a justification for charging exorbitant fees just to access some .pdfs.

That said - I'm not sure how shutting down MIT's connection to the webs for 3 hours (and, consequently, Scratch) serves to further the idea that things should be open, available, and free.