Hacker News Reader

Comment by steven_h | Hacker News Reader

As a chemistry major, I've honestly seen stupider things allowed to happen in a supposedly supervised laboratory than what this guy was doing.

Was it wrong that he was doing it in his apartment, putting all the other tenants at risk? Absolutely, but I don't think he should be put in jail, just reprimanded and told where to perform experiments in a safe environment. Who knows, maybe his experiment would have worked w/o all the cigarette smoke and ash.

The only reason I post this comment is because this guy is exhibiting the hacker spirit that we all do, just in a physical science instead of computer science. I would be upset if someone told me not to play with data structures they way they won't let him play with chemicals. (Again, I know its not the same thing in practice but it's the principle.)

View on HN

When the practice involves potentially killing yourself and poisoning other people, the principle would seem to be not the same.

I totally agree but that would be the in the implementation; the principle is an abstract idea, [1] such as the principles of modern physics.

I know it seems nit-picky but as someone with an interest in chemistry and comp sci, and a degree in both, I can appreciate the curiosity that comes with science. It's what encouraged me to study the science.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle

the difference in principle is that some kinds of curiosity are potentially fatal

Your hacking practice involves potentially unleashing viruses and breaking into other systems. Hence, it should be regulated.

Just wait. They just come for the physical sciences first, but things are definitely going in the direction of making programming a restricted activity.

If this guy wants to play with the physical sciences, he could build a potato cannon, electroplate a cup with silver, or hack an Arduino board. Radium is just inherently dangerous.

I would like to know where you get your evidence that we are falling down some slippery slope where restrictions on home experiments in the physical sciences are getting stronger, and that programming is headed towards the same direction.

I don't see why anyone would regulate programming. Mostly, it's harmless, and even useful, and not dangerous. The guy in the article was playing with radium in an unsafe way that could have contaminated the apartment. He had a meltdown on his stove! It never occurred to him that this might be possibly illegal until several months in! Does this look like a guy who actually knows what he's doing when it comes to radioactive stuff--not your cute little computer viruses, you know, that send spam or maybe hijack a few cycles, but the kind of shit that gives people birth defects and cancer?

Sorry, dude, programming just isn't in the same class as nuclear physics. Don't worry, we won't be regulating it the same way.

I would like to know where you get your evidence that we are falling down some slippery slope where restrictions on home experiments in the physical sciences are getting stronger

Stories like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=411813

About programming I agree that it's more tenuous, but sites like https://freedom-to-tinker.com/ clearly are talking about something.

I don't see why anyone would regulate programming.

People who say things like this:

"The FBI said that cyber crime is the agency's No. 3 priority but it will likely rise to No. 1 in a few years. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robert White said that criminals always find new ways to exploit victims and businesses, which keeps the U.S. at risk. "Given our connection to the Internet, and our infrastructure and everything being computerized, it also lends itself to possible cyber terrorism..."

Principles don't kill. Practices do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com