Slashdot Mirror

A quick google search tells me Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton in 1981

Michelle Obama '85 . . . graduated from Princeton in 1985 . . . that is what the '85 behind her name means:
http://dailyprincetonian.com/tag/michelle-obama-85/
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/volume98/issue10/obama/
http://globalcomment.com/michelle-obama-princeton-do-the-hard-work-yourself/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/michelle-obama-skips-mile_n_553125.html

Your link, please . . . ?

"Just the facts, Ma'am . . . just the facts . . . " -- Sgt. Joe Friday

Oh, and as to them not knowing each other . . . they were both very active members of the Third World Center at Princeton, a group for minorities . . . and when they say minority at Princeton . . . they mean it with the full sense of the word. The university let them use an old boathouse for their meetings.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

A Bush apointee fired by Al Gore from the Office of Energy research. Quelle Horreur! He kept his job in "academe".

"Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute." so he didn't have any trouble finding a new job either.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm

Who was drummed out of what?

http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/10/fired-for-questioning-evolution-and-human-caused-global-warming-gavriel-avital/

This guy is an evolution denier. He lost his job as "chief scientist of the Israeli education ministry". I can't imagine how he got it.

But no mention of him being drummed out of "the academy".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Hey, it's Happer again. Padding your references?

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291

I'll have to ask Eve Kay about this. Who was drummed out of what?

Took me two seconds to find these

Really? You didn't have them bookmarked?

Seems you have indeed been living under a rock. I am not finding videos for you. I have enough to do right now.

I don't know who's under a rock, but you seem to have found a couple of slimy things that should stay there. Happer, Avital. Ugh.

Nobody being drummed out of academe though.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/ http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm http://www.jewlicious.com/2010/10/fired-for-questioning-evolution-and-human-caused-global-warming-gavriel-avital/ http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2 http://www.solopassion.com/node/2291 Took me two seconds to find these. Seems you have indeed been living under a rock. I am not finding videos for you. I have enough to do right now.

Apple's have only gotten out of the 2% of computers in the last 2 or 3 years. Even now they struggle to get 5% worldwide.

This Ars Technica article has Apple at 10% market share in the US, this one has it at 14%. That's a lot of macs. Apple is one of the few companies that have consistently seen their market share grow the last few years in a floundering market.

Then there's Apple's strength in certain niches, like on college campuses :

"According to the Office of Information Technology (OIT), 45 percent of computers purchased this year were Macs, more than in any previous year. In 2003, when this year's seniors arrived on campus, just 15 percent of them chose Macs. The next year, a quarter of incoming freshmen did, and the year after that, 38 percent."

That's a 2006 article and personally I have seen no reversal of that trend, quite the opposite actually. And you'd expect colleges to be hotspots of all kinds of mischief like hacking and exploits.

Take note of the last one. IOS drops that cost a lot, making malware on phones economically viable. Further more, IOS has proven itself to be quite vulnerable in the past, you do know that jailbreaking is done by exploiting a vulnerability dont you. Feel free to use the "jailbreak me" PDF vulnerability as an example. The only reason it hasn't been exploited is because there's more profit in Windows malware.

iOS has had a few exploits and yet we've had only 1 or 2 actual (and amateurish) attacks out in the wild impacting very few people (only jailbreakers with default passwords.) Only twice has there been a remote exploit and both were promptly patched by Apple, the rest have been pretty complicated hacks that require reinstalling the device or putting it in recovery mode. That's a pretty good security record, as good as any device or OS out there.

I don't buy your explanation that it's not economically viable. 120 million of these devices have been sold, mostly to reasonably well off people. That's a huge "market" for exploits.

Claiming you are automagically protected when you've never even been attacked is naive at best. It's like Lisa's (Simpson) tiger repelling rock, you cant use the fact that there are no tigers around the rock as proof of it's tiger repelling abilities.

That's not what I said, no-one claims macs are "magically immune". What I said was that people have been predicting a deluge of viruses and malware for mac for a decade now and it hasn't happened. Sooner or later they might be right, just like the people who say "repent, the end is nigh" might be right someday. In the mean time rehashing old arguments that haven't actually been proven to be true in reality is a waste of time. Reality is the ultimate test of the theory.

Most of the traders were college football players/econ majors. I kid you not. They need to be large and imposing to get seen/push their way around on the trading floor.

From the field to the trading floor, alumni links help athletes find jobs

This is fairly well established. I've had two people tell me this before, both in positions to know.

Hmm are you talking about the same Harvard president who suggested that the reason there were less postdoc women was because they were innately inferior?
www.dailyprincetonian.com

There are facts that women are under-represented in a lot of careers, particularly engineering, but rather than funding rigorous studies "on whether or not women lack the same mental abilities as men", shouldn't we be looking at social problems? Perhaps those women were told at a young age that they couldn't be good at math, or encouraged to play with dollies while the boys were encouraged play with Legos and blocks. It was only within the last 50 years that women were even let into most rigorous programs (medicine, law, etc). They were often refused on the most flimsy and outright sexist grounds, "Well academically you are overqualified, but we can't admit you because you might get pregnant and then will drop out"

I think history has had enough people trying to argue a scientific basis for discrimination or bias against women and minorities. If you want to do rigorous research, you will have to eliminate social and class variables which is quite impossible.

Frank Shoemaker dies at 86.

To more directly address your question, the article features her picture. Personal preferences may very, but my answer is "yes."

Tasnim Shamma

Personal Info

* Degree: A.B. in English, IPS in Journalism...

You could have just posted a link.

* Contact Email: tasnim.shamma@gmail.com

Cue a quarter-million inquiries about Miss Quan's email address.

Andy Appel donated $4000 to Kerry http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/13/news/10683.shtml and originally complained that his voting machine had an extra vote for Obama. Now that the primary is over his conspiracy theory has switched to focusing on an extra vote for Republicans. Andy would probably like the machine just fine if it had an extra vote for Clinton.

Donating $4000 to Democrats hardly gives me a warm 'n fuzzy that Andy Appel's report or blog can be trusted to be objective. Since he is basically the plaintif as well, he has no reason to be objective either. That's fine I guess, but the media reports and his own blog suggest he is some kind of independant expert retained by the court, which is absolutely untrue and misleading.

And screw our objective /. editors that immediately tagged the story with "onemorevoteformccain", although a recent check says they thought better of it.

I heard that in quite a few places a couple of years ago and wondered if it was part of marketing campaign. Anyway, it's here at Princeton anyway. The Penn article is still in Google's cache

UVA has been doing a technology survey of incoming freshman since 1997 and this year's numbers are startling. The use of Macs is up to almost 20% of freshman according to this http://www.itc.virginia.edu/stuserv/ca/cainventory /compare/ survey.

And Princeton's school newspaper has reported that 45% of all computers sold on campus this year are Macs. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/10/ 12/arts/16162.shtml

between the DRM, the possibility of a format/patent war, and all of the proposed flags, i'm going to put off buying HD/Blu Ray anything until there is a clear winner or a viable solution. the DRM part is SO scary that the dark lord himself says blu-ray is anti-consumer:

Gates: Well, the key issue here is that the protection scheme under Blu-ray is very anti-consumer and there's not much visibility of that. The inconvenience is that the [movie] studios got too much protection at the expense consumers and it won't work well on PCs. You won't be able to play movies and do software in a flexible way.

It's not the physical format that we have the issue with, it's that the protection scheme on Blu is very anti-consumer. If [the Blu-ray group] would fix that one thing, you know, that'd be fine.

For us it's not the physical format. Understand that this is the last physical format there will ever be. Everything's going to be streamed directly or on a hard disk. So, in this way, it's even unclear how much this one counts.

nuff said

The day that Apple released iTunes 4 back in April 2003 I of course set it up there were already several dozen Mac users sharing music. This was the same month that a sophomore on my campus was sued by the RIAA for $97.8 billion. So I immediately set up my own shared music library, calling it ***FUCK RIAA*** (with the asterisks so it would be at the top) and shared only free music.

The day that Apple released iTunes 4 back in April 2003 I of course set it up there were already several dozen Mac users sharing music. This was the same month that a sophomore on my campus was sued by the RIAA for $97.8 billion. So I immediately set up my own shared music library, calling it ***FUCK RIAA*** (with the asterisks so it would be at the top) and shared only free music.

I rarely defend MS, but this is BS.
Look at this article from a few days ago.http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005 /10/14/news/13474.shtml

I seriously doubt this guy was killed just for spamming, but let's assume he was for discussion. While on the surface it may seem that the punishment (death) far exceeds the crime (spamming) let's do a little math.

Say I spend 10 seconds managing my spam every 2-3 days. That's 28 seconds a week. No big deal right?

Say I've been doing it for the last 5 years and will continue to for the next 55.

(5 + 55) * 52 weeks * 28 seconds a week = 87,360 seconds (24.266~ hours). Still not that bad, just one day.

Someone who lives 80 years only gets 700,800 hours to live.

That means spammers only have to annoy 28,879 people ( 700,800 / 24.266~ = 28,879 ) before they've wasted an entire (long) human lifetime worth of time. Now I know it's a bit of a stretch to equate a human lifetime worth of time to the life of an actual human being, but I begin to wonder. My time is very valuable to me and I'd rather not waste a single second of it deleting unwanted advertisements from my inbox.

But let's take it a little further. According to this there are 6,454,864,470 people on earth at the time of this writing. Say spammers only annoy 5% of them (a low estimate I would guess) for their entire lives. That's still 322,743,223 people who lost a day's time to spam.

24.266 hours per person * 322,743,223 people = 7831902223.6 hours wasted.

That's 11,175.66 human lifetimes!

If you want to equate those to actual deaths here are some comparisons:

"British Medial Journal indicating that passive smoking kills over 11,000 people in UK." (http://www.sdlp.ie/pr2march2005.shtm).

"To take prostate cancer as an example, although it kills over 11,000 men a year..." (http://www.icr.ac.uk/press/releases/cancerchip.ht ml)

"Gun violence kills over 11,000 Americans every year..." (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2002/11 /08/opinion/6293.shtml)

These were extremely low estimates, the world's population is growing, and the amount of spam is growing.

Still think the punishment didn't fit the crime? I'm not sure anymore myself.

You obviously don't remember the brouhaha several years ago when many "large US corps" rescinded offers en masse due to an economic shortfall.

Here is an article about the issue that was published in yesterday's edition of The Tartan, the student newspaper of Carnegie Mellon, one of the universities targeted by the RIAA. There was also an editorial written about the issue. (Note: The Tartan's website cannot be rendered in Internet Explorer. Please use a standards-compliant web browser.)

Also, below is the full text of an email that was sent to all students on April 4 from Carnegie Mellon's Chief Information Officer Joel Smith.

-------- Original Message -------- To: The Carnegie Mellon Community
From: Joel Smith, Chief Information Officer
Subject: Illegal use of copyrighted materials on Carnegie Mellon's network - your *personal* liability
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:33:47 -0000

We are writing to remind the entire campus community of the University's commitment to the protection of intellectual property and copyrighted material. When it comes to illegal copying of digital materials - whether music, video, text, or pictures - the University imposes its own penalties (disciplinary action, loss of network connectivity) on anyone who is found to be using Carnegie Mellon's network for such purposes.

Moreover, the trade organizations that are charged with protecting copyrighted materials, e.g. the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), are aggressively searching for copyright violators on the Internet and *will take independent legal action against such violators.* Peer to peer file sharing activity using the Carnegie Mellon network is accessible to their monitoring. Past actions by these industry associations have resulted in substantial monetary penalties imposed on the individuals involved. See:

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/05/ 02/news/8154.shtml

In fact, according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, penalties can range from $750 to $150,000 per song if songs are the items being distributed illegally.

Please be aware that the target of these actions is not the University, but rather the individuals engaged in the violations. As an Internet service provider, following the results of court rulings last year, the University is obliged to respond to subpoenas from organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA requesting the names of individuals who operate computers illegally sharing copyrighted materials. Do not be misled by the fact that Verizon, as an Internet service provider, won its case for not providing user names in response to certain kinds of "John Doe" subpoenas. The ruling allows the RIAA and the MPAA to discover the identities of copyright violators from Internet service providers (including universities) as long as they follow certain legal procedures.

Simply put, if you are engaged in illegal use of copyrighted materials (usually done by peer-to-peer file sharing using programs like Kazza, LimeWire, BitTorrent, and others) and the University receives a proper subpoena asking for the name of the person who registered the computer being used for such purposes on the Carnegie Mellon network, we are legally obligated to supply that name. The result may well be that the RIAA or MPAA will take legal action against *you*. There is nothing the University can do to shield you from such action.

Since your identity on the network is based on the match between your name an the IP address and *MAC* or *hardware* address of your computer, it is a very good idea to be sure that all and only the computers you physically control are registered to you. You can check the list of computers you have registered to your name using Computing Services' NetReg system. Go to http://netreg.net.cmu.edu, click on the Enter button at

This is the test case we've been waiting for.

First SunnComm to sue 'Shift key' student for $10m and then they change their minds so as not to stifle research, but who is really the guilty party?

In the UK, this appears to be completely illegal:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing--

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

(3) The intent need not be directed at--

(a) any particular computer;

(b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

So if they install a device driver without asking, they must know it is unauthorised (satisfying 3.(1).(a)), and it will certainly do all of 3.(2).(a), 3.(2).(b) and 3.(2).(c), have they broken the law, and aren't computer users completely justified in informing each-other how to protected their systems against such unauthorized abuses?

Or is it the record label, or the vendor who is ultimately responsible for the unauthorised access?

See this Daily Princetonian story for an update.

SunnComm's CEO decided late last night to change his mind. "I don't want to be the guy that creates any kind of chilling effect on research," he said.

The Daily Princetonian reports that SunnComm have decided not to shoot themselves in the foot any more than they already have done, and have dropped the threat of a suit.

It's nice for Halderman, but it's a shame that SunnComm aren't quite stupid enough to bring a losing DMCA case and set a precedent. Hmm, perhaps we could persuade SCO to do it...

Looks like SunnComm have seen the light:

Daily Princetonian

Before you choose Princeton, do some research. Princeton is an extremely elitist and racist place.

racism in Princeton
elitism in Princeton

Before you choose Princeton, do some research. Princeton is an extremely elitist and racist place.

racism in Princeton
elitism in Princeton

the EFF's general vibe of promoting online privacy and the right to anonymity would make the EFF incompatible with DRM systems

Compulsory licensing is not DRM, so your comment doesn't make sense. Compulsory licensing means that license holders (the "evil" record companies) are compelled to license their material - and compensated for it, of course. It is basically what makes radio possible.

How it would work in P2P is that there would be some measure of which songs are being shared, a sort of Nielsen Ratings for P2P. Then the license holders for those songs would get paid in proportion to how popular they were.

What would fund them? Possibly the good old modem tax, or some similar measure that charges people who do a lot of file sharing more than people who do less. Read this article by EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann to hear it from the horse's mouth.

You are totally off base in thinking that the EFF does not support compulsory licensing. They have been pushing that "solution" for quite a while now.

Personally, I think it is a terrible idea, and I'm glad to see someone has finally given it a good public roasting. Hopefully the concept will die a quiet death and the EFF can get back to protecting people's privacy instead of forcing them to pay a modem tax and putting the government in charge of paying artists.

Wrong, and wrong AND irrelevant.

41. Defendant's web site also has been the subject of an article in the university newspaper, "The Daily Princetonian." In November 2002, the newspaper highlighted the centralized indexing and searching functions provided by Defendant's web site that enable students to more efficiently "get music" on the university's network.

Plaintiffs are presumably referring to this article which appeared on November 20. The article mentions "wake" among several other sites that index the Princeton network. The article supports viewing Wake as a filename-indexing engine.

Read the article, follow some of the links.

RIAA charges include contributory copyright infringement accusing that Peng "has taken a network created for higher learning and academic pursuits and converted it into an emporium of music piracy where copyright infringement is simplified down to the click of a computer mouse", and of direct copyright infringement for "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners.(my emphasis, links not retained)

So the article DOES mention both the 'facts' you state are missing, and also addresses the fact that the charge of "contributory copyright infringement" is totally separate from the charge of "direct copyright infringement", and being guilty of one does NOT mean that he is guilty of the other. The article recognizes both charges, but addresses only the one charge.

In fact, the article states:

First, plaintiffs allege that the defendant has committed contributory infringement by running a search service. Second, plaintiffs allege that the defendant committed direct infringement by "copying and distributing hundreds of sound recordings over his system without the authorization of the copyright owners."

The former complaint shall be the focus of this analysis. The latter complaint (of direct infringement) is less legally interesting: precedent in cases of direct infringement is much more clear than it is for contributory infringement. Determining its presence is largely a matter of fact-finding, not one of legal reasoning. As this is an analytical, rather than a factual article, we will not consider the claims of direct infringement.

Wake.princeton.edu was just the beginning. What the RIAA is trying to pre-empt is a university-sponsored effort to lash together 32, then 256 PCs for "testing networking, filing and interpreting research" according to an article in the campus paper, the Daily Princetonian!

How so? Well the "Prince" reveals that the university has just installed its first brand new Beowulf cluster to do just that!

Beowulf lurks around every corner, I tell you! ;-)

Wake.princeton.edu was just the beginning. What the RIAA is trying to pre-empt is a university-sponsored effort to lash together 32, then 256 PCs for "testing networking, filing and interpreting research" according to an article in the campus paper, the Daily Princetonian!

How so? Well the "Prince" reveals that the university has just installed its first brand new Beowulf cluster to do just that!

Beowulf lurks around every corner, I tell you! ;-)

Princeton eh? Could it be that snarky Ed Felten getting busted there for doing "filesharing research"?

No! He points the finger elsewhere in his Freedom to Tinker blog back in November 2002: the campus paper, the Daily Princetonian then had a nice article with some details on how filesharing works (and is policed, not tightly enough for the RIAA apparently) at Princeton these days.

At least until today.

(I had to laugh at the frankness of the music professor quoted in that article.)

--LP

Another article in the Daily Princtonian says that Pricneton University refuses to ban Napster as well.