Slashdot Mirror

http://www.btinternet.com/~m.brown1/intro.htm
https://www.msu.edu/~gobeski1/Missing.htm
http://www.paullee.com/drwho/missingwithouttrace.html

These are the accepted accounts - two junkings (one for fire safety reasons, one to make space) with absolutely nothing to do with contracts or magnetic tapes (beyond BBC central not having a copy) - along with a description of the transfer from video to film.

As far as I'm concerned, the current BBC description is a highly edited description of the events with NO mention of the telerecordings and the Wikipedia account seems to be pure mythology. I can find ZERO evidence for it. Almost everything definitive known about the early Doctor Whos was written in the Disused Yeti newsletters, with articles contributed by BBC staffers with inside knowledge, often due to being there at the time. This link gives you the archive for it:

http://archive.whoniversity.co.uk/dy/dy_main.htm

Absolutely no story whatsoever should be accepted on face-value if it contradicts an official or semi-official statement in the newsletters. They're the premiere source of authenticated information.

"the IEA report says why we're not building more nuclear power plants"
Are you referring to: "The public perception of risk also weakens the environmental performance of nuclear power."? If you attribute this to why nuclear power has not budged 14% of world power in over half a century, then I am afraid nuclear power has a very sad future ahead, indeed. You can thank the Japanese government's mishandling of the Fukushima accident for this, as public perception of the risks is at a all time high now.

"as you go forward in time, the estimates for total death-toll from Chernobyl are being reduced"
Funny, as the largest estimate I have seen for Chernobyl (1 million) was just published by the New York Academy of Sciences last year. Again, have you peeked into the future with your time machine to see that future estimates will be decreasing here on out?

"Fukushima released only half the radioactivity Chernobyl"
Amazing, so you have traveled to the future to a point of time where the estimates have finally stopped doubling every couple of months (for instance, the paper you cite below claims Fukushima was just 1/10 of Chernobyl when it was published. . .) and the releases of additional radioactive isotopes have finally stopped! Or are you just claiming more beliefs as facts again . . . ? Oh, and you are confusing external exposure (CT scans) with internal exposure . . . really, I would have expected more from you at this point.

"Very little potassium iodide was distributed in the Soviet Union after the Chernobyl accident. In Poland, however, more than 10 million children, 16 years of age and under, and approximately seven million adults received at least one dose of potassium iodide, reducing their thyroid doses to “negligible levels”."
Interesting you bring this up, because we all know that Japan's distribution of iodide was stellar.

"comparing doses received by residents with typical CT or X-ray"
Thank you for demonstrating why skeptism is so important when trying to establish fact. Up until now, you have been making claims about the safety of nuclear energy, I assumed you understood the difference between internal and external exposure. Only many posts later do you finally reveal that you seem to have a serious gap in your understanding of the risks of fallout. Had I lacked skeptism, I too could have been tainted by your ignorance. Furthermore, any further analysis built on top of yours would also be suspect. Here is a hint . . . gamma readings are only indirect indicators of the true killers: alpha and beta emitters. Alpha radiation cannot even pass through a sheet of paper, but once an emitter is embedded within tissue it causes severe local damage, often leading to cancer. Fallout is nothing like a CT or an X-ray exam.

"is too small to give a statistically significant increase"
Nice, yes let's go back to May before the radiation release estimates were doubled at least twice (two months before meltdowns were even admitted) to quote the head of Japan ICRP, who are considered by many to have far too much vested interest in the success of nuclear to be considered objective . . .

"no other technology has proved itself in high-scale power production"
Again, nuclear is at 13% and coal is at 41%. Together, that only accounts for a little over half world production, yet you act as if that is all there is that is "proven" . . . And, again (and again and again . . .), I have never stated that one is safer or not safer than the other. I have only stated that conclusive data does not yet exist to make such a conclusion. Finally, 13% is hardly something to start screaming the end of the world over . . . I am sure we will get along just fine without it.

Apple already "innovated" that size in the Newton back in 1993: https://www.msu.edu/~luckie/gallery/mp100.htm

But I can't figure out the exact size of the screen - all the old articles just show pixel counts.

--jeffk++

"On nuclear being a safer energy source"
This is completely off topic. This Slashdot article and thread is about whether or not measuring for hotspots in Tokyo is a waste of time, not whether nuclear is the safest source of energy. As I suspected earlier, you are conflating issues here. Furthermore, operational statistical safety means little to those living down wind from a meltdown, as Dai ichi is no longer operational.

"On Tokyo radiation being a non-issue"
Nice explanation of EXTERNAL radiation exposure risk. However, the greatest risk from fallout is from INTERNAL exposure. This explains some why the risks are so different. For instance, a plutonium particle that would be lethal if lodged into a lung would barely show up on the limited number of measuring stations (which primary pick-up gamma radiation). And that is just one isotope out of potentially dozens of fallout isotopes (many of which also have alpha or beta decay modes which are disproportionately more dangerous internally than externally and harder to measure) which each have a unique biological risk. Consequently, the risk from fallout is dramatically greater than you describe. The key to reducing this risk is more measuring at ground level where hotspots consisting of alpha and beta emitters are more likely to be found and addressed to minimize additional internal exposure.

"Conclusion"
Your conclusion is based on a very simplified exposure model where only external radiation exposure seems to be taken into account. How much Colorado soil is being volatilized and at what concentrations of uranium? What are the biological half lives of the different Uranium isotopes? What organs are susceptible to Uranium bioconcentration and what is their susceptibility to radiation damage (e.g. mitotic frequency). Alright, now what is the actual dispersion of radioactive contamination in Tokyo for each isotope? Now iterate the above questions for each isotope. This is chess not checkers . . .

My conclusion is that I find your basis for concluding it is not worth it for someone living Tokyo to measure for hotspots to be extremely weak. It almost seems you are using an old model that ignores any progress in biological knowledge since the discovery of DNA. Additionally, I believe this is because you are taking a protective position of nuclear technology one would usually only see by a nuclear lobby with a matryoshka doll like political strategy of layers resembling:
1) Downplay the risks of a meltdown.
2) When a meltdown happens, downplay the risk of fallout (usually by telling the public there is no need for extensive measurements).
3) When fallout occurs, downplay the biological risk (usually by focusing exclusively on external exposure).
4) When biological impact occurs downplay the connection of the impact with the meltdown.
5) When losing an argument, claim the other party is being too presumptuous and rude to continue (you taught me this one).

Please let me know if I missed anything.

This is excellent research. I noticed in the picture of the MSU research team that they're all women. I hope they can inspire more women to join the scientific research community. We need more people in it, and women are the majority of people. Without getting closer to 50:50 gender parity, we're losing the talent and hard work of a large fraction of the people pool we need to draw from. More role models will get more women to follow suit, just as they do for men.

"Criminal Justice Resources :
Police Corruption - Police Integrity"

http://staff.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/polcorr.htm

Please take note of the numerous .edu and .gov references... and the fact that you're a bit of an asshole.

Okay, you need a 20km exclusion zone around 1 nuclear plant every 25 years. Assuming that we go with a sort of 40% nuclear, 20% wind, 20% solar, 20% other low-CO2 mix, this would be a approximately twice as many reactors; right now many countries are around 20% nuclear, and newer reactors tend to be bigger than older ones. I figure the danger would remain around the same - newer reactor designs are substantially safer; they're designed to be able to SCRAM without external power, among numerous other improvements.

One of the things about wind and solar is that they are far less dense than nuclear power. Some sources suggest exclusion zones for housing of up to 2km. 350-500 meters is more common. It's not listed here, but some suggest these zones due to concerns about blade separation or ice formation(and subsequent 'throwing' by the turbine). Going by the study, I wouldn't want to build closer than ~150m, even without noise concerns.

Roscoe Wind Farm - 782 MW, 400km^2. Cost > $1B. Going by standard 30% capacity factor, that's 2,055 GWh a year. $487k per Gwh/year
Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - 392 MW, 16km^2. Cost $2.2B, Annual Generation of 1,080 GWh, capacity factor 31%. $2M per Gwh/year(ouch!)
Palo Verder Nuclear Generating Station - 3,875 MW, 16km^2, $5.9B, 29,250 GWh/year. A capacity factor of 86%. $202k per Gwh/year.

Wind: 5 GWh/km2, $487k per Gwh/year
Solar: 67.5 GWh/km2, $2M per Gwh/year (produces half the power at twice the cost...)
Nuclear: 1,828 GWh/km2, $202k per Gwh/year

There are 442 nuclear plants in the world today, with a combined output of 374,958 MW. At an 80% capacity factor(average), that's 2,627,705 GWh a year, or to give them the same room as teh Palo Verde plant - 1,437 km2. Each Chernobyl level disaster will take out ~1256 km2. Let's say that lasts 100 years. That'd mean 4 uninhabitable areas(worst case scenario, Chernobyl was BAD, and I don't think the Fukushima exclusion will be that large or last that long). That's 5k km^2 due to nuclear accidents, adding up to 6.4k km2 for all nuclear power plants + exclusion zones(make great wildlife preserves if Chernobyl is any indication).

Wind, which you don't want to be building underneath: 525k km2, or 82 times as much area that you can't use for much other than farming/grazing.

Solar power is extremely expensive, around $5-6 a watt(installed), and made worse by the ~30% capacity factor, but is significantly denser, at least at Ivanpah. It would still require 39k km2, requiring 6 times as much area. Sure, you can dual-use in much of the world, but unless the cost comes down...

Still, I'm not about to depend on one source, so my suggested ratio is around 40% nuclear(double today's), 20% wind, 20% solar, and 20% other(hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, etc...)

"Port-Humphrey" according to the transcript. You can find it here:

http://news.msu.edu/story/7036/

RADIAL-FLOW WAVE ROTOR CONCEPTS, UNCONVENTIONAL DESIGNS AND APPLICATIONS

Some text to shut up the "lameness filter": No, it isn't anything like a Wankel.

Has this projected matured to power generation phase? Because the concept, and indeed the video introduction of the device by Professor Mueller are nearly two years old already. That interview was posted back in October of 2009. I'm hopeful the resurgence in interest here is an indication that they now have a working prototype.

Original 10/2009 news release - including the same video that appears in todays article:

MSU receives $2.5 million DOE award to build advanced hybrid engine

You would feel that way about water, if you knew the evil it has done: Dihydrogen Monoxide Warning

So what's the risk of gene transfer giving us "Roundup Ready" kudzu, poison ivy, etc. in the near future?

The most honest answer to that question is "we don't know".

I'm pretty sure the honest answer is "unlikely" (though certainly not impossible - see especially the links about widespread HGT for mitochondrial genes among plants), but as a previous AC poster has mentioned, you don't need to directly modify the genes of kudzu, poison ivy, or any other "undesirable" plant to end up with a "RoundUp Ready" variety - all you need to do is selectively breed such organisms by spraying RoundUp indiscriminately until you create one "naturally". Monsanto may have done a lot of work to come up with a GM short-cut, but we've bred drug-resistant strains of bacteria, pesticide resistant strains of insects, and herbicide resistant strains of plants before, all without tinkering directly with the genes.

A pre-publication (not behind a paywall) version of the Avida (PDF) paper is here.
A good guide for those who don't welcome our new artificial, man-made overlords and wish to resist ;^)

In your youth, you read The SEX LIFE of an Electron too, didn't you!

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congress complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I know it's complex, but if you ignore the political implication aspect you're devaluing the entire notion.

Not the image anyway. They store the relative positions of specific details of your print. 2 minutes on Google would have told you this.

Unfortunately this is pretty much the same thing in terms of actual security (see http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/Publications/Fingerprint/FengJain_FMModel_ICB09.pdf)

FYI my professor happens to make exactly what you are looking for. In a nutshell, we create a non-invertible biometric template. You can think of it as a kind of "fingerprint hash". If the server is ever compromised there is no way to recover the fingerprint. Plus it's managed like a public key infrastructure, so you can actually revoke it if it's lost / stolen. Here are some of the papers he's written on this technology:

http://vast.uccs.edu/~tboult/PAPERS/Scheirer-Boult-bipartite-ICB2009.pdf
http://vast.uccs.edu/~tboult/PAPERS/biocrypt-scheirer-boult-biosymp2008.pdf

The company he runs has already created a secure biometric login system which uses these secure "biotopes" to automatically log time tracker entries (basically a secure biometric punchcard system). If you have any questions, please contact my professor:

Dr. Terry Boult < tboult AT vast.uccs.edu >

With a 4"'er, you're not going to get any detail out of Jupiter or Saturn. No cloud bands on Jupiter -- just the moons as points of light. Saturn will look like this or this if you're lucky.

But the moon looks great at any magnification.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

How about a real study?

People who were sexually victimized during childhood are at higher risk of arrest for committing crimes as adults, including sex crimes, than are people who did not suffer sexual or physical abuse or neglect during childhood. However, the risk of arrest for childhood sexual abuse victims as adults is no higher than for victims of other types of childhood abuse and neglect.

However
The vast majority of childhood sexual abuse victims are not arrested for sex crimes or any other crimes as adults.

Source

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Dude, if you want to fight for your civil liberties by putting yourself in front of a police baton, where it makes little difference, go ahead. As for me, I'll fight for what I care about in the courts and at the ballot box, where it can actually make a difference. You may consider that being a slave, but that's ok because I consider your method just dumb.

During the Civil Rights era, the images and videos of police using dogs, firehoses and batons
upon blacks were very powerful in currying domestic and international support for the movement.
Here's what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while he was in jail:

As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community.
...
"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
...
The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.

I only bring up MLK Jr. because you talk of slavery.
Ghandi and the Indian people were never slaves, yet they make for an equally compelling example.

Everyone needs to read this,most aren't old enough to remember it,but the man said alot of things that are now coming true, http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html I saw a bumper sticker recently,it said "Flip this house", it was a picture of the White House. I think it is time to fire all our representitives and hire new ones, maybe then we will be able to see the "true puppeteers" that are running our country.

Yes, I do. Is this the poem you mean?

A more solid style of construction wouldn't hurt, either. I remember that a famous anthropology joke/thought-experiment in the '70s -- "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" -- spoke of how most Nacerima buildings were wattle-and-daub, and that's hardly an exaggeration. If we built with brick or stone, we'd have better insulation right there; brick is the low-budget version of semi-subterranean building. (The high-budget version wouldn't hurt either, but it's surprisingly expensive to dig a hole in the ground.)

Citation here.

Tiktaalik says suck it. Or did you mean hominid fossils? OK, here, here, and here.

Oh, Ike, if only we had listened to you: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Full text of his 1961 speech here: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Not about the military-industrial complex, but rather, from that same speech

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. (Emphasis mine) Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Try punching "experimental evolution" into Google. That only turns up 25 million hits but here are a few to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage_experimental_evolution

It looks to me like these people are doing actual work to justify their conclusions. Now you can dispute their methods and conclusions but what they are up to isn't faith in a religious sense. Sticking lots of exclamation points on astounding ignorance doesn't rescue it from that state.

OK. You need to pull your head out of the Microsoft hole at least once every 10 years to see what's really going on out there.

And you need to stop assuming that everybody else lives under a rock, like you. I use multiple OSs. I don't currently use MacOS day-to-day, I do track developments for that platform. Rather more, I'm guessing than you track non-Mac platforms.

OS X runs on x86.

Small detail: Apple does not make a tablet. There are third-party hackup of Apple laptops, and theoretically I could ignore the legalities and install MacOS on my Motion tablet (now there's a non-trivial project!). But these are both evil kludges that are not supported by Apple. No thanks. Vista may be crap, but at least it's officially supported for my platform, it runs my apps without my jumping through hoops (well, most of the time), and it's actually designed for the hardware I'm using.

Apple's Inkwell handwriting technology has been around and beloved since the days of Newton (i.e. Apple).

OK, it's news to me that Inkwell had been ported to the Mac. Not that I'm excited. I used it in its original Newton incarnation. Supposedly they've since fixed its notoriously poor recognition code, but it had so many other issues (punctuation is not part of a word's spelling!) that I'm damned wary of it. And Apple's not bothering to create hardware that uses it doesn't make me any less wary.

Perhaps Vista's recognition is a little better at the moment... but who cares, OS X pummels Vista in to a quivering mass of junk that it is...

In other words, you don't know or care whether Inkwell is a serious alternative to what I'm using. You just want to remind us all that the Mac Fanboy is the only life form with a glimmer of intelligence.

untrue. There are no requirements to retrofit small engines that predate the small engine emissions requirements.

EPA, which hasn't taken full effect yet:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/equip-ld.htm

California has a longer history of regulation:
http://www.egr.msu.edu/erl/emiss/emiss.htm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sm_en_fs.pdf

clearly there is much room for improvement. i for one want lower emissions from an aesthetic point of view as I occasionally use such equipment and hate breathing the exhaust.

Re: "No person shall have their property tax increased beyond 3% in any calendar year, nor increased greater then 100% since the time of purchase or transfer of ownership of their primary residence by any goverment agency." (Prevent trying to steal and redistributed land through taxing people out of their homes)

Sounds like a good idea, but without any caps on spending, you end up with things like Michigan's Proposition A. Long time home owners pay much less property tax, newer home owners pay much more. Also results in a large financial penalty to buy & sell real estate. Oh, that and property tax bills that go up when home values are falling.

For reference:
http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/09/03/tax-analyst-explains-michigan-property-t?blog=5
http://www.oakgov.com/equal/assets/doc/07_01_A_Guide_to_PropA.pdf
http://www.mitchross.com/blog/index.php?itemid=149&catid=6

Guidelines Regarding Bulk E-mailing by Internal Users on MSUnet
Computer System and Network Abuse at Michigan State University

The policy in itself utterly fails as it most improperly fails to ascribe particular levels of punishments for the degree of infringement.

Really?

From: Michigan State University Acceptable Use of Computing Systems, Software, and the University Digital Network

V. Enforcement and Adjudication

1. The principal responsibility for investigation of suspected non-compliance with the provisions of this ruling rests with System Sponsors. At their discretion, they may delegate it to System Managers and/or Facility Staff.

• 1.1 The investigation of alleged or suspected non-compliance with this ruling is to be conducted with due regard for the rights of all Users, such as the rights to privacy and intellectual property.
• 1.2 System Sponsors may suspend service to Users without notice when reasonably necessary to the operation or integrity of the system or the networks connected to it; they may also delegate this judgment and authority to System Managers.
• 1.3 Cessation of service, whether by network disconnection or disablement of log-in capability, shall be utilized in preference to file inspection when remedying or investigating instances of alleged disruption.
• 1.4 The content of User files is not to be surreptitiously or otherwise examined, nor is the User-generated message content of User network transactions to be monitored, without the prior written permission of either the User involved or the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology. However, System Managers and others charged by them with forwarding misdirected or undeliverable electronic mail and/or delivering print-outs and plots may examine such mail or hard-copy to the extent reasonably necessary for such purpose.

2. Subject to the non-discrimination provisions herein, faculty members acting as System Sponsors for computing systems or local networks established with their own research grant funds may change, suspend, or revoke User privileges in the best interests of the research being conducted.

3. When an instance of non-compliance is suspected or discovered in a computing system or network established by a department, college or other administrative unit, a unit administrator (typically the System Sponsor) shall proceed in accord with Section 5.6.3 of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University.

• 3.1 System Sponsors may elect to refer the issue to the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology for handling. They must always do so if systems or networks in multiple campus units have been disrupted or compromised, or if any non-MSU system, network, or party is involved.
• 3.2 Internal disciplinary action may be appropriate in some cases of non-compliance with this ruling. Relevant General Student Regulations include 1.05, 1.06, 2.02, 2.04, 4.03, 4.05, 4.06, and 5.02; allegations are adjudicable under Article IV of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University. Disciplinary issues concerning students, faculty, or staff should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology before action is taken, in the interests of consistency of treatment.
• 3.3 Criminal or civil action against faculty, staff, or students may be appropriate in some instances. Such cases should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology, in the interests of consistency of treatment.

Approved:

Guidelines Regarding Bulk E-mailing by Internal Users on MSUnet
Computer System and Network Abuse at Michigan State University

The policy in itself utterly fails as it most improperly fails to ascribe particular levels of punishments for the degree of infringement.

Really?

From: Michigan State University Acceptable Use of Computing Systems, Software, and the University Digital Network

V. Enforcement and Adjudication

1. The principal responsibility for investigation of suspected non-compliance with the provisions of this ruling rests with System Sponsors. At their discretion, they may delegate it to System Managers and/or Facility Staff.

• 1.1 The investigation of alleged or suspected non-compliance with this ruling is to be conducted with due regard for the rights of all Users, such as the rights to privacy and intellectual property.
• 1.2 System Sponsors may suspend service to Users without notice when reasonably necessary to the operation or integrity of the system or the networks connected to it; they may also delegate this judgment and authority to System Managers.
• 1.3 Cessation of service, whether by network disconnection or disablement of log-in capability, shall be utilized in preference to file inspection when remedying or investigating instances of alleged disruption.
• 1.4 The content of User files is not to be surreptitiously or otherwise examined, nor is the User-generated message content of User network transactions to be monitored, without the prior written permission of either the User involved or the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology. However, System Managers and others charged by them with forwarding misdirected or undeliverable electronic mail and/or delivering print-outs and plots may examine such mail or hard-copy to the extent reasonably necessary for such purpose.

2. Subject to the non-discrimination provisions herein, faculty members acting as System Sponsors for computing systems or local networks established with their own research grant funds may change, suspend, or revoke User privileges in the best interests of the research being conducted.

3. When an instance of non-compliance is suspected or discovered in a computing system or network established by a department, college or other administrative unit, a unit administrator (typically the System Sponsor) shall proceed in accord with Section 5.6.3 of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University.

• 3.1 System Sponsors may elect to refer the issue to the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology for handling. They must always do so if systems or networks in multiple campus units have been disrupted or compromised, or if any non-MSU system, network, or party is involved.
• 3.2 Internal disciplinary action may be appropriate in some cases of non-compliance with this ruling. Relevant General Student Regulations include 1.05, 1.06, 2.02, 2.04, 4.03, 4.05, 4.06, and 5.02; allegations are adjudicable under Article IV of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University. Disciplinary issues concerning students, faculty, or staff should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology before action is taken, in the interests of consistency of treatment.
• 3.3 Criminal or civil action against faculty, staff, or students may be appropriate in some instances. Such cases should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology, in the interests of consistency of treatment.

Approved:

Guidelines Regarding Bulk E-mailing by Internal Users on MSUnet
Computer System and Network Abuse at Michigan State University

The policy in itself utterly fails as it most improperly fails to ascribe particular levels of punishments for the degree of infringement.

Really?

From: Michigan State University Acceptable Use of Computing Systems, Software, and the University Digital Network

V. Enforcement and Adjudication

1. The principal responsibility for investigation of suspected non-compliance with the provisions of this ruling rests with System Sponsors. At their discretion, they may delegate it to System Managers and/or Facility Staff.

• 1.1 The investigation of alleged or suspected non-compliance with this ruling is to be conducted with due regard for the rights of all Users, such as the rights to privacy and intellectual property.
• 1.2 System Sponsors may suspend service to Users without notice when reasonably necessary to the operation or integrity of the system or the networks connected to it; they may also delegate this judgment and authority to System Managers.
• 1.3 Cessation of service, whether by network disconnection or disablement of log-in capability, shall be utilized in preference to file inspection when remedying or investigating instances of alleged disruption.
• 1.4 The content of User files is not to be surreptitiously or otherwise examined, nor is the User-generated message content of User network transactions to be monitored, without the prior written permission of either the User involved or the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology. However, System Managers and others charged by them with forwarding misdirected or undeliverable electronic mail and/or delivering print-outs and plots may examine such mail or hard-copy to the extent reasonably necessary for such purpose.

2. Subject to the non-discrimination provisions herein, faculty members acting as System Sponsors for computing systems or local networks established with their own research grant funds may change, suspend, or revoke User privileges in the best interests of the research being conducted.

3. When an instance of non-compliance is suspected or discovered in a computing system or network established by a department, college or other administrative unit, a unit administrator (typically the System Sponsor) shall proceed in accord with Section 5.6.3 of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University.

• 3.1 System Sponsors may elect to refer the issue to the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology for handling. They must always do so if systems or networks in multiple campus units have been disrupted or compromised, or if any non-MSU system, network, or party is involved.
• 3.2 Internal disciplinary action may be appropriate in some cases of non-compliance with this ruling. Relevant General Student Regulations include 1.05, 1.06, 2.02, 2.04, 4.03, 4.05, 4.06, and 5.02; allegations are adjudicable under Article IV of Academic Freedom for Students at Michigan State University. Disciplinary issues concerning students, faculty, or staff should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology before action is taken, in the interests of consistency of treatment.
• 3.3 Criminal or civil action against faculty, staff, or students may be appropriate in some instances. Such cases should be discussed with the Vice Provost for Libraries, Computing and Technology, in the interests of consistency of treatment.

Approved:

OK here's the skinny.

Michigan State defines SPAM in this policy

http://lct.msu.edu/guidelines-policies/bulkemail.html

"Bulk e-mail" in this context means the transmission of an e-mail message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail.

Upper limit 'Short time frames' are defined as 2 days.

It then goes to state right after the definition:

1. Prohibited uses. Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes.

Pretty clear that this should not be done.

The article also includes the email sent, but redacts the sender line.
My guess is that she used a University created faculty listserv.

That article also supplies the allegations of their head of IT

http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/ae43588d257a0fc64f512e2c99de1b35.pdf

which states Kara Spencer refused to stop using this listserv and said she was going to
do it again. Also, she stated the head of IT should go ahead and file charges.

Now, in that statement it's his word against hers unless he has some witnesses.

But this is not a matter of free speech. It's not the message. It's how she broadcasted the message.
It also pretty clear cut violation of misuse of university property (eg. the listserv) unless she can
prove she created her own faculty listing from scratch. As for sending the bulk email it appears to be a clear violation
based on the university policy.

A question I would have about Michigan State:
  Does that University have a robust and timely mechanism for students to express ideas and address grievances?

Normally I would say the student newspaper or actual protest in the street, but these
are not timely nor do they usually hit the target audience of faculty.

According to this Bulk E-mailing Guidelines, only the university offices are permitted to bulk mail changes to university policies or procedures. Not the students.

However, their definition for bulk mail is any message sent to up to 20--30 people (large committee or work group) within 2 days. I wonder if she can send her announcement to 28 people at a time in 14 batches, or 28 days, in order to evade the criteria for bulk mail.

Another way to spread her message faster is to e-mail department secretaries and ask them to forward her message to professors in the department. This way, in the first 4 days, she'll be able to contact 60 departments. If some departments agree to do her a favor, that should reduce the number of professors she has to e-mail individually and reduce the risk of being accused of bulk mailing.

Or ask 14 friends to each forward her message to 28 professors at the same time. I think the accusation for bulk mailing will be much more difficult to hold for 14 people at once, each does not violate MSU bulk e-mail policy individually.

She's allowed to send e-mail to professors and to students. But she has to follow the policies, correct?

Read the bulk e-mail policy here. Specifically:

âoeBulk e-mailâ in this context means the transmission of an e-mail message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail. âoeShort time frameâ means an interval spanning as long as 2 days. âoeSmall set of recipientsâ means the size of individual-recipient address lists (To, CC, BCC fields) typical of most e-mails in common use, ranging from 1, to a few, to as many as may be involved in a large committee or work group (~20-30). Use of mailing lists and listservs to which recipients may voluntarily opt in and opt out is encouraged, and this type of e-mail distribution is not included in the meaning of âoebulk e-mailâ in this document.

There are also some permitted activities. Discussion of school policy changes is not one of them, whereas dissemination of information about school policy changes IS allowed. This doesn't fall into that category though.

Frankly, I don't see what's unconstitutional about this. Unless you think every student should be allowed to spam the college's internal e-mail system as much as he or she would like or something like that. Could it be done differently? Sure. But I don't see how it's unconstitutional.

Cited allegations can be found here (pdf)

1. Prohibited uses. Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes.

2. Permitted uses for broad cross-University mailing. Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients. Such permitted uses include:
a. Dissemination of urgent information of health and safety concern for students and University employees.
b. Communication of information regarding changes of University policies or procedures, or actions that affect employment or compensation status, or status as a student.
c. Regular communications (for example, to University employees) that are required by law, regulation or University policy for which bulk e-mail may largely replace paper transmittal.

Clearly the intended use was within school guidelines as the student's email is directly covered by exception 2(b) of the School's own bulk emailing policy.

Looks to me like the IT director got butt-hurt for being brushed off and now is flexing his e-peen.

How could the sysadmin not have seen this: http://lct.msu.edu/guidelines-policies/bulkemail.html

" # Permitted uses for broad cross-University mailing. Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients. Such permitted uses include:

* Dissemination of urgent information of health and safety concern for students and University employees. * Communication of information regarding changes of University policies or procedures, or actions that affect employment or compensation status, or status as a student. * Regular communications (for example, to University employees) that are required by law, regulation or University policy for which bulk e-mail may largely replace paper transmittal.

"

So, according to their own policy, mass emailing of "...information regarding changes of University policies or procedures, or actions that affect employment or compensation status, or status as a student..." falls within acceptable use. That is assuming that this change to the university schedule is a "change in policy" or "affects employment". I don't see how that wouldn't be the case.

Key part you are missing is "University offices" I don't think Student Council is a University office. It comes down to this they want to control the message.

"Bulk e-mail" in this context means the transmission of an e-mail message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail. "Short time frame" means an interval spanning as long as 2 days. "Small set of recipients" means the size of individual-recipient address lists (To, CC, BCC fields) typical of most e-mails in common use, ranging from 1, to a few, to as many as may be involved in a large committee or work group (~20-30). Use of mailing lists and listservs to which recipients may voluntarily opt in and opt out is encouraged, and this type of e-mail distribution is not included in the meaning of "bulk e-mail" in this document.

So it is considered unacceptable if the receipient did not voluntarily elect to receive it, and if the distribution size is excessively large (e.g. more than 30 people). The present case involves emailing 391 professors directly. The "proper" method is no doubt to send the message through a mailing list, in which case various people are voluntarily able to join/leave the list.

It seems pretty clear that she has broken the rules as set out by the university's policy. Now, whether an exception should be made because of the importance of her message is then up to the administration. But at least technically she has been warned (through the policy) that her actions are not acceptable.

A legal definition is not meaningful here, since the university is not taking her to court. They are suspending her (or just threatening to?) because she broke the network terms of use.

http://lct.msu.edu/guidelines-policies/bulkemail.html

It's not like it's hard to find or follow.

It sounds like the professors are more butthurt she got their email addresses than interested in responding to the concern she expressed.

As a student if you have an .edu mail address to most schools you have access to that school's online directory that lists all current undergraduate, graduate, administrator, and professor email addresses.

In fact, Michigan State University lists all professors emails address for PUBLIC ACCESS.

https://fsra.msu.edu/Search.Asp

Just search for any professor's name from the article and you'll get his or her email address.

Genetic algo's are a great thing to do at home. I've been tinkering with Avida for the last few days, trying to get these programs to grow instead of shrink. Maybe they will gain some kind of structures then.

http://devolab.cse.msu.edu/

See also

http://www.framsticks.com/
http://www.stellaralchemy.com/lee/virtual_creatures.html
http://www.spiderland.org/

Any of which are fun if you get them going. The joy in these things is sort of in tuning them. But I think a lot lately about GA's on GA's to adjust the parameters within certain windows. A lot of these models aren't open-ended enough to demonstrate intelligence. But you never know. Check out Polyworld, Achilles, and Critterding, too, if you're in Linux

Here you go - an eMate! :-)

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

        * and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

... Among the Nacirema,
published in American Anthropologist 58:3, June 1956.

The numbers were based on people that voted for Bush switching to vote for Kerry, and were actually 57787 for Kerry, and 269 for Gore. In Gore's case, 80% of the votes for almost any of the third party candidates in Florida could have been enough, even if you counted the full number of over 500 votes he would have needed.

https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html

In the case of Kerry's loss, there weren't enough votes for Nader in the states mentioned on the site to swing things in Kerry's favor.

Really? There are direct observations of that?

Yes.

We've mixed together chemical soups and watched life erupt out of it.

If you're referring to Stanley Miller's amino acid experiment, life didn't erupt, amino acids did. Life is several steps removed from that step.

The universe doesn't tend towards entropy. It tends towards life.We are walking, talking evidence of this fact.

Don't know where you learned physics but you're wrong, at least about our neck of the universe. Everywhere, and I mean everywhere including life, you see entropic processes at work. Life only exists because some organism has discovered a way to expedite the movement of energy from a high state to a lower state. For example, Lenski's e coli evolved to metabolize citrate. Prior to that life form coming along, citrate was relatively stable. This particular bug figured out a way to extract energy from the citrate bonds thereby increasing the overall level of entropy in the universe. We're another example. We've figured out how to split the atom and burn oil which more than pays for the energy costs it takes for us to exist.

Great job title.

And my postman's a customer-focussed peripatetic supply-chain-enablement engineer. He wins "postie of the month" awards quite frequently.

Well, at least you've demonstrated an ability to be a dick. Perhaps you can bring up your research skills next?

About 90 seconds with Google leads me to the details of a packaging Master's program, a history of that school going back 50 years, a long Wikipedia page on the topic and job listings under that title.

Remember: even if your main goal is to be an asshole, knowing even a tiny bit about the topic can help. You want to be an ass, not just look like one.