Slashdot Mirror

Flamebait? Maybe, but the parent is right. (Especially the second to last one is egregiously bad, and Apple easily should have had to pay court costs to Something Awful.)

But Lord Grabiner, QC, for Apple Computer, countered that "only a moron in a hurry" could confuse his client's download system - which, he said, was basically transmitting data - with a record label.

"Dispelling the perception of being simply a "gay western", the film doesn't really wholeheartedly fit into either category. Although it is socially important that a gay love story is enjoying a mainstream airing rather than being an arthouse film, it transcends the issue of sexuality. Rather, it is an excellently-told tale of two lovers whose love cannot be fulfilled, which can be universally related to and enjoyed by anyone regardless of sexual orientation."

And yeah, the review was written by a straight guy.

And from the Crimson Harvard Review, another five star review:

I've always been a fan of the devil's advocate position, but I'm a greater fan of honesty, and in that vein I have to say it: "Brokeback Mountain" is an absolutely phenomenal film, a sublime work of beauty with an ache at its core so enveloping you hardly notice it until you try to stand up at its somber end.

I would have imagined difficulty in praising the film this much, considering the gooey and ridiculous media discourse. But upon finally seeing it, all the talk seems trivial. It's an unexpectedly complex rumination on love and sexuality in a uniquely American context, where the tangible beauty of our mythic West collides with the hidden sores of a repressive social order. Lee's film is incredibly literary, stunningly photographed, and features flawless performances from its typically unimpressive cast.

And from a Texas paper, where they know cowboys, another 5 star review:

"Bet you didn't know that the American-Statesman uses a five-star system to rate movies. That's because our critics rarely -- almost never -- confer the highest rating, which is reserved for movies that will be viewed and discussed for years to come.

"Brokeback Mountain" is one of those movies.

A slow-moving, button-lipped Western romance, Ang Lee's wide-screen version of Annie Proulx's quick-moving, stub-tongued story worms its way into the viewer's consciousness, to remain there, a shifting, analog reality, for days or even weeks.

...

The media has fastened onto "Brokeback" as a "gay cowboy movie," and it will likely attract backlash from social conservatives. Some of this might be attributed to the movie's subtle social commentary. The fact that Jack and Ennis, under an ultra-violent Western code, could not seriously consider settling down bears on the current debate about gay marriage.

However, "Brokeback" goes beyond transitory opinion-making. Its relaxed storytelling, naturalistic language and just-out-of-reach characters draw the viewer into an inescapable romance. Due to the inscrutable logic of popular culture, it will appeal especially to women, surely one of the first Westerns to do so.

Is it a masterpiece, a "Casablanca" for its time? Perhaps not. Yet it's hard to question its status as one of the year's top movies. And it's certainly worth the kind of discussion a five-star review inevitably will provoke."

The entire point of this post being, maybe you're not giving the movie a chance, and maybe straight guys can find something worthwhile in this as well (all the above reviews being written by straight guys, and hell, even Ebert and Harry Knowles of "Aint it Cool" fame loved the movie).

Sometimes our prejudices get in the way of letting us discover things we might actually enjoy. I guess I know too many guys who were dragged kicking and screaming to see this movie by their girlfriends, who ended up really liking the movie. It's so silly and childish when you think about it. Every once in a while,

This is what I remember about Harvard's network reliability from my college days: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348114

There's nothing quite like watching a whole computer lab full of overstressed students freak out when the network goes down a few hours before a term paper deadline. :p

This individual was afraid of violence if a Harvard published those cartoons. Guess what, the Muslims got all bent out of shape because she suggested that there may be violence. WTF?!? Cartoons are shown and there's violence. Unbelievable. I'm sure there's going to be some eloquent excuse posted here about how it's not right to make the connection betwen Muslims and violence.

There can be excuses (offensive material, insensitive, or something else that implies that those people have are entitled to riot) till the end of time for their acts, but, unfortunately, their actions are not condemned. Funny isn't it? There's always an excuse for the Muslim riots, but never any condemnation from them.

Right now there are state agents questioning certan US citizens' because of their reading habits,

If you are refering to the Little Red Book story on Slashdot? It was a hoax, as noted in this Slashback.

... there are databases ran with information on normal, law abiding citizens just because they have an oppinion different from the current administration

If by "opinion different from the current administration" you mean terrorists trying to bomb, poison, or shoot us, yes. If you mean, "vote against the tax cuts".... no.

...and God knows what other things are being done behind closed doors. Doesn't this worry anyone?

We should always watch government, but what you're worrying about is bordering on nonsense (see below).

US: formerly known as land of the free, currently aquiring police state status and on the fast track to fascism.

Land of the free? Yes, even now.

Police state status? Fast track to fascism? LOL.... no.

UMass student admits "Little Red Book" Hoax:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510754

In addition to forgetting, you also evidently didn't do any due diligence on the linked material.

Turns out that Pinker was one of the defenders of President Summers' comments concerning gender. From the Harvard Crimson:

CRIMSON: Were President Summers' remarks within the pale of legitimate academic discourse?

PINKER: Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa.

CRIMSON: Would it be normal to hear a similar set of hypotheses presented and considered at a conference of psychologists?

PINKER: Some psychologists are still offended by such hypotheses, but yes, they could certainly be considered at most major conferences in scientific psychology.

CRIMSON: Finally, did you personally find President Summers' remarks (or what you've heard/read of them) to be offensive?

PINKER: Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is "offensive" even to consider it? People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don't get the concept of a university or free inquiry.

Here in cambridge, mass, there have been other instances of girls who did social engineering scams using the internet and got caught...

It's take charge, independent thinkers that the school needs in it's student body. they better not revoke my admission or i'll send a teenage grrl enforcer over to smack 'em upside their heads!

I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever.

A quick Google turns up an interesting story from his undergraduate days at Harvard, when he ran a web site that required that users use the same password on his web site as on their university accounts. Tsk, tsk.

One thing they teach you in Journalism 101 is that when you have a single anonymous source, you don't have a story. That's still true.

You need to be on Nicholas Ciarelli's (AKA Nick dePlume) legal defense!

You forgot the See Amidala's hotness part.

I, for one, welcome our beautiful Harvard-attending Queen- & Senator-playing overlord.

Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)

What remains to be seen is what, if any, of these laws apply, and whether or not the laws of Massachusetts, California, federal, etc., can be applied to this case.

And, as many people have said, they don't really care about Nick Ciarelli (yes, for those who don't know, he's 19 year old Harvard student). They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to Think Secret. And no, it's not "known" elsewhere. He's got a very reliable mole, or a set of them, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.

Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe Nick "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)

Just some things to think about.

Freeman and Goldin both said that after Summers' mentioned the "innate differences" hypothesis, he explicitly told the audience: "I'd like to be proven wrong on this one."

By that point Hopkins, a renowned cancer researcher who last year was inducted into the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, had left the conference room. She said she was concerned that it would be "rude" to get up midway through Summers' speech, but "it was just too upsetting" for her to stay.

[...]

Freeman said that Hopkins' decision to take her concerns to the press was "very bizarre in my view." Summers said he had not expected that the comments would be published.

"If I disagree with you, I should tell you why I disagree with you and what the evidence for my point is. It shouldn't be that I leave the room and call up a reporter and complain there," Freeman said.

I'm sure you're well aware of this debate, but since it's relavant - more than half of all grades at Harvard are As or A-minuses. Is that all be attributable to the libaral arts as you suggest?

I was working at my college newspaper at the time (www.thecrimson.com) as a "business technology manager". We had no Y2K problems, but only because we upgraded our entire building security system to be compliant. If we hadn't, no one (or perhaps everyone, we couldn't figure out) would have been able to get into the newspaper building on Jan 1, 2000.

My guess is that this experience is fairly common: careful planning averted major annoyances (if not actual disasters).

When asked why he has chosen himself as the seed of all future Harvard clones, Professor Dershowitz responded, "Cloning is evil. Someone must stop others from cloning themselves and the answer is a worldwide army of Alan Dershowitz's working together to stop this scourge in its tracks."

A greatful world thanks Professor Dershowitz for choosing himself to shoulder this heavy burden, as only he can.

I predict that if we persist in our police state, and in treating foreigners as criminals with no dignity, the US will be an academic backwater in no time.

-- Bob

Very true.. that would be descrimination based on colour. But where do you draw the line? Perhaps I want to use the female restroom at work. I can't? I'm being denied! Sexual descrimination!

Actually, denying you the 'right' to use the women's restroom if you are a man is sexual discrimination, at least according to the The Undergraduate Council at Harvard University.

I believe schools can even recind degrees they've awarded if evidence of wrongdoing comes up.

The bottom line is you have to be a pretty dim bulb to cheat in that way. Part of the point of doing so many papers is so you increase your writing skills. If you stake through the course by pinching other folks' stuff, what are you going to do when it comes time for the in-class essay?

Those who cheat to learn only learn to cheat. -- The Sphinx

actually Natalie thinks that arabs and israelis are cousins
"most Israelis and Palestinians are indistinguishable physically."
parent post is kinda meaningless.

Am I the only one who was reminded immediately of this after seeing the words "snow gun?"

Yes. There is traffic shaping at Harvard.

The Harvard student paper The Harvard Crimson has an article up, and there is also a fairly lengthy obituary on the official Harvard website. One interesting thing to point out for those who have never perused the Harvard catalog is that the Crimson article mentions the two courses Gould taught this past semester at Harvard, and one of them is Science B-16, a course for nonscience concentrators (majors). Good to know that his public mission of helping people understand science was matched by his work inside the university.

SymphonicMan

The Harvard student paper The Harvard Crimson has an article up, and there is also a fairly lengthy obituary on the official Harvard website. One interesting thing to point out for those who have never perused the Harvard catalog is that the Crimson article mentions the two courses Gould taught this past semester at Harvard, and one of them is Science B-16, a course for nonscience concentrators (majors). Good to know that his public mission of helping people understand science was matched by his work inside the university.

SymphonicMan

The Harvard student paper The Harvard Crimson has an article up, and there is also a fairly lengthy obituary on the official Harvard website. One interesting thing to point out for those who have never perused the Harvard catalog is that the Crimson article mentions the two courses Gould taught this past semester at Harvard, and one of them is Science B-16, a course for nonscience concentrators (majors). Good to know that his public mission of helping people understand science was matched by his work inside the university.

SymphonicMan

Call it the Big Brother of introductory computer science courses--always watching, anticipating students' every move, a little mysterious.

Every year, students in Computer Science 50: "Introduction to Computer Science" (CS50) debate whether the course's instructors really use a special program to weed out cheaters and plagiarists.

But the software is real, instructors say--and it is highly effective in tracking cheating.

"I always have students who say to me, 'Do you really have a software that checks for cheating?'" says Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science Stuart M. Sheiber, who teaches CS50. "They think we're making this up to put the fear of God in them."

(more at the link)

Here is a link to the story from The Crimson, Harvard's newspaper.

It's kind of funny--when I was a student, we complained endlessly about the quality of the Crime. It's obvious now that it was because we didn't read much "mainstream" journalism.

Really, read the original story.

Intel clearly is not making any friends here. It's a dumbheaded move that will do them more harm than good.

But what about Harvard? If you look at the Crimson Online story, you'll see that the Computer Services (FACS) group diod not believe that covering the Macs was the right thing to do.

According to the article:
(1) "FASCS Director Franklin M. Steen said he felt the request unfairly impaired student usage."
(2) "[Steen] allowed the computers to be covered 'only after multiple request and great reluctance.'"

So if Harvard felt that this was wrong, why didn't they refuse the request? It's a prestigious, rich institution that could have afforded to tell Intel to take a hike. If Harvard has to kowtow to the corporate gods, what kind of hope is there for other academic institutions?

They probably figured it wasn't worth fighting. That's their decision to make, but still, it's kinda sad.

Direct link to Crimson Story without all the inane Yahoo editorializing.

Harvard hasn't been sued or booted Napster off their servers yet, and the Dean sounds like they never will -- look at this editorial from the Harvard Crimson...

Harvard hasn't been sued or booted Napster off their servers yet, and the Dean sounds like they never will -- look at this editorial from the Harvard Crimson...

Metallica managed to instantly spook Harvard, Yale and scores of other colleges into booting Napster off their servers

Harvard Will Not Restrict Napster Use

Katz' post also claims the defendants are "University of Southern California, Harvard, [and] Yale University". But according to the article it links to, the defendants are actually "University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University".

My 2 cents: Harvard might be dumb sometimes, but you gotta begrudge 'em some respect for refusing to cave in so far.

Here's a link to an article in the crimson stating pretty clearly that the school decided not to restrict Napster use: http://www.thecrimson.com/f e atures/article.asp?ref=5567

The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land

Here's a link to an article in the crimson stating pretty clearly that the school decided not to restrict Napster use: http://www.thecrimson.com/f e atures/article.asp?ref=5567

The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land