Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Research Encountering More Restrictions
vab writes "MSNBC is running an article
that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students. The article talks about further restrictions the US Government is trying to impose in the name of homeland security and how other research institutions are reacting."
I'll stand on my head and pledge alliegence to GW if someone gives me 404k. I can think of a lot of other universities that would gladly take that money too.
I'm glad MIT did the right thing and walked away from this study. It is although somewhat difficult to tell whether they did this out of a principled stand or if they did it simply because they have so many foreign students that they wouldn't be able to pull it off unless they used them. That quite possibly could be the case.
There's no reason to believe that some college student from Hong Kong is a terrorist. Sure there are some terrorists out there, but I doubt they're sweating their midterms at some university. To deny foreigners the ability to work on some stuff isn't just slightly racist, it's outrageously stupid since there are some unbelievably bright people who come to the US from other places for school.
In the financial services industry, most people have to be bonded - that is the FBI gets your fingerprints and they do some sort of rudimentary background check on you. Would that placate the "homeland security" wolves? At any rate, it would be more information on foreign students than they have on most Americans.
Sometimes I think that homeland security is the process of a bunch of people staring at a collander and trying to decide which hole to patch first. Sure it's possible to keep the total morons from pullling off something big (or burning you in the same way they did before) but how many people out there really think that with anything less than a fascist state, it's possible to secure the country against someone whose well funded, clever, and out to get the US?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Federal funding controls the research, evidentally.
I don't think it's unreasonable that foreign students be restricted from participating. After all, it's my tax dollars paying for this, and I would expect my government to provide for their own citizens before some foreigners who presumably will take their knowledge back to their home countries.
Like it or not, their are things in this country we restrict non-U.S. citizens from doing, and that is a good thing. They can't work for many government agencies or contractors. They are our guests, and they shouldn't expect that we give them the keys and the kitchen sink.
This summary is just trolling by the submitter and michael to stir some shit up.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Didn't matter, it wasn't even in the budget ...
I was a grad student at Texas Tech until a few months ago and one of my prof.s had funding from US DOD to study dispersion of chem./bio. warfare agents. The project was multi-year and for 90% of the project, no foreign national was allowed to work on it. That was finally overturned, however, mainly because there weren't enough Americans to work on it.
The project was new just before Sept. 11th and I'm not sure I can blame them for their restrictions at the time. I think they finally figured out that, at least in this case, it didn't matter who worked on the project. It wasn't going to propogate information about how to make delivery agents more effective, just how they interact with urban, rural, etc. environments.
That and Lubbock isn't a hotbed for terrorists if you know what I mean. Cow-tippers, yes. Foreign spies, no.
"I mean, the government wants to just "check" research so that no one can use it as a weapon... as an upstanding American who loves his country AND science, I see nothing wrong with that. After all... America owns science that it creates... just look at all the patents."
"Ya pinkos."
(Quickly scurries into patented asbestos-lined flamewar bunker, and braces for incoming fire)
I for one congratulate MIT!!! It was a bold move to stand up to something as blatantly wrong as what the government was trying to do. Security must not be gained at the sacrifice of our morals. What does that say about us as a society, our nation who claims to lead all others in progressive thought. We welcomed these people to our land when no other country would take them. France gave us a statue embodying the princple. Now we want to send them away because we think all people of a race would also wish us harm. Extremists come from all races, and someday a white female American will do something terribly destructive which will result in the loss of thousands of lives. What will happen then? The government steps in and calms us down and tells us that we can't trust each other and will therefore take away every personal freedom we have in the name of making us secure? I'll spend a cold day in hell before I allow that to happen to me. So yeah, GO MIT!!!!
-Never believe in the end of something great, send it to sub-committee for further study!!! - ME
Yes, I've definitely got to get me one of them Real Genius grants.
MIT is something like eight per cent foreign.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
MSNBC says: "But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance, forcing the school to turn down the money in September, Powell said." You say: "MSNBC is running an article that details how the MIT AI Lab, the birth place of the free software movement, walked away from a $404K study because the government wanted to restrict participation by foreign students." Sounds like they are just checking for ties to terrorists. Where does it say that foreign students are restricted from participating?
You know, research. The kind of things that might improve human life or knowledge. This is a job to people. HELLOOOOO!!!
We have to be more careful about who is using the information being worked on by scientists. Though it is critical that the study/data be released so that others can improve on that work, it is also critical that information not fall into the wrong hands. Imagine China/Pakistan/North Korea having satellite technology 20 yrs ago. It would have been a very different world. I think restrictions are necessary now-a-days.
under what conditions will the education be paid for? who says the person will not go through college and then split the US therefore not benefiting anyone but themselves and their home country?
So long as institutions tie their financial well-being to the government, they must abide by government restrictions. Where is the controversy in this?
This is a research grant, not tuition. Foreign students generally pay far more than residents due to ineligibility for federal/state grants.
Now then - what's that they say about knowing when to open one's mouth?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
But the National Security Agency refused to budge from a requirement that any foreigners working on a planned project at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory be screened by the government in advance
They didn't want to restrict anybody from working on anything - they just wanted to run backround checks on non-citizens working on the projects. Is that really such a big deal??
If you look at the most dynamic societies in history, up to and including the US, and a common factor has always been attracting the best and the brightest from other societies. September 11 2001 will be known forever as the day that marked the start of America's decline.
Osama would be proud if he had the faintest clue about the correlation between tolerance and greatness in a civilization. Oh the irony.
-- Sigs are for losers
The problem is this: the gov't is not proposing to pay for someone else's education, they're proposing to pay for a study of something they're interested in, and then also trying to dictate who can work on that study. Since the study is unclassified, and therefore public science anyway, MIT apparently feels that this is improper and pretty pointless.
The bottom line is that if you take someone's money - the government's, a corporation's, a foundation's, etc - you are implicitly or explicitly agreeing to the strings attached. Seldom is there a "free lunch". If there is money being offered, there is usually a reason why. I'm not entitled to have free money come raining down on me. Why should a wealthy institution like MIT? They know the game.
If I offer the FSF a $20,000 grant to develop a "Foo" software package for me, provided they design it how I want, the FSF is certainly free to turn that money down and do their own thing (or do without a Foo package). But that doesn't make me an evil man for asking the FSF to write a program that meets my needs if I give them a donation to do so. Similarly for the government.
Background checks are important. While i doubt there are any terrorists trying to work on the project, i'm sure there are at least some students at MIT who plan to take whatever they learn back home. The US gov should not be funding foreigh research with our tax dollars. In fact there is something to be said for not allowing any non-citizens to work on cutting edge research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-530647,0 0.html
After months of demanding an inquiry into the affair, Ed Crawley, the chairman of MIT's aeronautics and astronautics department, has reversed previous refusals and recommended an investigation.
The issue in question goes to the heart of missile defence technology, an article of faith among many Republicans and a key plank in Mr Bush's 2000 presidential manifesto.
Dr Postol and fellow critics say the ability of an interceptor missile to distinguish between an incoming warhead and the decoys likely to accompany it is deeply suspect. Any such doubts would cripple the credibility of the system.
Again, all as a matter of national security, and which did not make a splash stateside. The story at the link is much more detailed.
So what is the government going to do about this outbreak of integrity in the halls of learning?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You know why America still holds its place as a technological leader? Not becoz of just american researchers but a significant foreign nationals working in America, who wouldn't have that same oppurtunity in other countries. AFAIK, America's support for intelligence and research skills over nationality has let it remain supreme.
I think we should close our borders to people who only want to go to school here, and then leave the country when they finish their education!Wrong again, most of the students who come here don't make plans to leave. They settle here. In my past 3.5 yrs in college I have seen 90% of foreign nationals do something or other to stay even overstay their visa time.
Foriegn students are a big security risk! Their loyalties are always in question.
Agreed, but solution is not to close borders. And again you cannot let people walk freely in and out just for the sake of technology or research. Its neither a one line solution nor can be found in a week. May be this is the risk we have to take for the sake of free economy otherwise we have to turn like those chinese closing down thousands of internet kiosks and putting restrictions on our citizens! Not good!
This is a research grant, not tuition. Foreign students generally pay far more than residents due to ineligibility for federal/state grants.
Except that big grants enable the host institutions to offer fellowships and/or stipends to students - at MIT, many of them foreign - which enable them to study there.
If the government is "by the people, for the people" (with people referring to its citizens), shouldn't its funding be spent in support of its citizens? By giving research contracts to its citizens, it helps support them.
BTW, it's kind of scary that the gov is forcing University researchers to have their papers reviewed for censorship. Research should be made public!
2003: You must use Americans for this important work.
1941:You must use blonde haired, blue eyed Germans for this important work.
Trolling is a art,
It's not a matter of racism, it is the idea that government assisted programs (like state universities) should benefit the citizens of that government FIRST.
Murphy was an optimist.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cheers,
Ian
The grant isn't paying for the admission (tuition) but the facilities and curriculum. Both are needed to educate someone; as such this grant would fund the education of non-citizens. I don't have a problem with denying government help to non-citizens.
OK, this is the kind of hate mongering that is simply sad if you ask me. The United States IS the United States because we are a nation of immigrants. It's unfortunate that some individuals are so short sighted as to forget the Japanese interment camps in the 1940s, and also unfortunate that this isolationist foreign policy still feeds itself.
You have it backwards: the brain drain doesn't work like that -- smart people from poor countries study for advanced degrees in thhe US, then stay there to make 100 times the income they could back home, or have research opportunities impossible there.
Those that do have their education paid for may often be obligated to return home to benefit their countries -- as a form of foreign aid (teach a man to fish, etc). But many find ways to dodge that to stay in the land of milk and honey.
President Bush signed a law last summer prohibiting students from countries considered sponsors of terrorism from working with germs and toxins most likely to be used for bioterrorism.
I'm a computational biologist, but not an expert on biological weapons, by any means. Let me say at the outset: the government has no business regulating scientific inquiry. I'm sure other people will argue this point eloquently and what they may say about AI research applies to biology as well.
It's a good idea to keep something in mind - the history of the entire field of computer science is heavily intertwined with the rise of the modern intelligence apparatus here in the US. Likewise, nuclear technology. The same is NOT true of my field (biology.)
However, while you can use your m4d sk1llz to annoy uncle Sam, they're not really dangerous. The danger is in NCB (non-conventional) weapons:
1) Nuclear weapons technology is already restricted up the wazoo.
2) Chemcial weapons technology requires a great deal of industrial infrastructure. The cat is out of the bag. All sorts of foreigners know chemistry. The oil industry is incredibly secretive anyway. Government intrusion into chemical engineering is unlikely.
3) Biological weapons are extremely difficult to make. HOWEVER, my colleagues and I are doing our best to make molecular biology as easy as possible. There's a shortage of technicians; we train people without discriminating against Pakistanis. Advances in the field make molecular biology easier, quicker, cheaper and increase your yield.
The point is that molecular biology technology, used only once in a successful terrorist context (the Anthrax, mailed by a former Marine who had no trouble getting clearance; you know he's guilty), is POTENTIALLY the most dangerous of all. The only reason I don't need security clearance to do molecular biology is because Uncle Sam failed to get in at the ground floor - molecular biology has always been very much an international effort. Of course, US military labs remain the exception.
So, we (biologists) need to be ready and determined to resist the intrusion of security concerns into our laboratories; the pressure to do so will be fierce.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
...was catalyzed by an influx of foreign-national brainpower from abroad during the thirties, forties, and fifties.
Einstein was given a post at Princeton in 1930 but didn't become a citizen until 1935; Enrico Fermi didn't become a citizen until 1944, Werner von Braun didn't become a citizen until 1955...
Meanwhile, Hitler's scientific efforts were hampered by the exclusion of Jews, doubtless for good security reasons.
If the United States had been more cautious in monitoring the politics of scientists and more careful in security concerns, J. Robert Oppenheimer would probably not have been allowed to lead the Los Alamos project. It was certainly his personal leadership as much as Groves' that contributed to the ultimate success of that endeavor. Both Germany and Japan had scientists puttering around on atomic bombs, but only the U.S. had scientific leadership--determined to see the project culminate the production of a weapon.
If the United States starts to discourage participation by foreign students and scientists, we abandon one of the historic sources of our leadership and risk falling behind.
What does this have anything to do with homeland security? I think they're getting a little paranoid if you ask me. This whole homeland security thing is based on fear. Isn't that what the terrorists want? To strike fear into the hearts of "non-belivers", make us panic and do stupid things like approving scientific studies before their released. that's censorship if you ask me. Everyone needs to calm down about all this "Osama's gonna get us" crap.
~Common sense is the most evenly distubuted of all things, everyone thinks they have enough, and wants no more
I think the feeling is more like this: we've had enough immigrants. It's time to take care of our own.
I am tired of Foriegn students coming to America and taking up spots in good Universities and Colleges that could go to Americans.
And this is were your reasoning is flawed. As I remember the costs for MIT are steep. It's so expensive that american students come to holland to study at the university of Delft because they can afford this and they can't afford MIT. The places at MIT that are filled by foreign students are places that wouldn't be filled if it wasn't for them.
Basically you prefer an empty MIT above one that is actually filled by (parially) foreign students. And don't forget the research MIT has great value for American companies who can use this knowlidge for far less then it would cost them to do the research them self
This is why you vote Democrat, and then write your senator with "I'll be keeping my gun, thank you." The change in "government" policy is simply the difference between the Clinton and GWBush administrations' respective foreign policy philosophies.
The Clinton era policy was based on "engagement." I'm not sure where the GWBush people are coming from. The idea of engagement is that international politico-economy is improved, and so is the global politico-economic position of the US, when we get *more* involved with foreign economies. Macroeconomists talk about "growing the pie." Engagement is like growing the global pie so the US piece gets bigger too.
GWBush policy people seem to think "we're doing just fine thank you, and we don't want you doing any better, so we're taking our ball and going home." Oh, and try to get all the arabs against Saddam Hussein (Iraq has no oil, just Mecca) because it's like destabilising islamic international relationships to destabilise OPEC strength, so that Texan and Alaskan oil barons can get invited to the price-of-energy (price-of-everything) control meetings. "If OPEC isn't about arabs, it's just about oil barons, and aren't we all in the same boat? So let's stop giving money to the blow-yourself-up mad-at-the-world poor muslim martyr-wannabes and get back to making ourselves rich and locking-in the status-quo! See: this is how WE maintain the status-quo..."
</rant>
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Every time we bought and installed a US made supercomputer, part of the contract insisted that we prevent access by students from a list of countries provided by the DoD.
... in the Department of Defense: US citizenship is a prerequisite for doing certain types of work. And this is not a post-9/11 (how Katzian) change. Foreign nationals have been restricted in this manner since (IIRC) the Cold War - possibly longer than that.
Besides, if the gov't is sponsoring the research, the gov't is the customer. Doesn't the customer usually have some say over what happens with deliverables, e.g. publication/distribution?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
.. will not be over "weapons of mass destruction". It will be over oil, and then ideas. This administration WILL continue to erode rights until corporate America holds ALL the cards. We can all see this. It is time to do something about it.
Put the chimp out the door in '04.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
On one hand, yes, projects being funded by my tax dollars should be worked on by citizens from my country. And yes, secret work should stay secret. However, on the other hand, requiring only Americans work on the project will severly limit your capability to get the project done. I will probably be preaching to the choir a bit here on Slashdot, but have you taken a look at the "general public" lately? They're not the brightest bunch in the world. Even at the universities, (of which I just recently graduated) the amount of stupid people amazes me. If it weren't for foreign students, I don't think some university programs would exist!! There wouldn't be enough interest from american students to keep them afloat. I am getting a bit off the point however. Students, both foreign and domestic, go to school to learn. By putting stupid requirements like "only american students can work on this project" will limit both the progress of the project and the beneficial results at the end.
On one hand, the requirement is good. Get kids from this country using this country's money for the project. But on the other hand, restricting the education opportunities undermines the entire purpose of a university.
What do I count anyway. I'm just a software guy.
In the company of only their peers and an eavesdropping busboy, the group was candid and unguarded. Almost everyone had a story of a student who had been hindered by the stricter immegration rules. One expressed doubt that MIT could "be MIT" under these circumstances. Jerry Sussman--co-author of "the only good book on computer programming" (quote from a Slashdot favorite I won't name) and all-around brilliant and creative guy--said he's "been depressed for the last year". Man, that made me want to cry.
This convinced me that the problem is real, that it is hampering the advancement of learning--and that it could even lead to the unseating of the US as the center of the learned world.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
...pay attention to who's saying the government is wrong: Sheila Widnall. From 1993-1997, she was secretary of the Air Force, arguably the most technologically advanced of the four branches of the US military. For those not up on US government, the Secretary of the Air Force is the civilian head of the US Air Force. All the generals answered to her; she answered only to the Secretary of Defense, who answers to POTUS. She would have had authority and responsiblity for all the research funded by the Air Force, so she's seen both sides of this (though I don't know to what extent she micromanaged it).
She makes a VERY good point that what the government should do is to determine what's classified research and what's not. It's reasonable to restrict the participation of foreign nationals in classified research, but the concern with this grant was that it was for unclassified research.
For you cynics, note that this grant wasn't for that much money (only half a million) and was probably chosen to send a message because they didn't much want to do it anyway and it wasn't enough money to worry about.
MIT's ideal would be that everyone be screened, regardless of country of origin. There is no reason I can see why MIT couldn't take the money, and then have everyone screened. That would satisfy the minimum requirements of the feds, and satisfy MIT's moral standing.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
I'm glad the Govt is waking up. You folks who happen to think that every foreign student in our Universities can't possibly be a terrorist need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Nobody ever thought foreigneers taking flight school could be terrorists either. Look how that turned out.
Sure, it would be nice to be politically correct all the time and stick our head in the sand. Technology loves to be free, but when it can be turned around and used to harm you, you need to think about to whom it is being given freely.
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
That's probably the most flawed logic I've ever heard. By that logic, each and every resident American's tuition is also paying for facilities and curriculum and faculty and therefore is contributing to foreign students' education. Moreover, every penny put into the colleges / universities in America can be traced directly or indirectly to supporting the education of foreign students.
So why not just get it over with and close your borders already? After all, these foreigners will obviously just be coming to America seeking welfare, right?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
"Walking away from $404K" ?? The poor MIT accountants were probably already counting on it.
They're just walking the halls in a daze today, muttering, "404 not found..."
Since the study is unclassified, and therefore public science anyway, MIT apparently feels that this is improper and pretty pointless.
You miss the mark, just because something is not classified does not mean that it is wide open to forein scrutiny/review. Case and point encryption technologies. If you are an American citizen, you can use very strong encryption, however you may not use the same encryption techniques for non-domestic products.
In the case of AI, there are serious security implications and advantages that the US would have. It only makes sense that they would want to protect their technology from being used against them. We have seen time and time again where foreigners have taken research secrets and technologies to their respective homelands. Does it not make sense for the government to check if they are a covert operative or terrorist?
As a taxpayer, I think that the government should be able to use its discression as to whom it will fund and as to the kinds of people it will allow to work on certain projects.
This is only one way administrations institute policy without having to get congressional approval. I prefer to keep sensitive information secret, but this practice is part of a larger issue.
The Federal Govt. collects taxes from all Americans, then uses grants, loans, and subsidies to institute policy. Well, who's policy? They tie subsidies to your local school district to certain courses or earmarks for the money; e.g., you have to implement a certain history or language program. Maybe what your local HS really needs is a new boiler or roof. Why send $ to D.C. to have it skimmed and returned with mandates?
Whatever administration is in power, both political parties do this and it's a quick and easy way to instute a policy by doing an end-around to Congress.
If MIT has the guts to tell the feds what they can do with our money, maybe we should too:
"GIVE IT BACK!!"
Sorry about the rant. I just got my W2s and 1099s. (GRRRR) No trolling or baiting intended.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
foreign students are dangerous? a,ericans are more than capable of being dangerous. timoty mcveigh was good oll american boy.
...
einstein, godel, bohr, von braun,
all foreingers that you should be grateful for that they used their minds for the usa.
Int
First, I never said I was cool, nor did I imply it in my post. Why you've made yourself flame bait puzzles me.
At any rate, to stay on-topic - imagine what people were saying when everyone in Ireland came to the United States after the Potato famine. I'm sure, they were saying something to the effect of, "There goes the neighborhood" and "Isn't it time we simply dealt with our own nationals?" This has been going on for quite some time, but that doesn't make it right.
And, this isolationist policy is the same thing ultra-conservatives in Europe are preaching. If you ask me, it's simply a higher-brow version of racism and segregation.
Those who have the gold get to make the rules.
If you don't like these restrictions, then get your own funding and do your own project where you get to make the rules. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with prohibiting non-US citizens from doing US research into defense initiatives.
This should not be modded as troll. It was a point. People argue that we should send all muslims back to where they came from, but my point is what the hell are you going to do with the dangerous people that come from here? This moderation is not very good, or the moderator was too ignorant to understand the comment...
I just love the inconsistency...
--
All closed file formats should be illegal, they just aid monopolies.
Oh, the sweet irony...
and they couldn't find it for some reason...
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
If you're publishing, even if you're just verifying other's results, you're doing science. If you're keeping it to yourself, even if you're breaking new ground, you're doing research.
It's a subtle distinction, but the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. And in the end, ten people doing published science benefits us more than a thousand doing independent - therefore probably redundant - research.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Denying a citizen to give a spot to a guest student is just not logical. Now, if there are openings after all citizens have slots, then I have no problem filling those with exchange students.
Murphy was an optimist.
the line between patriotism and fascism is a slipery slope. Everyone needs to look at history closely and realize we're rapidly sliding down that slope unless we pull our collective heads out of our butts. A person's religion, color, language or nationality does not equal their allegiance. The best way to protect freedom isn't to kill all your enemies, but to learn from them. Violent expression doesn't happen overnight. People should realize we making the same mistake our ancestors made and learn from it, not do the same exact thing. I'm sure the founding fathers of America would be more proud if society collectively works to improve freedom democracy. Not colonize a country in the name of democracy. That just smacks of the holy crusades.
frankly, yes, it does come down to that, and I wish they would close the borders for a limited time, 6 months to a year maybe. Once the world sees what it's like without the USA to run to, perhaps they'll be a little more appreciative of what we offer to them.
ok, on the one hand you talk about america as the Great Melting Pot, but next you talk about how isolationism is racist - which means you believe in an "American Race"? Make up your mind.
The sig is a sig, if you don't get the concept, shut the fuck up.
I think one of the most intelligent things a school like MIT can do is look for foreign students. This is mainly because one thing you want to do is achieve more and more scientific results and there are countries where very intelligent people do not have any chance to do something useful. Look at lots of countries in Asia. Local students tend to go to top universities (say MIT) mainly just to become good engineers and leave after receiving their B.S., while foreign students usually come as grads or Ph.D's. And I am sorry to say, but good research is good for US economy as well.
If you are against this think for a while about some great things the US did in the past years that are mainly due to people coming from abroad. Think of space flight, think of Einstein (and this is just a little example).
And I fear good old Europe is starting to smile.
There has been a lot of muddiness concerning "university" admission in the US. As regards undergraduate institutions ("college" in the US) there is only a tiny proportion of foreign students, and the vast percentage of these are at *private* institutions, not public universities.
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
If the gov't wants security checks, and in some cases that's reasonable (remember all the military work MIT has done, most famously during WWII), that should get them on EVERYONE. Stop this xenophobic insult now.
Aside from the philosophical problem with accused foreign citizens mindlessly, need we remind the NSA of all the wonderful homegrown dangers we have managed to grow in the U.S., from Timothy McVeigh (& Nichols) to the Unabomber to the Columbine shooters to John Walker Lindh to this DC sniper bastard Muhammed, and that's just the last ten years. And and those are just the killers; don't forget double agents Aldrich Ames (CIA) and Robert Philip Hanssen (FBI). Even if you are sympathetic to some of these, consider the rest.
My argument is that if you're going to be paranoid, do be equal opportunity about it out of respect for logic and fair play. Look in your own backyard.
Or more likely we would heave a sigh of relief when the opressive behaviour of the US led multinationals stops for a while and allows us to exist with our own cultures.
I mean, it's only a matter of time before our version of Hitler's 'SS' show up here...with 'HS' (Homeland Security) on their lapels. Think it can't happen? I'll bet that the citizens of Germany in the 1930's thought that too. We have unchecked paranoia in this country..and that's very dangerous, especially when the Government is using it to control its citizens.
If I was going to try to go to a government funded school in Korea, I'd certainly expect to only be admitted after all the Korean citizens who wanted to go were enrolled. Why should it be any different for Koreans coming here?
Murphy was an optimist.
After all, this is our hard-earned tax money, and why should any non-citizen be given access to knowledge funded by us? Why, any University that receives federal funding in some form (that'd be about all of them) continue to offer this service to anyone that hops on a boat and applies for a student visa!
For that matter, we should probably restrict access to Cable TV as well, since that was largely financed by local municipalities...and yet, here we are, offering MTV, 12 versions of Nick, CNN, all paid for with our tax dollars!
Why stop there? Our roads, power lines, and telecom infrastructure are all funded by us, yet we continue to allow non-Americans to use them daily. I bet a terrorist or two reads bugtraq to look for vulnerabilities. Don't they know the DoD invented the internet! We ought to do a background check on everyone that uses http! Seal up the borders! So what if MIT and every other engineering program has to lower its standards to fill their classes? I bet the folks that run the espresso machines at starbucks can be taught how to run our nuclear reactors and design our motherboards.
We should also deport everyone back to their country of origin, or if they were born here, to their ancestors' countries of origin. If dismemberment is necessary to insure proper dispersion, so be it.
I get the sig concept....but vulgarity...so immature, young one.
How likely do you think it is that China will become a mecca for foreign grad students in the way that the USA is? Maybe 20 years from now if there are massive changes, but it is not likely to happen in the near future.
Out of curiosity, where are you from? Are you a foriegn student studying in the US?
Lasers Controlled Games!
See? Either way, the world benefits. I'm in total agreement with you. I'm sick of our gov't and their corporate masters trying to conquer the world.
I too have worked at a state university in the midwest. During our "diversity training" the HR people seemed to think it was a good thing that the grad schools was 35% asian and the undergrad schools were only about 10%. Since the state funding the scholl has an asian population of MAYBE 1%, I could not agree with their assessment that 35% was ideal. Shouldn't it reflect the breakdown of the population of the state, ideally?
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
Murphy was an optimist.
The original comment is what "foreigners" believe is a stereotypical American response. What are called here in Britain "Little Englanders".
If I was to to take the same attitude then I would be shouting about having my daughter's boyfried repatriated. After all, what is someone from Arkansaw doing at Cambridge University, we should be saving the places for British students. He could be an undercover terrorist.
It is noticeable that all your presidents who have travelled abroad believe in a policy of engagement. They seem to realise the world actually exists outside of your borders. The ones who haven't travelled seem to be almost xenophobic in their attitude to other nations.
That depends on the University that you are attending. What pissed me off was the fact that some of the foriegn students would fail the TOFL (I think that's right) on purpose the first time through so that they wouldn't be teaching in a classroom. They would either end up grading papers or immediately get an RA even though nobody was suposed to get an RA without being a TA first. This put their foot in the door for the long term RA positions, and those of us that spoke english well enough to teach never seemed to get the opportunity at them. And let's face it grad work in Physics is hard enough without having the added task of babysitting in addition to doing your own classwork, and your research on the side.
Yes, I'm a little pissy about this subject. And yes I do know for a fact that some of them would fail the test on purpose, since I had quite a few of them tell me that was the reason they failed.
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
And once the USA sees what it's like without oil imports and cheap 3rd world labour, maybe it'll be a little more appreciative of what the world offers to it.
It stands to reason that they didn't want no darned furriners messin up the works...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I think the problem has a lot more to do with the US government making themselves the policeman of the world, toppling governments in every corner of the world, killing others because of an interest in oil or control over a region or a people they think are different from them and disrespecting what those people consider to be their holy land, supporting Isreal no matter what evils the state does against the real owners of that land, ... There are just too many reasons why the US is losing the world's favor. (Heck, even moderate, peaceful people are beginning to see the US as a money-hungry, power-hungry Beast that cares only for itself and nothing about the rest of the world or even simple environmental issues. True, absolute power corrupts absolutely.) And the nationalistic cockiness of many Americans, these evils notwithstanding, does not help the situation.
If you do not see the reasons why the US is hated by many, you either have an inability to reason, or live a very sheltered life of CNN propaganda.
I'm not sure either, but the juxtaposition just struck me as funny. Maybe it's because you seem to be advocating "america first" isolationism in your post, and open (=open to everyone) standards in your sig.
Looking at your web address (I cannot reach the site from here)
Do try again, it's hilarious. Well I thought it was funny.
(It's hosted in the US, BTW (at least according to ARIN). Funny how there are actually no .kp sites, and the DPRK "PR dept" operates through .jp and US-hosted .com sites, i.e. countries is threatens to nuke on a regular basis, isn't it?)
If I was going to try to go to a government funded school in Korea, I'd certainly expect to only be admitted after all the Korean citizens who wanted to go were enrolled.
This is OT, but you remember about the Japanese people who were abducted by north korea? One of them, it turns out, got married (in NK) to an american defector. Strange, or what?
When the Soviet Union tried to keep its research secret, the research moved overseas. Restrictions on foreign nationals, visa restrictions, and secrecy are the best way for the US to ensure that research moves to Europe, Japan, and China. With secrecy, researchers won't generate the publications that advertise that a country and a lab is first rate. With visa restrictions, educated foreigners will increasingly look for jobs overseas, where they are more welcome than ever, or just stay at home and try to make things work there. Hiring restrictions on foreign nationals for "secret" projects further reduce available jobs and further drive them away.
Yes, foreign students could potentially represent a risk to national security, but get real! As posted above, (and from listening to the hundreds of foreign grad students I went to grad school with) most students that come from abroad, especiall those involved in any type of decent research (and that can get into MIT!!!) are going to stay here! They stand to lose more by going back to wher ethey came from. In the U.S., they know that they will get paid better wages and that they can provide a more stable future for their families.
... why would they want to stop foreign students from working on a grant? From the mounths of several profs I have had in the past, I quote: foreign "students work harder than American most American students. They are not distracted by friends, family, and other extra curricular activities. They are taught to please those in authority, and are willing to work for the priviledge to sta in this (the U.S.) country. They will work harder because they have much more to lose!"
... and they worked MANY more hours than I did! I couldn't keep up because of family obligations and obligations to my business that I was running while in school. Most American students have something else other than school going on in their life during their graduate career ... it is just a simple fact of life.
...
Now past the security issue
That statement couldn't be spoken any better! I was an American grad student at one point, and although I worked pretty hard, I will admit that most of the foriegn students worked much harder than I did
So again, why wouldn't the gov't want to take advantage of people that are willing to give them more bang for their buck?
I don't like what I have just stated, because I do believe that many Americans are being passed over for terrific opportunites because of what I just said, but it is the (sad) truth. The PhD.'s of this nation see that, so what can't the people running the gov't???
Just my $0.02 cents
(BTW: I didn't do any grad work in Language Arts, so please don't flame me for bad grammar or my mack of good keyboard skills)
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
We're not. Our high schools are failing, the primary education system in this country is in shambles. Like it or not, universities are the places where we have to catch up with the world. We really can't do that if our students can't get into them, can we?
I'm 100% opposed to affirmative action in universities because it doesn't take applicants based solely on merits, but I am more against a government program that doesn't put it's own citizens first.
I think the return on tax dollars has a greater impact if it enhances the lives of the taxpayers. Which is more valuable to the citizen: a degree from the university, or a job serving fries in the drive thru to an exchange student with a degree ?
We need to benefit the citizens first.
Murphy was an optimist.
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
But did you apply to all the various State supported universities and colleges in your state? You note that you *did* get into the satelite campus. My point is not that every student can get into every school, but rather that there are a host of different schools and i would be surprised were a qualified student unable to enter any of them.
If your State U was full up, I would hazard that the reason was because there were more students *from the state* who wanted to go than there were places... which is not a good thing, but is not the fault of foreign enrollment.
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
Yes, but foreign students are not eligible for those loans. My point was not that US nationals did not pay (they do!) but that they were not "footing the bill" for foreign nationals.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
Ah, and here we do differ. I believe that the role of education is not merely to provide job training, but to develop human understanding too. Graduate school, in particular, is usually ill suited for job-preparation. Yet I do believe it is an important thing that tax dollars should support.
But here we enter into personal opinions, and heaven forbid I should try to proseltize my own views...
The blasted firewall here blocks it, I'll give it a peek when I get home.
I honestly don't remember it at all.
Murphy was an optimist.
--I'm more concerned over home grown terrorist like robert mcnamara, henry kissinger,both the clintons, george the elder, king george the present, rumsfield, cheney, the hierarchies in the democratic national committe and the republican national committee, the membership of the council on foreign relations, the members of the tri-lateral commission, and various criminal gangs and cartels inside the various combined workgroups of the military/industrial complex who profit from war and drug smuggling in the private sector, especially banking, and the spook, law and justice "communities".
..list to reflect more serious potential threats and dangers, to go down to slightly less serious,to less serious and so on. History has shown just over and over again that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the history of the 20th century shows that citizens of various countries around this ole whirrled have a much higher odds-on probability of being exploited/murdered/enslaved by their own governments and "connected ones" then by "outsiders". For every person killed by a "foreign invader" in the 20th century, there's 5 to 10 killed by their own nation's power structure once they became absolute tyrants.
Hegelian dialectic is alive and working daily to bring a fascist reality to the US. It don't matter what label or name these gents go by, a dictatorship "system" that lies chronically, steals everything that ain't nailed down, and uses their positions for personal and secret profit are way more of a danger than anything else.
Now this viewpoint doesn't negate the possibility and probability of various other foreigners being up to "no good". I take that as a gimme as well. It's reality, there ARE foreign bad guys here and also domestic low level independent nutjobs. We got a population of around 270 million or so, law of averages comes into play. I just think it's better to have th..
IMO, having watched politics and "current events/news/history" as a major interest since the late 50's/early 60's, I'd say that the US has well more than it's "fair share" of power mad dictators or dictator wannabe's,from the very highest levels to local levels, very public to very private, governmental and business, and it's official pronouncements have been full of lies and misdirections.
Just since I've been a teenager I've watched *someones* get away with whacking a president-JFK, to starting a decades long war-for-profit based on a total lie -nam war with the gulf of tonkin fairy tale, to shafting it's own vets -agent orange was a "myth" and "all in their heads", and gulf war syndrome was "in their heads", to experimenting on their own people by aerial and ground spreading of chemical, bioliogical and radiological agents-something they denied for years and finally admitted. And so forth and on and on, way too many examples to list. Heck just the federal reserve perpetual debt note scam is big enough to prove how much people get lied to and brainweashed into believing the lies.
The gestalt is-the old cliche is true, for a basic rule of thumb, when a politician's lips are moving..well, take it with several large handfuls of salt. Right now, IMO again, we are being lead down the dictatorship path with lies much more deep and sinister than minor accounting lies at enron, and those were large enough. That's chump change to what's really going on now with this "war on terrorism".
Anyone's MMV obviously, just fool me once, shame on you, fool me 4873 times, shame on me. Learn from history or repeat it, binary choice.
Homeland Security...i'm sorry but I find it all a joke. It's bad enough Americans get screwed paying for Government agencies that don't even work. Now they create another one to throw money at. I mean really, i'm from Canada and i clear the same off a paycheck here as i did there. Difference is if i got into an accident, i wouldn't be out 30 grand for hospital dues, we have unemployment insurance et al. Just had to vent, i hate seeing 400 bux come off my paycheck so government can tell me what i need.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
the only reason we import oil is because our politicians make a lot of money that way. If US politics wasn't directly intertwined with the oil industry, you can bet we wouldn't be importing any.
a lack of cheap 3rd world labour would give americans a) jobs b) quality goods. People are so used to shittiness that (b) would be a major eye-opener.
Like I said, this would be temporary, maybe a year at most.
I think you're wrong on this one.
The vast majority of foreign students go home. Many are bonded by their governments or companies, have families back home, can't get an visa, or maybe just don't want to stay. Students know if they overstay their visa then they can't get a job anyway.
I'd say the 90% figure is about right, but it's for students who leave not stay. I'd argue only 1 or 2 out of every 10 foreign students stay on for any period of time. And usually it's only the best ( >3.8 GPA holders, quite often ) that get sponsored to stay.
This is just my observation from working/studying at a university with a very high foreign student population for the last 6.5 years.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I know someone has already mentioned Real Genius -- remember back in the 60s-80s when many, many grants had to have a Department of Defense component? This is no different; this is a big warm war on terror, instead of a big cold war on the Communists.
The government was working for the advancement of knowledge, but not for general knowledge. It's for the advancement of knowledge the government wants, and to keep from the people it doesn't want to know.
Many submitters have posted similar comments about the possible shift of technilogical/scientific knowledge to somewhere other than the US. Anyone got any predictions on where the next big technology/science concentration will be? Will it shift to Canada, which still seems to embrace foreigners to its country? Does Europe have anything to offer? How about China? (Looks like they may put a man in space this year).
Also, what do you think are the ingredients for a country to be a successful technology powerhouse? "Loose ethics" in their laws? (cloning-banned countries will probably not be at the forefront of cloning technology). How about diverse acceptance of individuals in scientific professions (Think of how many great foreign scientists might be turned away by the US, or how many great women scientists have not been allowed to contribute in certain fields in some Muslim-dominated countries). Others examples?
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
Try selling electric-powered SUVs to the electorate.
Not that I don't agree with your point - the US's achilles heel is its dependency on oil imports.
a lack of cheap 3rd world labour would give americans a) jobs b) quality goods. People are so used to shittiness that (b) would be a major eye-opener.
I don't even think I own ANYthing made in USA, so I can't comment. ;-)
Basically, MITs reason is much more prosaic than some sort of "intellectual freedom" (*snort*). If MIT was restricted from using foreign students on a research project, that project would very likely die for lack of interest. Let's face it: US students are for the most part smarter than wasting 4-7 years in a PhD program, given the financial risk involved. Thus we have the observation that the graduate student bodies at many (most?) large research schools are foreign.
From the universities point of view, this is just good business sense: large pool of willing labor that works cheap. Also, don't be fooled by high tuition for foreign. That's just a numbers game to charge what is essentially more overhead for these same grants.
MIT sees this as a dangerous precedent. If they accepted these restrictions, it would be more difficult to refuse them later, and could really dent the supply of indentured labor available to fuel university researh programs.
The whole thing make sense in the context of an "education industry".
I own quite a few things made in the USA. On the whole quality is much higher than made overseas - save Japan and western euro nations.
For example - I'm a bassist, and I own 4 bass guitars. One made in the USA, one made in Germany, one made in China, and one made in Mexico. In order of quality, I'd put them like so (best to least)
USA
Germany
China
Mexico
The USA bass is a bit simpler than the German one, but the German one has a part that shouldn't have broken that was broken by its previous owner, so I have to put it second.
you belong to Caesar. It's a concept simple enough that it was expressed by a simple bookshelf builder who grew up out in the sticks two thousand years ago.
Once upon a time the great private universities were the bastions of independant thinking, but a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum. They started takeing Caesar's money. A little aid here, a little aid there, and then the big money, government contracts.
This has created on odd state of affairs where a private institution has a public face presenting public knowledge, and at the same time a public face creating very, very, VERY private knowledge.
Or worse, presenting as public knowledge that which it is payed to present as public by Ceasar. Do you really need it spelled out that some of that "knowledge" lacks a bit around the edges in the "truth" department?
When a government contracts for science the government OWNS that science. I mean this quite literally.
If you wish to do science, or engage in ANY free thought for that matter, the solution is obvious and simple. Don't take Caesar's coin.
The poet laureate, by accepting the the coin and protection of the Lord is compelled by his very state to write only that which is pleasing and/or flattering to the Lord. If you don't think this happens in science you are naive. The poet who rejects the Lords money may say anything he wishes, although his life may otherwise be somewhat harsher.
Which way to go is a choice. Choose wisely, if not well.
KFG
... It is even more important that we realize: We have changed the way we live, our day to day workings have changed WE HAVE LET "THEM" WIN!!!
Terrorists don't always care about getting a specific message across, they care about changing the way their targets live and work. In short, They've won! we're now running scared, ready to believe anything "The Man" tells us, as long as it's about "terrists" (which damn-it has 3, count them 3, sylables), or has to do with "Homeland Security" It's McCarthyism all over again, and almost nobody seems to see it (s/[reds|communist]/terrorist/g)
Also I think it's stupid to think that you can keep research under wraps forever. Think about it, The laws of physics/chemestry/etc work just the same at the univeristy of southern north dakota at hoople, as they do at the Yazd Insitute of technology (both fictional schools of course) or even the Baghdad Underground top secret "You talk about it, we shoot you first, then ask questions" research bunker.
Also, Imageing China/Pakistan/North Korea... Try this, imagine the US without it, would we be a world super-power? probably not. What gives the US of A the right to police the world as it sees fit. What makes the US a better world super power than say, Poland would be? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! something which most people around here seem to have forgotten... For crying out loud, FDR must be rolling over in his grave, The US doesn't even appear to give a flying rat's ass about the UN, which he helped start so many years ago. We don't even care enough to pay our dues, and we feel that it is our right to strong-arm it into going along with whatever we want.
Once again. enough ranting for now. go back to your regularly scheduled madness
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
refer to subject...
Oh, in that case you might know whether this snippet is true (I was going to use it at you, but I wasn't sure ;-) ) - that Fender had to move their production of cheapo guitars from Japan to Malaysia because the Japanese ones were better than the (more expensive) USA-made ones. Is that true?
(Of course, Japan is hardly a 3rd-world country, so this is a bit beside the point, but it's an interesting piece of trivia.)
That's what I keep telling the IRS.
Devon
I did my grad work in Physics, and had to deal with many foreign students. Our Dept. was more than 50% foreign. While I think some of these individuals were complete scum, my attitude has nothing to do with the fact that they were not Americans; it had everything to do with the fact that they were complete scum, and yes I felt that way about some of the Americans as well. I'm also sure that some of them felt the same about me.
The fact of the matter is that MIT turned down the money. Whether they did it because they couldn't do the research without the foreign students, or because of principals, they did the right thing, as far as I'm concerned. Another fact is that there are a lot of low lives out there and if the government wants to start screening the individuals that are working on research projects in the world of academia they should by no means limit the screening to foreign students. If they are reading this and decide that I'm right, and they start screening everyone, how many people do you think they are going to have working on their pet projects? They will end up with very few foreign students working on these projects, and the American students that are working on the projects will be the ones that either don't have any better offers, or they will have the 'lamb to the slaughter' mentality that will allow them to be led anywhere. Anyway you look at it, these are generally not going to be the most innovative individuals in the world. Therefore these projects will end up with second-rate researchers giving second-rate results. Basically, the American government will end up cutting it's own throat.
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
The short version is that with WW2 the US swapped places with the UK. The US provoked Japan into attacking it, as 80% of Americans didn't want to enter the war, because it saw that Japan was quickly building its own empire. Industrialization had been going strong in the US for a century, and the capitalists needed markets in which to sell products. The US came out of the war with a built-up industrial base, and an excuse to build military bases throughout the globe. Europe was decimated, leaving America the world's only superpower.
Since that time, we've worked to expand our economic sphere, as empires are wont to do, throughout Asia and South America. Through the CIA, the US has sponsored and/or outright led several military coups: Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala, Panama, and many more. The latest -- failed! -- attempt was Venezuela this past April.
Why would the US do this? Do Americans hate other people? Of course not. That assumes that Americans make choices which affect the US's foreign policy. I certainly wasn't asked about whether or not I wanted to overthrow the overwhelmingly democratically-elected president of Venezuela. But Venezuela controls a lot of oil, and capital needs oil (resources). So capital made that choice for me. Can you think of another country that controls a lot of oil? Hint: it starts with "I" and ends in "raq."
The fairy tale that terrorists hate all of our freedoms is so amazingly idiotic, I'm shocked that anyone buys into it. Yes, that's a sad statement on our citizens. Do you really think bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere thinking, "Stupid Americans! Why can't I have my MTV?! I'm so jealous." No, he's pissed because the US has military bases in what he believes to be the holy land of all Muslim people (over a billion world-wide). Whether or not we stop supporting Israel (his other beef), I think we at the very least should pull out of Saudi Arabia just to appease one sixth of the world's population. That's just common sense if not common courtesy.
It's easy to get cynical or give up when you look upon the world stage and see what the US does to other countries and peoples (1.5 million dead in Iraq due to economic sanctions). I just hope that by talking with others we can wake up enough people to take back control of the country. How? I wish I knew, but I'm convinced it's not going to happen through the ballot box.
You can go read any number of political essays and books yourself, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that our touted two-party system is not really a one-party system: the capital party. No, I'm not socialist or communist, though those systems haven't really been tried in the real world. I've been reading more about anarchy* and know that, once we stop hating each other for silly reasons, it's the way to go. The only question is can we get there?
Me? I'm actually hopeful.
* If you think Anarchy means mob rule or no order, you don't understand anarchy. Neither did I. Start skimming the FAQ, but the basic tenant is that you are a sovereign individual and should not be giving up your power to anyone.
P.S. For a good history of the US, I highly recommend A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Preset by Howard Zinn. I'm only up to the Civil War (and the other Civil War), but it's very good so far.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
OK, here's the deal, as I understand it.
Fender Musical Instruments has two Brands: Fender and Squier. Squier instruments are made in Indonesia now. They were formerly made in Korea and Mexico. They have never been anything above bargain-basement instruments.
Fender brand instruments are made in Mexico, Japan, and the USA. For a time in the mid-80s, the Japanese Fenders WERE of superior quality to the american ones, but their QC has changed now. Fender only has a handful of guitars that are made in Japan now, mostly artist signature series instruments. The ones that are made there are equivalent in build quality to USA fenders but lack a bit in the finer touches. For example, USA fenders, starting in 2000, have rolled fingerboard edges, better quality hardware, and are just a lot more polished than the past 15 years worth of instruments.
Fender lost a lot of market share in the 80s to Ibanez, ESP, Jackson, and other shred-guitar manufacturers because everyone wanted a locking tremolo and a ruler-thin neck and all that garbage. They had a great Ibanez clone (which is ironic since Ibanez made its name with clones of Fenders, Gibsons, Rickenbackers, etc.) called the Heartfield Talon but it came out too late; Nirvana came out about a year later.
So in short, Japanese Fenders were better when they first started making guitars in Japan, but then the USA crew got its act together and overtook them now. As of today, the USA guitars are superior.
There is only one state school in my state that was credible in my chosen field, the one where my aptitudes are.
If your State U was full up, I would hazard that the reason was because there were more students *from the state* who wanted to go than there were places... which is not a good thing, but is not the fault of foreign enrollment.
My state U is the one I ended up working for, where the enrollment breakdown was completely off WRT the state population. That tells me there may have been more students from the state who wanted to go, but those slots were filled by exchange students first. :-)
Yes, but foreign students are not eligible for those loans. My point was not that US nationals did not pay (they do!) but that they were not "footing the bill" for foreign nationals.
Yup. And my point was it's no longer money concerns keeping citizens out of college, it's a lack of open slots in the programs. And the exchange students paid apprx $10k a year more than the state students. That difference is equaled out when you consider the tax contribution of the extended family and community of the state student for many many years. I was the first generation to go, but you can bet that my parents, grandparents, and community helped fund the school with taxes for years.
Ah, and here we do differ. I believe that the role of education is not merely to provide job training, but to develop human understanding too. Graduate school, in particular, is usually ill suited for job-preparation. Yet I do believe it is an important thing that tax dollars should support.
I'd say that is _a_ role, not _the_ role of our wonderful U's. But you need to make sure that people have the basics they need to survive first: food, shelter, etc.. These are provided by the job training aspect, and without those none of the higher functions matter. I guarantee that someone freezing to death would burn books of great literature for heat, for example.
But here we enter into personal opinions, and heaven forbid I should try to proseltize my own views...
I thought that's what Slashdot is for? :-) Truly, voice your views and opinions. This is a friendly (and interesting!) debate, after all. Yes?
Murphy was an optimist.
Yes it is a terribly big deal. The point is that it is discriminatory to foreign students. If it meant background checks for everyone involved, there would be no points of contention, but the idea that only foreigners pose a security threat is absurd.
It seems to me that half of /. gets upset about the notion of the government running security investigations on American citizens. Meanwhile, the other half get upset about the government not running investigations on American citizens. Which is it to be, folks?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
There is always a tendenancy to support nationalist measures. Totally understandable! BUT and this is a big BUT. Is it a good idea?
Look at Einstein. He was a German, who rennounced his citzenship, then became Swiss and finally American. However, he only became American once he lived in the US on a permament basis.
So according to this logic Einstein should have been excluded. Really would that have been a smart move?
Now before one raises the argument, but that was Einstein. Lets remember this is about scientific research where an Einstein may be found. And also lets remember the people who actually are loyal and the least to worry about are the scientists. They generally do not tend to be activists or dictators....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Nonsense.
The math of the encryption systems that we (used to) limit export of was always open. You could always *talk* about the encryption. The only issue was with exporting binaries.
To show just how insane that policy was, I offer this: I went into a bookstore in London in 1995, and found a huge book that was nothing more than the source code to PGP, with a preface on the best OCR scanners to scan the book & get it to compile. The book was perfectly legal, since talking or writing about encryption was legal...it was just a pre-compiled binary that was illegal.
Trying to limit (like this) who works on something that's going to be published as research anyway is just stupid.
Germany just sold one of the world's first production magnetic train to China. The train ran for the first time Jan 1, 2003 at 450 KPH. As a scientist and engineer I sure want to see what they did....
What we forget is that scientists != activists.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
The January Wired magazine has an article about stem cell research and cloning in China. The combination of the US government restricting foreign students from participating in certain research and also restricting certain kinds of biological research has caused a brain drain of Chinese researchers from the US to China.
During the 1980's and 1990's, many Chinese researchers would study in the US, and many would stay in the US after graduating. Now some of those researchers that have been living and working in the US have been moving back to China. New students are staying in China to study since they are developing their own labs backed by the Chinese government.
As the US keeps adding restrictions, they (Congress, etc.) actually encourage foreign countries to develop their own research capabilities that the US cannot control, except by threats like in the case of Korea and Iraq. It will make those countries less dependent and more isolated from the US which will give the US less bargaining power in future diplomatic relations.
Hot button issues like this are really a test of how confused people are. If you are too uncomfortable at the thought of taking seriously the possibility that your own government is not evil, but has a valid concern with security, (which is not to say it should go unscrutinized), then instead of pretending to argue, why not just say "BOO!" and save us the rest. My favorite this time was, "security must not be gained at the sacrifice of our morals." (--our morals, right). When feminist peace protesters somehow got into the federal legislature to heckel Rumsfield with anti-war cries, he made the simple observation that, "What they don't realize is that they wouldn't be allowed to do that in Iraq." Without security, you could not have a government which is designed around *securing* rights for the people, to live as they see fit, so long as it does not jeopardize those 'rights'. Contradictions make for poor reasoning. Science is not harmless. "AI of military value? Nooooo, it couldn't possibly be." ... "But there are brilliant foreigners who want to learn about this and advance the state of the research." Of course there are, but does that somehow make them holy? It is probably very rare that the actual issue is the character of a given scientist. Most scientists only care about science, and otherwise they are politically disinterested, and likely for that reason naive--they don't have time to think about politics, but because they know they are smart in their field and politics is a 'value' field, they are likely to presume they know more about politics than they they do. Is it inconceivable that the advancement of learning ought to take into political circumstances under consideration? Try reading the book by that title, or the New Atlantis, that's a shorter one. The great thinkers who founded modern science (and created the conditions to subvert fanaticism) did not believe things out of convenience, but only as a result of rigorous thinking. I'm sure most /. readers are quite competent at this at their jobs, but it would be nice to see some of that cool-headed, sober and visionary reasoning spill over. At the same time, from a political standpoint (self-interested as it is) it should be recognized that the research of innocent and more or less patriotic scientists can be used to bring about results which are dangerous for enemies of that state. Most of the 'arguments' here are premised on that very fear, that the US government is dangerous, while presumably, say the Chinese government, is harmless, or at least that no research done by a foreign national could possibly fall into the wrong hands. To say that it is "just as likely" that the research done by an American national could fall into the wrong hands here misses the point. Americans still have enemies, within and without...
Capitalism is an economic system based on selfishness. That is to say, the incentive for an individual to be productive is not loyalty to the state, nor fear of persecution. It is the desire to buy stuff like TV, video games, and beers at the bar. It works to separate those who want to play the game (business owners) from those who want to watch (employees).
People will not be interested in the government until they can't afford a car, a house, or a chicken for the pot.
Capitalism will always tend to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. America has found that using Third World countries as our poor people, we can have relatively well-off (meaning not starving, with a car and a shelter) Americans, even for the small farmers and the 40 hour/week sheep.
It's only if the US allows foreigners to protect their poor in the same way will the global economy be strained enough for the average apathetic American to notice.
If I remember correctly the following facts are true:
1.The morons who highjacked planes on the 11th of september last year and flew them into various buildings highjacked those planes with fucking boxcutters. I'm not sure which high-tech university in the states is researching boxcutter warefare, but I doubt it would be classified as rocket science.
2.All the embassy bombings and suicide bombings over the last few years have been done with explosives that were readily available on the black market. This too isn't rocket science.
3.The Anthrax attacks in the US last year were carried out, in all probabability as mentioned by your own FBI, by an American. Possibly it was a pissed off or overly patriotic lunatic like a certain Dr.Stephan Hatfield, but what is fascinating is that nothing has ever come of this. No one has been prosecuted and there have never been any verified suspects. Christ, don't you people worry about stuff like this. Covering up after an internal biowarfare attack, in all likelyhood by an American, and you piss yourselves about foreigners.
I think you Americans, as a nation, are being screwed over by your own government, an you are walking down that road that leads to Fascist Empire Buidling, with all the horrors that it contains.
This is not to say that other governments don't do the same thing, but the US is the one that always had the claim to being a free society (even if those with certain experiences in the McCarthy years would claim otherwise)
Of course I meant EXCEPT and not ACCEPT. Hit the submit button too quickly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So you're saying you're apathetic about apathy?
:)
Millions of us do vote, and almost exactly half of those who voted did not choose this President, nor were they apathetic about their choice.
Voting is technically irrational, that is, the benefits do not outweigh the trouble of doing it. But as the last election demonstrated, sometimes it's a good thing to be irrational. (OK, Florida sort of showed that your vote does AND doesn't count, but do show up.
BTW, an easy way to get involved is to simply donate some money to one of the many orgainzations that worry about watching gov't 24/7, or merely doing good things where gov't does not. They won't think you're apathetic.
And even arguing here is political involvement...
For me, not voting is saying, "Since giving my power to someone else to rule over me is at its very base unethical, I choose not to participate in choosing my ruler." If there was an option on the ballot for "Dissolve the government entirely," I'd choose that.
Picture this. You're walking along when you come across a guy holding a gun. He's got two prisoners chained to a wall and says you get to pick which one he kills. You tell him to kill neither prisoner, but he insists that he must kill one or the other. So, which do you choose? Choosing one makes you partially complicit. Not choosing has no effect, but at least you aren't involved.
It may seem like splitting hairs or apathy, but I see it differently. Going down to the polls and marking off "none of the above" will have zero effect. If 50 million people did it at the next election, whomever got the one actual vote would be elected. I take political action by speaking with people and educating them about their choices. It may not overturn the system tomorrow, but it will do it sooner than the other option.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Apples and oranges. Being an American has little if anything to do with genetics. Weren't born in the US? Take the oath. Poof, you're a citizen. You can do everything that a "natural-born" citizen can do except for the lone exception of running for US president. Hell, you can even be Secretary of State (ask Madeleine Albright).
And the "born in the US" requirement means just that. No requirement that your family must have lived in the US for X number of generations (like so many other countries). Heck, it doesn't matter if your parents are illegal aliens. If you are born in the US, you're a citizen.
Should the federal government be doing these kinds of background checks on foreign nationals? No. Does doing this mean the US government is looking for the genetic purity that the Nazis were looking for? Not by a long shot.
Uh, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. And Iraq is sitting on a shitload of oil. What do you think US was doing cozying up to Iraq 20 years ago? To get Iraqi oil of course. Only Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq, and that's just what we know, which, seeing as we haven't been there exploring in a while, is probably greatly understated.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Oops, sorry, missed the reply by AC. Still, I gave the links, so it's not redundant :)
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
You are exactly right. What right\priveledge does any school have to take money from the government for anything, and then complain about the conditions of getting the money? A korean saying goes something like, "Beggars can't complain of cold rice." I'd like to see MIT strut their "principles" and not accept any money from the government at all. If part of the conditions of the grant is that only american citizens can work on it, then fine. Noboby has to accept the money. The fact that this whole issue has gotten so much attention on Slashdot I think is sad. Everything seems to turning toward political issues rather than technological issues.
After reading through the posts so far, it seems like the discussion is more or less centered around nationalism, which is often confused/intermixed with racism. I suppose I'll throw in my $0.02 in that bin.
I am a foreign student in the US from Malaysia, and I can only give you my personal perspective, but I think many foreigners from third world countries can find some agreement in my experiences.
The golden goose is the US academic research. Here is the 10000ft view: People come to US to do research for three main reasons, very good economic standard of living, amazing varieties/opportunities in research, and in a lesser sense, some personal freedom. This is a great deal for the US. How? Well, the foreign countries pay (not just money wise!) for the education up to about 20 years old, then US reap the reward. Not only does US get to pick the best that those countries have to offer, she also gets them at the most productive age of 20-30. There can be no better deal than what the US is getting. Anyone who thinks that US is disadvantaged by admitting so many foreign students is mistaken.
This is one of the main reasons USA can maintain her supremacy.
Recently, things are changing for the worse for US. It will probably hurt US if this dumb nationalism continues for a long time. How are things changing? It is changing in the sense that it is getting harder for foreigners and students to come in. Things have been getting progressively worse over the years, usually after an attack on US like the Kenya US embassy bombing. However, it got a _lot_ worse after 9/11, _and_ after the INS had been creamed in the press for issuing a VISA to one of the dead 9/11 hijackers.
What happened is that INS went into paranoia/PR overdrive. Before that, the attitude is just arrogance "you gonna stay illegally and steal a piece of our hard earned economic pie!!" Now, it is arrogance with paranoia "you freedom-hating terrorists gonna kill us freedom loving people!!!!!!"
I must clarify that this arrogance I only detect at the US embassy in my country and at the LAX immigration line. I will give more specific examples.
Going to the US embassy in my country to get a VISA pretty much means that you will have to swallow your pride completely (and pass it out through the rear orifice), lower yourself to the social level of a diseased pariah dog on the street, and prepare to beg for a VISA. The experience is completely humiliating. Does it make one angry? Hell, yes. This is not good. My sister is still peeved that she was denied a VISA to come to visit me (this was before 9/11). For those knee-jerks who are about to say "why come to US then? we don't need you": your wisdom and understanding is beyond reproach, so just can it.
As for the LAX immigration check point experience that I had, this asshole was asking me for a certain piece of document that I did not need to have, I said I didn't have it and I didn't know at that time that I did not need to have it (my H1-B employer had it), and he kept asking me where it was! WTF? He let me through anyway (because I did not need to have that document, and he damn well knew it), but needless to say it was not a fun experience for me. WTF? WTF? Why generate this ill will? (This was before 9/11 also.)
Not all people associated with INS is anal like that! Not at all! Remember that anthrax incident? Well, I happened to send in my passport for VISA renewal at that time, and lady luck hated me because my passport arrived at the huge government mail sorting center the day anthrax was discovered in one of the 10^6 letters. My passport, along with a lot of other letters, went nto a black hole and "should be considered lost." During this time, the INS peeple that contacted me were very, very courteous. Although they couldn't do much--I think they have no control over the documents anymore, probably something like FBI is doing the "disinfecting." But the INS people were surprisingly pleasant given the circumstances.
Anyway, about the current state of affairs with INS... The numbers of rules that are being released from that tower is amazing. Every month there is a new rule. The problem is that the rules are pretty much useless. It is trying to treat the symptoms of terrorism, like shooting at anything that seem to move, in complete darkness. In fact, I would guess that it is excabating the situation by brewing ill-will. Last year, 150 returning students were denied VISAs, from my country alone. It used to be that getting a VISA, besides the humiliation, was just a three day wait (before that, it was a half-day wait). Now, it will take over a month. Few would want to return home for month long breaks because you might not return in time for the next semester, if at all. Is this helping anything in any sense? Besides, the airlines is losing your business. :-)
After all that, guess what happened to me? I requested for a transfer of status from H1-B to F1 because I was going back to school to finish what I started 10 years ago, and the transfer was stalled with a request for more information. Even though I had given all the info that was normally requested, INS requested for more info. To show the level of intelligence that was behind my case, one of the questions I had to answer was "how do you plan to go to school 3000 miles away in state B when you are in state A (where I was working under H1-B then)." Dunno, I suppose I had to quit my job if I didn't want to commute and/or work illegally after the termination of my H1-B? 8^) Anyway, after screwing a few things up for me and giving me some heart warming reassurances that my future is up in the air, my request for transfer was just approved. One semester late. And they totally left out my surname (last name to you Americans) in the approving document. LOL. So they are "screening" with that level of competence? Good luck catching anything real, and try not to shotgun too many innocents in the process. :-)
Completing the circle... It is getting harder for a foreigner to come here as student. Remember the golden goose? I suppose that means it is being harassed more and more. So what is happening now is probably not good for the USA. Will it affect US competitiveness in the future? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe if this gets much worse, or continues much longer (I think we are talking about decades time frame for any measurable effects), US will suffer. Maybe not. But I think it doesn't solve or help in the problem of terrorism. I think the problem lies else where and is much more complicated. So in conclusion I think this is just a lot of pain for hardly any gain, fueled by an INS with eggs in her face, and sustained by various factors (general paranoia, ignorance, and un-wisdom).
As a side note:
For those people who keep harping about the "Golden Rule: He who holds the gold makes the rule." This statement is only used to explain reality, don't mistake it as a moral justification (unless that's the level of your morality). Why? Just because a person has the upper hand and can make the rules, doesn't mean he will make a good rule. Also, you might have to go deeper to ask how did he get the upper hand in the first place? Is he making good rules? Are people squirming under him? Is he thinking for everyones best interest? Or is he just maintaining the status quo at the expense of general improvement? Don't be unwise.
Cheers,
e.
I admit to not reading the entire thread, but it seems to me that the basic point is being entirely missed: What is the federal government doing offering to spend 400 million dollars on a research project at a university. This is really my tax dollars at work? I'm appalled (though to be honest not surprised). This is why we have debt, taxes, and this is how the constitution gets trampled every day. Article I, Section 8 provides a list of the powers of the congress, and the 10th Amendment closes the door on anything else. The racism, nationalism, terrorism, blah blah blah issue would be not terribly relevant if the federal government stuck to its own business.
The goal is cheap oil for America. The tool is religious competition. You see, the US couldn't care less who controls Jeruselam or Greater Israel or the entire Middle East, as long as it has access to cheap oil and the profits it generates. In order to control the access, it has to keep the locals from gaining control of it themselves. The easiest way to do that is to keep them fighting against each other.
The US and UK chose Palestine as the new home for fleeing Jews (after closing their own borders during the war) for one reason: they knew it would start a conflict in the entire region. The added bonus is that it's basically a military outpost for the US. This was classic divide and conquer.
If the Middle East nations were to set aside their differences over religion and power and work together, they could easily become leading economic powers. Of course, they'd have the US working against them at every turn to maintain control. Not towing the political line? Look for a coup attempt in a few months.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Absolutely. We have a new invisible enemy, and we're making the same insane self-defeating "prove we're doing something," "prove you're patriotic" mistakes we did back in the McCarthy era.
It's a shame this comparison isn't being made more often in the media.
There are several differences between the immigrants of old, and the current situation.
In the past, immigrants followed legal channels to get into this country. These immigrants were coming here to BE Americans. Not to USE America. If you were illegal in this country, you would get no benefits afforded to Americans.
Unfortunately, this is not the case nowadays. In california this is is largely due to our two-faced government using laws affecting immigration as bargaining points both with foreign governments (Mexico) and corporations.
We have a big problem here (southern california) with illegal mexican immigration coming accross the southern border. The problem is not just that people are coming here, but that they are not contributing anything. At the very least, I believe that immigrants must learn english. This is the only way one can even hope to become a productive member of this country. I love America as a "melting pot" and I love the different cultures and languages I hear daily as I walk the streets of Los Angeles. But I HATE it when I go to Koreatown and walk into a restaurant where no one speaks english at all. Well, I don't hate it, but it saddens me to see that the US supports people that have no desire to become Americans and whose loyalty resides with their country of origin. Come to the U.S. and embrace America: bring your traditions, your ideas, your culture, your language, your history, your art, and SHARE them with us. But we speak english here, so you have to learn english first.
This may be particular to Los Angeles, but we have many large pockets that are effectively self contained countries. Where very few people speak english. It is not like New York, where in Little Italy, people speak italian, but also english, or likewise in China Town.
All of this said, I have no disdain for immigrants. They are doing what is best for themselves. My anger is towards the government for acting selfishly with disregard for its citizens. Out of one corner of their mouth they say we must stop illegal immigration, and out of the other they are inhaling cash in return for legislation protecting it.
Anyway...just my thoughts.
But regulating works on, say, the Abuse of College Women (from the MSNBC article)? That's getting a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Sure, some research is vital to keep regulated and secret, such as military designs, but the idea of scientific rigor is to keep science open. Take Wolfram, for instance. A lot of scientists dismiss his work, mainly because he didn't publish in the open. Peer-review, it's called. Sure, a lot of scientists think it's a pain (and it is), but it maintains the integrity of science. When things become secret, that's when progress halts. People want to keep politics out of science, because they would like to keep science as a sign of the possibility of human collaboration. Even if the Soviets and the Americans were hostile to each other, the space programs still had (more) friendly competition, and even collaboration. Science tries to maintain the idea that individuals can surpass factional disputes in order to holistically advance humanity. Some regulation is necessary, but there is a limit. There is a college graduate student I know, from China, who is having a lot of difficulty studying, because she must care for her son. Her husband studies at another university in another city. Her parents (in China) tried to obtain visas to come to the US, to care for her child while she could continue her research, but the visas were refused, without reason. The student is considering terminating her work for a Ph.D. What kind of regulation is this?
Such irE
Ah, yeah, I forgot that. And I even read the book (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) including the trials.
But I'm sure you'll be able to compare GWB to Hitler regardless.
Nope, wouldn't do that, both governments usurped rights from the people, but AH had no intention of holding any further elections. I seriously doubt Bush would ever entertain such a thought. Parallels are tenuous at best.
It's amazing what you can construct when you don't bother to include the truth.
And what truth would that be? Seems you, and the moderators all lept to the wrong conclusion.
Goebels was the information officer, in charge of propaganda, glorifying a horrible man, party and government, while spinning about how necessary it was and how good it would be. I'm sure he'd enjoy depicting all this spying, routing all internet through government filters and rounding suspects up in the name of national security. I just hope another president quickly dismantles it all. Once these mechanisms are in place, even the most benevolent leader may be tempted to see how they work.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...the first thing Hitler did was prohibit private firearms ownership in the name of 'public safety'. i'm not terribly fond of the direction the political leadership of this country is heading, but at least this particular face of the coin (the Repubs) are rabidly protective of my Right To Keep And Bear Arms - so if there actually are 'HS' soliders around, and they start to get offensively Nazi-istic, we can always start plinking at them...my .270's zeroed at 100m, it was a good whitetail season...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
and i can tell you that until the recession hit, not many americans wanted to go to grad school. people were mostly interested in the fast money and had no interest in research. now that the economy sucks, we are getting more applicants than ever from the us.
the schools policy is to take americans over foreigners, so that should make you happy. i personally dont agree with this policy. there are many people from foreign countries that are more qualified and will do better research than an american student who is hanging out for a couple years while the job market gets better.
i hate to tell you this, but you probably are not a native american. if you are then ignore what follows. most of what made this country a success is a result of hard working peoples from other countries. most of the people here are not natives any more than a recently nationalized indian. it is the diversity immigration brought that made us strong and successful. if you want to send them home then you should be willing to return to your homeland.
-- john
Cool sig.
No he isn't really physically fat. More like, mentally thick. Either way, he's still a total corporate loving bastard. A complete jerk and a liar. To him "I believe" = "It is so". Stupid idiot was always going on about Clinton not serving. Well what about Rush??? He didn't serve either! Any you WANNA KNOW WHY!??? Because he got a 4F rating. What for you ask? A boil on his rotund ass. "Owww.. daddy, I have a pimple on my butt. I can't serve in the armed forces! Wahh wahhh!!!" Stupid asshat.
Un-news
And just who should we vote for instead? The ones that aren't corrupt are inept!
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
First off, MSNBC servers suck. They're never available - even without the /. effect.
This action does not represent the resolve of an American moral stand, the majority of the students involved are foreign. When it came to a vote, the foreign students either refused to participate in the 404k plan resulting in it being dropped, or voted against it. Its probably simple democratic fairness.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
I would just like to see the Govt only approving funding for research that can produce even-remotely-helpful results. Figuring out the latest temperature of a Bose-Einstein Condensate (or any damn thing that only exists or works at 0-50 degrees K) is not gonna help anyone for the forseeable future. And I can @#$%^&*$ forsee a fairly long way into the future. More bang for our buck, please. Thank you very much.
Caesar taxes at all?
Because of who's picture is on the coin.
KFG
Whoever this genius and anonymous coward is, I wasn't refering to the legal right to complain. It is not ethnical, it is not common courtesy, it is not moral to receive something from someone and then complain about the gift. Just don't take the gift.
MIT is not making this a legal argument, so why are you?
Thanks man.
I was a raving lunatic. I needed a little water splashed on me. I've got some bitrot in my database, and that makes for some pretty stupid ranting.
Good reply. "I don't care what they say. You're one of the good ones..."
Still: you have to wonder exactly why the f*ck it is in our National Interest to wage war on Iraq.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Quote from the article:
"The Bush administration and scientists alike are struggling with how to balance openness against the fear that all sorts of research could help terrorists..."
I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick and tired of hearing "...(not) doing this and that because it may help terrorists". How about closing the libraries down too? Terrorists might find information there too.
This is the lamest excuse I've heard in many years (and I bet you anything we're be hearing this all over from now on). The US govt plainly wants control over information and touts terrorism as an excuse. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that since the 9/11 the US govt is using terrorism as an excuse to do things that it otherwise would not be allowed to do in the face of the public
Mod me down as Troll or whatever you want. But isn't this true?
'Nuff said.
Trian
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
Theory:
Human Right Declaration
Practice:
Animal Farm/G.Orwell
G. Orwell...you know, the author of 1984...
Maybe we all should read those two books again.
ja
It doesn't make much sense to complain about something you agreed to. If you have a problem with it beforehand, take it up with the other party. Afterwards, what are you going to do?
If the other party tries to change the conditions after you both agreed to the initial conditions, then you have a legitimate issue (although it may just be that you did't fully understand the original terms, or you were hoping they wouldn't change into something you didn't like, even after you agreed to them).
I never was trying to establish fact that this was a gift from the gov to MIT. I was giving an example to prove a point. And if MIT didn't accept the conditions, then fine, what is the big deal? They don't have to. But I don't understand the outrage that some slashdotters are expressing against the gov.
By the way, it's spelled "moot." Go back to school (although you are probably some high school kid in Europe, looking at your arguments).
...will relegate the grand old empire known as the Unites States of America to the dustbin of history.
I'm far more fearful of those calling themselves "patriots" these days than I am of any terrorist or shadowy terrorist organization.
Sure, you're right: It is no guarantee that every foreign student isn't a terrorist wannabe, sympathizer, or future bomber. So for the sake of what?-- one out of ten thousand, we'd deny the remaining 9,999 the right to read books free of censorship, the right to pursue research free of crypto-fascist religiously-motivated dogma, and the basic human rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- not to mention privacy?
Yeah, sure -- I might get killed in any one of a hundred horrible ways. But y'know what? We're all gonna die someday, and I'd rather have one day of freedom and liberty than eighty years of fascist repression.
Or, as dear old Ben Franklin put it, "Those that can give up essential liberty for the sake of a little temporary safety deserve neither."
I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists, thank you very much. They're far less hypocritical.
-Technowitch
...that upon the last cry of 'wolf', the boy was telling the truth.
True enough -- there have been those who've been throwing around the terms 'nazi' and 'fascist' quite loosely over the years, often in a paroxism of hyperbole.
Thing is, though, we here in the U.S. didn't used to lock up citizens and foreigners by the thousands, bereft of the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. We didn't used to put civil rights, Green party, and antiwar activists on "no fly" lists. We didn't used to threaten first-strike nuclear weapons' policies. And even if it was usually ignored, our Presidents used to at least give a wink and nod towards the notion that it's supposed to be Congress that passes laws and declares wars, and that the Judiciary passes judgment.
Time to call it what it is, even if to the ears of some, it is crying 'wolf' -- because wolf it is, this time.
Can anyone please describe what the group was intending to research? I've read through the article, but it's not very specific at all, apart from that it's an AI laboratory.
Were they planning to work on research that could be applied to something like missile guidance, for example?
No, there is no such thing as the Easter Bunny, but anarchy does indeed exist. And no, Somalia has nothing like anarchy right now -- chaos perhaps, but not anarchy. The feudal system is not anarchy either, for that entails giving up your power to a ruler. Like I said, if you don't know what anarchy means, go read up on it.
No state. No laws. Yet this does not mean there are not cultural codes of conduct. There's no law against picking your nose, but most people are polite enough to avoid doing it in public. Why aren't there nose-picking epidemics across the country without a law?
You'd be busy being dead, as people would be well prepared to protect themselves from people like you. Are you saying that the threat of prison is the only thing keeping you from killing people right now? If so, your parents failed and should not have attempted raising children.
Again, no. You have the right to free will. I have the right to life. If you try to kill me, I will not summon a state power to prosecute you after I am dead. Instead, I will use self defense to protect myself, my family, and my community.
Maybe on your planet, but on Earth democracy means "rule by the people as a whole" while mob rule means "rule by mobs." You should note that there exist no state democracies in the world. The US is a constitutional republic. The capitaled class have always ensured that only an elite few hold the power to legislate and execute.
Take for example the Hollings bill. Do you believe that that bill in any way represents the "will of the people"? Did your mom one day call her representative and say, "We really need some way to protect movies from the internet"? No, instead a few people with a lot of capital wrote up some legislation for Hollings to push through Congress to protect their narrow interests.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
In case you've never been an out-of-state college student, it costs a *lot* more than being an in-state student. State universities make a profit on this. At the time, California students didn't pay tuition at all, just a couple hundred dollars in "fees", while out-of-state tuition was close to Ivy League prices, and in New York State, out-of-state tuition at the state colleges was about twice in-state tuition, though probably about 2/3 the price of Ivy League schools. In my case, the cost wasn't a problem, because it was the late 70s high-tech boom and my employer was paying for my degree, under a program where they kicked in extra money beyond the tuition so the school would let them send people after the normal admission dates and short-cut the admissions paperwork for qualified students. (Sadly, those days are gone... They were The Phone Company, and without their scholarship program they could have easily hired about 90% of the electrical engineering masters' degree students in those years, as could several other high-tech companies.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks