Slashdot Mirror
MIT's Stata Center Dedicated
AJL writes "On Friday, the long-in-coming, $280M Stata Center was dedicated at MIT. Featuring some pretty cool technology (including a row of Linux computers proclaiming 'Welcome to the William H. Gates Building' by Tux, the Linux Penguin), amazing design, and some pretty neat use of space, Stata is among the first of some high-budget, high-tech buildings being put on campuses these days. See some
Pictures
or go to the Main Stata Site for more details. Richard Stallman is now less than pleased that he has to work in the Gates Building, as well as having some other problems with his new office in general."
The man simply has no social graces. And I really don't understand why he is deified in the community. He has the social skills of a 14yr old, and is simply a leftover 60's idealistic whacko.
:)
Don't believe me? Try carrying on a conversation with him. If you happen to be female, guaranteed his eyes won't ever get above your breasts. This comes from experience folks (no, not mine
Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
Stallman says that MIT could have implemented a different system that protected the visitors' privacy. Instead, he says, the Institute chose only convenience, and he's ready to call it a day and take his research elsewhere. "The big sacrifice is leaving MIT," he says. "I am prepared to make that sacrifice."
I don't see any reason why the MIT wouldn't have the right, or wouldn't want to see who enters what building when. It's their premises, and if something gets stolen or damaged, RFID would help tracking down the culprit(s).
This thing is a security issue in this case. It's not the same privacy issue as tracking the general public in malls and K-Marts for no good reason. I Stallman should ease off the 1984 Orwellian paranoia a little and adapted his points of views to the environments he's in.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Now I think RMS jsut has his knickers in a twist, simply because people will listen.
Some quotes:
"There is no legitimate justification for keeping track of who opens these doors," Stallman says. "You can just leave these doors open, and the building would have the same amount of security as most of the rest of the campus." MIT says most buildings use the RFID cards.
Well, actually, there are legitimate justifications for keeping track of who opens the doors. If something gets nicked from the lab, you can find out who was in the building and from there you can start to investigate the theft (by that I mean, ask those people if theysaw anything or anyone suspicious etc). If someone props open the doors, as he also hints on, then you can see who the last person was to open those doors using the card and take matters from there.
We have a Proximity card solution at work, and its fine. Yes, you can get tracked, but then you are on private property, and tracking isnt always foolproof because you are not required to beep in if you are part of a group.
Stallman says that MIT could have implemented a different system that protected the visitors' privacy. Instead, he says, the Institute chose only convenience, and he's ready to call it a day and take his research elsewhere. "The big sacrifice is leaving MIT," he says. "I am prepared to make that sacrifice."
Well, MIT arent exactly making the visitors details public knowledge, now are they? From the situation with GNUs su program not supporting wheel (link), I think its clear that RMS has a dubious and somewhat iffy personal view on security, and that much alone makes me want to dismiss him out of hand when he talks about security related matters. If hes prepared to "make that sacrifice" instead of allowing MIT to implement a bit of security to protect their building and valuables inside said building, then good riddence is all I can say.
You do not just call people "babies" because their views conflict with yours. Nomatter how you look at it, Stallman is a great and important character, whose views should be taken into consideration, or at least not dismissed immediately as that of a "baby".
His fear of the Big Brother society is genuine, and if he feels that RFID technology like this one is turning our world into such a society, then he should raise his voice over it. This is exactly what he's doing. Be glad that someone is looking out for YOUR FREEDOM, since you obviously are not.
They state proximity RFIDs...just how far does this proximity go? I have no problems keeping track of who opens what doors inside a building, etc. for security reasons if they're doing classified or confidential work. However, an RFID is a little more invasive.
So, what does MIT do with the data they could collect on how many trips to the watercooler I made?
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
Yes, but I've been to the Stata center. People (hell, maybe RMS) are propping doors open anyway.
Anyway, a lot of buildings at MIT don't have very good security at all. The main campus (buildings 1-10) are pretty much open to all visitors, and they connect, via halls and basements, to much of the campus.
I don't see why the CS/AI Lab and the Linguistics Departments need this much security anyway. I mean, I can understand the nuclear reactor or something having this kind of security, but why are they locking off people from here?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
If the RFID chips they used could be easily read from a distance, then this might be more of a problem -- we joked about professors having real-time blips representing their students walking around, a la Harry Potter's Maurader's map :) However, the chips they installed are pretty short-range, so I don't see this as a viable problem: they won't even read from your pocket when you're standing in front of the reader; you have to wave it in front of the scanner.
Near as I can tell, there's nothing "magical" about using the new readers as opposed to the old ones; any privacy issues you might perceive are exactly the same as they've been on campus for years now.
I don't think he has a legitimate complaint. While there is a potential that someone might mine the access logs, and, for example, find out he hasn't actually come to work in the last five years, stuff goes missing from these labs late at night, and it would be totally sweet if the long suffering admin at least had a shortlist of who they could ask if they saw 'anything suspicious'.
Swipecards aren't a perfect solution to the building security problem. People prop doors, people let their friends in, people lose their cards in the quad and other people decide to see just how much access they had, but if they nuke the card program, the alternative proposed by security will probably be cameras, and let me tell you, they're a hell of a lot more intrusive than cards - a camera collects a lot more information than just whether you're there or not* - and they're a lot more labour intensive too.
I guess the bottom line is that he's free to leave if he wants ( as he's indicated ), but the U. should also be free to implement whatever measures it feels are necessary to provide a safe environment for equipment and students. If they can't come to a compromise ( and while Stallman might be a "great and important character", compromise is not seen as one of his strong suits ) then I guess it's splitsville. I ( and I suspect many others here ) would endure a lot worse than an RFID doorlock to be granted a research position at MIT.
B.D.
* - If they'd used cameras in our student labs instead of pin numbers, I probably would have been ejected several times for slovenly appearance unbecoming to the university.
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
I don't think they qualify as sheep. He may have made some significant impacts in the computing world, but that doesn't make his opinions infallible and correct for the rest of his life. He, as anyone else, has the right to be opinionated and be criticized for that opinionation.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Seriously, would RMS be bitching so much if, instead of RFID cards they use magstripe readers instead?
I'm sure if you asked him, he'd say they're no different, but let's be honest here. RFID is the current hot topic to bitch and complain about.
Fact: There are legitimate reasons for tracking who goes in and out of a building with a hell of a lot of expensive equipment in it.
Fact: How they track this information is largely immaterial, it's a "privacy invasion" just as much with a magstripe card as it is with a RFID card as it is with a hidden camera recording everybody going in the damn door.
Fact: I don't hear anybody bitching about magstripe card entry systems, and they've been around for 50+ years, no?
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I don't see why the CS/AI Lab and the Linguistics Departments need this much security anyway.
Perhaps the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment available for the taking in the the AI Lab and LCS have something to do with it, no? Not to mention the technology under development and other property. IMHO security should be tight in these buildings. But as another poster said, physical security is useless unless because you'll always find people who will let you in. When I was in college the dorm doors had punch number locks, and people were always calling out to others for the combos --- either because they were drunk and couldn't remember, were visting a friend, or were from the local area and wanted to steal something.
I expect RMS is upset because beyond the RFID id letting him into the building, it also lets people track his where abouts throughout the building. So does he still use "rms" as his password on the FSF machines?
"I ( and I suspect many others here ) would endure a lot worse than an RFID doorlock to be granted a research position at MIT."
Yep, and I wouldn't consider the cards a compromise of my privacy either. You could think of them as a type of punchcard rolled together with a kind of pin number.
IMHO the only people who need to be concerned with types of access cards are security specialists (due to the cards fallible nature, ie. someone stealing one) and people who don't have official access to the building/room in question.
Silly rabbit
You have accomplished nothing yet you have the audacity to insult a man who has accomplished much. Compared to Stallman you are a man of small stature. In the future please refrain from making an ass out of yourself.
There are hundreds of universities that would love to have Stallman as a member of their research department. MIT would be foolish to just simply let a talent like Stallman walk away.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
GCC was possibly the most robust C compiler in the late 80's.
Of course, that's can't be *proven*, but consider this: The version of GCC that RMS wrote was good enough for the rest of the FSF staff to write GNU, and it was good enough for Torvalds use to write Linux.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The building echoes the excitement, the lateral thinking, the bold strides into the unknown that characterise computing in the past, today and into the future. It is a challenge to try to come to grips with how the computing world has evolved and who can say where it is going next?
The odd angles and shapes are deliberately unsettling. The viewer, the visitor, the worker; all must set aside their conventional, predictable, boring views, and try to look at things in a new way. It is almost as if the buildings are the shape of the thoughts of the pioneers of computing, those who could think outside the square grey boxes of the past and lead us into exciting new areas.
Please don't criticise the building because it isn't the same as a million others. It's weird, different, stimulating and fun. Just like the wild ride that computing has given us over the past years and seems certain to keep on doing well into the future.
Instead, rejoice in the exuberance and try to open up your own thinking along unknown, unpredictable ways. Who knows where you might end up?
Well, Gehry actually made a building in Spain, an art museum in fact, that used Titanium when it was built, mainly because it was in the 1980's and Titanium was rather cheap at this moment when the decision was built. Maybe he is a one-trick pony but all his curves and lack of right angels have to be proven to be stable and up to code, which they are. This is no easy task designing like this. As for uniqueness, well, I can list over 1000 cities that don't have one of his buildings or anything that resembles one, so he was able to develop a concept and go with it. Are they expensive? Very. Are they unneeded? Perhaps, but so much is unneeded but art serves a purpose to make things beautiful, to make things human and to explore ideas that create results we would have never thought of. It's proof that there is not just one way to do something. Not everything needs to be a single function with a single result. We are not ants. We should embrace our ability to think differently, to try new things and to do things for the sake of doing them.
Architecture serves the public, but the only responsibility the architect really has to the people is that his design is safe, reliable, on budget and beautiful. The ones that can fulfill all 4 of these qualities are the great ones. Also, this building in particular was built using mainly private funds so the public actually has no say in anything about it except for it's safety and zoning considerations.
But alas, art is subjective and one persons masterpiece is anothers eye sore and with someone like Gehry I can see how many people could be turned off by his designs. then again, I'm sure he doesn't care as he's walking to the bank with a nice little check because he dared to be different and do something others haven't thought of or thought were too expensive or unneeded even.
Find me a Piccasso that doesn't contain complicated curves, lack or right angels and excessive paint.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
As someone who's partner is a planner, and who's learned to appreciate all kinds of architecture as a result, I have to say that I find your thinking rather blinkered.
Yes, you may not like it, and yes, it might not be a clone of every other building in the area but that doesn't make it a bad thing. If everyone thought as you do then we wouldn't have the Gugenheim Museums of New York and Bilbao, The Sydney Opera House, La Defense (in Paris), Swiss Re (in London) or the planned "Shard of Glass" (also in London).
And those are just modern examples. Virtually every noteworthy building in history has been on the receiving end of flak for being an eyesore at one time or another, yet today they are regarded as classic examples of their time.
What would you rather have architects do? Design drab, uninteresting buildings? Isn't physical architecture a valid artform? Why not? Because you say so? Why is the building "pretty ugly"? Because you say so? Ah, so you've studied architecture at length, have you? You're an expert on the aesthetics of the built environment? No? I didn't think so.
How would you feel about a world where everyone was required to dress the same way as people have always dressed, like the same art and music that people have always liked, and enjoy only the things that have been enjoyed for ages? Would you really want to live in a world that stood culturally still? Well, you might, but I don't.
Try and appreciate that things change, and that, just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. I guarantee you that, in twenty years time, 90 percent of the people who feel that the building is "pretty ugly" now will be looking at the same building and calling it fantastic.
In fact, the building is beautiful right now. Anyone with a trained eye would rattle off a whole lot of reasons why, just as a good art student could tell you why Picasso's work is genius.
What you call an eyesore is actually anything but. That you don't see it is a real pity.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Just because MIT have the right to do a vast array of things on their property doesn't make it ethically right... There are any number of things they could (but don't) do that would make life that much more difficult for people working there.
RMS's argument is that MIT chose a system of security that was convenient for them but did not take into account the privacy concerns of those working in the building.
Flatly saying that "MIT have the right to do whatever they want, and RMS can simply go stuff himself" sounds a little like the sys-admins who complain about the users -- when really they should be there FOR the users..! (not despite...)
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Stallman is past his prime. He has made tremendous contributions in the past, but it is clear that he has been doing relatively little in recent years. He's basically got a free ride based on his past achievements.
No one can take his accomplishments away from him, but let's be perfectly honest: these days MIT doesn't have that much to lose if they let RMS walk. He doesn't teach any classes. He doesn't publish any papers. He does bring some prestige to MIT, but MIT has plenty of that already. If he left there would be a bit of a fuss in the press, but MIT wouldn't suffer any great permanent loss.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
I find it amusing when I see comment after comment denigrating Richard Stallman, he made it through the math55 program. He has written more complex and well coded software than anyone I have met personally. He has strong opinions and sticks to his guns. Its almost like half the slashdot crowd wants lots of free software sans the opinions of the author. Be a good boy code me something I use every day but don't open your mouth. I am no stallman zealot but if most of the mental midgets who have such a problem with his insistence on precision in terminology, stopped and thought about where it stems from, the fact that he is a bigger math geek than practically and human walking this ball of mud today hence that type of mentality offers no lenience when it comes to imprecission. The man can be an asshole, and he is full of himself. To me he has earned the right to be full of himself. While most of you shooting your mouth off have never done anything for open source at all. As to being an asshole join the club most of us just dont get that kind of spotlight shown on our flaws. Ranting about the peanut gallery is useless I suppose goddamn hypocritical jackdaws.
Panel F, Relay #70
RMS does not do any "computer science" research.
RMs does political activism. Without him research will become illegal (DMCA2), software development will become illegal (software patents), and collaborative software development would have died.
Unfortunately, computer science has been living under a central control regime for the last ~10 years (and now the central controller has been honoured with this building). In this time, innovation has been sucked out of the public to somewhere behind a lead door in Redmond. The legacy is that the most important thing happening in computer science today is politics!
I hope RMS never gives up his current line of research and work. (I condemn him to this - I'm sure he'd rather be hacking Emacs or some new GNU software for Guile or GNOME.)
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I would estimate at least half, myself included. Why on earth should we have to listen to the man? Please, whilst you deny it you are showing all the signs of being a fanboy. Stallman has no more earned the right to talk nonsense and be listened to than any other personality (mainstream or "geek"). Indeed, there are brighter people than Stallman that we are under no obligation to listen to either.
The amount of freedom one has to give up to use Microsoft products is small compared with the amount of freedom you are suggesting we all have to give up to use OSS. Using up valuable computer cycles is one thing, using up precious mind cycles is quite another.
Yes.
The thing people don't seem to understand about the erosion of freedom is that it happens gradually. America won't turn into a totalitarian police state overnight. It will be one little thing after another; each individually too small to garner much attention. Oh why not RFID tags, I can see how in some ways they are convenient? Oh, why not detain a few suspected terrorists without access to lawyers, it's for the common good. Oh, why not turn the thumbscrews a little tighter, we're protecting ourselved from the axis of evil. Oh, wait, we're acting just like the axis of evil we condemned and deposed...
Yes, and the same reasoning could be applied to explain why you need to have somebody following you around, recording your every move all day, every day.
RMS didn't say there was no reason to do it, he said it can be just as secure as the rest of the campus without the RFID... Therefore, no justification for the additional privacy-intruding security measures. It's like you're arguing against something completely different.
And it completely disables itself when you leave the property, right??? Right??? RIGHT????
Really now, since when has it been a property owner's right to take away your rights? surely you would be upset if you had to have your name tatooed on your forehead. It's about the same thing here.
su is a complete non-issue:
chmod root.wheel
chmod 4550
Now try to avoid completely irrelevant issues, and dispute his actual points.
Incidentally, I'm no RMS fan, but I do hate RFID.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
RMS is the embodiment of anarchism -- he wants everyone to be a peer, and equal in privileges.
He sees it as unfortunate that trust among humans is so poor that passwords, logins, key cards are required.
And honestly, I see it as unfortunate too. The only difference is that he wants to change it, and I don't care. In some ways, his stance is better.
-- Appendix to Man and Superman: Maxims for Revolutionists, George Bernard Shaw