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."
As RMS' RFID card is blocked from the security system after he was found eating cheetos under a cluster, the entire MIT technical staff breathes a collective sigh of relief as the nightmare of getting all that beard fluff out of keyboards ends.
Take a look at that building! It looks like its half falling down. It seriously looks like something from "The Nightmare Before Christmas".
This is what happens when you give case modders the job of designing a building!
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
In other news Stallman leaves MIT, in a huff over the privacy debarcle.
Research facilities all over the US and the world unite to install new RFID access devices.
Stallman ends up staying at home.
Do me a favor. Walk to any engineering school worth its salt, pay a girl 10 bucks to walk around and smile and say hello and watch the reactions while paying special attention to eyes. He works at MIT. Cut him some slack; eye candy cant be that prevalent.
RMS is in a position to make a difference. Privacy is obviously important to him as it should be to the rest of us. If we were forced to use an RFID, we would gladly do so because, normally, we dont have the power or the opportunity to "just say no". If he doesnt want to, he doesnt have to and neither do you. The difference is if he doesnt use it, people notice. If you or I refuse to use the device, we'd be easily replaced by someone who will. I, personally, would have no problem lugging a key for every door use to get to my office and maintain my privacy than have my boss or some evil entity monitoring what time I come and go or what time I usually get up to relieve myself. Privacy doesnt necessarily have to stop the moment you go to work.
I can imagine the crack parties going on at universities when their board of trustees decide that they want some hip and edgy building.
Trustee 1: "Hey, how can we waste a lot of money really fast?"
Trustee 2: "We can hire a famous postmodern architect. Their buildings always go overbudget and run into schedule delays"
Trustee 3: "A toast to postmodernism!"
All: "Huzzah!"
I've seen other pomo style buildings. MIT also has that weird dorm building that looks like a cross between a sponge and a retarded sponge. Harvard has some other dorm that looks a little more normal, but still not that appealing to me.
Postmodernism: a synonym for "We like to throw legos around and see what we can make"
www.google.com
FWIW, I really like the building. I wasn't sure at first, but after having worked in there for about a month now, it's quite nice for the most part.
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
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