At my (UK) University they banned Napster a little while ago. We also have a transparent web proxy/cache (ie: you are forced to use it). The main reason for these measures are two fold. Firstly, to try to reduce the increasing network congestion. Secondly, to cut costs - as has already been mentioned on this thread, UK univserities now get charged per Mb of incoming traffic on the transatlantic lines.
So, I personally think the action they have taken so far is fair enough. The amount of bandwidth Napster takes up is silly - and it's easy to block. Most of the MP3s people will be obtaining are almost certainly illegal, so I don't see it as any infringement of my rights. Also, it is the Univeristy's network and supposed to be for academic use. I don't pay anything for it, so I'm hardly in a position to complain.
However, the Computing Services staff here seem obsessed with stopping any tiny thing they can. They are currently planning to block the IP ports that are commonly used by games (they recently did a test of blocking the Halflife mod Counterstrike's port). Now this strikes me as very odd. Most online games do not generate a huge amount of traffic (obviously a reasonable amount if you're running a server, but that's not the issue here). Most importantly, non of this traffic is going to go to the US and so incur a charge. With FPS games, ping is all important - there's no way you'd catch me even trying to play QuakeWorld or Quake3 on US servers. I want the one nearest to me (ie: lowest ping) - so the packets I create are going very far. Sure, some games (eg: Everquest) might be played on US servers when there are no European alternatives, but they seem to be taking a general "games are the cause of our network problems" attitude.
Maybe you're thinking that I'm being uptight cos I can't play these silly violent games? Maybe you're right. The point is though, that whilst I am using an academic network for pure personal enjoyment... game playing is not the thing to target. They are not going to be as draconian as to say that all non acamedic activities are banned. Why would they have plans to ethernet all University accomodation ASAP if that were the case? Very few people (I would say 0 - at least for access to things outside the University) have a real need for a 10Mbit ethernet connection. No-one's going to stop people from looking up train times during lunch for when they pop home the next weekend are they?
So something needs to be done, and if it isn't blocking games, what should it be? Well, how amount monitoring traffic and identifying high bandwidth users. If someone is running an illegal warez server, and they're asked what exactly is causing 3Gb of data to be transfered a day, they're going to shut it down pretty quickly. Perhaps even instigating a charge for people who do use large amounts of bandwidth (on legitimate things) - that would discourage frivolous use, and stop people grabbing some VCD from the US every week. Even enouraging people to not use hotmail accounts (we get charged for US access remember - and pages there obviously can't be cached!), but rather UK based alternatives, seems to me to be a far more sensible stratedgy, not just in terms of keeping students happy, but actually effective in reducing our bandwidth consumption, and our network costs.
I cannot help but smile at the naivete that you show in lamenting that these protests turned "violent".
Why is lamenting something unfortunate naive? Certainly, it is naive to say that violence won't occur on these occasions, but that doesn't stop you being remorseful when it does.
This kind of thing happened in the '60s all the time
and you don't hope that we have moved on as a society since then?
Blocking traffic, stringing up banners, and even smashing windows is not violence. It is at worst disruption. Windows don't have feelings, and putting yourself in someone's way is a far cry from hurting them
This is cr*p. Would you mind if I came and demonstrated outside your house and broke some windows? Damage to peoples' property certainly is violence. If the things being broken are public items, or belong to businesses, then granted it is disruptive rather than hurting peoples' feelings. Think however, about the people around when all these protests turn nasty. I've been near similar things in the past (although not quite on this scale). It's threatening - you want to get away from whereever the place is ASAP. The scene of disruption in London yesterday (see this BBC article) was near a major station. It's not nice if you're trying to get home and there's a violent mob there. That is in fact on the route I would normally take home from my holiday job. I'm glad that I don't start again until next week and so missed the disruption.
[tear gas et al]
they all target the innocent as well as the guilty
It is rather easy to tell when a protest is turning into a mob. Whilst I applaud those standing up for their right to demonstrate (even when I don't agree with their arguments), it is rather stupid to hang around once things have turned nasty. If you continue to do so, then you have yourself to blame when tear gas is fired into the crowd. Having said that, you do make some fair points about Police on occasion instigating and/or making worse violence in this situations. As you say however, these situations are very complex, and it is very difficult for them to work out what is going to happen, and who the minority are that are causing the trouble.
By the way, if you ever decide to lob a tear gas cannister back at the cops, think twice. They are extremely hot when they land, so unless you handle them the right way you will just burn yourself.
I wouldn't know. I think the piece of advice that I shall choose to stick in bold is: If you feel strongly about some issue, by all means go and peacefully demonstrate. If the unfortunate happends and the thing turns violent, then move out. Let the Police do their job and arrest those responsible - those who are damaging your viewpoint by making it out to be a bunch of trouble makers.
Slashdot Mirror
At my (UK) University they banned Napster a little while ago. We also have a transparent web proxy/cache (ie: you are forced to use it). The main reason for these measures are two fold. Firstly, to try to reduce the increasing network congestion. Secondly, to cut costs - as has already been mentioned on this thread, UK univserities now get charged per Mb of incoming traffic on the transatlantic lines.
So, I personally think the action they have taken so far is fair enough. The amount of bandwidth Napster takes up is silly - and it's easy to block. Most of the MP3s people will be obtaining are almost certainly illegal, so I don't see it as any infringement of my rights. Also, it is the Univeristy's network and supposed to be for academic use. I don't pay anything for it, so I'm hardly in a position to complain.
However, the Computing Services staff here seem obsessed with stopping any tiny thing they can. They are currently planning to block the IP ports that are commonly used by games (they recently did a test of blocking the Halflife mod Counterstrike's port). Now this strikes me as very odd. Most online games do not generate a huge amount of traffic (obviously a reasonable amount if you're running a server, but that's not the issue here). Most importantly, non of this traffic is going to go to the US and so incur a charge. With FPS games, ping is all important - there's no way you'd catch me even trying to play QuakeWorld or Quake3 on US servers. I want the one nearest to me (ie: lowest ping) - so the packets I create are going very far. Sure, some games (eg: Everquest) might be played on US servers when there are no European alternatives, but they seem to be taking a general "games are the cause of our network problems" attitude.
Maybe you're thinking that I'm being uptight cos I can't play these silly violent games? Maybe you're right. The point is though, that whilst I am using an academic network for pure personal enjoyment... game playing is not the thing to target. They are not going to be as draconian as to say that all non acamedic activities are banned. Why would they have plans to ethernet all University accomodation ASAP if that were the case? Very few people (I would say 0 - at least for access to things outside the University) have a real need for a 10Mbit ethernet connection. No-one's going to stop people from looking up train times during lunch for when they pop home the next weekend are they?
So something needs to be done, and if it isn't blocking games, what should it be? Well, how amount monitoring traffic and identifying high bandwidth users. If someone is running an illegal warez server, and they're asked what exactly is causing 3Gb of data to be transfered a day, they're going to shut it down pretty quickly. Perhaps even instigating a charge for people who do use large amounts of bandwidth (on legitimate things) - that would discourage frivolous use, and stop people grabbing some VCD from the US every week. Even enouraging people to not use hotmail accounts (we get charged for US access remember - and pages there obviously can't be cached!), but rather UK based alternatives, seems to me to be a far more sensible stratedgy, not just in terms of keeping students happy, but actually effective in reducing our bandwidth consumption, and our network costs.
--
Dr_Claw
I emailed Robert Duffy at id and asked about repackaging the source into a tarball/zip for those without Windows or Wine. He replied saying:
So hold out people. :)
Why is lamenting something unfortunate naive? Certainly, it is naive to say that violence won't occur on these occasions, but that doesn't stop you being remorseful when it does.
and you don't hope that we have moved on as a society since then?
This is cr*p. Would you mind if I came and demonstrated outside your house and broke some windows? Damage to peoples' property certainly is violence. If the things being broken are public items, or belong to businesses, then granted it is disruptive rather than hurting peoples' feelings. Think however, about the people around when all these protests turn nasty. I've been near similar things in the past (although not quite on this scale). It's threatening - you want to get away from whereever the place is ASAP. The scene of disruption in London yesterday (see this BBC article) was near a major station. It's not nice if you're trying to get home and there's a violent mob there. That is in fact on the route I would normally take home from my holiday job. I'm glad that I don't start again until next week and so missed the disruption.
It is rather easy to tell when a protest is turning into a mob. Whilst I applaud those standing up for their right to demonstrate (even when I don't agree with their arguments), it is rather stupid to hang around once things have turned nasty. If you continue to do so, then you have yourself to blame when tear gas is fired into the crowd. Having said that, you do make some fair points about Police on occasion instigating and/or making worse violence in this situations. As you say however, these situations are very complex, and it is very difficult for them to work out what is going to happen, and who the minority are that are causing the trouble.
I wouldn't know. I think the piece of advice that I shall choose to stick in bold is:
If you feel strongly about some issue, by all means go and peacefully demonstrate. If the unfortunate happends and the thing turns violent, then move out. Let the Police do their job and arrest those responsible - those who are damaging your viewpoint by making it out to be a bunch of trouble makers.