We’re Back!

August 3rd, 2008

We apologize for the downtime caused by the fact that our administrator (Hi!) is a lazy bastard, and apologize profusely for our return caused by the fact that our administrator had the exact same problem with his personal blog and figured how to fix it in a matter of seconds.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled vitriol.

Posted in Random | Comments

If you think it’s bad, it’s worse.

April 7th, 2008

So it’s been a few weeks now since RIT has started following their new DMCA policy, and it’s everything I knew it would be. Instead of a generic rant on this, I will share an adventure of a co-worker of mine. We’ll call him… Dan.

Dan got up one morning to check his email and was confused when he couldn’t connect to the server. He couldn’t check his news. He was disabled. Dan had been hit with a notice for sharing an episode of Arrested Development. One he didn’t have. He was accused, and had no internet access. He was forced to go through a limited proxy to get to an internal RIT site which had a big long shpiel about filesharing and why it’s bad and what it means that he got accused, and he had to click some “I Agree” button saying he was a bad man to get his internet connection back to full power.

Yeah, it only ate a day of his life, it doesn’t have any lasting effects, it was too early in the quarter to really mess him up. But he got hit for sharing a file he didn’t even have. This is as close as it comes to case & point. The innocent should not be punished. Irresponsible entities should not run amok…
Why can’t RIT get it right?

Posted in Beyond the Bricks, Campus Safety, I Hate It Here, Technology | Comments

SG Election Time 2008 edition

April 7th, 2008

The posters have come up, overworked students are doing their best to run campaigns for RIT’s Student Government Prez and VP. In contrast to previous years where candidate goals and platforms were generally MIA on the campaign posters this year’s selection boasts an impressive list displayed on most posters. The only problem is they’re all the same. Everyone knows what the students here want, we want parking to not suck anymore, we want intelligent teachers, better housing, a better scheduling system. Great. We all figured this out last year, what this year’s candidate needs to answer is HOW?

Ignoring the issue that some of these goals are impossible (Seriously. SIS is going nowhere, I’ve seen the meeting records. RIT has no intention of retiring the system. We’re all stuck registering for classes with 1978 technology for the next 5 years at least), how do this year’s hopefuls propose to make a dent in agendas which have been stagnant for years? That’d get my attention. RIT students are so jaded with the governing body that they don’t pay attention, because they don’t think it matters. These candidates need to convince us that they matter, otherwise we’re all voting for the cockboat again.
Incumbent president Ed Wolf is running again, with a new running mate, and has posted a slew of buzzwords which we’ll all recognize as “Yeah, that’d be nice” but most of it looks like a pipedream.

Kari Hazzard has a well presented poster with a list of goals, but no plan (EDIT: The plan is on the Facebook group, more along the lines of an elaborated “what” than a real “how” I think, but it is a good effort.  If they win I’ll be curious to see how they convince RIT to play ball on expanded wireless and 24 hr computer labs without raising tuition again). Her running mate is wearing a dumb hat.(EDIT: I may have unfairly judged Jon’s hat.) RIT students will notice the hat.

There are some other good posters, clean posters, that tell even less about the candidates. Eh, don’t care.

Michael Deyhim’s posters have been a joyous interjection of sarcasm in the sea of promises of change and effectiveness. He realizes that we don’t care, and he doesn’t give a damn either. His posters say things like “We’ll protect the Commons from coyotes!” or “Volcanos are bad!”, A picture of a Basshunter single cover with “Campaign Theme Song”. They’re pointless, amusing, but very telling as to the attitude of the students regarding this election. He’s got my attention. I might actually vote for him.

But then again, I know exactly what I’m getting when I vote for the cockboat.

Posted in SG Election 2008 | Comments

McCarthyism part 2.

February 5th, 2008

RIT’s Fearless Cleader has not felt it in him to respond to my most recent letter. Now rather than use my RIT access to place my concerns directly into his mail inbox I will stay in the shoes of the “average” student, which is to say I will pay exorbitant sums of money so that administration can ignore me. So since The Banjo-Man doesn’t care about what I have to say, I’ll tell the Internet. So this has become another open letter to the RIT President.

Dr. Destler,

I am responding to the post you made following the flood of email concerning the new RIT DMCA policy. I am sure you’ve gotten even more messages following that response of students who are supremely disappointed by the way RIT has decided to handle this. Our new policy looks like it was written by Joseph McCarthy. How can you possibly believe that the revocation of network access is not a consequence? At an institute like RIT, where professors are often giving their midterm examinations before students have memorized what rooms their classes are in, even a week without access to the network could spell disaster if a class requires online interaction or coursework submission. And why is it suddenly acceptable to do something like this to someone without ANY real investigation or evidence? Are we suddenly guilty until proven innocent? And while it’s true that being forced to denounce an act you may or may not have committed to have the punishment rescinded is NOT an admission of guilt, it is very distasteful.

The RIAA and the MPAA are well-known at this point for blanket or shotgun style threats, hitting people almost at random with threats of legal action and accusations of IP infringement. Are you really going to let these people make RIT an instrument of their witch hunt by taking action against students without proof?

Can ANYONE tell me who thinks this is a good idea?

Posted in Campus Safety, I Hate It Here, Random, Technology | Comments

CUE: RIAA Inquisitor enters, upstage right.

January 15th, 2008

Today, the 14th of January in the year 2008 RIT has taken the first step in caving to the RIAA/MPAA witchhunt. An e-mail has been sent to the students and staff concerning the “rampant disregard for intellectual property rights”. RIT has outlined a 3 step escelation system for dealing with accusations lodged against RIT students and faculty. The wording in this e-mail is troubling and important. The first bullet point in the e-mail is this:

“An initial reported copyright violation”

(Emphasis has been added).

Now while it is true that the consequence at this level is merely temporary disconnection, the actions taken quickly get serious and at an institute which is so fast paced even a temporary revocation of network access can pose major setbacks to those in courses of study where it is vital. Especially since all that is required to enter this particular track is a REPORTED violation. And that is VERY disconcerting.

The message does mention the accused will have an “opportunity” to defend themselves after such an accusation…presumably once their connectivity has been restored. Of course the message doesn’t say how to do this, it doesn’t say where it is. So do they send it to you after your get accused? So you can try to assemble your defense after your “probation” is up? I’d think something like this would be useful to tell everyone, guilty or innocent, before they even need to worry about it.

If I’m wrong with my interpration I will fully redact the insinuations of this post and apologize to those involved at RIT. In closing I am also including a letter I have written to President Destler. Feel free to resend this or add your names to it.

Dr. Destler,
I have just received the mass media message sent out to the student body regarding the actions being taken by RIT to curb IP infringement. And this message seems to indicate that immediate action will be taken upon receipt of an accusation. The evidence lies in the phrasing: “An initial reported copyright violation”. This says a REPORTED violation, not necessarily an actual confirmed violation. The message then links to the legal download information page and makes a down-played reference to the idea that the accused still technically have some rights and can contest the action…but again this is the action and not the accusation. However I have read the RIT Computer Code of Conduct and Acceptable Use Policy, and I can’t find the exact procedure for defending oneself. My question is…
What is this procedure, where is it, and when was RIT intending to put it out in clear text for those who are looking?

Posted in I Hate It Here, Public Safety, Technology | Comments

YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG Part 1: Turn Signals

December 29th, 2007

There is a law of software design which dictates that the more lines of code a project has, the more bugs it has.  I believe this holiday season has proven this also applies to drivers.  It is this which drives me to write to you all tonight.

In this series, titled “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG”, I have appointed myself as grand master of all your crappy driving.  So, stop what you are doing…pull the car over…YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

The other day I saw a man driving some form of SUV.  He had begun to exit the expressway and realized that he was doing so early…and pulled into that weird “buffer” area.  He tried to re-enter the highway proper and turned on his TURN SIGNAL to indicate his desire to do so.  The other drivers saw what he wanted to do, and reacted accordingly.  Is the man a good driver?  Possibly.  Is what he did legal?  Probably not.  BUT he does know how to use a turn signal, which is a step or 3 beyond the rest of you bitches with your insane lane changes and random 2.5 MPH turns that come out of nowhere and take 3 seconds to figure out what the HELL you’re doing.
Seriously, people.  The turn signal was put into the car so no one had to wave their arm out the window in funny shapes to tell other drivers what they wanted to do…am I actually to believe in this age of high communication that we can’t flip a freaking lever to tell someone else we wanna drive our car in the general direction of left?

So!  Just incase you missed it the first time:
How to  not crash your car into  other people when changing direction in 3 easy steps!
1)  SIGNAL your desire to stop moving straight.
2) Make your direction change.  And try not to take forever with this…seriously.  Unless there’s something wrong with your car there is no way your suspension is that bad.
3) Turn the signal off.  Not doing this only flies if you’re over 70.  Once you no longer want to change your direction, stop telling people you wanna change direction.

THERE you have it!  A quick and easy way to not only stop offending the other people on the road but also to help lower your insurance premiums because when other people can react to you, since you told them what you were going to do with your car, they’re less likely to CRASH INTO YOU.
Damnit people.  You are so full of suck.
(PS.  RIT related article coming soon)

Posted in Beyond the Bricks, Random | Comments

Improved Laundry Facilities: A Group Effort

May 2nd, 2007

Many RIT students are familiar with the situation of RIT’s laundry facilities.  In fact, when I hear people complain about dorm life here, the laundry rooms are usually the subject.  While it’s reasonable to say that most of the machines work, several do not.  Some washers don’t agitate.  Some take your money and don’t even do anything at all.  Some dryers don’t actually produce any heat.  And of course, all the machines that work fine are usually taken, depending on when you do your laundry.

I was faced with some of these problems a couple weeks ago when I went to do laundry under Saul.  A lot of the machines were in use, and several were also in a state of disrepair.  In some cases, this was obvious.  I mean, I didn’t really think that the one dryer that was missing its door would do a very effective job of driing my clothes.  In many cases, the state of the machines is ambiguous, indicated only by graffiti written in permanent marker on the side.  I’ve found that sometimes you can trust this, sometimes you can’t.  And then there are the ones with no indication of their problems whatsoever.

After washing my clothes, I struggled to find a dryer that was working and not in use.  After a while, I decided to take a wild guess on one.   After swiping my card, I pushed the button to start the machine.  Nothing happened.  Luckily, another dryer had just become free, so I moved over.  However, even this one did not dry my clothes completely.

Many people complain about situations like this.  And I will be among them:  The situation is horrendous.  It is sad that this institute does not take the laundry problems very seriously.  Luckily, there is a solution.   A simple one, in fact.  When you find a broken machine, report it.  After that dryer ate my $1.25, I was pissed.  I know it’s not much, but is another annoyance.  On the wall of the laundry room was a sign with a number to call to report issues.  When I had the chance a few days later, I called the number and detailed my problems.  I had no trouble getting a reimbursement for my lost money.  I also took the opportunity to report several of the broken machines.  And the next week when I went there again, progress was made.  The dryer with no door now had a new door.  Some of the other machines had been fixed too.

The situation is really quite simple.  When you write “broke” or something like that on the side of the washing machines, it is hard to remove.  If I recall correctly from talking to housing, there is a company the call in to remove the graffiti.  And on top of that, noone can tell if the problem with the machine was fixed or not.  As I mentioned, I’ve found graffitied machines that work fine.

When you call, you get the chance to actually make your voice heard.  I know people have asked Simone and such, but we really need people to actually report the washers and dryers that need maintenance.  If everyone did this, I’m not sure it would solve all our laundry issues.  But things would improve.  And it doesn’t take much time.

Posted in Random, Technology | Comments

A moment of silence for VA Tech

April 16th, 2007

Our hearts go out to those involved in the shooting today at Virginia Tech, whether as victims, family thereof, or innocent bystanders.

Posted in Beyond the Bricks | Comments

ritbook, RIT, and Trademark Infringement

April 13th, 2007

A few days ago the Rochester Institute of Technology sent a demand to the owner of ritbook demanding that he cease using the RIT trademark. (See the letter here.) Robert Colon, the RIT Chief Legal Officer, authored the letter and claimed trademark numbers 1,716,652 and 1,705,506, saying that the use on ritbook is a violation of the Lanham Act, and RIT’s trademark rights. There’s just a few problems with his letter.

First, I invite the reader to look up the referenced trademarks. They refer only to use with education services - no mention of book sale or any brokerage function is contained in the trademark registration. A quick search of the USPTO trademark database (available at http://www.uspto.gov) shows that there are a number of “RIT” trademarks registered, ranging from software companies to clothing dye. The point I’m trying to make here is that that a trademark only covers use in a specific area of goods and services - it would, for example, be ridiculous for Microsoft to claim that due to its trademark on “Windows”, glass companies can no longer use that word for thin, transparent sheets of glass used to protect interior areas from the elements. The same idea is going on here - ritbook provides a service, targeted for RIT students, where it acts as a listing service, providing a framework for students to list and find books in a more efficient manner than posters tacked to bulletin boards. For that matter, ritbook isn’t making any money from it, which also throws the whole trademark argument off a bit. But let’s assume for now that RIT was right in enforcing its trademark.

Next is the requirements made. The demand that all references to the Rochester Institute of Technology be removed except to point out that the site is not affiliated with RIT is absolutely ridiculous. The very sections of the Lanham Act that Mr. Colon points to protect fair use of trademarks to provide a contrast - for example, the law seems clear to me that if Mr. Leville wanted to point out that ritbook can save students money in contrast to the RIT bookstore “Campus Connections”, he would be well within his rights. I am not a lawyer, so understand that’s not professional advice, but if I’m wrong, explain to me how Apple can make fun of Windows every night on national TV (”I’m a Mac.” “And I’m a PC.”, etc) and not fear trademark litigation. And the demand that “rit” be removed from the domain name is just ridiculous.

Finally, we get to the last paragraph. The letter threatens two actions if its demands are unmet. The first is legal action. This is fine - the purpose of the legal system is to resolve this type of disagreement. The second is referral to Student Conduct. There’s a problem here. Courts are held accountable, proceedings are public, defendants are given fair chance to defend themselves - if they can’t afford or find a lawyer, one will be provided for them, even - and a trial by jury may be requested. Student Conduct is the opposite of the real legal system in every way - hearings and other proceedings are private to the point where the student is not even allowed to disclose details, there is no mechanism for a jury, and not only can the student not bring a lawyer, but if they chose to bring a faculty advocate, they must choose a faculty member who is not a lawyer. This is a system that should NEVER be used when RIT has a complaint against a student, particularly a legal complaint - the student is not allowed to defend themselves properly with respect to the law, and since RIT makes the judgement, there’s no incentive not to rule in the institution’s favor no matter the facts. The threat of SC is far more terrifying than legal action - and RIT knows this.

In conclusion, I submit that this letter is a scare tactic. First demanding that the student comply with baseless demands, quoting laws that invalidate some of those very demands, and then threatening them with action they have no real defense against. Of course, it’s not just a scare tactic - I wouldn’t put it past RIT to waste tuition on suing a student in a case they’re sure to lose. After all, they’re already using it to buy the security guards new toys. And don’t forget Student Conduct - RIT is sure to win that one, no matter what the law really says.


Posted in Random | Comments

How not to run a campaign for election

April 10th, 2007

Two of the candidates for Student Government something this year at RIT are Ed Wolf and Sasha Malinchoc. I don’t know what they’re running for. I have no way of knowing. They never say. They have posters up all over campus that just say “Empower & Achieve” and a link to their website at http://vote.rh.rit.edu/. They’re a study in how not to run a campaign for anything.

Let’s start with a simple thing, which is only partly their fault. They should be removed from candidacy for registering vote.rh.rit.edu and using it as part of their campaign (for those not familiar with RIT’s IPEDIT/Claws systems, students are allowed to request custom DNS names). Furthermore, whatever rules govern SG campaigns should be changed to ban such blatant attempts to unfairly sway, even mislead, the student body. That’s like registering united-states.com to promote a single candidate.

Second, the posters, and the website. In all that space, you’d think they could mention what office they’re running for. One would assume president and VP, but how are we supposed to know this? Sasha and Ed never say. For all anyone could ascertain from their posters and web site, they could be trying to get elected for completely separate offices.

Aside from that Sasha and Ed look like generic candidates for whatever they’re doing. Vote for their opponent, please, in the event you do ever figure out what office they’re trying to run for. We don’t want dishonest idiots like this anywhere near SG. And yes Sasha and Ed, although I’m not a big fan of personal attacks in public forums, you deserve it. Your behavior in registering vote.rh.rit.edu for your personal campaign use is inexcusable, and your inablility to make posters, or even a web site, that says what you’re trying to get elected for shows an ineptness at even the simple task of advertising, much less representing the student body.

So this coming SG election, don’t vote Ed and Sasha.

I’m Joe, and I approve this message.

–EDIT

Apologies - it does say what they’re running for at the very bottom of the biography pages. Great way to make sure no one sees it.

Posted in SG Election 2007 | Comments

« Older Entries
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.