Via Bostonist.
The photo led us to a Tech story about MIT students protesting what they consider the school administration delivering Star Simpson and sodium droppers to the cavalier hands of the media. The story includes a quote from MIT Chancellor Phillip L. Clay that suggests students aren't the only ones with some difficulties dealing with the non-geek world:
He added that, in the future, "if a student with a clever gizmo goes to an airport ... as silly as it sounds, go up and explain it to someone."
Or, Phil, howzabout they not bring it into the terminal?
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Note to MIT Students and MIT Chancellor
By bob
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 2:26pm
From Cambridge residents and taxpayers who live
here year round and plan to live here more than
four years:
We hate you. We think your 'hacks' are stoopid
and narcissistic. We live for Spring when you
leave, shortly after shutting down our city with
your endless masturbation--I mean graduation ceremony.
We die a small death each September when the first
mathematical genius MIT undergrad wedges a 12 foot
truck under an 11 foot bridge on Storrow drive.
How can we miss you when you won't go away?
Pardon me?
By Ron Newman
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 2:28pm
Some of us stay around here, or return here, after graduating from MIT. Do you want us to go away, too?
They want to pay all the taxes!
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 2:32pm
With their non-academic incomes, of course! And have governments that act like monarchies and perpetuatal politicians that go unquestioned by braniacs who actually read stuff and travel.
rude
By Resident
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 5:21pm
Umm... that's a bit rude. Many of us who live here and own property and are disgusted by the arrogant and destructive behavior of students, do have university degrees. We also read, travel and think critically. Do you know Bob personally? Why such a hateful response? Maybe one day when you grow up a little bit, you'll expect others to treat this city and the citizens who live here with respect too. If an MIT student burns someone as a result of a prank, then he or she should be held accountable.
So who will serve your coffee?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 10:03pm
As for RUDE try this bit from Bob, above:
Oh but hey, it's all about turf and that makes anything some backward dork says okay, right?
Continuing below:
Pretty rude if you ask me. MY airport? MY river?
Oh really. And who paid for that airport, crummy and disorganized as it is? The feds for the most part. And who took care of the water quality of the Charles? If it weren't for the universities in this town, we would have had burning rivers just like Cleveland!
Boston is Pittsburg with more colleges and a seaport. It would be in the same boat as Cleveland and Detroit given the level of concern for keeping things nice, rule of law, etc. if it weren't for the major employment and tidal cleaning of the collective head that schools bring to the area. Any of this MINE MINE MINE TERRITORY WAHAAAAA crap from people simply because they were born here is more than a little backward and annoying.
Boston is Pittsburg = ignorant
By Anonymous
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 7:15am
'Boston is Pittsburg with more colleges and a seaport.' You just reduced the fact that Boston is situated off the coast of the Atlantic Ocean to 'seaport'. I'm thrilled that I was lucky enough to grow up on the East Coast and not landlocked Pittsburg. If you're so miserable living here, then relocate to a city or town where the residents, local law enforcement and local government live up to your particular standards. I'm sure almost any city in the U.S. is cheaper to live in than this one, so what's keeping you here?
From a backwards dork--I now know my place
By bob
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 9:17am
Ahh, nothing like a little Noblesse Oblige from the better
classes.
Heartfelt thanks to the truly elite, forward thinking folks
like SwirlyGrrl who have deigned to come here and
enlighten us backward dorks. Where would we be without
people with trustfunds to do all the thinking for those
of us in the meaner classes?
Paging Judge Arthur Garrity, Paging Judge Arthur Garrity....
So here's a compromise (and Ron, please stay!)
By bob
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 6:36pm
How's this work?
If one of these "whimsical" hacks like setting the Charles
River on fire or shutting down Logan Airport causes non-MIT
resources (i.e. like taxpayer funded) cops to be involved, then the
selfish, self-absorbed students and MIT share the cost of
re-imbursing the taxpayers for the expense to the community.
If it only involves MIT cops (like the cop car on the dome)
and MIT expenses, the rest of us non-whimsical taxpayers don't give
a rat's ass, and MIT can work it out by increasing tuition
rates for their wicked smart hackers.
Just don't ask me to pay for this crap--either in tax dollars,
by getting burned by sodium in my river, or by shutting down
my airport.
"shutting down Logan Airport"
By Ron Newman
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 6:41pm
The MIT student did not disturb the peace at Logan Airport. The police disturbed the peace when they overracted to her harmless geeky piece of clothing. Since she never approached a security checkpoint, there was no reason for them to even pay attention to her.
I won't defend the sodium drop; if the students can't ensure that all of the sodium burns completely, they should stop doing it.
Ron, please your smarter than that
By bob
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:34pm
If you were trying to get out of Logan to do a, say, sodium
drop in Cleveland in the Cuyahoga and were delayed for the day,
it might really piss you off.
Oh, never mind. Personal or municipal expense and inconvenience
don't matter as long as the MIT kids can get their beaver rings.
Screw the rest of us who live here and pay for it. And the cops
who actually work for a living? Suckers...they shoulda gone to
MIT!
"you're smarter than that"
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 10:39pm
"you're smarter than that" (not 'your')
Your = You Are
You're wrong with your
By Anonymous
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 11:51am
You're wrong with your explanation:
You're = You Are
Ron: could you please
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:35pm
Ron: could you please clarify what officially constitutes a "hack?" Meaning, I don't think that what the fool at Logan did and the Sodium Drop thing are going to make the wall of fame in the MIT Museum. Is there some sort of university sanction?
No, those aren't hacks
By Ron Newman
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:45pm
The Sodium Drop is an annual ritual, which in my opinion should stop. The girl wearing the LED name-tag was not engaging in a hack, either, and should have been a total non-event.
I know nothing about the
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 8:11pm
I know nothing about the Sodium Drop, in spite of having been here way too long.
I'd agree with you on the Logan thing, except that the world's a different place now. (Seriously, had security at Keflavik going nuts over a beanpot in my backpack last Christmas.)
I'll have to agree with Bob.
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:46pm
I'll have to agree with Bob.
The girl was being an idiot, and, though we might be able to say now that police were overreacting, I'm glad to see that they were on the ball with this.
Try pulling those sort of shenanigans at De Gaulle, for example (armed military presence for at least the last 20 years), and see what would happen.
Not a 'shenanigan' either
By Ron Newman
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:48pm
She [b]didn't do anything[/b]! She was simply wearing an unusual piece of clothing that lit up. I see people in Porter Square station wearing light-up shoes; are they some sort of threat to you, too?
Possibly. I don't ride the
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 8:24pm
Possibly. I don't ride the T, as I refuse to even put myself into such a situation (was attacked on another train line a couple years back and am still trying to get over it).
Oh, swarthy guys with box
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 8:26pm
Oh, swarthy guys with box cutters weren't supposed to be a risk, either.
Excuse me?
By BStu
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:10am
I'm so sick of moral cowardice being disguised by an American Flag. There is NOTHING at all that links some geek wearing a light-up name tag and terrorists who murdered thousands. NOTHING. I know someone who died on 9/11 and I cannot begin to tell you how horrified they would be to so their death used as a cheap rhetorical gimmick. 9/11 didn't change everything. It didn't obligate everyone to vote Republican or wet their pants anytime someone was a little different. People being scared by you shouldn't be a crime. Not on September 10 and not today.
How parochial of you. 1.) I
By Anonymous
Sat, 09/29/2007 - 7:12pm
How parochial of you.
1.) I have no party affiliation.
2.) Lockerbee - dark, swarthy men with plastics. Not only did the kids one district over from where I went to high school lose their entire french class, a girlfriend of mine lost her entire family.
3.) Valley of the Kings - biggest peacenik in the world friend of mine in Switzerland lost his girlfriend to gunmen on a trip there a few years back. Had other friends there a month earlier who were shitting their pants over that.
4.) Don't even get me started about how many people at my effing job lost people on 9/11.
5.) Lost an ex after the bombing at Atocha. (It's in Madrid. That's in Spain, by the way.)
Am really sick of the whole conceit here of calling people Republican Flag Wavers when what they say (based on a different, potentially more global experience) doesn't fit in with their safe little world view.
The world's a dangerous place. Get your head out of your ass, read something other than the Times and its Boston subsidiary. Even better: learn a language and see what goes on outside the Fascism that you think occurs outside your safe little North of the Charles world.
mit girl at airport
By bostnkid
Fri, 09/28/2007 - 3:59pm
she also had a handful of play-doh.it resembles plastic explosives.she is lucky they didnt light her up like a christmas tree.they carry machine guns for a reason and she was seeing how far she could push the envelope.i would have sided with the cops on this one.
I'm with Ron on this one.
By EricJay
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:38am
I'm with Ron on this one. It was a harmless light-up accessory. Thousands of people walk through airports with much more sophisticated (and potentially dangerous) technology clipped to their belts every day. Simpson's only "offense" was not having hers wrapped in a shiny plastic case stamped with a brand name.
I'm sorry, but even in a "post 9/11 world," it's not appropriate to ask airport visitors to examine each harmless possession and try to guess whether someone else might accidentally mistake it for something dangerous.
I travel extensively (nearly 75,000 miles last year, domestic and international). I often travel with a piece of medical testing equipment that has been modified after manufacture. There's an exposed piece that looks quite similar to what Simpson was wearing (wires, LEDs and all). It goes through security with me every time, and is often visible through the top of my bag after I've removed my laptop for screening. I've never once had anyone even so much as ASK about it, on either side of the Atlantic.
I have no intention of leaving it behind next time, either. Even in this "post Star Simpson" world.
Some of us residents
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 2:58pm
Some of us residents actually look forward to the hacks, which are generally seen as being just a bit of (clever, creative) fun.
My favorite one of all time is when the model of the campus police car - complete with box of doughnuts - showed up on top of the Great Dome.
Much more clever
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 3:31pm
... than dumping sodium in the river. Or throwing things off the green building like we used to.
I doubt John Harvard would be allowed at the airport with that get-up though.
Without the universities,
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 3:38pm
Without the universities, Boston would be Baltimore; no offense to Baltimore.
What, do you have a problem
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 7:36pm
What, do you have a problem with Johns Hopkins or something? (snort)
Get over yourself.
By BStu
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 3:38pm
Look, I'm not defending the sodium nonsense and neither should MIT students. That was genuinely dangerous and good people got hurt. If they are upset with the administration's tepid response to that, then the students are completely wrong on that count.
HOWEVER, no one got hurt because an undergrad wore a light-up name badge. Now one got hurt when they constructed a police care on the great dome. No one got hurt by Master Harvard. With all the nonsense Boston residents have to put up with from students (and I say this as a alumni of another Boston area college), these MIT pranks aren't even on the list. They bring a sense of whimsy into the community which is a lot better than alcohol fueled puke, noisy parties, or a generalized sense of entitlement that some of the other student bodies provide.
You know, it's funny. I
By Be
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 8:07pm
You know, it's funny. I moved here in the late 80s to go to college. While a student living off campus to save money, I'd dealt with townies who asked if my daddy paid my rent as well as drunken Berklee and NEU students (lived in Fenway). Later on, I lived in Eastie (before the gentrification - 12-15 years ago) and had to deal with "Section 8 Playhouse" and Latin gangs. Nowadays, in the rolling hills of Somerville, I have to deal with the Tufts/Harvard students/Yuppies in Condos who will blast yo'ass on da street's listserv fo'shizzle/Inappropriate males living in (the largely) Brazilian Squats harassing me because I won't "give them a light."
What insights do I take home from all this? Well, largely, that people in general suck. People in the city particularly suck. Oh yeah, and that Hell is NOT other people, but my reactions to them.
hijinks
By resident
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 5:07pm
Continue with the hijinks - just don't hurt anyone or cost the city of Boston any money. Students protesting MIT's reaction to Star Simpson is understandable, but the students who burned the people on the river is another matter entirely.
Helicopter Universities?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 10:24pm
I found the letter and the tech article to be rather interesting, given the amount of venting certain academically appointed friends do over the omnipresence of parents in the minute details of student lives.
It is almost as if they are saying "but mommy and daddy would have tried to save us" when they cite how MIT should have been more "supportive" of these serious errors in judgement.
Sorry, but I had a tough time getting MIT to be supportive of the fact that I came from a rather cash-deficient household not of my own making. Why should the 'tute bend over backwards to intervene on behalf of people who made their own difficulties?
No Comment
By BStu
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 12:27am
MIT had no cause to comment on Star's case. Indeed, I think it was quite unethical for them to pass judgment the way that they did. They had no obligation to defend her, but they did the opposite and that's just not their place. THAT was reckless and inexcusable for an educational institution. I'm with the students on this. They school owes Star Simpson an apology for so quickly throwing her under the bus like that. They had no place to be doing that to a member of the MIT community. All they should have said was no comment. Their rationalization that they needed to appear cooperative is legitimately Orwellian and the students should demand more from their school.
The sodium drop is a different issue. The school didn't do enough to condemn that and take responsibility as an institution.
Agreed on both counts
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 09/27/2007 - 10:35am
I seem to remember MIT having a policy of not commenting of off-campus situations. Clearly a problem when they chime in for the sake of kissing ass.
What I don't understand is why MIT hasn't checked (or publically said they are checking) their purchasing and shipping records for recent large sodium purchases, and demand an accounting of use from anybody who obtained a large amount in the last several months. A quick online sampling demonstrates that most major university laboratories (e.g. Livermore) require tracking of hazardous chemicals and specific purchasing permissions and procedures for large quantities (>1kg) of alkali metals in particular.
And, no, it isn't likely that it was shipped directly to a fraternity or individual - chemical companies now generally require their customers to have some credentials.
Sodium is DOT class 4.3 and has to be specially shipped. That shouldn't be too hard to track for a university that prides itself on computer stuff. Instead of tossing students under the bus or hand-holding them through avoidable off-campus gaffes, they should be a little more concerned with their internal bookkeeping.
Definition of Hacking
By Anonymous
Wed, 09/26/2007 - 10:15pm
An MIT hack is defined as a clever, benign, and ethical prank or practical joke. One important aspect of this is that the hack do no harm. Obviously, the sodium drop, not technically a hack, failed in this regard. The lighted clothing at the airport, while also not a hack, was harmless other than the over-reaction by police.
From http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/misc/ethics.html
"Over many years at MIT, a "code of ethics" has evolved. This informal code is a self-enforced attitude that ensures that hacks will continue to be amusing and well-received both within and without MIT.
"According to the "hacker ethic," a hack must:
* be safe
* not damage anything
* not damage anyone, either physically, mentally or emotionally
* be funny, at least to most of the people who experience it
"There is no way of enforcing this code, but anything that directly contradicts it will probably not be considered a "hack" by most of the MIT community. "
A compendium of hacks can be found at http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/