Napster an artist's forum
To the editor,
I am writing in response to the recent articles about students being punished for Napster use on campus. My name is Kevin Durkin. I play guitar and I am a singer/songwriter. I am not part of the campus network because I live in Palm Shadows, however, I currently have 5 songs on Napster, and I depend on Napster as a primary means to getting my music out to people. The dean of students is encouraging in this article published on Oct. 18 that students use Napster, and then shut it down soon as they are done. If everyone did this, no one would ever be on to share files with one another, and the system of Napster simply would not work. I encourage people to download my music, and I don't mind at all that I am not getting paid for it. I just want to get my music out there, and Napster provides a great way for me to do that. As an artist, I encourage students to leave their computers on and allow for anyone who wants my music to have the opportunity to download it when they please.
Kevin Durkin
Business sophomore
202 not the right way
To the editor,
Once again, the Wildcat has opened its mouth before looking further than the surface. Cory Spiller's tasty editorial about Proposition 202 does exactly what its backers want it to do to Arizona: leaves out the hard truth. In theory, Proposition 202 could be exactly what is needed in Tucson, Phoenix and other parts of Arizona. However, the framers of the proposition pushed it way too far. Who is behind Prop. 202? Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, countless Audobon societies and political geniuses like Buffalo Exchange, yes, Buffalo Exchange. The broad, and often non-specific proposition, which is some 22,600 words long, was written without any input from the citizens of Arizona, except the few interest groups backing the proposition.
There are a few good points to Prop. 202. almost everyone would agree that developers should pay for expansion of city service, however, that already happens for the most part. Most citizens of Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff would agree that these cities need to slow their growth. However, Prop. 202 doesn't stop there, it punishes small towns for wanting to grow. Take the city of Casa Grande, about an hour north of Tucson. Currently, about 20,000 people reside there, but under the strict limits of Prop. 202, only 3,000 more could move in. Does that make sense? No. What may be right for Tucson and Phoenix, is most certainly not right for the rest of Arizona.
Next, Prop. 202 limits single family housing, but does nothing but promote the development of apartments and the such, which in fact make congestion even worse! And to top it all off, Prop. 202 allows anyone to sue anyone else for a violation of the initiative. Ridiculous? I think so. Then there is the "money" issue. Yes, developers have put tons of money into putting Prop. 202 down, but wouldn't you do the same to protect your way of life? We are talking about the way of life of thousands of Arizonans involved in construction, now the state's largest industry. Aside from the construction jobs lost if 202 passes, the economic impacts would be tremendous. The fall of the construction industry would cause the domino effect on every other industry in Arizona. Prices on single family housing would skyrocket, yet, that wouldn't stop growth. The bottom line: yes, metropolitan growth in Arizona needs to be controlled, however, Prop. 202 is not the way to go about it. There is a lot more on the line than the desert.
Evan Bornmann,
Business administration sophomore
Belittling can't help
To the editor,
Having the editorial voice of the university deplore ethically dangerous actions and attitudes is an asset I hope no community should never lose. The methods deployed in Tuesday's paper, however, approach a danger often ignored by a common political attitude of the university. Specifically, in Zecket's commentary, condescending and pointed charges were made repeatedly to House and the entire attitude attributed to House and like offenders was aggressively belittled.
It is not the purpose of this letter to assess the moral merit of these positions, but to wonder what consequences such a public repudiation could have. Those who do not already sympathize with Zecket's position (those who behave like House or support his justification) are immediately placed in the role of receiving an attack, and are thus far less likely to consider the sense of what we hope to secure in a common ethics.
When gestures are less than civil, boundaries and differences are defined. One of many purposes of an editorial position is to address intelligently the ideologies and values of a community (and perhaps, to influence its beliefs for the better). More importantly, it should educate. Rarely, though, should it ostracize or encourage estrangement.
Nick Morgan
Philosophy and creative writing senior
Vikings outshine Rice, Owens
To the editor,
Keith, Keith, Keith where should I begin? Well, I'm writing this in response to your statement that Jerry Rice and Terrell Owens are the best receiving duo in the NFL. Hmmm, did you just become absent minded and forget about that little duo up there in frigid Minnesota? That's right, I'm talking about Randy Moss and Cris Carter. This duo is probably the best ever, here are my reasons. Rice is completely past his prime, plus he doesn't have the luxury of Young or Montana throwing him the ball anymore. Hence the fact that his #'s are down since then. Cris Carter has had nine or ten different QBs dish him the ball, which makes his accomplishments even more remarkable.
C.C. is still a top five receiver while Rice isn't even in the top 20 anymore. No one
is a clutch as C.C., that can't even be argued. He still makes the huge plays in crunch time and provides an extra coach on the field. Rice and C.C. are probably the best to ever play the game, but C.C. is still maintaining his high level of play, with an inexperienced QB no less. Randy Moss is a freak. Yes, Terrell Owens is sick too, but there is no one like Moss in this league. No one keeps D-Coordinators scared like Randy does. He's the best big play receiver in the league right now and probably ever. He completely changes the game by being double and triple-teamed at all times. He single-handedly beat Tampa Bay and Detroit
already this season. The guy is probably the third best skill position player in the league behind E. James and M. Faulk. There is no comparison between Minnesota and San Fran's receiving duo's. Moss and Carter are both top 5 receivers, once again no comparison. Plus, if San Fran's duo is so great, how come their team sucks so much? I'm just looking at the standings and Minnesota is 6-0, geez, my theory is beginning to be proven more and more. If you need a list or anything, let me know. I'll be happy to take time out of my day - like now - to prove you wrong. It's fun. Bye, bye for now Keith.
Derik Baack.
Elementary education junior
Napster not responsible for Internet problems
To the editor,
I am writing in response to the Wildcat Opinions Board's editorial regarding their support of what they feel is fair punishment for students caught using Napster. The Board's opinion seems to hinge on the feeling that in "a campus community of over 35,000 is sharing the network, it is unfair for anyone to take advantage of its capabilities." If the University of Arizona wants to characterize itself as a wired university, it must provide certain standards for doing so. Apparently they seem to feel that the only way to do this is to limit the use of Napster in order to provide the degree of quality acceptable in a wired university.
While I am pleased that the university has not made judgments about the legality of Napster itself (since the lawsuit is still pending), and has allowed the use of Napster as long as uploads are disabled, I still think that the university is wrong by trying to regulate any amount that the Internet can be used.
The network for the U of A is set up similar to any other ISP. There is a faster transfer speed for downloads than there is for uploads. This is one of the reasons so many uploads bog down the network. The real difference between the U of A and an ISP is that when you pay for access to their network, they don't tell the user it's their problem if the ISP's network is experiencing problems with the network resources. They take the initiative to fix the problem themselves because it is the ISP's problem. The real reason we have a problem with our Network is because the UA has failed to adequately maintain and update their system. Many of the switches used in dorms are, or soon will be obsolete. The lack of foresight in failing to plan for increased usage with increased enrollment and higher saturation of students who own personal computers is the real reason our network is stressed to the limits. This lack of planning and forecasting is reminiscent of the University's inability to plan for the number of students in the dorm system (need I remind anyone of the Fall of 1998?) and the university's constant delays in construction projects.
The lack of accurate planning and management at the university is evident in many departments within the University of Arizona, CCIT does not stand alone. When we were planning on accommodating freshmen by building the ILC, did someone ever think that if we need more classroom capacity we may need more network capacity as well? Apparently not. This is the real reason our network is experiencing resource problems. Simply because "20 to 30 percent" of last year network capacity was used by Napster does not mean that Napster is the problem. It could be any program that takes up the bandwidth. It's time to stop blaming the students and get to the real root of the problem, CCIT.
Bartholomew Greer
Operations management junior
