Dec

15

43 Comments

  1. this

    was already available in less user-friendly form via the remote printer setup page. This incarnation is a bit more useful.

  2. MIP  

    You mean I FINALLY will know when a printer is malfunctioning?

  3. Printer says  

    Privacy! Privacy!

  4. thanks columbia  

    how useful is it considering this program will simply say 'ALL PRINTERS ARE BROKEN. YOU'RE FUCKED. BUT THANKS FOR YOUR 40K PER YEAR.'?

    i guess it's better than going all the way to the printers to find this out, but it's hard to get too happy.

  5. Color  

    Also, does anyone know if the Columbia College printing quota will cover the Color printer in IAB?

  6. Lies!

    Everyone knows that at least one of the Carman printers is malfunctioning at any given time.

  7. woo  

    "butler213a malfunctioning"

    Yup, that sounds about right.

  8. wait  

    How horrible, it displays the last five jobs printed, the file name and the uni. So now I know that [redacted] lives in Broadway and is printing out a Pre-Law Recommendation Waiver Form. That is way, way too creepy, I don't want people knowing what I print, when I print, where I print.

  9. angry

    There should be a revolt about this.

  10. sauce  

    Or a Hun.... no I'm not gonna say it. It's played out.

  11. how can i  

    do all my work when ron paul is winning so much money...

  12. uh oh  

    Does this mean that the old ctrl+alt+backspace switcheroo is doomed?

  13. i really  

    don't get the ron paul fad... he's a conservative who actually embraces a couple of conservative values (mostly saving money, protecting the interests of wealthy people, smaller government, etc.), but other than that he's a very mediocre politician. he's horrible on the environment, education, labor, healthcare, etc. and his plan for leaving iraq is pretty uninformed.

    what is it you all love about him?

    • pgp  

      his support for liberty.

    • slytherin  

      you are so right about ron paul...he is a mediocre texas congressman from likely a gerrymandered district. so what if he has delivered 4000 babies in his lifetime. they are all going to grow up to be shitheads with ron paul's plan for healthcare. and oh yeah, i think ron paul forgets about FOREIGN POLICY. he is a disguised isolationist which is what we DONT need in the world today. we need diplomacy - that means talking to other countries also, the ron paul fad is the cool thing to do in politics today, something to do because the people around you are into him. well, most columbia students can't even VOTE for ron paul in the primaries because they are likely registered as fucking democrats, so who cares about this guy...he is a dead dog.

    • EAL  

      I could ask the same question about Obama. Talk about an ill-informed policy platform! This guy only needs to say a few catch phrases and appear with Oprah, and people love him. Sad that they don't realize that Obama may be one of the most naive of the Democrats running in this race. But people don't care about policy, they only seem to care if the guy looks good and speaks well.

      • yeah?  

        What parts of his policy platform are "ill-informed"? I'd be interested to know what you think is a bad idea.

        Also, the catch-phrase criticism seems a lot more applicable to Hillary Clinton; there is a lot more substance and analysis in Obama's speeches and debate than in Clinton's rehearsed rhetoric.

        But the naive complaint is the main thing I wanted to address, since this seems to be the only answer to Obama actually establishing himself as a candidate with vision beyond Clinton-Bush style power politics. Do you really believe that you, as a young 20-year old, know more about the world than an extremely smart individual who not only was in the political game before you hit puberty, but has been winning? He's been successful both on a political and legislative level. He became president of the Harvard Law Review in part because of his objective analysis, so maybe he figured something out; he's not dumb, nor unrealistic.

        I really think the naive label is thrown around in part because, since Obama rose fairly quickly and didn't have hard competition in his state, he's been able to be successfully without being beholden to as many interests as some of the other candidates, which gives him more flexibility with his policies and statements; the best response is to label it idealistic and naive.

        Whatever. This time around, people might just vote for the only candidate who seems to give a shit about anything. That more than anything is why Obama and Paul do well.

        • apologia  

          Wow, are you from Students for Obama or something? Shilling for his record on the Harvard Law Review? Really? Look, let's just lay it out there: Obama has neither national nor executive experience of substance. His record in the US Senate is thin and has a bad habit of missing votes. His supporters are relying on his judgment and charisma to qualify him, but it really is as Bill Clinton said - and Obama nomination and presidency is rolling the dice.

          Let me be clear, I do not support the Democratic or Republican candidates. I think they're all pretty flawed. But as long as there are broad similarities among the Dems, shouldn't you value experience somewhere along the line? Shouldn't the credibility that Dodd and Biden have with world leaders mean something? And on the GOP side, at least you have people that have run huge economies.

  14. liberty

    And by that, what do you mean? His opposition to the Patriot Act? Take your pick of the Democratic candidates... Maybe you just like using the word because you're a "libertarian."

    • That's funny,  

      because Barack Obama supported extending the Patriot Act in 2005. Ron Paul wants to scrap it. None of the leading Democrats have the guts to really oppose the Patriot Act. But good try, though.

  15. hmmm  

    Don't know if this helps, but the real Republicans at Columbia (you know the ones you probably hate anyway) do not support Ron Paul. It's only those crazy Libertarian kids who do.

  16. boo politics  

    hillary clinton = ice witch

  17. I'm loving

    how the conversation turned so seamlessly from a new webpage for printer statuses to the merits of presidential candidates.

  18. expert says  

    mitt romney is the devil... who im afraid may be able to melt the ice witch if they faced off in 2008. damn, we're screwed.

  19. soo...  

    printers... yeah...

    how'd we get on the topic of politics anyway? quite the tangent.

  20. ron paul  

    is a joke. libertarian ideals only sound good to those who are well off.

    dismantling any semblance of a federal safety net in favor of self-reliance? sure, it sounds good. but inevitably people will fuck up, and knowing this country it will be in large numbers. when there's squllions of senior citizens on the street, the government will be expected to step in... except, thanks to "dr. paul", there will be no money in the piggy bank so taxes will get raised.

    it's just more classic republican "borrow more today to increase quality of life and let the next generation pay for it" bullshit.

    sure, he's principled. and that's a refreshing quality in a politician. but it doesn't do us any good if his principles are broken. there's been loads of "principled" leaders in history who had the wrong idea, it usually results in spectacular failure.

    ron paul wants to dismantle the federal government and deregulate everything. go ahead and try to explain to me how giving corporate america even more leeway to do as it pleases in the name of next quarter is going to do good things for this country.

    • ludwig von mises  

      SHUT THE FUCK UP!

      what are you even talking about? your words are so substance-less. please be specific next time you try to attack a libertarian candidate. the federal safety net is already a broken principle. it makes zero sense to have a bohemoth in charge of your life when your state could do a better job. but why you would want any state in charge of your life i don't know.

  21. back to printers  

    huh, so next time a leaked study guide goes out, we'll be able to see who's printing it? or at least those who don't change the file name? interesting...

  22. since truman  

    there has not been one president that hasn't violated international law, not even jimmy carter. http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm there is no way in hell you can tell me that barack obama won't do it too.

  23. hmmm....

    Would that be including Truman or not? Because it would be strange not to include the only president ever to have deployed nuclear weapons. (Not that I have anything agains the man- he's actually one of my favorite presidents). What about FDR? Is carpet-bombing civilian population centers within the confines of international law? (Again, not to pick on FDR, or the tactics of the Allies in WWII).

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.