Every Friday, the Daily Texan editorial board will publish a selection of tweets and online comments culled from the Daily Texan website and the various Daily Texan Twitter accounts, along with direct submissions from readers.
Our intention is to continue the tradition of the Firing Line, a column first started in the Texan in 1909, in which readers share their opinions “concerning any matter of general interest they choose.” Just like in 1909, the Texan “will never express its approval or disapproval of opinions given under the [Firing Line] header.” In other words, take your shot.
Submissions can be sent to [email protected]. Submissions are edited for length.
We should all work harder to lower emissions
I found myself concerned after recently reading “University Conducts New, Comprehensive Inventory of Greenhouse Gases.” It’s upsetting to hear that although there are recent efforts to collect more information on greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing being done to combat the problem. What is the point of having all this knowledge if there is a lack of effort to solve this monumental issue?
We already know global warming is rising quickly and significantly. Rather than focusing on finding more accurate numbers on the greenhouse gas emissions, it might be more beneficial to look at the bigger picture and take steps to solve the present problem at hand. If the people of Austin were more informed on the information about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, they might be more willing to take action. It is important to use this information collected by the University Campus Planning and Facilities Management as evidence for the rising effects global warming has on our planet currently and in the future. Steps need to be taken immediately.
— Mary Forster, economics sophomore
In response to our call for Abbott to defend plastic bag bans
Internet fee proposal not as bad as feared
Even under the new proposal, UT will continue to allow unlimited transfers to other University sites (e.g. www.utexas.edu, Blackboard, etc.). This would only affect access to services not on campus. As more services move to the cloud (e.g. Canvas, Box, UTmail), having Internet bandwidth will become more of a necessity.
As for having “no data on the type of bandwidth students use”, that is a bit more complicated. The University does have data on what sites people are accessing, but determining whether or not it is course-related is not really feasible. If someone is watching a Netflix video, it could be class-related, or it could be recreational. There are people who do research on social networking, so accessing Facebook and Twitter for them might be school-related, whereas for most others, it probably is not. Also, as more content is hosted on shared cloud resources (e.g. Canvas is hosted on Amazon Web Services, but so are a number of other sites and services), it gets even more difficult to distinguish what traffic to Amazon is course-related and what is not. Under this proposal, the University would *not* be the ones determining what activity is school-related and what isn’t (and taking measures to limit or block the latter).
— Online commenter “Jason,” in response to Amanda Almeda’s opinion column, “Planned fee for campus Internet saddles students with extra cost.”
Your column on alcohol sales at games is random
