Re: [virtualcommons-svn] A possible collaberation

[Allen L. <All...@as...>]

Sorry, hit send prematurely - the full steps to a fix are:

1. Change the entry in src/main/resources/web/client.jnlp
2. Rerun ant deploy

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Allen Lee <All...@as...> wrote:
> Hi Micael,
>
> Yes, I've noticed this as well.. !#!$ oracle.  We've fixed it in our
> development trunk (http://bitbucket.org/virtualcommons/foraging) but
> that's undergoing heavy changes right now that you may not want to run
> just yet.
>
> The easiest thing to do is to simply remove the jogl entry from the
> client.jnlp file.  You can comment it out entirely and the app should
> still run fine since you're not running the 3D version.
>
>    <!--
>    <property name="sun.java2d.noddraw" value="true"/>
>    <extension name="jogl"
> href="http://download.java.net/media/jogl/builds/archive/jsr-231-webstart-current/jogl.jnlp"/>
>    -->
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...> wrote:
>> Hi Allen,
>> sorry to take this much time again. We were planning to run the experiments
>> very soon and were going to run a test round today. However, it turns out
>> that the system no longer works. I receive an error message saying that the
>> jogl resource is unsigned. Searching the web for this error message reveals
>> that oracle has removed the signature from the jogl jar-file, so that any
>> system using it will refuse to start.
>> The workarounds I found when searching includes compiling jogl and signing
>> it, together with all other code locally and then updating the system to use
>> the local copy instead, something I don't know how to do. Any ideas on how
>> to solve this?
>>
>> Regards
>> Micael Ehn
>>
>> 2010/11/23 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>>>
>>> Ok, this was an easy patch and should be fixed now.
>>>
>>> Micael, there's two ways you can get the changes:
>>>
>>> 1. (easier/faster if it works) run an "svn update" from the
>>> command-line wherever you installed the foraging software to get the
>>> new code and then re-run "ant deploy"
>>> 2. I've also updated the source package at
>>> http://dev.commons.asu.edu/src/foraging-with-censorship.zip if you
>>> want to just download the whole thing again and re-install and
>>> re-deploy it.  This should be a last resort if the first option
>>> doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Allen
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Allen Lee <All...@as...> wrote:
>>> > Hi Kimmo,
>>> >
>>> > Sorry for the confusion!  Making the lines wrap shouldn't be too
>>> > difficult (hopefully!) - I'll let you know when this is done.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Kimmo Eriksson <ki...@gm...> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Allen!
>>> >>
>>> >> We are very pleased to tell that we have at long last understood your
>>> >> email. All of us here read it as saying "I won't have time to finish
>>> >> this until next year at the earliest; if you wish to test what it
>>> >> looks like now, be my guest." For some reason I and Pontus re-read it
>>> >> now and realize what you are actually saying is "This is a complete
>>> >> version, please test it and give feedback if something needs
>>> >> changing." Sorry for the delay.
>>> >>
>>> >> We now eagerly tested to play the game and it is really good! The only
>>> >> thing we noticed needed improvement is a hopefully small thing with
>>> >> the censoring: When someone writes a long chat message, it will come
>>> >> out as a very long line on the facilitator's screen, making it
>>> >> difficult to get to the censoring buttons. We'd like line breaks to be
>>> >> inserted in long messages. Can this be arranged?
>>> >>
>>> >> We are enthusiastic about the prospect to run a study with censoring
>>> >> here in Sweden!
>>> >>
>>> >> best regards,
>>> >> Kimmo
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2010/9/21 Allen Lee <All...@as...>:
>>> >>> Ah ok, glad it's at least installed/running ok.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Realistically, I won't have time to make significant modifications to
>>> >>> the code until next year at the earliest; my programming efforts are
>>> >>> now focused on other projects.  That said, I would be happy to make
>>> >>> small changes / tweaks to the software as time permits.  The censoring
>>> >>> feature is enabled and functional (albeit crude and in need of UI/UX
>>> >>> interface improvement) so if you'd like to pretest it, try it out.
>>> >>> Even though I won't have much time to work on it, your feedback is
>>> >>> appreciated so if you have ideas on how to improve the gui (or any
>>> >>> other aspect of the software), do let us know.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you do end up running experiments or pretests and would like to
>>> >>> analyze the data afterwards, let me know and I'll work on some more
>>> >>> docs dealing with extracting data from the experiment.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Allen
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi, I'm not stuck at all, the game is running just fine. I was just
>>> >>>> wondering what the next step in this entire process is. Were you
>>> >>>> going to do
>>> >>>> some modifications to the game before we actually run it here?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> //Micke
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2010/9/21 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi Micael,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I've added some more detail on actually running the experiment
>>> >>>>> software here:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> http://commons.asu.edu/software/foraging/documentation#running-the-software
>>> >>>>> - is that where you're stuck?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Micael Ehn <mic...@gm...>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>> > Hi everyone
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > I have now managed to get the game running in our lab. What is the
>>> >>>>> > next
>>> >>>>> > step?
>>> >>>>> > // Micke
>>> >>>>> > 2010/5/27 Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> Sounds good.  We run our experiments on a Linux server as well so
>>> >>>>> >> that's not a problem at all.  If you'd like to get started first
>>> >>>>> >> you
>>> >>>>> >> can follow the steps listed here:
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> http://opensource.asu.edu/display/COMMONS/Foraging
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> The main things that you'll need on your Linux server is to make
>>> >>>>> >> sure
>>> >>>>> >> you have a Java 1.6 JDK and Ant installed.  Maven is an optional
>>> >>>>> >> dependency if you don't already have a webserver running on your
>>> >>>>> >> Linux
>>> >>>>> >> server and want to use Maven's Jetty plugin webserver.
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> Micael, I'll prepare a zipfile for you in the next few days that
>>> >>>>> >> has
>>> >>>>> >> the configuration parameters and so on set for the censoring
>>> >>>>> >> experiment.  In the meantime however if you'd like to just try
>>> >>>>> >> out the
>>> >>>>> >> software first feel free to download it and install it via the
>>> >>>>> >> instructions above and please let me know if you have any
>>> >>>>> >> questions.
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Pontus Strimling
>>> >>>>> >> <pon...@gm...> wrote:
>>> >>>>> >> > Sounds great Allen. The man in contrll of our lab is a PhD
>>> >>>>> >> > student by
>>> >>>>> >> > the name of Micael. His email is "Micael Ehn"
>>> >>>>> >> > <mic...@gm...>.
>>> >>>>> >> > Our lab runs on Linux is that a problem?
>>> >>>>> >> >
>>> >>>>> >> > Pontus
>>> >>>>> >> >
>>> >>>>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Allen Lee <All...@as...>
>>> >>>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>>>> >> >> Hi Kimmo, Pontus:
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >> I've got an initial version of censored chat implemented and
>>> >>>>> >> >> would
>>> >>>>> >> >> like to take the next steps to deploy our software over on
>>> >>>>> >> >> your end
>>> >>>>> >> >> so
>>> >>>>> >> >> you can play with it, provide feedback, etc.  Is there a tech
>>> >>>>> >> >> person
>>> >>>>> >> >> that I should coordinate with directly?
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >> Thanks!
>>> >>>>> >> >> Allen
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Marco Janssen
>>> >>>>> >> >> <Mar...@as...>
>>> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Hi Kimmo,
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Yes, it is probably best if we make here changes to the code.
>>> >>>>> >> >>> It
>>> >>>>> >> >>> should not be too hard. We need to restrict the number of
>>> >>>>> >> >>> messsages
>>> >>>>> >> >>> people
>>> >>>>> >> >>> can send in a timeslot so that an experimenter can approve
>>> >>>>> >> >>> those
>>> >>>>> >> >>> messages in
>>> >>>>> >> >>> time.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> It would be very helpful if experiments can be run in
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Stockholm. It
>>> >>>>> >> >>> will be interesting to see whether the same behavior is
>>> >>>>> >> >>> observed
>>> >>>>> >> >>> with
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Swedish students (I expect so).
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Marco
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>>> >> >>> From: Kimmo Eriksson [mailto:ki...@gm...]
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:27 AM
>>> >>>>> >> >>> To: Marco Janssen
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Cc: Pontus Strimling; Allen Lee
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Subject: Re: A possible collaberation
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Hello! It is interesting to hear that you are already
>>> >>>>> >> >>> thinking
>>> >>>>> >> >>> along
>>> >>>>> >> >>> these lines.
>>> >>>>> >> >>> (And sorry it took us two weeks to reply.)
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> I and Pontus are convinced such a study would be very
>>> >>>>> >> >>> important,
>>> >>>>> >> >>> and
>>> >>>>> >> >>> would
>>> >>>>> >> >>> like to make it happen. I think the development is best done
>>> >>>>> >> >>> at
>>> >>>>> >> >>> your
>>> >>>>> >> >>> end. We
>>> >>>>> >> >>> can contribute with ideas and with development money from our
>>> >>>>> >> >>> grants,
>>> >>>>> >> >>> and we
>>> >>>>> >> >>> can run the study in Stockholm.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> How does that sound to you?
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> Kimmo
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>> 2010/4/14 Marco Janssen <Mar...@as...>:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Hi Kimmo,
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> I have considered this option too, and I have seen other
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> doing
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> this
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> in
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> more regular experimental economics games. We notice that
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> participant type a lot of messages, so we need to check
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> whether
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> such
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> a
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> set up will reduce the amount of chat traffic, otherwise it
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> will
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> be
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> difficult for the monitor to approve messages (we have
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> typically
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> 10
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> 15 people at the same time).
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Related to CT3 I have considered the possibility to have
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> them
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> talking
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> about a) something they all agree on unrelated to the game
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> b)
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> something
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> there might be disagreement about (whether a particular
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> sports
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> team
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> is
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> the best) unrelated to the game. I can imagine even this
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> might
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> have
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> an
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> effect.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Marco
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> From: Kimmo Eriksson [mailto:ki...@gm...]
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:58 PM
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> To: Marco Janssen
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Cc: Pontus Strimling; Allen Lee
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: A possible collaberation
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Hello Marco, hi Allen!
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Those are good ideas, Marco. For T3, I would argue that we
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> for
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> each
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> round randomize the order of the players and let them each
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> in turn
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> have their say about rules.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> I'll just present what I and Pontus had in mind instead, and
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> then
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> try
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> to figure out which approach is preferable.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> We were thinking of having a research assistant "censoring"
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> communication differently in various treatments:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT1: Participants are told that they are free to chat, but
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> that
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> "avoid abuse" all messages are routed via a "censor" who
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> must
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> approve
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> of the message before it is relayed to other players.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT2: Participants are told that they can chat only about
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> how to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> play
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> the game, and that to avoid abuse....
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT3: Participants are told that they can chat only about
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> things
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> not
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> related to how to play the game, and that to avoid abuse ...
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> - CT4:  Participants are told that they can chat only after
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> game
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> is finished, and that to avoid abuse ...
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> The advantage of this setup, I think, is the overall
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> similarity
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> between manipulations. Our hypothesis, then, is that there
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> will be
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> no
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> difference in outcome between the high control CT1 and CT2
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> but a
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> worse
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> outcome of CT3. It is also interesting whether CT3 gives a
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> better
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> outcome than the low control CT4.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> The disadvantages with this setup seem to be of a practical
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> nature:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> (1) It may be difficult to implement the censoring feature
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> in the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> software. I guess Allen would be able to answer that.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> (2) It may be difficult for the censor to make quick
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> decisions on
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> whether to approve messages. (My guess is this is not a
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> problem; I
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> think it would be pretty easy given a little training. Also,
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> given
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> that a rule is declared most participants will probably
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> follow it
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> directly without trying the patience of the censor.)
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> Kimmo
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> 2010/4/13 Marco Janssen <Mar...@as...>:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Pontus,
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> There are indeed a number of variations we can do with the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> pacman
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> environment to test the effect of communication. I think
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> participants know that they are in the same group, even if
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> they
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> are
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> overharvesting a resource. But once they communicate the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> framing
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> of
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> problem is changed from competition to collaboration. An
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> initial
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> idea
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> test this is the following:
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T1: before the participants know what the experiment is
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> about
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> get
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> time to chat with eachother for a number of minutes. They
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> are
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> informed
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that they will be in the same group during the experiment
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> but do
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> not
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> get
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> info what it is about.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T2: instead of communication, the participants can write
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> how
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> they
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> like
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> to coordinate the round. They can only write one message
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> and see
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> messages of others after they have submitted theirs.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Although one
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> way
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication does not lead to very good coordination, this
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> treatment
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> is
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> focused on setting rules. An alternative might be that one
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> randomly
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> defined person is asked to define the rules for the next
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> round
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> (to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>> avoid
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> confusion).
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - T3: Participants receive a message that the best way to
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> improve
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> earnings is to follow a number of rules. This is a message
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> provided
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> by
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> us.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> - control treatments are no communication, and traditional
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> chat.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> I expect that T1 will lead to significant higher earnings
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> than no
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication, just because they now see this as a group
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> task.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Marco
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> I cc Allen Lee, the computer wizkid who implements the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> software.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> From: Pontus Strimling [mailto:pon...@gm...]
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:58 AM
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> To: Marco Janssen; Kimmo Eriksson
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Subject: A possible collaberation
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Marco!
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Me and Kimmo where discussing the effects of communication
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> on
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> collaboration in social dilemmas. Basically we see two
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> possible
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> effects: one is that people bond through communicating and
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> become
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> more
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> collaborative in general through recognising that the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> others are
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> humans in a similar situation. The other possibility is
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> that they
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> use
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> the communication to set rules (like instance this corner
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is mine
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> this
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is yours and so on). We believe that the later one is the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> more
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> important one but can't find any experiment that has showed
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> this.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> So
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> we thought we'd ask you if you have any thought on the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> subject
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> and
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> if
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> you'd be interested in working with us on testing this in
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> your
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> pac
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> man
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> game? Our idea is that we would manipulate what kind of
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> communication
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> we allow them before they play and them let them play the
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> game as
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> is.
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best regards
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> Pontus
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>>
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >> --
>>> >>>>> >> >> Allen Lee
>>> >>>>> >> >> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>>> >>>>> >> >> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> >>>>> >> >> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>>> >>>>> >> >> 85287-2402
>>> >>>>> >> >> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>> >>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>> >> >
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >>
>>> >>>>> >> --
>>> >>>>> >> Allen Lee
>>> >>>>> >> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>>> >>>>> >> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> >>>>> >> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>>> >>>>> >> 85287-2402
>>> >>>>> >> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Allen Lee
>>> >>>>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity
>>> >>>>> [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> >>>>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona
>>> >>>>> 85287-2402
>>> >>>>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Allen Lee
>>> >>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> >>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>>> >>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Allen Lee
>>> > Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> > Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>>> > Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Allen Lee
>>> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
>>> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
>>> Office: 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Allen Lee
> Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
> School of Human Evolution and Social Change [http://shesc.asu.edu]
> College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
> Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
> 480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671 | e-mail: all...@as...
>



-- 
Allen Lee
Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity [http://csid.asu.edu]
School of Human Evolution and Social Change [http://shesc.asu.edu]
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Arizona State University | P.O. Box 872402 | Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402
480.727.0401 | Fax: 480.965.7671 | e-mail: all...@as...