From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #1
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date:    1984-01-04 21:14:33 PST

HUMAN-NETS Digest        Thursday, 5 Jan 1984      Volume 7 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
               Administrivia - Testimony of Willis Ware,
                  Query - The Plethora of Networks,
                 Input Devices - Keyboards (5 msgs),
              Computer Security - Passwording (2 msgs),
         Computers and People - Augmented Global Consciousness
                    News Article - Doomsday Clock
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 84 13:21:47 EST
From: Charles 
Subject: Testimony of Willis Ware

    I have received a transcript of testimony of Mr. Willis Ware on
Information Systems, Security and Privacy before a Congressional
Subcommittee that may be of interest to Human-nets readers.  The file
containing the testimony is too large for digesting (40,000
characters), so I offer it to human-nets folks for FTPing.  For
ARPAnet readers, the file is on RUTGERS, in:

                testimony.txt.

   To FTP it, you should use login name ANONYMOUS, with any password.
For those who receive the digest on through a redistribution gateway,
you can FTP the file from your gateway.  Consult the following table.

Gateway                         File
--------                ------------------
SU-SCORE                TESTIMONY.TXT
OFFICE-3                TESTIMONY.TXT
MIT-OZ                  SRC:testimony.txt

   Login with name Anonymous, any Password.  Those who receive digests
via DEC-MARLBORO have already received a copy.  Due to some sort of
unfortunate mix-up at PARC-MAXC, those who receive digests via that
path will have a delay being able to FTP the file.

Thanks,

Charles

------------------------------

Date: Wed 28 Dec 83 21:59:55-PST
From: David Rogers 
Subject: plethora of networks

    Um, excuse me if this has already been asked, but would someone
care to take a stab at the multitude of networks, given a 1-2 line
explanation of who is connected to who, who pays the bills, types of
institutions on it, etc? Or is there some central network "document"
that can be FTP'd?  I find myself lost with ARPAnet, MILnet, USEnet,
CSNET, BITNET, UUCP, ...  (And is there a simple way to decode those
arf!woof!rowf!etc addresses I keep seeing?)

David Rogers

------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 1983 22:47:08 PST
From: 
Subject: Keyboards ...

This recent talk about qwerty vs dvorak keyboards makes me think
of another kind of keyboards that you-all see every day ...

Have you ever noticed that there are two flavors of numeric only
keyboards: The kind you have on the right side of your terminal
and the kind you have on your phone ?

Apparently the guy who designed the phone keypad way not aware
of the existence of calculators, so he laid out a keypad that
he felt was nice - and it ended up becoming an international
standard for touch-tone telephones.

In my native Denmark, however, they did not get touch-tone tele-
phones until AFTER the japanese pocket calculator revolution,
and a smart guy at the phone company insisted that the new telephones
be in accordance with the numeric keypads people were used to,
so in Denmark, a telephone keypad looks like this:
        7       8       9
        4       5       6
        1       2       3
        *       0       #
(When these phones are sold in the US, however, they are
fitted with crazy AT&T keypads).

                Lars Poulsen 

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 1983 05:22-PST
Subject: DVORAK Keyboards
From: CDR Jeff Ackerson (ACKERSON@USC-ISI)

        The January 1984 issue of "Digital Review", a relatively new
magazine for DEC microcomputer users, has an article on keyboard
ergonomics in it.  Page 121 has a picture of a DVORAK keyboard
layout (mapped to the DEC standard keyboard).  You should be able
to find the magazine at a local computer store at $3.95 (if they
won't let you browse).

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 29 December 1983 10:22 est
From: Chris Jones 
Subject: Dvorak keyboards

The following is taken from "New England Business" magazine (sorry,
all I have is a copy which doesn't include date or page numbers).

          [begin article]

Farewell to Qwerty

     Just when you thought you had finally mastered the standard
typewriter keyboard, what do they do to you?  They change the location
of the keys.  The standard location of keys is called Qwerty, named
after the first six letters on the keyboard, and dates back to the
19th century.  On a Qwerty keyboard, the most frequently struck keys
were spread out.  That was designed to purposely slow the operator
down so the arms of the old typewriter wouldn't jam.  But there's no
need for that anymore with modern computers.  The new keyboard layout,
called the Dvorak after August Dvorak, isn't really new.  Dvorak, a
time-motion scientist, copyrighted the design in 1936.  It places the
most frequently used keys on the same row ("home row"), greatly
reducing the distance the fingers must travel, and therefoby
increasing speed.
     Virginia Russell, president of the Dvorak International
Federation, said the current interest in going Dvorak and the large
number of computer makers that are including Dvorak capability, leads
here to believe conversion will be swift and widespread.  The leading
support for conversion, she says, comes from the American National
Standards Institute--those folks who bring us 8-1/2 by 11 paper and
all the other common standards in use.  Members include
manufacturers, technical societies, consumer groups and government
agencies.  "Every day, I hear about someone new using it," she said.
Harvard University has equipped all of its computer keyboards with the
capability to convert to the Dvorak system.  She estimated that there
are now 10,000 people nationwide who use it.
     "We're not shoving it down anyone's throat," she said.  But the
Dvorak is so much faster, gives the operator so much less fatigue, and
produces so few errors that its use is inevitable, she said.  A person
using Dvorak can type 32 times more words on its home row than on
Qwerty's home row (A, S, D, F ...).
     Russell estimates that a person who now types 100 words a minute
will increase speed to 120 words a minute.  (An average person types
closer to 60 words a minute.) It will take a typist who has converted
to Dvorak about 40 hours of typing to get back to original speed, she
said, and then the improvement comes after that.  A beginning typist
using Dvorak, she said, will reach 40 words a minute in 18 hours.  The
best way for a typist to convert is to start all over, to start from
scratch as if you never typed before.

          [end of article]

There is a diagram which goes with the article which I've attempted to
reproduce below.  It gives the layout of the Dvorak keyboard.  My copy
is blurred, but it looks like the number keys are in the same place
and have the standard Selectric symbols over them (although I don't
know if Dvorak copyrighted that or not).  I can't tell what's to the
right of the zero or to the left of the comma.  The diagram has + over
=, ? over /, _ over -, and : over ;.

              Dvorak Keyboard layout

          1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   0       =
               ,   .   P   Y   F   G   C   R   L   /
            A   O   E   U   I   D   H   T   N   S   -
             ;   Q   J   K   X   B   M   W   V   Z

------------------------------

Date: Thu 29 Dec 83 18:11:28-PST
From: David Rogers 
Subject: DVORAK keyboards

    For you DEC20 hackers, there is a hidden command in the standard
DEC PTYCON program which is (you guessed it!) DVORAK. It makes the
standard QWERTY keyboard emulate a DVORAK keyboard, so that you can
"talk" to your pseudojob with a pseudo-DVORAK keyboard. I would guess
that this kind of front-end would be simple to write for almost any
computer system...  well, ALMOST any....

David

------------------------------

Date: 2 January 1984 02:49 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle 
Subject: DVORAK Keyboards

You exaggerate the gains made by switching to Dvorak keyboard.
They're impressive, but not anything (on average) like 100%;
more like a constant 25% gain in productivity.  The problem is
not learning Dvorak but in going back to qwerty if you have to
alternate.

------------------------------

Date: Thu 29 Dec 83 23:29:23-PST
From: Ken Laws 
Subject: Re: Passwords - An alternative

I once read that the inter-character timing profile (suggested by
Paul Bame) was being investigated by the Pentagon; it was reported
to work well.  Telegraphers and ham operators can similarly be
identified by their "fists".

                                        -- Ken Laws

------------------------------

Date: 30 December 1983 04:09 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas 
Subject: Passwords

Your claim that a 4-letter password is as good as a 9-letter password
is false. Your claim is equivalent to saying all possible passwords
are equally likely so any is as good as any other. But in fact most
people are lazy and pick meaningful and/or short passwords, so
password crackers start with short and/or meaningful passwords when
guessing, because it improves their odds in general, so if you pick a
long meaningless password they are less likely to guess it than if you
pick a short or meaningful one. If everyone else in the world picked
totally random maximum-length passwords, there'd be no advantage to
guessing short or meaningful ones first, in fact there'd be a
disadvantage guessing short ones, so the longer ones would be tried
first, and in random order, when guessing. Then your claim that
4-letter passwords are fine would be valid (providing you never opened
your mouth or fingers that you were using a short password of course;
lest the crackers modify their program to guess short passwords just
for your account). But as things stand now, being lazy like others is
the best way to let a cracker into your account.

------------------------------

Date: 26-Dec-83 16:59 PST
From: Kirk Kelley  
Subject: why a self-referential collaboration?

In response to the message proposing an augmented global consciousness
project, someone wanted clarified why the lifetime of the project was
chosen rather than some other topic for simulation.  I can think of a
few motivations off the top of my head.

   * the focus for the simulation must start somewhere.

   * all of the technology on which a tele-collaborated simulation
     would depend makes it a nice springboard out to other issues.

   * it would be a worthy first goal and test if the collaboration
     could justify its own existence.

   * pulling itself up by the bootstraps gives the collaboration a
     form of self sufficiency (local dependency, really) that
     accelerates viable development.

   * self reference may be an essential ingredient of consciousness.

Also requested were details on how the simulation would be formed and
run, and how people would interact to refine it.  Any ideas?

 -- kirk

------------------------------

Date: Mon 2 Jan 84 05:07:41-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  
Subject: DOOMSDAY CLOCK at 3 minutes to midnight !!

        DOOMSDAY CLOCK NOW 3 TICKS TO HOLOCAUST
        --------------------------------------

Washington (AP) - In a gesture of despair and with a prediction that
worse is yet to come in 1984, the editors of the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists have advanced the minute hand of their famous
"doomsday clock" as a symbol of humanity's advance toward the nuclear
abyss.

The movement of the hands as they appear on the face of each issue of
the magazine symbolize the editors' evaluation of the danger of
nuclear warfare.

The hands are now fixed at 3 minutes to midnight. They have been
closer to midnight only once in their 37 year history - in 1953, after
the development of the hydrogen bomb by the US and the USSR.

The 1-minute advance Thursday was the first change since 1981, when
the editors cited the development of nuclear weapons designed for
fighting war instead of deterring war as a dangerous step.

At a news conference here, James Cracraft, an expert on the Soviet
Union and a professor of history at the University of Illinois at
Chicago, said, "1983 was a bad year for US-Soviet relations and 1984
promises to be even worse."

He cited the suspension and possible breakdown in all American-Soviet
negotiations and the prospect that progress will be frozen in 1984 by
the imponderables of leadership questions, with a new election in the
US and a succession struggle likely in the Kremlin.

The doomsday clock was created when the magazine was started in 1947
by scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project, which developed
the atomic bomb.

The hands were then set at seven minutes to midnight.  They have been
moved 10 times since, mostly to move closer to midnight.

They were pushed back in 1960, with a thaw in the Cold War; in 1963
with the signing of a partial test ban treaty; in 1969 with the
ratification of the non-proliferation treaty; and, for the last time,
in 1972 with the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.

The setting is changed in consultation with a committee of 47
sponsors, including 18 Nobel prize winners.

In an editorial, the magazine, which has a circulation of about
25,000, explained the reasoning for advancing the minute hand:

"The point is not simply that discussions have proved difficult, that
negotiations have been slow and protracted, that talks have been
impeded by distrust.  It is, rather, that the US and the USSR seem,
for the moment at least, to have given up on the possibility of
serious talks.  They are, it appears, at the point of abandoning
altogether the effort to seek accommodation through negotiation."

------------------------------

End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #2 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-05 02:50:43 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 5 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Computers and the Law - Big Computer is Watching You (2 msgs) & How "High Society" gets its two cents, Computers and People - Japan and US on New Generation computing & Augmented Global Consciousness Computer Security - Passwording (2 msgs), Computer Networks - Usenet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 2 Jan 84 05:08:51-CST From: Werner Uhrig Subject: the IRS welcomes you to 1984 ... (a true story) *** IRS OBTAINS LIST OF INCOMES TO TRACK DOWN TAX EVADERS *** ------------------------------------------------------------------- (NY Times Service) -- The IRS has obtained a computerized list of the estimated incomes of 2 million American households and has begun to test if the list can track down people who fail to pay their taxed. IRS is conducting the test despite the refusal of the 3 major companies that develop such information to give the government a list, and over the objections of their trade organization, the Direct Marketing Association. In the test, a commercially prepared list of 2 million households in Brooklyn, NY [exclusive Manhattan]; Wisconsin; northern Ohio; Indiana; and Nevada will be matched against an IRS list of people who filed income tax returns for 1982. All those whose names appear on the commercial list but not the IRS list will be notified that they are subject to a revenue service inquiry about their tax liability. The notices will start going out next spring. If the test identifies people who file no taxes at all, the service will try to determine if the same technique can be used to track whose who underpay. The decision on wether to use the technique nationwide will be made after 1985. [ BTW - the company which decided to provide the data to the IRS, the Dunhill Company of Washington, DC, is not a member of the Direct Marketing Association, so getting the DMA address from your local BBB and writing them to request removal of your name from the files of all their members would not have helped] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 84 14:39:25 EST From: Jonathan Dreyer Subject: Thoughtcrime FBI BOARD CONSIDERS FILE ON SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE Associated Press NEW YORK--An FBI advisory board is considering whether to recommend expanding a national computerized file to contain information on people who aren't wanted for crimes but are considered suspicious, the New Your Times reported yesterday. Under a proposal under consideration, the National Crime Information center would have information on whether someone was suspected of organized crime connections, terrorism or narcotics or was a "known associate" of a drug trafficker, the Times said. An unidentified top FBI official told the Times a decision on the matter, first discussed Oct. 6 by the center's policy board, would not be made for some time. The proposed enlargement of the FBI's system would, law enforcement officials said, improve their ability to fight crime, track wrongdoing and help protect police against dangerous criminals. According to the agenda of the October meeting, the new "investigative applications" would represent "a logical progression" of the national crime center's efforts. The Times said the most controversial of 15 such applications was the proposed use of the FBI computer to track "known associates" of people who are named in warrants for arrest. Lee Colwell, executive assistant director of the FBI, said FBI director William Webster wouldn't act on the proposals until he had carefully and systematically reviewed them, according to the Times. The policy board has 28 members--21 state and local enforcement officials, three prosecutors, two judges, a prison administrator and a probation officer, the Times said. (from the Boston Globe, January 2, 1984 (!)) ------------------------------ Date: 2 January 1984 02:50 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: How "High Society" gets its two cents I can see how High Society can get paid for calls made to their number, because the customers are paying; but I am told that Club Magazine also gets paid for calls made to their 800 number for "Free Phone Sex". I've been unable to figure out how anyone makes money by giving out the number for "Free Phone Sex". ------------------------------ Date: 2 January 1984 03:07 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. views (2 msgs) Perhaps I have missed your point? 1. Is it your contenton that the United States shold disarm, or, failing that, simply not provide modern weapons to the armed forces? 2. Was it your point that the Defense Advanced Redearch Projects Agency should be engaged in pure research for purely civilian purposes? 3. Is it your point that defense of Western Civilization is not "for the good of mankind"? I should have thought that had we the military power to do so, we might consider it a benefit to all to dismantle the Gulag, and perhaps guarantee a "freedom of exodus"; and that would "benefit mankind". 4. Is it your contention that only DARPA is working on advanced computers in the US? 5. I should have thought that one advantage the Japanese have is their reliance on the US military for their protection, allowing them to keep their Self-defense forces comparatively small and thus inexpensive. Perhaps the US should adopt this policy? Or is it possible that wealthy nations simply don't need defense? ------------------------------ Date: 4-Jan-84 23:20 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Augmented Global Consciousness working definitions How exactly is a self-referential tele-collaborated simulation to be modeled? A model for the augmented global consciousness project needs working definitions. Here are some suggestions. tele-collaboration, a process of working together from a distance on a project. self-referential tele-collaboration, a tele-collaboration on a model of itself. For the model, simple difference equations with a time unit of one year would go pretty far. model, a set of difference equations designed to compute the values of a set of variables representing the state of a system for one unit of time. simulation, the computation of the equations in a model over time. change-message, a message that changes the computation in a tele-collaborated simulation. life-time (of a tele-collaborated simulation), the number of time units between the times when the total change-messages are zero. Collaborators work together from a distance to formulate equations and compute the life-time of the process. Would such a "consciousness" ever begin? End? -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: 30 December 1983 04:20 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Passwords: Is there a better way? Being required to manually permute whatever the computer throws at you has several problems. First, it's very painful and prone to error and frustration. Second, it makes you type slowly so somebody watching you can see what you're doing, jot it down (with the challange) and figure out offline your permutation algorithm. Third, it's awful hard to remember a particular permutation unless it's a trivial one that would be easy to guess (such as simple rotation or pair-swapping), whereas even ridiculous passwords like aleminco are relatively easy to memorize after a little practice. Forth it's considerably harder to program your microcomputer to log in on your behalf using a permutation scheme because it must parse the challange-sequence given by the host in order to figure out what sequence to send. Fifth, just try documenting this to novice users who never had a math course past Algebra 1 (haven't the foggiest what a permutation is) and are afraid of computers! I think we're stuck with passwords/numbers for direct human confirmation, or some physical characteristic like fist size when jammed down on the keyboard or typing speed or fingerprint etc., and public-key encryption for intelligent-terminal access to host via packet protocol. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 13:36:57 EST From: Adam Moskowitz Subject: Passwords: Is there a better way ? (V6 #87) In Response To: Randy Saunders' message of 23 Dec 1983 01:03 CST Such a scheme has been discussed for use on such networks as the ARPA-net and the MILNET. However, the idea was taken, at least on paper, one step further. Each user would be issued a credit-card- sized 'encryptor'. When the user logged on, the system would present him/her with a challenge. The user would then type this challenge (most likely a 10-12 digit number) into his/her 'encryptor'. The 'encryptor' would permute the challenge via an UNKNOWN algorithm ans display a reply. The user then types in this reply. Ths system then permutes the same challenge with the SAME UNKNOWN (except to the system) algorithm and compares the user's reply to the answer it gets. This method, if it ever gets implemented, has several advantages: 1) The user cannot divulge his/her algorithm because s/he DOES NOT KNOW what it is ! If the user gives away the 'encryptor', s/he now has no way of gaining access to the system. 2) New 'encryptors' can be issued when if security is ever breached. Old 'encryptors' then become obsolete. I don't know if/when this scheme will ever come to life. I hope I haven't breached any security restrictions by talking about it, but I heard it at aa 'open' meeting. It must be OK to talk about it. AdamM (adamm @ bbn-unix) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 1618-PST From: Chuck McManis Subject: Passwords etc The state of the art in terminal design is such that what used to be a small minicomputer is now regularly included in the terminal as "smarts." These rather sophisticated microcomputers are capable of any number of physical parameter analysis given the hardware or even limited voice recognition capabilities. For instance, if one were to include a 256K buffer (additional 8 chips) and an Analog to Digital converter (one chip) And a rather simple Fourier transform algorithim, you could program your terminal to only go "online" when *you* said "open sesame!". Also a computer could verify your login by asking the terminal for the results of its fourier analysis (probably 10 to 20 floating point numbers) and compare them to its files. We all know how tough it is to get a voice interface to recognize the same word from more than one person now so I don't see how even a good impressionist, even if he/she new your passphrase could duplicate it. One might additionally place a ETM type card reader on any RS232 line for access verification. Simply slip in your card and login as yourself (with your password) and poof! you must be physically there or your card wouldn't be there. If you lose you card, cancel it, and you should be able to do that before anyone who found it had guessed your password. Both of these systems are implementable today, in the future I think we can look forward to a simple thumbprint scanner for verification, this is a bit tougher due to the image processing constraints and equipment cost restraints. --Chuck P.S. Note that in the above Voice suggestion the floating point numbers could be encrypted as character strings and the encryption sent. you could still defeat it by trying to guess the numbers but 20 10 digit numbers with floating decimal point could be hard to crack. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1984 1724-PST From: Chuck McManis Subject: Usenet messages Another point to consider on the relative quality of usenet vs. Arpanet messages might be that a large fraction of the ARPA computers are based in "think tanks" and colleges. Whereas a usenet computer can be anything from a research computer at some large company to an IBM pc in someones home. Giving access to an entirely different sort of computer user. --Chuck ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #3 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-06 03:05:32 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 6 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Responce to Query - Networks, Networks Everywhere Computers and the Law - The IRS welcomes you to 1984 Input Devices - Keyboards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 01:34:37 pst From: fair%ucbarpa@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair) Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #1 Re: The Plethora of Networks Since I have been at an ARPANET site for about three years, and a USENET site for the same amount of time, I think I can comment on some of the Networks that exist out there. Particularly since Berkeley has become a gateway for several of them. ARPANET Brought to you by the fun folks at DARPA, it was one of the very first experiments with computer networking, and certainly the first on a national (and later international) scale. It is centrally controlled and implicitly routed (i.e. the network figures out how to get from point a to point b). To join, you have to have a gov't sponsor and it is for the execution of official gov't business & research. (sure it is...) In so far as I am aware, all links are faster than 9.6Kbaud, and a good number of them are 56Kbaud. All appear to be dedicated. Number of sites is somewhere between 250 and 300. If you choose to count the whole internet, things get a little bigger. Anyone have any ideas about the number of internet sites? Three basic services are offered by the ARPANET: FTP File Transfer Program (fetch/send files anywhere) telnet Interactive access to other hosts on the network MAIL Electronic Mail MILNET Stepchild of the ARPANET (or perhaps goosestepping child?), MILNET is where the military sites gather to do the same things ARPANET does, without disruptions caused by networking reseach (i.e. it is a production version of the ARPANET). It split from the ARPANET in October of 1983. CSNET This is a network funded (initially, although they will be self-sufficient later on) for the purpose of Computer Science Research by the National Science Foundation (and probably many others). By `self-sufficient', I mean that the individual member sites of CSNET will pay the full cost of central control, administration, and ARPANET access. Last price I was quoted was $30K/year. Presently seems to be between 50-100 sites. I'm a little shaky on what this network has in terms of services, but here goes: Services seem to be limited to MAIL, but FTP is coming. Mail is handled with the MMDF software, which operates over the phone. There are two ARPANET gatways: UDEL-RELAY and RAND-RELAY. These two sites handle the phone traffic to the rest of the net (??) from the ARPANET. Network addressing is implicit. To get to a CSNET site from the ARPANET: mail person.site@RAND-RELAY (or UDEL-RELAY) BITNET This is a network of IBM hosts, and seems to be built along the same lines as the ARPANET (implicit addressing, dedicated lines, central control) but not all the sites have the same capabilites. Services supported: MAIL, and FTP (for those sites that have RSCS). Presently is about 50-60 sites. Founded by CUNY, after they got IBM to cough up the software that is used in the IBM internal VNET. I have no idea how fast it goes. Scope: national. To address someone on the BITNET from the ARPANET: mail person%site.BITNET@BERKELEY BERKELEY's mailer converts this to G:SITE=PERSON and it gets sent to UNIX G (in the UCB Computer Center), which in turn sends it to the IBM 4341 (UCBVMA on the BITNET), and from there it goes where it's supposed to... DEC Engineering NET (E-NET) This is DEC's internal network of engineering machines (now you know where VMS comes from!). It is centrally controlled, semi-implicitly routed (they are converting from an explicit routing scheme) and is composed of somewhere between 2000 and 2100 sites. Primary service seems to be MAIL, but there is no doubt some form of FTP as well. Speed seems to be somewhere in the higher ranges (4800+ baud), but I infer this from speed of mail propagation alone. This network is international in scope, with several European sites. For ARPAnauts, you can mail to the E-NET: mail decwrl!rhea!site!person@BERKELEY The site `decwrl' talks to `ucbvax' with UUCP. `ucbvax' is the ARPANET site BERKELEY. The mailer at decwrl converts address syntax to RHEA::SITE::PERSON and away it goes... There is a DEC site on the ARPANET (DEC-MARLBORO) which appears to do gatewaying duty now and again, but by hand only. This would be an ideal point to establish a real gateway (hint, hint...) (and now, for the grand finale... {drum roll please}) UUCP/USENET (ta da!) These two networks are forever intertwined, and from the ARPANET point of view, there is little difference between the two. By the nature of the beast they must be discussed together. UUCP is an acronym for Unix-to-Unix Copy, a file transfer and remote execution facility which operates over a direct line (max 9600baud) or over the phone lines (typically 1200 baud). Mail is transmitted through the network on a pass it on basis, and at present, only the mail software knows how to transfer stuff beyond a site's immediate neighbors. The UUCP network exists because some of my neighbors talk to some of your neighbors, so through them we can send mail to each other. The network has no central control, and no one knows how many sites there are, or how far the network extends. Anyone can join the network, all it takes is a UNIX system, and another site willing to talk to you. After four months of traffic analysis, I have found just over 2000 UUCP sites. USENET is a subset of the UUCP network. On top of the existing UUCP software, sites in this network run `netnews', which is a bboard system, also on a pass it on basis. Imagine a bboard system in which you post something, and you pass it on to the other USENET sites you talk to (and so on, and so on, ad nausem), until the whole network has seen the item you posted. The discussions are separated by topic, and if you thought that the ARPANET had a wide range mailing lists, the USENET has currently somewhere between 150-200 active network wide newsgroups discussing things as esoteric as UNIX bugs to mundane things like cooking. There are approximately 600 USENET sites covering the continental US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. There is a USENET directory kept by Karen Summers-Horton (cbosgd!map@BERKELEY), and it is posted monthly on the first of the month to net.news.map. The anarchy of the network is interesting. Among other things, it means that you must have an educated network community (ever try to educate people at 600 sites??) and punitive actions are very nearly impossible on a unilateral scale. It makes path routing difficult, however. The directory includes information about links that a particular site has, but it is up to the site to provide and maintain that information. Since the network is in a constant state of flux, it is very hard to map the whole thing. Unlike the ARPANET, usually the best you can do is get a snapshot. (finis) Now. Where I err, please correct me. Most of the networks mentioned get HUMAN-NETS in one form or another, so I expect that corrections will filter in over the next few days. However, on the whole, I don't think I have missed anything major. For the networkingly confused, I hope I have been of some help. This got just a touch longer than I had anticipated. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA RHEA::DECWRL::"amd70!dual!fair" {ucbvax,amd70,zehntel,unisoft,onyx,its}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 09:01:53 pst From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley Subject: the IRS welcomes you to 1984 ... (a true story) . . All those whose names appear on the commercial list but not the IRS list will be notified that they are subject to a revenue service inquiry about their tax liability. The notices will start going out next spring. . . I'm sure that I'm not the only one that always gives a slightly different name on give-away offers, subscription requests, conference registrations and the like. That way, I have some idea about who gave my name to whom and whether or not some important looking envelope is actually just junk mail. I also wonder how many other people are entirely truthful on all the forms we fill out. After all, if I register for a computer conference as the president of BYTEBUG CONSULTING, I'm certainly going to lie and tell them my income is at least six figures (else, how could I possibly afford the VAX/780 that I say I own?). I'd really be surprised if such lists are worth more than the paper they're printed on to the IRS. They'll probably pay several hundred thousands of tax-payer's dollars checking out "leads" their computer program generates. I'll really be surprised if they come out ahead. -roger long pertec computer corp -richard long bytebug research foundation -ralph long system software servies . . . ------------------------------ Date: Thu 5 Jan 84 09:53:01-PST From: Ken Laws Subject: Keyboards ... In reply to Lars@ACC: The "guy who devised the phone pad" was Bell Telephone Laboratories. They did human factors studies on the many numeric keypad arrangements in use on adding machines as well as on their own designs, then chose the arrangement leading to the fastest data entry with the fewest errors. These studies were specifically for telephone use by novices, and might not apply to calculator or computer applications. I wonder, though, whether the calculator manufacturers were as careful in designing their own layouts. On the subject of DVORAK keyboards: I am reprinting below two messages from the Editor-People discussion on this subject. [I have not cleared this with the authors: facts or opinions may have changed in the intervening two years.] -- Ken Laws Date: 10 Dec 1981 1928-EST From: GILBERT at MIT-XX (Ed Gilbert) Subject: Re: Moran's Comments I just want to comment on an aside you made in your message to editor-people. The QWERTY keyboard wasn't designed to slow people down. I don't have my reference materials here so I must hedge the details, but here is what really happened: In about the late 1870's Glidden and Sholes were working on a typewriter which would eventually evolve into the popular and long-lived Remington line. People operated the machine so quickly that the type bars would jam. They needed an arrangement of the type bar "basket" in which common sequences of two letters would have those two letters on opposite sides of the basket. In the most straightforward design of a manual typewriter this would have a direct effect on the keyboard layout, but they were interested in the type basket, not the keyboard. The brother of one of the two men, a high school principal, determined the arrangement. I do not consider myself an expert on the history of the typewriter, but I believe this to be true. The only person I have talked to who has done a lot of reading on the subject also feels that this is the correct story. It would seem that if all other variables were fixed and we only addressed the issue of whether two letter sequences appeared on the same or opposite side of the keyboard, then putting them on opposite sides would allow for faster typing. Other factors, such as which fingers type which keys, were probably not addressed at the time and may be the cause of the QWERTY keyboard's being slower than some other designs. Sorry for the long note about a minor point, but the myth that Glidden and Sholes were trying to slow people down is rather widespread and I thought people might like to hear the true story. By the way, it appears that touch typing was an invention; it didn't always exist. Its merits, in fact, were quite vigorously debated. Ed Gilbert From: sdcsvax!norman at NPRDC Date: 24 February 1982 0731-PST (Wednesday) Subject: qwerty, alphabetic, and dvorak keyboards Sigh, the Sholes versus Dvorak myth rises again. [...] I believe Borden [not reprinted -- KIL] is talking about the linotype keyboard, which uses the "shrdlu" arrangement. The Sholes keyboard (aka "qwerty") was designed for a typewriter so as to minimize the jamming of typebars as they moved to the platen. This caused the placement of frequent pairs as far from one another as possible. In fact, this SPEEDS typing because typing on alternate hands is faster than on the same hand (list of references and reprints of papers available on demand: see, for example Rumelhart & Norman in the next Cognitive Science). This point wasn't appreciated at the time because nobody thought of using all ten fingers, and typing without looking at the keyboard was unheard of; as someone else said, touch typing was a heroic, unexpected invention (and required a national typing speed contest to prove that it worked). There have been hundreds of studies comparing Dvorak arrangements with Sholes arrangements. Dvorak fans claim massive improvements in speed. (We have an old movie -- made by Dvorak in mid 1900's that makes remarkable claims.) However, experiments done by neutral parties tend to put the improvement around the 5 to 10% range -- not worth the effort. Card and Moran at Xerox Parc have a computational method of computing speed that yields numbers in that range and Rumelhart and I have a full fledged typing simulation model that, when given the Dvorak keyboard, only speeds up by 5%. As others have pointed out, you can get a far greater improvement in typing speed by moving the RETURN key, either to where it can be reached without distorting the hand (say by the left thumb which our studies show is not used by typists) or by having automatic RETURNs (as in various text editors). Kinkead put it this way: elimination of the RETURN key gives a minimum of 7% improvement in speed and "up to 30% when the original copy is not properly formatted." A while ago, I decided that alphabetically arranged keyboards would surely be better for first time typists, so we did some experiments. I was wrong. Randomly arranged keyboards and alphabetically arranged keyboards were equivalent. (Sholes arrangements were better, but that is probably because everyone has had some exposure to keyboards, even though we tried to study only non-typists.) On the typing simulation model, alphabetic keyboards were all slower than Sholes, confirming the fact that putting frequent pairs on opposite hands speeds up typing rate. Why wasn't alphabetic better? Because the mental effort to make use of the alphabetic arrangement is too much -- and most people don't know the alphabetic that well anyway (how far away -- and in what direction-- is "p" from "u"?, or even "e" from "i"?). If you want to improve typing speed, don't tinker with the current key layout, but do dramatic re-arrangements, as in the new 5 key hebrew keyboard (by Gopher) or the various chord keyboards suggested by ***Sender closed connection*** === brl netread error from RUTGERS at Fri Jan 6 05:58:18 ===


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #4 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-06 03:26:10 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 6 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Administrivia - House testimony on MIT-MC, Responce to Query - Networks, Networks Everywhere, Computers and the Law - Ma Bell and Privacy, Computer Security - Voice Recognition Passwording (3 msgs), Input Devices - Keypads and Dvorak Keyboards (3 msgs), Computer Networks - Usenet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 January 1984 02:03 EST From: Christopher C. Stacy Subject: House testimony The Willis Ware (on Information Systems, Security and Privacy) and the Geoff Goodfellow (on Telecommunications Security and Privacy) Congressional Subcommittee testimony transcriptions are also available on MIT-MC in the file COMMON;HOUSE WARE and COMMON;HOUSE GEOFF, respectively. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 16:11:36 pst From: dual!fair@Berkeley Subject: Two more comments on the DEC E-net --- BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE >From ucbvax!decwrl!rhea!lipman Thu Jan 5 12:33:42 1984 Date: Thursday, 5 Jan 1984 09:48:41-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #1 To: ucbvax!ucbarpa:fair Erik, That was a very useful note and I enjoyed reading it. I can give you a little more detail on the DEC-Enet. The DEC-Enet provides services via DECNET to a number of different operating systems on 3 different machine architectures. The DECSYSTEM 10's and 20's run TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 (nee TENEX). The PDP-11's run RSX, RSTS, and RT. And of course the VAXes run VMS. Though there are (a growing number of) VAXes within DEC running UNIX, they do not support DECNET and are not actually on the DEC-Enet. All of the above systems provide MAIL service. I am unsure about the DECNET capabilities of the TOPS-10 operating system, so the rest of this discussion does not apply to it. All the remaining systems provide remote terminal (TELNET) and file transfer (FTP) support. Some number of these systems provide a new "on line DEC Phone Book" service which looks very promising indeed. The VAX VMS operating system provides a significant set of additional capabilities that only operate between VMS systems. There is a PHONE program that provides the ability to call a user at another site and hold a conversation. I believe it can handle "conference calls" as well. A bulletin board like service is available called NOTES. And there is a very general capability to execute a program at the remote site and send results back. Peter >From ucbvax!decwrl!rhea!lipman Thu Jan 5 12:33:57 1984 From: ucbvax!decwrl!rhea!lipman Date: Thursday, 5 Jan 1984 09:49:21-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #1 To: ucbvax!ucbarpa:fair By the way, decwrl has a relatively new CSNET connection and in the not too distant future we should be providing a direct gateway to the ARPA and CSNET communities without first using uucp to get to Stanford or Berkeley. As I understand it, we are waiting for some software being developed at Purdue (and possibly Rice?) to allow 4.2 BSD UNIX to send mail using SMTP on top of TCP/IP out CSNET. Peter ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1984 15:03 est From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS Subject: SocSecNumbers, Ma Bell, and Privacy For what it's worth to anyone: I had just finished reading Willis' testimony to Congress when I went to return a used telephone to one of the AT&T "Phone Centers" today (so I can buy my own and don't have to rent it.) I had to fill out a monstrous long form, part of which (yes!) asked for my social security number. I vaguely remember that that is if not illegal, certainly not recommended practice. I asked what it was for, and the clerk replied, to guarantee it gets credited to the right account. (Isn't the phone number -- including area code -- good enough?) And when I objected, she, (working for AT&T) said I should call Northwestern Bell (the operating company for our area) -- it appears that Northwestern Bell uses the SSN as the way of tallying the leasing and long distance charges it handles for AT&T; if not, I can't think of any reason I would have been answered that way. Funny thing, though, is that I'm sure I have NEVER told NW Bell my SSN, so I can't see what they'd correlate it with. I do know that when the U.S. Government asks for your SSN it is required to give a reason why and explain what will happen if you don't give it; I think Minnesota has a similar law, but I can't remember for sure, but then, I'm not sure either one applies to private industry. Something ironic about this all happening because AT&T was busted up for free enterprise and competition, and yet by asking for the SSN it is heading in exactly the opposite sort of direction. Ted ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1984 1015-PST Subject: voice recognition as password From: Dave Dyer Sorry to throw cold water on a good idea, but voice recognition won't provide security. No one need ever do "impressions" of you to gain access, because of a little known device called a tape recorder. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 5 Jan 84 13:59:24-PST From: Richard Treitel Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #2 Re: voice recognition for login OK, so what happens when I catch a cold? or when there are a bunch of people talking in the background while I try to login? This kind of objection seems to me to apply, more or less, to all "personal characteristics" that can be used for authentication: what you are authenticating is the body, not the mind, and either can change independently of the other. Gee, I just had a thought. What if DoD develops a system that will only let you login if it can determine that you are still loyal to the Alliance (i.e. if you became a Moonie last week, forget it, bud)? - Richard ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1984 20:33 EST From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: Passwords etc Isn't there a problem with analyzing your voice patterns that they may change, esp when you're sick? Let's face facts: your computer's secure only when you controll all access to it. andy ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1984 14:40:23-EST From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX Subject: phone vs calculator pads It has been put to me that the phone pad design mimics the dial design, in which 0 and 1 are farther apart than any other number pair; the reasoning behind this being to minimize the chance of misdialing area codes, in which the middle digit is always 0 or 1. (It is also argued that most pairs of codes m{0,1}n are geographically far apart, to minimize the number of confusable pairs people would want to remember, e.g. relatively few people will want to roughly know the area codes for Connecticut and Los Angeles.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 19:27:24 pst From: decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley (Mark Callow) Subject: Re: Keyboards The phone keyboard was designed before small electronic calculators existed. Extensive research went in to its layout. I can't quote any because I've been away from this area of work for too long. Contrary to the previous message, it appears to be the person who layed out the calculator keypad who was unaware of the research done by the phone companies not vice-versa. I'm happy to see the current discussion of the Dvorak keyboard. I'd love to get one for my terminal. An even more interesting keyboard is the "Maltron" keyboard. This features a block of keys for each hand and a central group to be worked by the thumbs. It is not flat but is shaped to match the way the hand lies. I first saw this described in Time about 2 years ago. ------------------------------ From: andyb%dartvax@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 22:28:33 est From: Andy Behrens Subject: Keyboards ... The designer of the (U.S.) push-button telephone keyboard didn't just go ahead and ignore the calculator keyboard. Both keyboard layouts were tested, and they found that most people made fewer dialing errors with the "1-2-3 on top" design. Remember that back then calculators were expensive enough that not many people owned them. Maybe the phone company assumed that with so many phones in existence, the calculator makers would change *their* design. Doesn't the IBM keypunch have yet another layout? I think the zero is above the digits. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 15:37:46 CST From: Robert.S.Kelley Subject: Input devices-- Dvorak and numeric Re. the Dvorak keyboard-- Although there is still considerable controversy over its merits (some say the improvement from automatic carriage returns is greater) there is a considerable body of literature (and data) on the subject in the field of psychology. We need to be careful not to reinvent the wheel here. Incidentally, I know of no data supporting the claim that it is hard to return to qwerty after learning Dvorak; was that Dr. Pournelle's personal opinion or does he know something I don't? On the subject of numeric keypad ordering, the Bell people went to a lot of trouble in designing their phone layout. As I recollect, they discovered that even ten-key adding machine operators who expressed a preference for the lower-numbers-at-the-bottom arrangement, nonetheless made fewer mistakes with the current arrangement. I don't have the reference at my fingertips, but I think I could dig it out. ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1984 20:35 EST From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: Usenet messages True there are losers in usenetland, but there are just as many per population out there as there are in here (arpa) ... The population is just larger, that's all, and there isn't the spectre of DARPA hanging over everyones head about what you say and have said (sure, a site can be flushed out, but what generally happens is that sites leave the net when something ``offensive'' happens). andy ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #5 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-08 03:48:00 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 8 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Computer Networks - Networks, Networks, Everywhere (5 msgs), Input Devices - Dvorak Keyboards & Keypads (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 06-Jan-1984 1256 From: John Covert Subject: A bit more info on Digital's ENET First I'd like to thank the author of the compendium on networks. And second, I'd like to give a little more information on the Digital ENET. It is composed of systems running our DECNET software products, first introduced about nine years ago. DECNET is much more than a mail network. It is a product built on a layered network architecture (DNA) with lower, non-programmer accessible data-link and routing layers, and higher, programmer accessible, session layers. It is similar to the ISO model on open systems interconnect. Since it is older than that model, it does not correspond exactly, but will, more and more, as time goes by and as the worldwide networks develop. At the data-link level it can use synchronous or asynchronous lines of any speed running DDCMP, public network lines running X.25, parallel links running protocols specific to those devices, and Ethernet. Using gateway products it can create gateway links into an IBM SNA network. At the user accessible layer, it is possible for any program to open a transparent, full-duplex, channel to any other program on the same or any other node in the network. Programmers can take advantage of this "network logical link" to build any application they wish. Various Digital supported protocols running on logical links are host-to-host terminal connections, allowing a user at any node to act as an interactive terminal on any other node, Mail, the Data Access Protocol, (see next paragraph) and several others. The DAP protocol is used to copy files, but it is much more than a file copy protocol. It permits a program on any system to access a file on any other system as though that file were a local file. In fact, VMS and RSX using the DAP routines buried in RMS permit a nodename to be simply a part of a file spec used by any program. DECNET does a bit more than implicit routing; it does dynamic path routing. As a result, given sufficient alternate paths, the loss of an intermediate node does not affect the operation of traffic currently routing through that node. Dynamic path routing was first made available in DECNET Phase III, offered for sale almost five years ago. For example, since our network has three transatlantic links, a few months ago, we had a serious failure of the links between Massachusetts and the remainder of our engineering and marketing headquarters 30 miles to the north in New Hampshire. But due to the fact that some of our transatlantic links go into New Hampshire and others into Maynard, we did not immediately notice the problem. Things got a bit slower, since we were no longer using several 56Kbps links but were pushing all traffic through some 9600bps links to the U.K., down to Geneva, and back. The reason there occasionally appears to be some implicit routing in our node strings is that the Phase III version of DECNET had a maximum of 256 addresses. This restriction has been lifted in Phase IV. However, as a result of the restriction, it was necessary for us to partition our network. Reassigning node numbers will not be complete for several months, and not all systems will upgrade, so there may be a few systems which require one intermediate hop from RHEA. Many of these will have definitions on RHEA making that transparent to the sender (though a recipient would see the hop). The rest should be directly addressable from RHEA, whether located in the U.S., Canada, the Caribbean, Europe (13 countries now), the Middle East, the Far East, or Australia. (Remember, IBM is the only computer manufacturer larger than Digital.) /john ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 6 Jan 1984 10:34-PST Subject: More on CSNET From: obrien@rand-unix Compliments to Mr. Fair - an excellent summary article. Would that Human-Nets had more such. To expand on CSNET: It is currently funded by the NSF, and expects to become self-supporting during the next few years, based on member fees. These fees are: $ 30,000 - commercial sites 10,000 - government and not-for-profit 5,000 - educational These fees may be reduced by petitioning for a reduction in the case of small outfits, and are lower for people who already have a net connection via Arpanet. The CSNET membership list as of Dec. 1 shows: 85 Phonenet sites 6 Telenet sites 18 Arpanet sites 4 CSNET-owned hosts Not all of these sites are operational yet, though most are. Phonenet sites are served by two Relay machines, which call them up nightly to exchange mail. Text files may be automatically transferred using MMDF-based mail-receipt programs, though this is obviously not the best way to do business. Bandwidth here is limited by the 1200-baud phone lines as well as by the capacities of the Relays. Mailing-list stuff can be handled OK, but Usenet traffic breaks the Relays by sheer load. Telenet sites run TCP/IP on top of X.25 virtual circuits, using software developed for CSNET at Purdue. Personally I think this is hot stuff. If your phone bills are $1500/month, you can run equivalent traffic over Telenet for about $1200/month, last time we figured it out. And, you get full Internet connectivity and services into the bargain. Because the drop lines from Telenet to the host are really only 9600, 4800, or 1200 baud dedicated phone lines, instantaneous bandwidth is not as good as Arpanet, but it's not bad. And, you and the rest of the world will be hard-put to tell that you're not on Arpanet directly, except you don't have to deal with the DoD. This software really works, and works well. Arpanet sites run standard Arpanet software - no change. In addition to simple net connectivity, CSNET brings the benefits of centralized network management. Basically this means that if your mail isn't moving, you have experts to scream to, and they really will work hard to fix the problem. There are other benefits such as ongoing mail system development, an automatic nameserver, and so forth. Management of CSNET has recently been transferred away from the contractor committees which built the net to a newly-formed Executive Committee, which is overseeing the move from a research to a service organization. The two relay machines are moving to BBN - it's cheaper and easier to run a single computer center and communicate via WATS lines than to spread out the Relay operations. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1984 1808-EST From: John R. Covert Subject: DECNET and ENET Just to clarify something... DECNET is the name of a product sold by Digital which any customer can use to build their own network. DECNET is used to build Digital's internal network. The internal network name has been a hotly debated subject (what's in a name?) but the most commonly used name is the ENET, since the largest internal use was within Engineering. Now the whole company is being interconnected, and Engineering Network is not really an appropriate name. But the E in ENET doesn't necessarily have to stand for Engineering. We think it can stand for Everthing, Employee, Everywhere, or whatever anyone wants it to stand for. The lack of any serious central control (other than a nodename registry) makes things like this not really matter. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 84 11:08:50 EST (Fri) From: Chris Torek Subject: Re: CSNet CSNet ARPA relays are currently Rand-Relay and CSNet-Relay (not UDel-Relay). Chris ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 84 17:53:05 PST (Friday) From: Jef Poskanzer Subject: Re: The Plethora of Networks Here's a network you left out: the XEROX Internet. Most outsiders tend to overlook the XEROX Internet, for various reasons: o only a small proportion of the traffic is gatewayed to or from other networks; o what little gatewaying there is gets done almost invisibly; o the name difficulty. (I'm told that XEROX used "Internet" first, but that doesn't matter much now.) The XEROX Internet only has about 2000 users, but it is widely distributed, with users in Europe and Japan. The mail transport mechanism within the XEROX Internet is called Grapevine. Grapevine addresses look like ".". If the registry you're sending to is the one you are in, you can leave it off, and the address becomes merely "". Registries are geographic - the two largest are "PA" (Palo Alto), for Northern California, and "ES" (El Segundo), for Southern California. To send mail in from the ARPAnet, the address looks like ".@PARC-MAXC". If the registry is PA, you can leave it off, giving "@PARC-MAXC". This is what I mean by invisible gatewaying - to outsiders, it looks like all 2000 of us Xeroids receive our mail on poor little PARC-MAXC. Not so - it's just a gateway. I think the source of the confusion is that people are used to explicitly specifying a host for the mail to be delivered to, as well as a user on that host. Grapevine's mail servers are politely invisible. Sending mail out to the ARPAnet is as easy as pi. "ARPA" is just another registry, so I just say "@.ARPA". Or if I'm really lazy, I can just say "@", since anything with at atsign automatically goes to the ARPAnet. --- Jef ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 Jan 1984 19:32:56-PST From: Jim Burrows Subject: Re: Dvorak keybords again (and again) The following is a re-working of a message sent a few months ago to a DEC in-house mailing list about the same topic. I have seen a couple of other messages that get resubmitted again and again as the DVORAK lengend is recounted. -------------------------------- It's amazing how legends grow. There are two bits of misinformation in the discussion of Dvorak keyboards, and one bit of information left out. First, the QWERTY (Sholes) keyboard was not the product of reverse human engineering. Speed of typing was not the problem they were trying to solve. Rather, they were trying to get keys that were typed successively and fast to be as far away from each other as possible. Therefore the layout was designed to seperate common letter pairs so that the two letters were typed with different hands. Beyond that they put the letters of the name of the device in the top row. There is no evidence either that slowing down the rate of typing was the intent of the design or that it was achieved. Second, it was not mentioned that in the 50 years since the Dvorak keyboard was created, no definitive experimental evidence of its superiority has been established. There are about an equal number of studies showing small improvements, and showing small degredations of performance. Most studies have showed no signifigant difference. However the keyboard layout has become a religious issue, and both sides cast aspersions on the accuracy of the others tests. An explanation of why the Dvorak layout doesn't work as well as you would expect is the designed in pattern of alternating hands. The one thing that has been demonstrated is that both alphabetically organized and randomly organized keyboards are much worse than either QWERTY or Dvorak. Finally, the assertion that Touchtone (TM) keypads were intentionally badly laid out is absolutely false. Bell undertook a massive effort to layout the numeric pad, and produced one that is clearly and demonstrably better than the adding machine layout used on many numeric keypads, and to every other numeric layout tested. It is in fact a classic study, and one of the examples of a company taking great care to look before they lept. I doubt I'll ever see the death of these bits of misinformation, but as an active member of a human engineering research group I feel its worth a try. -------------------------------- I find it particularly interesting that the note about the telephone keypad is appropriate to the Human-nets discussion as well as to the original. /s/ Jim Burrows ------------------------------ From: onyx!bob%amd70@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: 5 Jan 84 22:56:10 PST (Thu) Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #1 The reason that the Touch Tone phone keyboard is the opposite from calculators is that on The Touch Tone the keys are 1 - 9 followed by "O" for operator from left to right, top to bottom the way ordinary citizens read. This was the reasoning of AT&T at the time. They did consider making the Touch Tone keyboard the same as business machines such as calculators. Bob Toxen {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,dual,fortune}!amd70!onyx!bob Onyx Systems, San Jose CA ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1984 0821-PST From: SOROKA@USC-ECLC Subject: telephone vs calculator keyboards As I recall ... When push-button telephones first appeared in the US, accountants asked why they the keyboard differed from that of existing adding machines. Calculators, which came later, simply took their keyboard arrangement from that of the adding machine. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #6 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-09 23:59:47 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 10 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Adminstrivia - Testimony of Willis Ware for Xerox folk, Input Devices - Keyboards & The Original Question & DVORAKs, Computers and the Law - Big Computer is Watching you (2 msgs), Computer Networks - Networks, Networks, Everywhere (2 msgs), Computers on TV - Whiz kids ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 84 15:16:25 PST From: Charles Subject: Testimony of Willis Ware for Xerox folk Willis Ware's testimony (announced in a previous digest) is available for people with access to Parc in [Ivy]Testimony.Txt Charles ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 00:12 EST From: Jacob Moskowitz Subject: Keyboards Date: Thu, 5 Jan 84 19:27:24 pst From: decwrl!qubix!msc at Berkeley (Mark Callow) To: HUMAN-NETS The phone keyboard was designed before small electronic calculators existed. What about mechanical adding machines ? didn't they have the same keypad layout as modern calculators ? ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 01:29 est From: Makey.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS Subject: The Keyboard as an Output Device Thanks to everyone who responded with info on Dvorak keyboards, and especially to Chris Jones for the layout diagram. Moving back toward the subject that started all of this (input devices in general and when/why/how you would use them), Greg Davidson (in Human-Nets, vol. 6 no. 80) said: I believe that the question of how to support non-standard keyboards, such as DSK keyboards and chord keyboards, has a simple answer: Make a standard interface which is independent of which one is used. People should be able to plug their favorite keyboard into any system. I have a similar answer for the support of various pointing devices, including mice, tablets with pens, tablets with pucks, touch screeens and light pens. A standard port on terminals and workstations should accommodate any such system, even if something else is built in. He is basically correct about the need for a standard interface. But, which standard? Will all input devices have the same interface or will there be a different one for each type (i.e., keyboard, mouse, joystick, etc.) of device? The computer industry seems to recognize the value of standardization so I think it is a question of how and not whether the standardization will occur. Just a couple of questions: Is a standardized plug-in interface enough? For example, how do you interface a one-button mouse to a system that really wants a three-button mouse? When you plug your own keyboard with its own arrangement of special function keys into a system, how do you know which keys do which functions? I have an interesting solution to this last problem: Have the design on each key change in real time under host (or local) control so it always displays its current function. For example, when editing the function keys would show what editing functions they do, but when you run the mail program the keys automatically display mailing functions. If you want to go all out, the alphabetic keys would normally display lowercase letters, but when you press the "shift" key, they would all immediately display uppercase letters. The difficult part of doing this is the per-key displays. LED arrays or LCDs would work, but I suspect that these would add significantly to the mass of each key, thus affecting the "feel" of the keyboard (I don't think I would like it). Some form of visual projection system, where the top of each key is a tiny rear-projection screen, could eliminate the key mass problem, but the rest of the apparatus is likely to be bulky and I'm not sure how well it would work in high ambient light situations. Any other ideas? :: Jeff Makey ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 03:11 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: DVORAK Keyboards In response to the inquiry on where I got my figures: they're hazily recalled from the days when I worked for August Dvorak back at the University of Washington. He was no longer doing keyboard studies, but he had never given up, and every now and then would haul out his studies, movies, and recordings (actual old records; no tape recorders in the 30's, or if there were, he didn't have one) of the sounds of people typing (faster under his keyboard). The problems of going back to the standard when you learn Dvorak are reported from personal experience: we had a Dvorak typer at UW and I worked with it for a while just to see; I didn't notice a lot of improvement in typings speed, and had a HELL of a time returning to Qwerty when I decided to give up. ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 02:58 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: the IRS welcomes you to 1984 ... (a true story) Wonderful news. In my case there are at least twenty different names under which I get magazines, junk mail, etc., including some really unlikely spellings like Dournelle and in one case Dear Mr. pournelle Photography, you may have won a prize... thnk of what your neighbors in North Hollywood will think when they see y ou, Mr. Photography, in a new LeBaron..." (My son had some business cards printed once listing this as "Pournelle Photography." I get mail to Dear Dr. PhD, and I once filled out a consumer survey form for Dr. PhD, listing his income as, as I recall, "over $50,000"; that ought to get the IRS excited... Ye gods. ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 19:04 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Thoughtcrime If a database includes only information that is based on solid evidence, and continually/recurrently rechecks information cleans up typograhpical errors that creep in and deletes any data that turns out not to be correct or which is based solely on opinion rather than fact, then I don't think we have much to worry about. On the other hand, if a database isn't cleaned up, if it has garbage that came from unknown source at unknown time which has never been substantiated or checked, then it should be easy for the citizenry to flood the database with so much random cruft that the database becomes obviously worthless to everyone involved even if there's enough mass-storage to keep it all. Well, now I'm probably on the FBI's list as somebody who might sabotage their database by feeding it more GIGO than it can stomach. [puns deliberate] ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 1984 1311-PST From: Chuck McManis Subject: Networks Of course following such a glowing report on the joys of DECnet by John Covert I find it necessary to mention that I like decnet between my RSX and VMS system but I hate trying to use it between my TOPS-20 and either RSX or VMS. Seems the old 2060XE got left off the distibution list of compatiblity. Are you listening DEC ? --Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Mon 9 Jan 84 15:52:34-MST From: Walt Subject: Yet More Networks In addition to the networks previously described, there are five public data networks actively serving the US and more in the works. The five national PDNs are all common carriers, like Greyhound - that is, anybody whos pays the fare can use them. They all provide an X.25 interface, which gives a virtual circuit service - there is as yet no international standard for mail or FTP. All provide a virtual terminal capability via the X.3/X.29 PAD standards. They all compete vigorously for business, and I'm sure I'll hear about it immediately if I have left out anybody's capability. Here (in alphabetical order) are the five established PDNs: o ADP Autonet 175 Jackson Plaza Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (313) 769-6800 Besides the US, has satellite links to London, England and Delft, The Netherlands. Maximum internal speed is 9600 bps. Nodes are PDP-11s with KMC-11 front end microprocessors. Internal protocol was described to me as derivative of the old ARPAnet protocols. o CompuServe Incorporated Network Services Division 5000 Arlington Centre Blvd. P.O. Box 20212 Columbus, OH 43220 (614) 457-8600 Internal speeds to 56k bps. Nodes are PDP-11s with 6809 microprocessor front ends. Internal protocol is DDCMP. o GTE Telenet Communications Corp. 8229 Boone Boulevard Vienna, VA 22180 (703) 442-1000 Internal speeds to 56k bps. Nodes are arrays of 6502s in a redundant, load sharing configuration. Internal protocol conforms to CCITT Recommendation X.75. Supports automatic recovery of virtual circuit when a node fails during a call. Built by some of the folks from BBN who built the ARPAnet originally. Provides a mail service called Telemail. o Tymnet, Inc. 2710 Orchard Parkway San Jose, CA 95134 (408) 946-4900 Internal speeds to 56k bps. Nodes are arrays of "Tymnet Engines" in a redundant, load sharing configuration. The Tymnet Engine is a Tymnet-built 32-bit processor derived from the Interdata 732, re-engineered for extremely high MTBF. Internal protocol is a unique Tymnet design which repacketizes inside the network and does flow control at the byte level, like TCP. Supports automatic recovery of virtual circuit when a node fails during a call. Provides a mail service called OnTyme. o Uninet United Telecom Communications, Inc. 2525 Washington Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 221-2444 Internal speeds to 56k bps. Nodes are Modcomp 7830s. Internal protocol is a Uninet-designed virtual circuit protocol, on top of HDLC. In addition there is, of course, the new AT&T offering, NET/1000. Nodes consist of arrays of VAXen with a Series/I for line handling. They see the function of their network as storing information, rather than just forwarding it like the other networks. The internal protocol is X.25, but they don't support an X.25 user interface! (No, I don't know why). For further information, call Mr. John M. Finn, their San Francisco account executive at (415) 452-7292. Graphic Scanning and Computer Sciences Corp. are in the process of spinning off their internal networks, as GraphNet and InfoNet respectively I believe. There will probably be X.25 interfaces, if they don't exist already. GE Information Services Company has an internal network called MARK*NET. There is not as yet an X.25 interface to it. And, how could I forget, the State of Utah boasts its own Public Data Network! It is called ComWest and is being spun off by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Utah, which needed a good way to get claims data from places like Panguitch, Utah up to Salt Lake City. The internal circuits are leased from Mountain Bell (no, they're not barbed wire, skeptics) and run up to 9600 bps. Nodes are Dynatech Packet Technology Multi-Switch.25 packet switches, which are based on the Z80 micro. There are several sites besides BC/BS, one of them being the University of Utah DECSYSTEM-20. Outside the US, there are public data networks operating in about forty foreign countries, basically the ones that are industrialized. We have a user who logs in regularly from Stockholm via the Swedish PDN <-> Telenet <-> ComWest. He says he gets good response. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: 8 January 1984 00:17 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Whiz kids - remote intrusion into nuclear-war Subject: scenerio database Tonight's episode of Whiz Kids is awfully scary, in more ways than one. Start with some "famous hacker" with nickname/moniker "wrench" who posts a message on lots of public/school bulletin boards giving the dialup number and password (a very long pseudo-random-looking one, I think they've been reading Human-Nets lately), which turns out to be an NSA computer. Next, when Ritchie succeeds at figuring out how to get past additional security safeguards, like if you don't precede each normal character with a hex C2 prefix (mark-parity quotes; erroneously referred to as a non-ASCII character) it hangs up instantly, about ten NSA people swarm around his house, swarm into it right after they shut off the circuit breakers, confiscate *all* computer equipment and *all* magnetic and non-magnetic media they can find, and arrest everyone in the room with the computer, arraigning them as adults because their knowledge of NSA access methods means they have knowledge of adults... I won't spoil the plot by telling the surprise of 28 minutes into the program nor the additional surprise of 41 minutes into the program, but it's almost as scary as WarGames and more realistic. Sigh, I can't resist, the bad guys gain control of the whole communications satelite and microwave network that the telephone company and TV networks use, and shuts the whole thing down in unison. You scared? I am. Remember that simple high-school people with blueboxes made a practice of gaining control of individual central offices. I think they once shut down a whole section of Los Angeles as a demonstration several years ago and threatend to shut down all of California or somesuch, I forget the details, perhaps Lauren can refresh my memory. End with the gullability of people, who can be led far astray if they don't check what people tell to them to find out if it's really the truth. I hope this particular episode is shown on reruns soon so lots of people who missed it this time can see it. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #7 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-10 19:31:51 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 10 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Book Review - "Rise of the Computer State" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 1984 0128-PST From: Rob-Kling Subject: Review-Rise of the Computer State Rise of the Computer State by David Burnham Published by Random House, New York - 1983. Review by Rob Kling Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine (KLING.UCI@RAND-relay) This book examines the ways that Federal agencies and elected officials have employed computer-based information systems (CBIS) to increase their power unfairly. Burnham's main theses are: 1) that CBIS have often been effective media for extending the surveillance potential of the host organization; 2) overall, citizens have lost substantial power in their routine dealings with computer-using organizations; 3) attempts to regulate the use of CBIS containing personal records have been frail and largely ineffective relative to the scale of operations that should be regulated; 4) some organizations which employ sophisticated CBIS for intelligence, such as the National Security Agency, are unaccountable to the larger public. These theses have a sinister tinge. As we enter 1984, the United States is far from a police state. However, Burnham fears that the slow, steady, consistent adoption of new surveillance systems and the expansion of existing ones is eroding democratic political processes in the United States. If he is correct, these are arguably the most important consequences of computerization in the United States. This is a trade book aimed at the same audience that reads "Megatrends", "The Third Wave", or "Fifth Generation". Unlike these highly popular books which are permeated with happy talk about the social possibilities of widespread computerization, "The Rise of the Computer State" examines the seamy underside of organizations that employ CBIS to collect, manipulate, and communicate sensitive data about all of us. Burnham, a New York Times reporter, has written this book for a popular audience. Its strengths lie in Burnham's sensitivity to the civil liberties issues in practices that might simply appear "expeditious" and in his eye for graphic detail in explaining how organizations employ CBIS to make their operations efficient and "effective." Burnham examines two themes that link computerization with a certain kind of organizational power: surveillance of "targeted" people or groups and opinion polling. In a separate chapter he examines the National Security Agency which he labels "the ultimate computer bureaucracy." Page 2 SURVEILLANCE Some organizations act under legislative mandates that many people would label "pro-social". For example, the Bureau of Child Support of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office uses CBIS to seize California State tax refunds from certain runaway fathers who are delinquent in their child support payments. A second group act within the boundaries of legal, but unduly permissive information practices. For example, a company called U.D. Registry provides landlords with histories of disputes with previous landlords, maintains records which are usually unknown to tenants and does little to insure that they are treated fairly. A third group of organizations engage in action that are either illegal or nearly so. For example, U.S. Army's surveillance of liberal and leftist activists in the late 1960's, extended well beyond the scope of "national security." Burnham portrays these activities with sharp detail that give color to routine practices and their participants. Burnham is a staunch civil libertarian and sees all social surveillance as problematic. It is easiest to criticize organizations like the U.S. Army when they intrude upon political minorities and thereby threaten First amendment rights. It is also easy to criticize some of the "holes" in CBIS such as those operated by U.D. Registry, which are unknown to people on whom records are kept, and who are not legally obligated to enable people to see their records, correct errors, or annotate their files case of disputes. Burnham's criticisms reach much further than identifying the problems with CBIS employed by the second and third groups of organizations. He questions the first group as well. Burnham's questions about organizations and systems for tracking runaway fathers who leave their children on welfare illustrates of his concerns about social strategies which depend upon extensive surveillance for enforcement: 1) will the original target group be slowly enlarged until it is much larger than originally intended in the enabling legislation? 2) can the information system be extended by local officials for surveillance upon "others who fall into disfavor?" Burnham reports how the scope of these systems has expanded from locating parents who were avoiding child support payments and whose children were receiving funds from Federal welfare programs to include any parent whose (ex)spouse seeks the other parent of their children. Burnham notes that there are few constitutional limits on the scope of such an surveillance system. Why not, for example, expand its scope so that creditors can track down their debtors? Or why not expand it expand it so that people can locate lost relatives and old friends? While these "information needs" are less heart wrenching than the situations of women who turn to public assistance when their ex-husbands refuse to pay court-mandated child support, they are also "pro-social." Burnham argues that little prevents surveillance systems such as this one from being slowly expanded to track ever larger groups of people than legislative sentiment and a fragile coalition of legislators who are sympathetic to civil liberties values. Page 3 Burnham uses this example to illustrate another key feature of recent surveillance systems: records systems which are set up for rather narrow purposes of one organization are used by investigators in another organization. The Parent Locator System, for example, is not a particular, specialized CBIS. Rather, it is a set of procedures and arrangements which enable certain investigators to send lists of "missing parents" to the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, the Defense Department, the Veterans Administration, and the National Personnel Center. Each of these organizations honors these requests, searches its CBIS for the current locations of the "missing parents" and returns the information to the requestors on magnetic tape. While many CBIS could be operated as manual systems, these searches would be prohibitively expensive add-ons with manual record systems. However, the marginal costs of search are affordable with computerized record systems. The Parent Locator "System" is one of many "matching programs" in which public agencies use existing files to search for deviants. Organizational payroll files have been "matched" against welfare files to find gainfully employed people who are committing welfare fraud. State Department of Motor Vehicle files have been matched with Selective Service files to identify eligible 18 year olds who have not registered for the draft. In each of these cases, the records of thousands of people who have broken no laws are matched to find the few that have. Burnham finds the principle offensive, even though the applications are expedient and have so far have been aimed at lawbreakers. In his eyes, expediency and efficiency should not be preeminent values for administrative action. PRIVACY REGULATIONS Burnham briefly examines some of the Federal privacy initiatives of the last decade, including the Privacy Act of 1974, the proposals of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, and the 1978 Financial Right to Privacy Act. These laws have provided minimal protections, and important protections of the Federal Right to Privacy Act have been undermined in implementation by Federal agencies under Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Only a few of the 155 recommendations reported by the Privacy Protection Study Commission in 1977 have been enacted in law. Burnham mentions these laws and examines some of their limitations. However, he doesn't evaluate their potential. Would many of the problems of CBIS operated by firms like the U.D. Registry be ameliorated if they were brought under laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act? Would civil liberties be better protected if the remaining recommendations of the Privacy Protection Study Commission were enacted in law? Unfortunately, Burnham is mute about these possibilities. Burnham is strongest in identifying concrete problems. Most serious there is no permanent institutional counterweight to Federal agencies when they propose new, more efficient, or enlarged personal record systems. Agencies such as the FBI, the IRS, or the Social Page 4 Security Administration can return to Congress every few years with proposals for massive CBIS which have problematic privacy aspects and expect that sooner or later, the civil libertarians who restricted their last proposal will be weaker or pre-occupied with other matters. POLLING Burnham examines opinion polling as another form of organizational intelligence which has been rendered substantially more efficient and sophisticated by computers. He views opinion polling by elected officials and organizations which are campaigning for specific legislation as selective intelligence which places the target public at an unfair disadvantage. The main problem he sees in market research in the service of electoral politics is the extent to which it helps make propaganda less transparent and the public more manipulable by marketing strategists who target different messages to different groups. While there is nothing new in political actors tailoring their appeals to different audiences, Burnham fears that the modern versions of sophistry are less obvious and consequently far more successful for those who can afford to employ them. He also views opinion polls as easily subject to manipulation by politicians seeking legitimacy or publicity. Polling is not simply a reporting device. Pollers gain leverage relative to the larger public since much of the audience for polls will read headlines and short news items which distort the scientific meaning of a poll by neglecting to explain the nature of the sample, the detailed distribution of responses, or the questions asked. Political polling is not only "information gathering;" it can be a devise for persuading larger publics about the popularity of one's position. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY In a dramatic chapter, Burnham reports how the National Security Agency (NSA) has operated under a charter which has remained secret it was initiated by President Truman in 1952. The NSA specializes in electronic surveillance. A large fraction of its efforts probably go to observing military force deployments and strategic resources worldwide. Burnham reports how the NSA has also illegally eavesdropped on a significant fraction of international telephone calls and telex messages which leave the United States. Burnham reports on the character of specific programs of domestic surveillance which were illegal. According to Burnham, the NSA developed files on political dissidents including civil rights activists, antiwar activists, members of Congress, and ordinary citizens who were critical of official government policies. While most of the domestic political surveillance appeared to take place in the late 1960's through mid-1970's, the shroud of secrecy that surrounds the NSA makes it difficult to have significant Congressional oversight of its policies and practices. During the last 5 years, the NSA has moved to control cryptographic research in the United States. Recently developed encryption schemes are based on sophisticated algorithms which require Page 5 digital circuits for rapid coding and decoding. Some of the new schemes even allow the code keys to be public, rather than secret. As more business operations in the United States is computerized, organizations seek ways to protect the privacy of data such as large funds transfers. Thus the market for efficient and effective data encryption devices has expanded beyond the intelligence community to include financial institutions. The NSA has recently taken control of this research out of the hands of the National Science Foundation, even though it has no publicly documented legal mandate for its action. There are deep policy questions about whether national security is well served by the availability of cheap encrypting devices which are effectively unbreakable. These questions are not being raised in public debates, nor does Burnham shed much light on them. Rather he simply adopts the libertarian critique of surveillance. Like other political labels with strong moral content, it has been abused as a cover for unsavory actions carried out by government operatives. The term in not wholly vacuous and Burnham glosses most of the knotty policy issues. TOWARD A POLICE STATE? Burnham's theses are loosely fabricated from dramatic examples. He does not offer explicit hypotheses, strong organizing concepts, and a way of placing his examples in a context which enables a reader to understand their overall significance. Examples of bad outcomes can elicit sympathy for "victims." But systematic information about the frequency and extent of problems and abuses are necessary to demonstrate that the overall social setup within which they happen is badly flawed, corrupt, or perverse. Some of his examples of people victimized by slips in CBIS and organizational practices suggest that Kafka has provided better guiding images than Orwell for appreciating a computer-based, mobile, organizational society. Burnham has little taste for irony, and explores Orwellian abuse rather than Kafkaesque happenings. Do the events Burnham describes indicate that Federal agencies and other large computer users are pushing the the US along a path of political development that is leading to a much less democratic form of Federal government? Unfortunately, Burnham does not describe the changing nature of Congressional oversight and public accountability sufficiently well to provide a clear answer to that question. He succeeds in generating sentiments in favor of this hypothesis by his accumulated cases of organizational seaminess and occasional abuse. But he relies heavily upon a reader's distrust of elected officials and large bureaucracies to help cement his case. He also relies upon general theses about power, such as Lord Acton's maxim. Unchecked power often corrupts and organizations are often less willing to be fair to their clients than efficient and autonomous. But general principles do not make the particular case since the variations in actual organizational practices are significant and vast. One peculiar feature of contemporary police states, such as those in Eastern Europe and Latin America, is the extent to which they have relied upon low technologies for extensive social control and even Page 6 mass terror. Many abusive ruling cliques rely upon neighborhood informants, secret trials, and mysterious disappearances to maintain control. They don't need database management systems, teleprocessing, and spy satellites. Low technology strategies are especially effective in "small town" societies. Burnham's implicit argument is that less obtrusive forms of surveillance and social control can harm the political culture of liberal democracies. CBIS are attractive to administrators and politicians because they promise heightened efficiencies and sometimes enhanced fairness in providing services to large mobile populations. However, the anecdotes of errors with a human cost and even abuses which Burnham piles on the reader, illustrate problems but do not make his case. Burnham's strongest case is his critique of the NSA's abuses of authority. Like, the secret Law Enforcement Intelligence Units, much of the problem with the NSA comes from its shroud of secrecy and freedom from significant legislative oversight. It's use of computer-based monitoring systems is incidental to its problematic place in American political life. I suspect that one basic issue is accountability of these agencies to the public through the legislatures. At times this is no easy task when the administrative agencies can shroud their actions with the complexities of high technologies. There is a strong case to be made that in the clashes between branches of government, administrative agencies have found legal and technological loopholes to temporarily free themselves from regulatory restraint. Congressional actions are not always right. But there is an argument that administrative agencies have been able to exploit computer-based technologies to shift the balance of governmental power away from elected officials. This systematic shift of power has been best documented in the case of local governments. It is likely to be happening at other governmental levels as well. COMPUTERS AND POLITICS Burnham is sensitive to the shifts of power to executive agencies. But he is at a loss to explain them very well. He misses the deeper politics of computing. I find a clue to his misperception, a very common one, in his reference to "the computer's system of thinking." For Burnham, CBIS are simply highly structured, logical, possibly hierarchical information processing "tools." He misses the ways in which CBIS designs often reflect the "systems of thinking" of those who propose them. CBIS promoters may label their preferences as "required by computers" to help their case, but they often ignore or discourage many technical and administrative alternatives. Many CBIS are usefully viewed as forms of social organization. Those who oversee them need some ability to appreciate technical alternatives and also have some substantive expertise in the organizational functions which have computer support. This dual expertise is rare, particularly among elected officials at all levels of government. As a consequence, they have trouble in providing Page 7 sensible guidance to executive agency staff. QUALITY OF BURNHAM'S ANALYSIS I would like to like this book more than I do. I like Burnham's eye for detail and his relentless questions about the underside of computer-based surveillance systems. Some new data brokering organizations start up each year. Each year, many existing organizations expand the scope and scale of their record keeping. Laws and administrative practices also change slowly each year. Over ten year periods, these gradual small scale changes accumulate. Periodic reviews of these practices are useful. As a consequence of continuing changes in organizational practices, legal arrangements, and technology, studies published in the early 1970's such as Westin and Baker's "Databanks in a Free Society" or James Rules' "Public Surveillance and Private Lives" have become dated. Both of these studies pre-date the use of computer matching, and several Federal privacy initiatives. Unfortunately, this book is weak in analysis. Even the chapter headings don't guide the argument. The first three chapters are labelled "surveillance," "data bases," and "power." However, themes of power, surveillance, and data bases are strong elements in each of them. The chapter labelled "power" primarily examines political polling. This lax labelling of chapters signifies the way that Burnham eschews tough analysis in favor of easy sentimentalizing. It should be hard for Burnham, a reporter and hence a kind of intelligence agent, to find observation, reporting, and persuasion to be inherently sinister acts. However, Burnham colors his narrative so that people who administer a CBIS are stigmatized in descriptions such as "(speaking) in the quiet monotones of many long-time government employees," or are "slightly Mephistopholean." People who sympathize with civil libertarian values are portrayed without any frailties. Burnham is deeply suspicious of pollsters and politicians who manipulate the public with numbers, but he is very adept at manipulating his audience with images. These images which equate personal goodness with political philosophy grossly mislead. Despite these limitations, "The Rise of the Computer State" is particularly important because it helps articulate and illustrate important questions about computing and social power. Unfortunately, there is no other up-to-date inquiry into organizational surveillance and high technology. "The Rise of the Computer State" is an important contribution to the tiny stream of literature which examines the political dimensions of computer-based technologies in public life. I hope that many ***Sender closed connection*** === brl netread error from RUTGERS at Tue Jan 10 22:21:06 ===


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #8 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-10 23:34:55 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 11 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Input Devices - Typewriter Keyboards, History and Development, Computers and the Law - Known Associates, Computer Security - Passwording, Computers and People - DOOMSDAY CLOCK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 7 Jan 84 15:13:56-EST From: Janet Asteroff Subject: Typewriter Keyboards, History and Development Since there seems to be some interest in typewriters, keyboards, etc., I thought it was time I dig back into my notes and get some documented information. As a rule, I oppose long messages, so I will try to boil everything down. Those not interested in this please skip it. Those interested in it might send mail to me directly. There is a diagram of the Dvorak keyboard further on, for those who are interested in seeing the arrangement. My M.A. essay several years ago was about the typewriter. Decided not to do it for a dissertation since there were bigger fish to fry. My focus was mainly on the typewriter and its role in print culture, its place in social history in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Still, I have done much research on the more technical aspects of the field, and culled my notes to see what I could contribute to this discussion. Historians and other scholars doing research about the past cannot present "the truth," so I offer some of these research findings for further exploration. Most scholars of the typewriter, Richard Current (the only bona fide scholar) Bruce Bliven, and Wilfred Beeching, present contradictory information on the keyboard, development, marketing, etc. It is a tough area to research; the primary material is incomplete, most of it is in Wisconsin (Sholes worked in Milwaukee/Madison). Richard Current has the best book, The Typewriter and the Men who Made It--he is a good historian. Bliven's book, That Wonderful Writing Machine, well, the title speaks to its reliability. Funded in part by Royal, it is good for little known facts that must be documented elsewhere. Beeching runs a typewriter museum in England, and his book, The Century of the Typewriter, is mostly all pictures, and his information must be documented from other sources. He does have lots of keyboards however--different languages, arrangements, etc. * The Sholes Keyboard and Some General Notes on the Typewriter There were several different types of keyboards before QWERTY came into being. Mentioned most was an alphabetic arrangement. The 1873 Sholes only typed in capital letters. The Caligraph, in 1883, had separate rows of keys for upper and lower--about 8 rows in all. In the first Sholes model, you could not see the type because of the arrangement of the platen and basket. According to Current, the problem was with the way the type bars hung in the basket, but he offers no further explanation of this. He then goes on to state that being a printer, Sholes and his partner Densmore arranged the keyboard in the spirit of the printer's case. Not true, as my research shows. The job case used in the 1870's was alphabetic. In the 1880's a new job case came into being, and is used still today (where they still exist). The principal is frequently used caps and then smaller letters, i.e., b c d e i s f y and l m n h o p w -- are two of the rows. So, Current is incorrect that it was modeled on the job case. Current also continues that Sholes did not find it hard to switch from an alphabetic arrangement to QWERTY. Then again, he wasn't typing for 20 years. He does point out that they did not study finger movements. The major consideration was to have all the keyboards ALIKE--for production, manufacture and sales. They had to standardize the keyboard. To digress for a minute, the typewriter was not a popular machine in the 1870's. Remington almost went broke trying to sell it, and eventually sold their rights to it. Sholes and Densmore also were continually without funds, and they were not the first to try to perfect the machine. It was only with the rise of big business in the 1890's (a need), and, a method of permanent inking, that the typewriter found a considerable market. Hard to believe isn't it? The typewriter was overshadowed by the telephone--which came out a few years later. Beeching presents some information about the alphabetic keyboard jamming, so, Sholes' brother-in-law, a mathematician, came up with QWERTY. This is a popular story, but I can't find any real documentation for it. So, it would appear that Sholes and Densmore, to solve technical problems with the basket, as well as to keep the keys moving freely, adopted the present arrangement. Home row, or second row, three other rows, including numbers at the top. It has changed slightly, the X and the Z used to be in different places, and the shift key was added later. Essentially, the 1873 keyboard is what we have now. * Dvorak Keyboard (with diagram) Reference: "Business Week," October 16, 1933. August Dvorak was a time and motion expert working at the Univ of Washington and other places. He continued his work in the Navy during the 1930's. He first developed his keyboard in 1933, and the Navy used it. Divided the labor just the opposite of the Sholes model-- 44% left hand 55% right. The article claims the most frequently letters in the English language are E T A O S I N R H L D C U. I have read elsewhere claims that do not agree with this. The arrangement of the DVORAK keyboard is, top row to bottom row: bckspace ! 7 5 3 1 9 0 2 4 6 8 tab ? , . P Y F G C R L marel shftlock A O E U I D H T N S - shftkey ; Q J K X B M W V Z return The illustration in Business Week differs from Beeching's slightly, but the letters are all in the same place. Another keyboard, just for fun, was the Fitch keyboard, c. 1886 X B M R N G T L P J W O A E I U K Q V S D H O Y F C Z Look at Beeching to get an array of arrangements. * General Observations There are lots of interesting topics about the typewriter. One is the method of inking. The Federal government did not start to use the machine until the method of inking made permanent copies possible. The newly-implemented civil service procedures allowed women to enter government jobs, and they quickly became the typists because less educated men did not have the proper literacy levels, and men as educated found better jobs. The development of paper to fit into the machine. The adding of the carriage return. Sholes 1873 model worked with a foot tredle, like a sewing machine. What would he have thought of the Selectric I wonder. Remington added the shift key--Sholes models was all caps. The Caligraph, and several other models,had separate keys for upper and lowercase. Most of these are pretty technical, and deal with the nature of invention. Our sophisticated analyses of hand-eye movements will allow us to design better keyboards, although judging from the PCjr, IBM really blew it in a different direction. I think we will move from qwerty to programmable keyboards before we see any change in the qwerty layout for regular crt terminals (not graphics or text processing terminals perhaps). My main area of interest has been the the path of social acceptance and adoption. The resistance of the literati, the quick adoption in business in the 1890's, the public's weariness, and interest in the telephone. Much of the history of the role and use of the typewriter is tied to the spread of literacy through the rise of public education. Also, it was in competition with photography, phonograph, etc. All what Daniel Boorstin calls 'the repeatable experience.' The typewriter was the first personal interest of print culture--it allowed people to make print themselves--for the first time. It will be replaced by the computer terminal, so the typewriter is the ONLY personal instrument of print culture. Combined with later technologies, like carbon paper (very important--easy duplication), the mimeograph machine, and much later, Xerography, one person could be their own newspaper publisher, bookseller, or printer. All the writers and others (humanist scholars) complaining about computer print, word processing, etc. would do well to understand that writing was once rightfully considered, at least by Plato, to be external to the mind. We do not have the proper apparatuses to be writers--we need pens and paper. Thought is the primary entity; language is extension transference, and writing extends that. We have the physical equipment for speech, but it took millions of years to develop. Writers and scholars, particularly historian Barbara Tuchman, who scream to the N Y Times about the death of the book and writing, and what we computer types are doing to hasten it, are probably using a typewriter anyway. I hope their keys jam. I suppose as we move from print to electronic print, just as others moved from an oral to a written society, or from one based on monastic manuscripts to printed books, there will be lots of complaints, yelling and screaming, as people happy with the way things are see their way of life passing too quickly. Our research is sophisticated, how well we will do with it is another matter. Transitions are exciting times--also very difficult, since I suppose that are the beginning of the revolution. -- Janet Asteroff ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 19:20 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Thoughtcrime / known associates If the use of the known-associates database will be to get a list of persons who may be able to supply evidence then I don't see anything wrong. Like if Vicki, with whom I danced at folk dance last week, is accused of dealing drugs, the FBI comes to my place and shows me her picture and I say "Yeah, she's cute, I met her at folk dane" and the FBI says "We think she may be dealing drugs" and I say "She seems normal to me, doesn't talk about drugs or act funny or anything" and the FTP says "Thank you for your time" and leaves to interview the other hundred people she dances with or works with or plays tennis with or whatever. But if they think because I danced with her and she deal drugs that I probably deal drugs too, they're off their gourd!! Probably this database will actually help eliminate guilt by association. In the past, it was difficult to get a complete list of associates, maybe you had one or two, so it was easy to pretend the one or two associates were in fact accomplices in crime, and to violate those people's civil rights. It wasn't obvious you were being selective, picking on just those one or two associates you happened to know about and ignoring hundreds of equally-associative others. But when the computer spills out five hundred "known associates" of Vicki the dealer, maybe the FBI will be a little disciminating, bothering the three or four who were themselves involved in drugs via another route, and leaving alone the 496 or 497 other associates for which there's absolutely no drug connection except being an acquaintance of Vicki the dealer. Rebuttal welcome. ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 20:20 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Passwords: Is there a better way ? (V6 #87) To: adamm @ BBN-UNIX That's a very bad idea. First of all, you have to carry around your encryptor. That means it can be stolen from you (it's called "mugging" except in the past it's been cash and credit cards that were stolen, each of limited value, $30 or whatever you carry plus something like $50 per credit card if you don't cancel the quickly), and now you propose that your access code to all your work and private files be stealable on the street! Second, if you lose it or it gets stolen, you lose all your computer access until it's replaced. I propose a different idea. You have such an encryptor box, but all boxes are the same, you can replace them at Radio Shack if they get lost or stolen. To activate one, you type a very long passmessage nobody in a hundred years would ever guess, which gets converted into a random public-key encryption key. (The passmessage is used to seed a random number generator which is used to invent new pseudo-random prime numbers or whatever, so with the same seed you get the same key.) You can use that set-up plus a short verification key to make it log you into any of your systems. If somebody steals your box and can't guess your short verification key in three guesses, it erases the encryption key, requiring the full passmessage to re-create it. Meanwhile it scrambles memory with random numbers so the bias in static RAM that makes it sometimes "remember" after power-off won't enable an electronics-technician turned thief to read out the last thing in memory before it was zeroed. Of course for your protection, whenever you deliberately set your encryptor box aside you deliberately give it a false verification key (a string of zeroes will do, unless you were idiot enough to use all-zeroes as your easy-to-guess verificatin key). Since nobody except you and your box ever see either the long passmessage or the short verfication key, not even the computers and modems you use, which see only your public key, nobody can tap the phone or spy on system databases to reveal your keys, and unlike the original proposal your box isn't a target for theft except for its original purchase value (5 dollars? Your leather or velcro wallet or wristwatch is worth more.) ------------------------------ Date: 7 January 1984 03:15 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: DOOMSDAY CLOCK at 3 minutes to midnight !! If talks prevent war, how did Pearl harbor happen? ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #9 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-11 20:51:27 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 11 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Computer Security - Account Security, Computers and the Law - Big Computer is Watching You, Computer Networks - More Networks, Input Devices - Keypads (2 msgs) & Keyboards (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 January 1984 23:46 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: HOUSE WARE testamony on c.security I think it's a fine introduction to the myried problems involved. I have one complaint, the proposed algorithm for preventing password-guessing. If the algorithm is to deactivate the account, requiring personal presence befor reactivation, anybody with the dialup number and a listing of account names (without password), easily obtainable from FINGER or from a survey of electronic mail eminating from that site, can sabotage the system by deliberately faking a failed-login for first one account then another etc. so instead of getting work done everybody is making trips in to reactivate their accounts and try to explain why penetration of their account was attempted. In fact the legitimate user is in somewhat of a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, since there's no real evidence that person mistyped hs password wrong or gave his acount name (without password) to some random, yet he is punished (being forced to get dressed and commute and be subject to harassment by his boss) until he convinces them he knows nothing about it. -- The followup algorithm of deactivating it again on second saboteur fake-failed-breakin and forcing the supervisor to file a report with a higher security official, means the victimized legitimate user will really be harassed next time! I propose simply hanging up and updating a failed-login account file after each 3 incorrect passwords. For direct connection terminals, hanging up is meaningless. I suggest freezing that particular acount for all hardwired ports after 3 consecutive incorrect passwords and freezing that particular hardwired port completely after 3 consecutive account-freezings, both actions to be permanent until such time as a security person can investigate that port to verify the dumb terminal (not a "Ralph" computer that has been brought in) is still connected to that port. After the situation has been investigated an the port has been reactivated, a decision can be made whether to have increased surveilance at that port. Alternatively, a security camera can take an image and FTP it to the security office whenever any wrong password is entered, and the office can keep any process all such images after several such attempts, while discarding any random isolated instances after a few hours. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 11:33:16 EST From: Stephen Wolff Subject: [Robert Elton Ma: Thoughtcrime] To: rem@mit-mc If a database includes only information that is based on solid evidence, and continually/recurrently rechecks information, cleans up typographical errors that creep in and deletes any data that turn out not to be correct or which are based solely on opinion rather than fact, then I don't think we have much to worry about. I.e., "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if somebody watches everything you do and writes it all down?" Hmmmmm....... ------------------------------ Date: 10 January 1984 22:40 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: [Robert Elton Ma: Thoughtcrime] To: steve @ BRL-BMD Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 11:33:16 EST From: Stephen Wolff "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if somebody watches everything you do and writes it all down?" If I commit a crime and am convicted of it, I would expect that fact to be in the FBI database. I wouldn't expect to be able to claim that such inclusion is an invasion of my privacy. If I haven't been convicted of any crime, I should be able to challange any database entry that claims I have been so convicted. That's what I was getting at, this legal info is proper business of the FBI, providing it contains only true&authenticated claims. When we get into stuff that's my own personal business in the first place, I agree with your point, the FBI has no business having *any* of it, regardless of its correctness, except temporarily during investigation of me for some crime where I'm a suspect. (Like what time I usually leave home to go to folk dance may be useful in planning a stakeout.) But after the case is closed, the info should be flushed from the FBI database. ------------------------------ Date: 9-Jan-84 19:59 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Re: the proliferation of networks Here's an interesting one. The AUGMENT Mail Network consists of about fifteen large hosts (last count) supporting tens of users each. About half the hosts are on the Arpanet and all but a few are on Tymnet. The primary gateway host is called "Office" on the ARPANET. Addresses are of the form user.org, where user is one of your identifiers and org is usually a short name for your employer. The org database keeps track of where users want their mail delivered, among other things. Addresses with at-signs are assumed to go out to the Arpanet. Addresses on other mail systems (e.g. OnTyme) are enclosed in curly braces with the mail system name appended. AUGMENT is publicly available from the Office Automation Division of Tymshare. -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 84 7:05:17 EST From: Chuck Kennedy Subject: IBM 0 To: andyb%dartvax@brl-bmd Yes, I just checked the IBM model 026 next door and it does indeed have the 0 above the other digits. Cards, yuck!!! -Chuck Kennedy ------------------------------ From: dciem!ntt%utzoo@BRL-BMD.ARPA Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 09:43:44 est Subject: Telephone keypad A point which has not been mentioned is that the telephone keypad is not only a numeric pad, but also has letters, which are in alphabetical order. If the rows were permuted, so would be the alphabet. Incidentally, the assignment of letters to numbers is not the same wherever letters are used; I have seen British telephones with O and Q assigned to 0, whereas in North America M, N, and O are assigned to 6. Mark Brader ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 13:42:58 CDT From: Doug Monk Subject: Re: The Keyboard as an OUTPUT device With 'soft' keyboards ( i.e., programmable keyboards that can be made to send any given character or sequence of characters when any given key is hit ) a rapidly approaching possibility, I may be able to solve a long-standing problem of my own : on a QWERTY keyboard it *always* takes me at least two tries to type 'change' instead of 'chnage', and 'the' comes out 'teh' a lot. With programmable keyboards, we might all come up with our own designs, customized for our own personal idiosyncracies, muscular and tendon faults, and vocabularies. Make the keyboards read and store the key design from little magnetic strips... Hmm, but how to get the imprint on top of the key to reflect what the key will transmit when hit ? Little LED arrays that read the key design as well ? Suddenly the keyboard is an OUTPUT device. As far as the problem of per-key displays : ANY sort of intelligent key-cap display is EXPENSIVE, no matter what type of technology you use. So perhaps the answer is as simple as individual plastic key-cap overlays. You just keep a set with you and customize the keyboard after you have programmed it. Of course, this will have far greater usefulness if every individual is guaranteed his own keyboard, as just sticking 57 - 80 key caps on is terribly time-consuming, not to mention hard to remember. Another possible answer is to have the overlays be joined together so that you just put it in place over the whole keyboard at once. Of course, this is predicated on all keyboards being designed exactly alike : the same number of keys, each key in exactly the same spatial relationship to every other key, etc. This is one of the things I dislike in typing on a new machine ; the only key sequences guaranteed are 1234567890, qwertyuiop, asdfghjkl, and zxcvbnm. The capital letters are of course the same, but the shifted characters on the numbers are not. To have to unlearn my speed typing habits of for <"> and for <'> just because a newly encountered keyboard has a dedicated <"/'> key is repulsive, especially if I am forced to switch between the keyboards frequently. ( Another, similar gripe I have is with the ( backspace ) vs. ( delete ) keys. On one computer system I deal with, deletes backward on the line you are typing, and deletes forward only if you are on a line already containing characters on both sides, as in a line editor or full screen editor. Otherwise, just produces on the screen. On the other computer system, operates exactly as on the first system ( except it doesn't even erase the character, it just ignores it ) and does absolutely nothing. There needs to be a standard meaning for and that terminal drivers for all types of computer systems to which to adhere. End of parenthetical statement. ) Having given my practical side a chance to suggest something cheaper, I now will discuss the technological things that are more fun. A rear-screen projection system might be made more feasible by the use of fiber-optics. It could also theoretically be managed by the use of a complex mirror and prism system projecting upward from below and behind each key. For technical reasons, it might be more practical ( there I go again ) to project the key legends on the front side of the key, rather than the top. On most ordinary keyboards, this is perfectly possible, but I recall seeing some low-profile keyboards ( by Olivetti I think ) where the front of the key would be too small. I also agree with your reservations about the usefulness of such a system in areas with a lot of light. I myself am looking forward with great anticipation to the reflected light video terminal. Presumably based on high speed LCD technology, it would replace the light ( and radiation ) producing CRT with a flat panel which can be read by reflected light. It could be made to look like printed paper merely by adjusting the color of the display and the background, and in fact, just about any contrast of display and background colors could be arranged, either by adjusting the display unit itself, or by ordering your preference from the factory. The technology of such a display could be what we are looking for for the key legend displays. Embed a small display of this type under a durable clear protective cover in the key itself, and feed it the appropriate signals under the keyboard's microcomputer control. Voila. Doug Monk ------------------------------ From: sdcsvax!davidson@Nosc (Greg Davidson) Date: 10 January 1984 1113-PST (Tuesday) Reply-to: Greg Davidson Subject: Re: The Keyboard as an Output Device To: Makey.DODCSC@MIT-MULTICS I'm afraid I don't agree with Jeff Makey that standardization for keyboard interfaces is likely to happen through current industry practices, though I hope to be proven wrong here. If standardization does not come, then nontraditional keyboards won't make it as long as people don't own all their own equipment. The problem with how many function keys are assumed to be on the mouse is solved when you realize that programs don't have any business knowing how a user wants to emit a given function code. A user might emit codes from function keys mounted on keyboards or mice, by doing a pendown on a stylus, by striking a two handed chord, or by typing a sequence of keys with the control/meta/super/hyper shifts down. A good keyboard/mouse/etc. has locally and remotely programmable keys to adapt to a given program's needs. A good keyboard interface would just be a telephone modular jack for a serial line over which one can send 8 bit bytes. It simply needs to be standard. Finding the right level of abstraction for pointing devices is much harder. Leaving off light pens, which need to be built in anyway, my thought is just to send movement vectors using arbitrary units. The unit should be adjustable by twiddling something on the device. Rather than plugging the pointing device into the computer, it might be better to plug it into the keyboard. Thus, the computer can't tell whether the user used vector keys or a mouse to send a movement code. Many programs read up descriptions of the input devices. For example, in UNIX part of a terminal description is how many function keys exist, the codes they emit, and what string describes them to the user. However, there's no need for a user to be constrained by some programmer's idea of the user's equipment or usage of it. A programmable keyboard with a mouse plugged into it should be able to emulate anything intended to point and generate text and function codes. -Greg ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #10 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-11 23:47:39 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 12 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Computers and People - New Generation Computing, Computers on TV - Whiz Kids (3 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 1984 1313-PST From: Ted Shapin Subject: New Generation Computing Postal-address: Beckman Instruments, Inc. Postal-address: 2500 Harbor X-11, Fullerton, CA 92634 Phone: (714)961-3393 I think Ron Newman's quotes on Japan's and the U.S. views on new generation computing are very much to the point. Since I haven't seen much discussion in Human-Nets on the subject, here are some references: "The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World", by Edward A. Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck, Addison-Wesley, 1983. Aside from being written as though it was dictated but never edited, and as Stewart Brand says having the flavor of "the Japanese are coming", this book describes the purpose of computer-based expert systems and the Japanese plan of a huge national effort to develop them. Somehow I can't imagine a U.S. government agency telling IBM, Amdahl, Apple and Apollo that they must send a few of their brightest young technical people to work on a joint project for three years, which is essentially what is happening in Japan. - - - "The Mind of the Japanese Strategist" by K. Ohmae, McGraw-Hill, 1982. This book describes how long-range planning can be done and how it was successful in helping Japan in steel, in auto production and other areas where Japanese industry is a leader. - - - The nearest thing the U.S. has done similar to the 5th generation project is to set up the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp. with Admiral Bobby Inman (retired) as head. This is a consortium of 14 computer and semiconductor companies that was formed to compete head-on with advanced Japanese research. It is privately funded. If you read the interview with Inman in the May 23, 1983 issue of Computerworld you will see the same emphasis on military applications even though this is a commercial venture. Q. "What role, direct or otherwise, will the U.S. government play in MCC and if there is a role, what should be the government's return on investment?" Inman: "First, when you look at the era of great economic growth in the U.S. in the late '40s and '50s I believe you will find the impetus was in a very large measure [U.S. Defense Department] funding of basic research and grants to graduate education, without strings attached, that played a very major role not only in finding things that were useful in defense, but in stimulating tremendous commercial growth. Much of that was cut back in the '60s. It wasn't cost- effective as one looked for ways to pay for the cost of VIetnam. Nobody else moved to fill the gap. Defense today remains the only single part of the government that has both the size and the scope to impact across a very broad range of research in the country. So, I have watched with interest Defense's effort to refocus on the whole area of computers and software." To answer Pournelle's question, of course DARPA is properly interested in military applications. Unfortunately, all of the main funding agencies in the U.S. for advanced computer research have this as their driving interest. - - - Infoworld, Jan. 23, 1984, pg. 99 has an interview with Feigenbaum. Q. Have you seen any signs of change in the federal government's commitment to high-tech research and development in the areas you identify in the book as critical? Feigenbaum: There has been one very dramatic development: the announcement of DARPA's Strategic Computing initiative. The Defense Department has, through this project, directly taken on the challenge of the Japanese Fifth Generation project. - - - The Jan. 1984 issue of IEEE Computer has a letter by Ben G. Matley "And now, a US National computer policy?", pgs. 87-88. "In 1972, the Japan Computer Usage Development Institue published 'The Plan for an Informatin Society -- A National Goal Toward the Year 2000', in which it targeted nine areas for computer-based societal developments that would call for a $65 billion national investment by 1985. Four tasks in the JCUDI plan are of particular interest: - Build an experimental 'Computopolis' city of the future, complete with computer-controlled transportation systems and home telematics services for work, education, and entertainment. - Build a comprehensive 'think tank' center providing databases with computer simulation and modeling facilities to be shared among both government and private researchers. - Organize a labor redevelopment center for the retraining and reeducation of older workers. - Implement a 'Computer Peace Corps' for transferring computer technology to underdeveloped countries, with the expectation of peace through improved economic development. Such ambitious plans for a totally new computer-based society obviously require equally ambitious plans for the development of a domestic computer industry. Little wonder, then, that the first $250 million of the $65 billion investment went to establishing a domestic Japanese chip industry. Of the nine areas targeted for computer-based developments under the JUCDI's plan, significant progress had been made in eight areas by 1980." The letter goes on to mention the response of the French government and then Matley says: "Clearly the 'computer problems' in our society now are not apt to yield to solutions from entrepreneurships in Silicon Valley nor venture capital along the HiTech Hiway North of Boston. As aviation passed from Kitty Hawk to the government's NASA, so computing has passed from Shockley Semiconductor to sovereign nations." A statement I agree with! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 1984 0109-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #6 From: Ian H. Merritt I was somewhat less impressed with the Whiz Kids episode on which REM was commenting. I don't often watch TV at all; much less that particular program, but I happened to be switching channels and stumbled upon it, and out of curiousity, I watched perhaps the last 3/4 of it. As for shutting down the entire communications network in the US, I won't say it couldn't happen; just that it is \\HIGHLY UNLIKELY//, and I am indeed aware of what happened here in LA. Furthermore, the story portrayed a disjoint sequence of events presumably leading up to the climax of the naive 'Ritchie' (was it?) breaking into what? A payroll system somewhere in or near the NSA? (I suspect that his account and password from the first break-in wouldn't have worked in anything else; his 'magic' is certainly nothing special. Presumably, the NSA would better protect its secure information than it would its payroll systems). In the first place, it is not clear what purpose was served by shutting down communications networks in the story, despite the unlikelihood of any single entity being able to simultaneously shut down the combined resources of every one of the probably more than 100 communications carriers in the United States. Let's assume for a moment that the kid could indeed get into some top-secret NSA system. It would seem to me that it would take the 'bad guys' a considerable amount of time to figure out what was where within this system, or even how to use it. Time, in which the NSA would undoubtedly discover the unauthorized access and plug the hole. Incidentally, if someone managed to knock off the whole country's communications systems, just how long do you think it would take before personnel at the many administration centers around the country NOTICED? I think we indeed need to be prepared and aware of potential problems, but running off and getting SCARED every time some Hollywood TV producers decide to portray a catastrophe accomplishes nothing. Some historical (hysterical?) notes on the LA 'demonstration'. In fact, the entire 'operation' involved a single, albeit important switching system: the Los Angeles 4E tandem, which provides connections to and from the long-distance network. Actually, less substantial shutdowns occurred many times on local switches and TSPS systems over the years. This (I speak of the more significant event, which has, in fact, occurred several times for different reasons, and with varying consequences, but I think REM was referring to a specific time), as with most such manipulations was in fact not so much an act of any technical wizardry, as one of great command of the Bureaucracy. Somebody telephoned the central office, pretending to be Western Electric personnel (the names of whom were most likely researched before-hand), and instructed the craftperson at the console to install a software patch that was itself a fairly serious bug, not, I might add, of the phone-freak's own invention. Then, as soon as the situation that invoked the module into which this patch had been installed was invoked, all hell broke loose. On other occasions, such simple methods as exercising an existing bug in the standard software has been known to bring down an office, often quite unintentionally. In your efforts to not underestimate the power of a high-school kid, you often seem to overestimate that power and danger. We needn't be alarmists about these things; as long as we learn from mistakes, irrespective of who makes them. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: 11 January 1984 01:24 EST From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: Whiz kids - remote intrusion into nuclear-war To: REM @ MIT-MC Date: 01/10/84 22:56:37 From: REM at MIT-MC To: BANDY Re: Whiz kids - remote intrusion into nuclear-war Maybe some NSA person wanted to work at home and figured a 20-character pseudo-random password would be enough? Nah, you're right, anything that crucial hooked to the phone network for home work would use encrypted packet protocol, not just a password. Anything even pretending to be secure hooked into a public network wouldn't use just >one< password .. I've talked to someone who had to access a `top secret' computer to get something off for him to work on... He had to go thru a long (>20 challenges/reply) sequence, and if he got one of the wrong, or took too much time, it wouldn't boot you off then ... it would boot you off when you were done with the challenges ... then it'd just hang up the phone ... no "Invalid response" or anything like that, just hang up the phone. (the file that he got was a speech that he was supposed to work on ... I don't think it was of a very highly secret nature) Anyone who keeps crucial data on a system hooked to a public network had better be more paranoid than our friends in the NSA, as there is likely to be someone just a little bit more cleverer than the person who made your system "secure" trying to crack your system. andy ps. Down with ascii! Why don't we all use funny encrypting terminals? (for `secure' applications) ------------------------------ Date: 11 January 1984 05:04 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Whiz Kids 1/7 (re: human-nets msg) / show mostly Subject: realistic, but To: urban @ RAND-UNIX From: trw-unix!trwspp!urban@Berkeley (Mike Urban) Date: Tuesday, 10 Jan 1984 08:34-PST Reply-To: Mike Urban 1) "Wrench" is smart enough to come up with a 20-letter random password for the NSA system, but (faced with hangup when a zero-parity character is typed) isn't smart enough to try 256 different characters. Sure. Haven't you ever had a blind spot? You work on a computer-program bug or a math problem or a puzzle (crossword, numerical, whatever) for hours and can't figure out what's wrong or what the solution is; then you ask somebody else and the answer turns out to be trivial and you're embarrased you didn't think of it? Although the writers probably goofed, they accidently invented the way things really are! 2) THE BIGGEST LOGIC GAFFE: Richie is convinced that he's dealing with the real NSA because they take him into a big room (that the bad guys managed to COVERTLY stock with 20-foot high situation monitors, etc. Right.) AND SHOW HIM RALF, WHICH THE FBI HAD CONFISCATED. When Richie looks at the room and breathes "Ralf!", it sure had ME convinced... When he entered that room, he already knew (incorrectly) the fellow was an NSA agent, because the fellow showed him his ID the day before when they first met. 3) The NSA knows about "Wrench"(es) but the FBI doesn't. Possible, but a little weird...? This is based on the true premise that the National Security Agency (NSA) is even more secretive than the FBI and CIA combined. Of course they know things the FBI doesn't know, especially if it deals with National Security. 5) The NSA gurus know someone's penetrating their system (early scene in computer facility). They don't change the password. Makes sense if "wrench" is really an NSA audition, preposterous otherwise. Yeah, you're right, I doubt the NSA would be so dumb. Almost anybody in industry or government could be that dumb (anybody dumb not to change the system-maintenance password after accepting delivery on a brand new computer system; to whit a certain hospital and a certain labratory near Livermore), but not the NSA! ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #11 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-16 03:22:06 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 15 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Queries - Dvorak Documentation & Silicon Gulch & Terminal Elbow, Computers and the Law - Thoughtcrime / known associates (2 msgs), Input Devices - Toddler keyboard & Programmable keyboards (2 msgs), Computer Networks - Telex and Teletex, Computers and People - Global Consciousness Model ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jan 84 19:52:24 PST (Sunday) Subject: Re: Dvorak keybords again (and again) From: Bruce Hamilton Would someone PLEASE supply this list with citations into the human-factors literature re: Dvorak vs. Sholes keyboards, instead of hearsay? --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 13-Jan-84 00:52 PST From: testing Subject: Silicon Gulch Could someone tell me where the "gulch" is? Thanks, --Bi<< ------------------------------ Date: 14-Jan-84 20:23 PST From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino CA Subject: Am I the only one? I have been developing VERY sore elbows. I think it is due to terminal usage. Anyone others suffer from it...anyone have any clever ways of dealing with it...outside of changing professions, having my arms amputated, a perpetual anesthetic, bandaging my elbows or meditation? Thanks, --Bi<< ------------------------------ To: REM@MIT-MC Date: 11 January 1984 05:32 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Thoughtcrime / known associates Your scenario is reasonable, but the way police tend to think, it's more: Someone deals drugs; they find it out; watch them; and if you spend a lot of time associating with their known dealer, they begin to watch you too. This isn't necessarily an evil practice; it's about the only way they could get evidence. I'm not myself sure we ought to try to keep people from taking drugs; it uses a lot of police resources, and puts a very great deal of money into illegal activities, when otherwise the stuff would cost less and could be taxed. Ah, well. but I do tend to think of it as evolution in action. ------------------------------ To: Robert Elton Maas Date: Wed, 11 Jan 84 13:08 EST From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime / known associates The database expansion being considered is rather ambitious: Under a proposal under consideration, the National Crime Information Center would have information on whether someone was suspected of organized crime connections, terrorism or narcotics or was a "known associate" of a drug trafficker, the Times said. Note that the NCIC is rather more than the "local" resource your hypothetical case envisions. According to the NYT News Summary (Jan. 1, 1984): The computer system is now used mainly to advise police officers that an individual has been named in an arrest warrant in another state. The implication is that when the police apprehend someone for a minor crime, they run that individual through the NCIC to check for "wants and warrants." Are you comfortable with the thought that in future they may run them for "wants, warrants, suspicious associates, and terroristic or narcotized appearance"? Frankly, I'm not particularly happy even with your scenario. When the police are investigating a specific crime they now have to go around talking to people, asking "Who was friends with Bob the Terrorist?" and "Who did Ralph the Junkie room with at MIT?" This is not a casual act--it requires effort, and more important it is subject to challenge ("Why, what's he supposed to have done?"), so that it is unlikely to be widespread without justification. Casual tracking of *everyone's* associations, as a matter of course, is not a legitimate police function, in my view. Besides, what if it turns out you are one of the few of Vicki's known associates who happens to have associated with Sue, another suspected dealer (that folk dance club is a real den. . .). Incidentally, on what evidence was Vicki, "accused of dealing drugs", convicted of being "Vicki the dealer" between the beginning of your message and the end? Mark ------------------------------ Date: 11-Jan-1984 0826 To: rhea!usc-eclc!telecom@Shasta From: (John Covert) Subject: As long as we're on keyboards; here is the keyboard used in Subject: France The following is the new DEC standard French keyboard, which should correspond to the most common keyboards in France. All French type- writers will have the letters in the same layout as shown. Note that A, Z, Q, W, and M are moved from the positions the English QWERTY keyboard uses. The French speaking parts of Canada use the QWERTY keyboard with a few dead keys and only c cedilla and e acute directly on the keyboard. The key with the tilde and grave accent is a "dead" key, used for combination with the next character (to generate those symbols without a combined letter, the key must be pressed twice. Likewise with the diaresis/circumflex key, though a stand-alone diaresis may not be generated. Since I doubt that you have a terminal which would represent the char- acter codes of the DEC multinational set, I won't send those codes to you. The letters will be represented by the base letter followed by the mark. The section sign (under the 6) and the degree sign (over the right parenthesis) will be represented as s and o. The keyboard can be switched between normal mode and data processing mode. In data processing mode, the section sign and e accent grave go away and are replaced with left and right square bracket, and the u accent grave goes away and is replaced with backslash. Any codes not on the keyboard can be created using either the two dead keys or the compose key followed by a two character sequence. In France, the upper case versions of the accented letters must be created with compose. Standard French typewriters would correspond to this keyboard without the compose (only the dead keys), without data processing mode, and without the */$ and @/# key. In France, you shift to get the numbers; the symbols are in the base position. ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 o _ DEL ` & e' " ' ( s e` ! c, a` ) - TAB A Z E R T Y U I O P .. * ^ $ CT LO Q S D F G H J K L M % @ RL CK u` # SH > W X C V B N ? . / + SHI FT < , ; : = FT Compose S P A C E ------------------------------ Date: 11-Jan-84 22:10 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Toddler keyboard translation When Shannon was two she loved to type her name on the 'puter. It is extremely laborious to write legibly with a pencil at that age. But is it moral to ingrain QUERTY into the mind of a two year old? Since it is easy with AUGMENT to make an arbitrary character mapping from one set to another, and then change the key caps correspondingly, I decided to design an alphabeticly ordered keyboard. Unfortunately the alphabetical order does not map at all directly into a typeable spread, so I ended up fudging alot. Luckily Shannon likes fudge. This is the best I could do. It is in alphabetical order, but you have to find the sequence. It has the nice effect of giving the vowels to the left hand for quick two-handed alternation with the consonents. I dont use it myself. Too hard to unlearn QUERTY. ; :\A B C D , - 1 2 3 TAB Z Y\E F G H / + 4 5 6 CAPS X W\I J K L M N 7 8 9 RETURN SHIFT V U\O P Q R S T . 0 SHIFT -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 84 01:46:39 CST From: Scott Comer Subject: Programmable keyboards... It seems to me that we are moving in the direction of defining a terminal keyboard and other input devices to be user supplied, like calculators, favorite pens, etc. With a standard connector on terminals (like the phone jack suggested by Greg), it would be a simple matter for me to carry my favorite keyboard around with me, and my mouse, light pen, etc, should plug into it. Of course, that still leaves display technology in the realm of "what you find is what you must use", and making the local system understand what your keyboard is sending is left up to you. Scott ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 1984 1518-EST From: Wang Zeep Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #10 It would appear that the solution to everything concerning keyboard layouts, portable computers and encryption would be a standardized system for slaving portables to host computers which would allow for encryption, etc. This way wou would walk around with your favorite style keyboard, with your encryption setup, etc. Terminals would evolve into big monitors with hookups for your portable to provide intelligence. Funky gadgets like mice, trackballs, etc. would be supported by your computer, not the terminal. To some extent, this is already happening: Xerox's 1810 and Toshiba's t100 portables both hook onto stationary computers and then serve as smart keyboards. Now all we need is a good distributed editor which takes advantage of all the capabilities of a portable. wz ------------------------------ Date: 11-Jan-1984 1532 From: (John Covert) Subject: Telex and Teletex Telex will soon be passe if Teletex catches on. Teletex is a new service similar to Telex but which operates at significantly higher data rates (Telex is 50 bps asynch; Teletex is 2400 bps synch) and using a much larger character set. Sending Teletex messages is much less expensive than Telex (for example, from the U.S. to Germany compare MCI Mail's Telex mini-ounce (400 characters) at $1.82 with a Teletex full page (8 1/2 x 11 or DIN A4) for $1.00). But the equipment is more expensive, and it may be (I'm not sure) part of the requirement that the equipment have the full character set defined in the CCITT recommendation for Teletex service which includes the alphabets of all the European languages and a large number of special characters. I've asked for more details on the service in the U.S. Western Union is the carrier which is providing the service today. There are very few machines in service, though several contracts are in effect waiting for installation. All Telex terminals are reachable from any Teletex terminal, and vice versa. I've communicated with a Teletex terminal located in Germany from MCI Mail. Of course, since MCI Mail is considered Telex, all the nice upper/lower case available on both MCI Mail and Teletex disappears in the converter. Last week I received the following statistics on the status of Teletex in Germany: Relatively shortly after the W-German Teletex Service has been implemented by the DBP the number of network termination points (NTP's) reached 3335 Ttx connections. The growth rate within 2 months (Aug. to Oct.83) was 12%. The highest connection density we will find in Munich with 502 NTP's and Frankfurt with 375 NTP's. Above statistics are from Oct.83 and are representing DBP figures. The list of DBP approved Ttx equipment is growing too. DBP informed me that presently 35 different Ttx terminals or stations are permitted for connection to the Teletex Service (General Connection Licenses only; trial licenses are excluded). The above number reflects at least 24 different manufacturers. ------------------------------ Date: 12-Jan-84 16:22 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: time increment for global consciousness model This refers to the working definitions in V7 #2 for the augmented global consciousness project. From: Robert Elton Maas I think one year is too coarse a step in a model of self-referent network communications. An awful lot of bootstrapping can be done in a month, after which previous extrapolations are invalid. ... I agree that one year is too coarse. Unfortunately, the most available (for incorporation) existing world models use one year increments. Also, changing from a year to a month multiplies by twelve the total simulation time for one run. We may not have CRAYs at our disposal. On the other hand, retrofiting the model to a shorter time increment may not be trivial at a later time. Ideally we would be able to start short and get long as the simulation gets further into the future, but wouldn't that too much encumber expressing the relations as equations? -- kirk ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #12 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-17 01:44:36 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 17 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Query - E-COM mail, Response to Query - Terminal Elbow, Computer Security - Telephone Circuit Security, Computers and the Law - Cracker's-Eye View & SSN Information Proposal, Input Devices - Keyboards (3 msgs), Computers and People - Augmented Global Consciousness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 07:59 MST From: Kubicar.Multics@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA (Mike Kubicar) Subject: E-COM mail Reply-to: Kubicar@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Does anyone know anything about the post office's E-COM mail? I noticed an ad in Byte which allowed you to use this service from your personal computer (if you bought the somewhat expensive software package). How would I go about rolling my own? Mike Kubicar Kubicar @ MIT-Multics ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1984 12:57:17-PST From: decwrl!rhea!glivet!zurko@Shasta Subject: sore elbows DEC human factors folks have done some research on keyboard characteristics and suggest 1) The distance from desktop to the middle of the key cap surface at the home row shouldn't be over 30 mm (1.18 in). If yours is higher, work up a palm rest to counteract that with about the same slope, etc. as the keyboard. 2) The recommended slope of the keyboard is max 15 degrees, and min 5 degrees. For folks that use the new DEC VT200 series terminals (they're the kind that come with the various PCs DEC puts out), use those little black plastic legs! They're designed to give you the right height, slope, etc. Mez ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 1984 2229-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #6 From: Ian H. Merritt Thanks for the description of the phone company CO or tandem carrier shutdown. Hmmm, accepting a patch from a random voice on the phone claiming to be so and so is rather dangerous! I wonder whether every system operator is immune to that now, or if the word still needs to be passed around some more? I'm afraid your latter speculation that the word still needs to be passed around is more correct. In Los Angeles, sufficient abuse has occured that the telephone company has grown wiser and made it much more difficult for telephone vandalism to take place. It is still possible, although it requires more ingenuity. Most other areas, however, are substantially more vulnerable, since the word has typicaly not spread very far out of the LA area. Many computer system operators have not been exposed to these abuses, and may not make the wisest decisions in such situations. Again, the LA area has been the target of much of this kind of vandalism, although it has been more widespread than the telephone problems. Many sites have no official policy for dealing with a voice on the telephone claiming to be 'so-and-so', and instructing the operator to do something with a computer. I highly recommend such a policy for all computer centers utilizing operator services. A good policy which can significantly improve the security of a site is to always require a call-back number before executing any instructions given over the telephone. This, however, is not fool-proof, and a second consultation is advised to determine the validity of these instructions. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 08:58:51 pst From: John Foderaro (on an h19-u) Subject: computer breakin Those of you who remember last summer's computer breakins by Ron Austin and the interesting description of tracking him down by Brian Reid (published on various bboards) may be interested in reading the article in the January issue of 'California' magazine. It describes the incident from the point of view of Austin (and Poulsen, the other kid involved). I think the article is too sympathetic to Austin, and breaking in in general. The way I measure this is to ask myself, "If I were a teenager just learning about computers, then after reading this article would I be more or less likely to try breakins myself?". I feel that this article would encourage me to try breakins. Its conclusion: "As to the fourteen counts of ``malicious access'', Ron has pleaded not guilty, contending that the spirit in which the deads were committed was not really malevolent. As he points out, he could have wreaked untold havoc all across the Arpanet, and he didn't" By this same argument, if I break into a house and steal things, I shouldn't be charged because I could have killed the occupants, but didn't. - john foderaro ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1984 01:15 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Review-Rise of the Computer State I propose the following law: Once a year, any maintainer of a database that contains information on people indexed by social security number must inform each person so indexed (except those whose records haven't been modified since the last notification) of the existance of such records and of the means for examining them, either directly by sending mail or telephoning them, or indirectly by passing the list of SSNs to another database maintainer who promises (by sworn affidavit) to inform the people, again either directly or indirectly. Most database maintainers would pool their notifications to reduce overhead, but private databases which don't want "big brother" to know, just the individual persons to know, may opt for direct notification, and of course the place where the buck stops will directly notify on behalf of the whole consortium that feeds into it. Debate on my proposal? Right now there's no way to find out all the places that have data on me, although if I happen to accidently find out one place I have thelegal right to ask to see that data. But finding out who has data about me is rather like guessing a password, you have to ask a lot of people at random if they have data on you before you have a hit. But would pooling of lists of SSNs tend to excite pooling of the data itself? Maybe if we then had the right to examine the data and force the deletion of incorrect and none-of-your-business data, we'd win more than we'd lose? As it is now we can't even find out if the data exists and if so where it is kept, and so we can't really inspect it or correct it. ------------------------------ Date: 12 January 1984 1449-cst From: Paul Stachour Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #9 , Doug Monk, Keyboard ... Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 13:42:58 CDT From: Doug Monk Subject: Re: The Keyboard as an OUTPUT device ... and 'the' comes out 'teh' a lot. With programmable keyboards, we might all come up with our own designs, customized for our own personal idiosyncracies, muscular and tendon faults, and vocabularies. ... One of my friends, who uses Multics EMACS in almost exclusively, has bound the end-of-word keys (like space, ...) to look for the sequence 'teh' preceding the space and change it to 'the'. He says that's been quite helpful to him. ...Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jan 84 11:46 MST From: "Charles Spitzer"@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: Keyboard as an OUTPUT device Reply-to: Spitzer%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA This has gotten out of hand, with people thinking up all these neat whiz-bang goodies. Re: Changing keycaps under micro control: If someone gave me a keyboard where the letters got shuffled around or changed from under me while I was using it, I'd through it out the window! I can't imagine anything less "user-friendly", and I don't know about anyone else but I very infrequently look at the keyboard, being a touch-typist. How many "computer professionals" do you know who aren't (or who aren't very fast with only a few fingers)? I'd bet they would be in the minority. This might be marginally useful for function keys, but even then they should be able to display much more than is possible to display on a keycap. Re: Having personal overlays: Where would you put them? On the keyboards I've used, there is no room between the keys for any kind of overlay. Re: Mirrors or display devices in front or back of the keys: Where do you get the room for these? There is a standard for keyboards in Europe, and it calls for a very flat keyboard (I've seen some Norwegian keyboards where the key is only about 1/8 inch high with very short travel). Yes, I know that there are existing terminals that do use the front of the keys (Tektronix APL/ASCII keyboards come to mind). How many people who have actually used them find them usable? I find it bothersome in the highest degree to move my hands away from the keyboard to hunt for a key, as I don't often use the APL set. Charlie Spitzer ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1984 02:13:15-EST From: ima!inmet!tower@CCA-UNIX Subject: The Keyboard as an Output Device The submission in V 7 # 6 by Makey.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS spoke of having the keyboard display the current function each key had. This reminded me of a keyboard described in a sci-fi story of a few years back. The keyboard was a 3-D space above the typing surface, with the areas designated holographically, and there being some (undescribed) method for sensing the position of the fingers. The nifty part was that the system guru type was dynamically changing the keyboard as she worked to get the exact functionality she wanted (BTW she was attempting to break into a machine, and it killed her a few mintutes later). Can't remember the title or author. Apologies. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Date: 12-Jan-84 16:28 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: simulation for decision analysis vs prediction This refers to the augmented global consciousness project (V6 #83, V7 #1 and #2). From: Robert Elton Maas I don't see how the behaviour of a communications/conferencing network can be predicted more than about one step ahead, thus the model must run in real time with respect to the system (itself) it's modeling, making the exercise rather moot. Maybe I don't understand the mode of your proposed self-modeling. I agree with your premise and the last sentence. I think "prediction" is too hard a word to use on the results of a long-term simulation in the current state of the art. Instead, what I imagine is a decision analysis. Given (1) all of the project's best justified guesses about what interrelationships might hold true (and might appear) in the future, and (2) alternatives which the project could help decide; determine which alternatives most significantly affect the simulated total lifetime of the project. It would NOT be trying to predict the future, just augmenting the ability of humans to account for a multitude of justified relationships when deciding between alternatives. And in the process, focusing and structuring research on what ever appears to be the most significant problems. -- kirk ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #15 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-01-25 22:08:08 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 26 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Response to Query - (nf), Computers and the Law - Malicious Access (4 msgs), Computer Security - Re: Discouraging Password Guessing (2 msgs), Computers and the Media - "hacker": Somebody Gets it Right, Computers and People - Telecollaboration Model, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 January 1984 01:50 EST From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: "(nf)" at end of subjects of messages To: decwrl!rhea!elsie!insinga @ SU-SHASTA This (nf) at the end of subjects of messages means "Notesfiles" ... Notesfiles is a system that is used for reading and composing messagaes sent on usenet. It has been rumored on net.jokes (a jokes newsgroup, of course) that the "(nf)" means "not funny". :-) andy ------------------------------ Date: 24 January 1984 05:04 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: rude / malicious / illegal To: Reynolds @ RAND-UNIX Why should our society care more about the rights of computers with modems on telephone lines than about people with audio units on phone lines? This is just a guess. A computer with modem is vulnerable in the same way as a child or mentally-retarded individual and needs special protection. I think if you have a 3-yr-old child and some stranger keeps calling up your 3-yr-old and commanding him to do things like unlock your door or throw your wallet in the fireplace or stick your jewlry in a bag out by the curb, and your nieve 3-yr-old believes it's "daddy" telling him to do these things so he obeys, and despite your attempts to get this caller to stop calling your 3-yr-old he keeps calling and you suffer financial loss because of it... You get the idea? Surely you'd want that caller charged with some crime? Now just imagine you run a business in your home, and this fellow on the phone impersonating "daddy" is getting your kid to give out business secrets and make changes in the accounting books to the point of transferring thousands of dollars of money into the caller's account which the caller then withdraws in cash before you notice what's going on... That should be a felony (grand theft or whatever), shouldn't it? Computers are even more adept than a child at playing havoc with your business if a random caller manages to impersonate somebody with priviledged access to your "books" and start modifying them. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 24 January 1984, 13:47-PST From: Reynolds at RAND-UNIX Subject: rude / malicious / illegal To: Robert Elton Maas Date: 24 January 1984 05:04 EST From: Robert Elton Maas From: Reynolds ... Why should our society care more about the rights of computers with modems on telephone lines than about people with audio units on phone lines? ... This is just a guess. A computer with modem is vulnerable in the same way as a child or mentally-retarded individual and needs special protection. I think if you have a 3-yr-old child and some stranger keeps calling up your 3-yr-old and commanding him to do things like unlock your door or throw your wallet in the fireplace or ... Now just imagine you run a business in your home, and this fellow on the phone impersonating "daddy" is getting your kid to give out business secrets and make changes in the accounting books ... I think you are setting up a "straw man". You postulate a kid who understands how to answer the phone and carry on a conversation with a stranger but does not understand that he/she should not unlock the door for strangers. I would make darn sure that my 3-year-old or my retarded friend or my stupid computer either: (1) knew how to intelligently deal with all phone calls (2) knew how to spot and ignore "questionable" calls (3) did not have access to a telephone line My origninal point about crackers and computers is that if you answer the phone, you have to take some responsibility for dealing with the call. We cannot simply make it a crime to call into a computer. On the other hand, it is obviously a crime to damage someone's property, it doesn't matter if you did it by calling in on a modem or by aerial bombardment. If the people who run computer centers are going to both allow remote logins AND store valuable information on the computers, they had better make darn sure that they trust their login security protocols. I think such a facility manager has a pretty weak case if they go crying to the FBI after a penetration which was allowed because they didn't "lock the door". If you think this puts an unfair burden on the system adminstrator, ask the police. They will laugh at you just like they laughed at me the time my apartment was burglerized. Its a long story but the gist of it was that the "door was not locked". To paraphrase the cop: "... ha ha ha, what a jerk you are, ho ho ho ..." -c ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 1984 2003-EST From: John R. Covert Cc: reynolds at RAND-UNIX, pourne at MIT-MC Subject: "Rights" of people and computers I agree that our society should care as much about the rights of people as about the "rights" of computers. However, I don't agree that the difference is audio vs. data; I suggest that it is the type of access. There should be no difference between a phone conversation and a data conversation. In regards to the following discussion: Date: Friday, 20 January 1984, 15:00-PST From: Reynolds at RAND-UNIX Subject: rude / malicious / illegal To: Jerry E. Pournelle I think that is that double standard that bothers me. When some jerk (with whom I want no contact) calls at my home phone, it is just "rude". When the same jerk calls into the modem on my computer it becomes "malicious", it is illegal, and I can probably get the FBI to hassle the guy. Why should our society care more about the rights of computers with modems on telephone lines than about people with audio units on phone lines? Consider the following: (this is a restatement of my philosophy on access which I have stated in the past) Someone you don't know calls your home phone and says, "I understand you are an expert on xyz, and I'd like to learn more about xyz from you," and continues to engage you in a conversation. Though you may consider this rude, if you continue the conversation, you are permitting the access. If you inform the caller that you don't want to talk to him, and he goes away, fine. If he continues to call you, that is harrassment. But if he calls you and claims to be someone he is not in order to get you to continue the conversation, that is impersonation, and potentially fraud if he gains any benefits from it. Likewise some random person calls your computer and says (using the command language of the system) "Can I have a demo, do you allow tourists, guests, unamed users" or at least does not misrepresent himself. If the system allows the login and allows the access to proceed, then the caller has done nothing wrong. If the system informs the caller that no guest access is allowed and the caller goes away, then there is still nothing wrong. However, repeated calls are harrassment. If the caller claims to be someone he is not (by hacking for passwords belonging to authorized system users) then this is impersonation. And if the caller succeeds in logging in and gains any benefit (the use of a computer system is a marketable commodity) then this is fraud. /john ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 24 January 1984, 21:09-PST From: Reynolds at RAND-UNIX Subject: "Rights" of people and computers To: John R. Covert Cc: Reynolds at RAND-UNIX, Pourne at MIT-MC Date: 24 Jan 1984 2003-EST From: John R. Covert I agree that our society should care as much about the rights of people as about the "rights" of computers. However, I don't agree that the difference is audio vs. data; I suggest that it is the type of access. There should be no difference between a phone conversation and a data conversation. Yes, I agree with you on all points. The discussion in the rest of your message is well thought out and crisply stated. I did not mean that the law should treat audio or data communications differently. Rather I was pointing out that public reaction to recent system crackings DID seem to make that distinction, and that that was wrong. That is, I think the tendency in our society today is to under-react to abuse of people's home phones and to over-react to abuse of a computer's dial-in lines. -c ------------------------------ Date: 24 January 1984 02:02 EST From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: A simple technique to discourage password guessing To: HAGAN.Upenn-1100 @ RAND-RELAY Ahh, but this simple technique can cause moby headaches for the users of a system -- if I get a list of >all< the users of a system (let's say, the equivalent of /etc/passwd), and then set my program loose on all of those names, trying 10 times each (overnight (2^10secs is 17 minutes - an acceptible figure)), then noone will be able to login within a `reasonable' amount of time to the system and the security system will get flushed. Now, if one id (say, root) doesn't have this scheme enforced for it, the crackers will probably find out about it and shoot for breaking that account. andy ps. True, you may not have broken >into< the system, but you have prevented people from using it, which may be more satisfying to a cracker -- esp when you haven't done any `permanent' damage. pps. If you make it so that the delay time gets reset to 1 second every time the cracker hangs up the phone, no problem -- an autodialer is standard equipment these days for crackers. ppps. It would seem to me that the current generation of crackers are `Junior High School Hackers (to the extent that they pirate fairly well)' who were given modems by their parents for some obscure reason or another. ------------------------------ Date: 24 January 1984 05:14 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: A simple technique to discourage password guessing?? To: HAGAN.Upenn-1100 @ RAND-RELAY Doubling the time before the failed password can be retried is a nice idea, but it has a fatal flaw. Suppose the smart intruder gets wind of this method, after all it should be obvious that it's taking longer and longer to respond and careful timing should reveal the doubling algorithm. So the intruder programs his computer to double the time then rdial and try again etc. Only the intruder knows when this process of doubling started and hence when the next valid time to try will be, thus has an immense advantage over the legitimate user in logging in. The legitimate user is permanently locked out while the intruder can toy with the account forever. Of course the intruder can't actually get in unless the password can be gussed in a reasonable number of tries, but he can sabotage the whole system by doing this hack on every account, interleaving all the retries. In fact the doubling works to his advantage because the longer he has toyed with each account the longer he can inactivate it with just a single fake retry, so eventually he can inactivate the whole system with just one fake retry per day at such random times nobody can predict his call and set up to trace it. We must find security systems that not only prevent intruders from gaining access, but also prevent intruders from preventing access by legitimate users, in fact in most cases the latter is more important. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 84 1309 PST From: Robert Maas Subject: "hacker" - Horay for As The World Turns A couple minutes ago on the soap opera "As The World Turns", Craig was intently working on a computer given to him as a gift a few weeks ago, and when his wife Betsy came in she remarked that he was really taking to the terminal and he replied something to the effect that he was becoming a hacker! I.e. the original correct AI-jargon definition of "hacker" as a compulsive computer-wizard was used, instead of the new media-newspeak definition as electronic intruder. ------------------------------ Date: 24 January 1984 02:54 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: simulation for decision analysis vs prediction To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2 how many megatons was Tamboura? ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #17 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-02-08 21:48:29 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 9 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Queries - Denying Access to Computers & The "World" of Computer Science & The Wolfe Computer Exam, Response to Query - Silicon Gulch Gazette, Computers and the Law - Notification of Database Entry (2 msgs), Computer Security - Access Criteria, Computers in the Media - Other uses of the name "WORLDNet", Computers and People - Telecollaborated Simulation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jan 1984 0032-EST From: Greg Skinner Subject: Denying access to computers Does a legal precedent exist for denying someone access to a computer? For example, say a computer facility is in the habit of granting guest users accounts on their machine on a person-to-person basis, in other words, they can deny certain persons accounts if they so desire. Is the facility acting legally? May the person who is being denied the account sue the facility for a violation of civil rights? You may respond to me in person or via this newsgroup. --greg Gds@XX (ARPA) {decvax!genrad, ihnp4, eagle!mit-vax}!mit-eddie!gds (UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 1984 0044-EST From: Greg Skinner Subject: the "world" of computer science I had a discussion with a friend of mine about the world of computer science. I described it as a "world" in the sense that it has everything the outside world has (media, politics, religion of a sort, art, etc.) plus a degree of romanticism, fantasy, etc. I elaborated on that aspect of computer science by giving examples of the language of a computer hacker (grokking the monitor, moby code), descriptiveness (having a magic program that guns people), and its relationship to other works of sf and fantasy (many computer systems model themselves after Lord of the Rings, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Wizard of Oz, etc. in their host and/or device nomenclature). If you're not sure what I'm getting at, what I'm trying to do is solicit your opinions on whether or not the world of computer science is in fact a world within a world, or if it is a fantasy world, or both, or neither. I'd appreciate serious responses to this (although humorous ones won't be unwelcome) as I may use your ideas (anonymously, of course) in my argument. --greg Gds@XX (ARPA) {decvax!genrad, ihnp4, eagle!mit-vax}!mit-eddie!gds (UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Feb 84 01:46:12 CST From: Stan Barber Subject: wolfe computer exam I need to find out about the Wolfe Computer Competency Exam. It is produeced by the Wolfe Computer Testing Co in New Jersey. If anyone has heard about it, I would appreciate your comments and help in locating any research or resources concerning this exam (or similiar). Thanks Stan Barber Department of Psychology Rice University Houston TX sob@rice (arapnet,csnet) sob.rice@rand-relay (broken arpa mailers) ...!{parsec,lbl-csam}!rice!sob (uucp) BBS:(713) 660-9252 (Bulletin Board) ------------------------------ Date: 30-Jan-84 10:41 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Silicon Gulch Gazette The name of the advertising newspaper Jim Warren put out for the original West Coast Computer Faires, and sundry related projects down in Silicon Valley, was called the Silicon Gultch Gazette. That may be because it came from his rustic home up in the Santa Cruz mountains. -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1984 13:56-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest, various ones From: willis@Rand-Unix (Willis_Ware) In HUMNETS (vol. 7 # 12), the following (partial) message appeared from R. E. Maas. Date: 14 January 1984 01:15 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Review-Rise of the Computer State I propose the following law: Once a year, any maintainer of a database that contains information on people indexed by social security number must inform each person so indexed (except those whose records haven't been modified since the last notification) of the existance of such records and of the means for examining them, either directly by sending mail or telephoning them, or indirectly by passing the list of SSNs to another database maintainer who promises (by sworn affidavit) to inform the people, again either directly or indirectly. Most database maintainers would pool their notifications to reduce overhead, but private databases which don't want "big brother" to know, just the individual persons to know, may opt for direct notification, and of course the place where the buck stops will directly notify on behalf of the whole consortium that feeds into it. I'd like to offer the following comments. The idea of notifying all entrants in a database has been around a long time. It was first talked about during the early 70s in the deliberations of the Secretary's (HEW) Special Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems; this was the group whose report formed the intellectual foundation for the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. Later the Privacy Protection Study Commission, chartered by the Privacy Act and working during 1975-77, also considered it. While the idea is appealing on the surface, the big problems would be the practical ones, notably the cost of preparing and mailing the notices plus the difficulty of making a strong positive cost-benefit argument. Consider two of the largest databases at the Federal level: the Social Security Administration and the IRS; both of them are indexed by SSN. Most entries in each will change each year; SSA will make payments and receive deductions and the IRS will receive tax returns. The population of the country is now about 225 million, so there is probably 125 million or more taxpayers and a correspondingly large number of individuals who contribute to or receive funds from the SSA. Even if these two agencies combined their notices, a mailing or any other process of notification would be a massive undertaking. Furthermore data processing installations in the government generally do not enjoy the most recent state-of-art; for the most part they will not have the level of technical sophistication that most readers of HUMNETS would automatically expect. Thus, for many Federal databases (also organized by SSN), the system would not be able to ascertain which records had been changed during the year. To add another practical problem -- the address-of-record may very well be different from one database to the next; the amount of address-change activity is surprisingly large and in many cases, differing addresses are used for legitimate but legal purpose. So, combining notification across agencies would not necessarily work well. And one more difficulty: identification of individuals is not consistent across databases; this is one of the better unplanned but effective protections against computer matching of files. It would also inhibit the combining of notifications from several sources. Whatever one thinks about the Postal Service, many mailings of large size would be a non-trivial additional burden. The only such large mailing that comes to mind is the annual IRS outpouring of tax forms to all taxpayers but these are mailed from the many regional processing centers that IRS has. Nonetheless, the example is the existance proof that it can be done -- at least once per year by the USPS. The private sector pales when such suggestions are made to it. The position generally is that the cost of such notifications is not warranted by the threat to people nor the expected benefit to be received. It is dreadfully easy in a forum like HUMNETS to assume that the views of its participants are a proper representation of the views of the country. No way!! We who read this Digest are a minority group, and even if one adds all the others who are likely to be well informed and to have sound opinions on privacy matters, it is still a minority group and by no means a cross-section of the country. For the most part, most recipients of such notifications would be disinterested and could care less about whatever they revealed. It is for reasons such as this that it is so hard to create an advocacy position for privacy issues of various kinds. The basic point is sound though; one does not have a good mechanism for knowing where records about him exist or what they contain. It's a hit and miss proposition and even individuals who are well informed and adroit in tracking down things will occasionally be startled to uncover a new and unexpected collection of data. Willis H. Ware Rand Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Fri 3 Feb 84 10:38:40-PST From: Richard Treitel Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #16 To: dehn@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA In repsonse to Dehn's questions: How do you feel about the fact that at this very moment my computer has your name in it, together with several other facts about you? How am I supposed to go about showing my legal right to keep it? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? If I can't keep information about other people in my computer, what can I keep? That depends on what the other facts about me are! If they include, for example, my checking account balance, then I am quite annoyed. If they only include facts which I have made public myself, or which are an inevitable result of my use of this system, then fine. I don't think you should have any legal right to keep information about me other than that which I have chosen to make available. Of course, I can't do anything about it at the moment; that is what I would like to see changed. This may surprise you, but I don't keep files of information about other people in my computer; I keep programs, output data, drafts of papers, and so on. However, I've got no objection to your keeping information about other people, provided they consent to this, or indeed about me, within certain limits. I'm willing to be reasonable (??!?) about data which are not too personal. Information stored in your head does not worry me nearly so much as information on a machine, because it is not (yet) the case that N million people can tap into your head and read the data at high speed -- and you probably can't sort and index it the way a machine could, mapping from (say) my driver's license number to my mailing address in a millisecond (unless I was the only person in your database ...). - Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 1 Feb 1984 13:56-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest, various ones From: willis@Rand-Unix (Willis_Ware) Two people have commented in recent issues of HUMNETS [e.g., v 7 #9] that suspending a login attempt after several failed tries can seriously intrude on the capability of a system by denying access to legitimate users. These observations were made in response to my testimony before Congress on October 14 [published in HUMNETS some issues ago]. The point is well taken, but clarification is in order as to what I really said. First of all I did not propose that this approach be universally applied, nor did I take a position with regard to its effectiveness or desireability. My testimony is quite explicit that I was only describing one installation that has used such a scheme; it was an illustration (for Congress) of what can be done. Moreoever, one must understand that the Los Alamos National Laboratory undoubtedly did a careful examination of its circumstances, including the perceived threat from penetrators and the risk of service denial and the inconvenience to users, before implementing it. For one organization in one set of circumstances guarding against one perception of threat, it was judged an appropriate approach. For other organizations in different circumtances, it might well not be. Especially it might not be appropriate for facilities that primarily support dial-in users. This discussion prompts me to stress a point that I don't recall appearing in HUMNETS. The HUMNETS discussions have focussed on small parts of the problem whereas the security protection issue is one of many dimensions. No security safeguard is a panacea nor is any one absolute. For every installation, its managers must decide what threat exists and what part (or all) of it is serious enough to warrant safeguards. Then they must decide on an economic/technical basis what array of safeguards -- technical (hardware, software), managerial, administrative, procedural.... -- provide the desired protection at an affordable or acceptable cost, and what policies are essential to enforce them. In the end, the choice of security safeguards is basically an engineering-economic analysis at the system level. The point is not new; it is often called risk analysis or risk management. It partially explains the quite different views held by managers within government and those in the private sector; the perception of the threat and its details are quite different in the two places. At the Federal level, a series of documents called Federal Information Processing Standards provide guidance and insight to government agencies faced with the issue of implementing safeguards in computer systems. In the private sector, a variety of specialized consultants and companies have materialized to assist with the matter. Willis H. Ware Rand Corporation ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 84 16:17:43 EST From: Dave Subject: Other uses of the name "WORLDNet" Seems that someone has used the term WORLDNet in another manner before we could get a world-wide computer network up of the same name. Oh, well.... n100 2027 02 Feb 84 AM-NEWSSUMMARY c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service The New York Times news summary for Friday, Feb. 3, 1984: WASHINGTON - A advanced USIA news service was announced by the Reagan administration. The USIA said it planned to use communications satellites to enable reporters around the world to question officials in Washington or wherever they might be. The system, to be called Worldnet, would provide three hours a day of two-way television news conferences. nyt-02-02-84 2314est ------------------------------ Date: 30-Jan-84 22:08 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: telecollaborated simulation This refers to the model of&for a world-wide telecollaborated simulation in HN #14. The equation directly measuring the existance of the project was represented for one time unit in the simulation as: change_messages = student_changes + modeler_changes. Assuming student_changes = students * changes_per_student modeler_changes = modelers * changes_per_modeler an important focus becomes how people become students, then become modelers, and finally cease to participate. It is unclear exactly what will be the most important factors, but a few of the most obvious can be identifed. students = lasttime's students + new_students - lost_students. new_students = lasttime's non_players * new_interest. lost_students = lasttime's students * (graduation_rate + disinterest_rate + disable_rate). modelers = lasttime's modelers + graduates - lost_modelers. lost_modelers = lasttime's modelers * (disinterest_rate + disable_rate). disable_rate = human_death_rate + discommunication_rate. The human death rate could be modeled initially by integrating one of the existing world models. These telecollaborated simulation equations could be placed into the service-capital sector of such a model. Thus the human death rate would affect this project's simulation of its own life time. Is it possible for this project, in turn, to also significantly affect the human death rate? What if it encouraged the design and implementation of systems that teach skills for living well while focusing research on global survival issues? -- kirk ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #18 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-02-11 01:46:03 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 10 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Query - Programming Aptitude Tests, Computers and the Law - New Access Law (2 msgs) & Database Entry Disclosure (3 msgs), Computers and People - Big Computer is Watching You & Hackers & Telecollaboration Simulation, Computers and the Media - Hacker/ing, Information - CMU Interaction Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 84 19:26:38 CST From: Stan Barber Subject: Testing Programming Aptitude or Compentence To: AIlist@SRI-ai, telecom@mit-mc Cc: stan@RICE, wert@RICE, va@RICE, fbag@RICE, rbbb@RICE, dave@RICE, Cc: dbj@RICE, I am interested in information on the following tests that have been or are currently administered to determine Programming Aptitude or Compentence. 1. Aptitude Assessment Battery:Programming (AABP) created by Jack M. Wolfe and made available to employers only from Programming Specialists, Inc. Brooklyn NY. 2. Programmer Aptitude/Compentence Test System sold by Haverly Systems, Inc. (Introduced in 1970) 3. Computer Programmer Aptitude Battery by SRA (Science Research Associates), Inc. (Examined in by F.L. Schmidt et.al. in Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 65 [1980] p 643-661) 4. CLEP Exam on Computers and Data Processing. The College Board and the Educational Testing Service. 5. Graudate Record Exam Advanced Test in Computer Science by the Education Testing Service. Please send the answers to the following questions if you have taken or had experience with any of these tests: 1. How many scores and what titles did they used for the version of the exam that you took? 2. Did you feel the test actually measured your ability to learn to program or your current programming competence (that is, did you feel it asked relevant questions)? 3. What are your general impressions about testing and more specifically about testing special abilities or skills (like programming, writing, etc.) I will package up the results and send them to Human-nets. My thanks. Stan Barber Department of Psychology Rice University Houston TX 77251 sob@rice (arapnet,csnet) sob.rice@rand-relay (broken arpa mailers) ...!{parsec,lbl-csam}!rice!sob (uucp) (713) 660-9252 (bulletin board) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1984 1939-PST From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL.ARPA Subject: California Computer Crime Bill To: human-nets at RUTGERS A new computer crime bill just introduced in Sacramento could shut down all free, public access computer-based bulletin board systems (BBS) in California. The bill (AB2551) makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly access a computer "without authorization" for any reason, even with no malicious intent. The reason for the misdemeanor is to make it easier to prosecute "hackers" who break into computers but do no damage. Vandalism, theft of information, etc. are already felonies under an existing California crime bill. The problem free and open BBSs is that users cannot know if they are committing a crime until they log on a BBS, and by then the crime has occurred. The BBSs have neither $ nor personnel to mail notices to users; even if they did there is no list of user addresses for the mailing. The bill was introduced by Sam Farr (D, Carmel). For more info contact John James (author of the Communitree software used on many BBSs), PO Box 1807 Los Gatos, CA 95031 (408))335-9250 The above appeared on the BBS I operate in Palo Alto, CA. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 13:33:19 PST From: Matthew J. Weinstein Subject: More Laws? [L A Times 2/3/84 p. 2] ``Computer "hackers", experts who electronically infiltrate private computer systems, would be charged with misdemeanors under legislation proposed in the state Assembly. The measure, proposed by Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Monterey) and backed by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, is aimed at youthful computer enthusiasts who enter computer systems without malicious intent. Current laws provide felony penalties for those who infiltrate malicious- ly. In recent months, authorities have investigated several cases in which teenagers have gained entry into private computer banks.'' ------------------------------ Date: 6 February 1984 03:53 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Laws about keeping info about people in databases Cc: DEVON @ MIT-MC [MESSAGE FROM DEVON at MIT-MC 3:15am] ... I'd say that such laws generally only address information that you give out to other people, not info that you keep for yourself. Good point, and a relief if correct. So it's perfectly legal to keep my personal name&address list on a computer, providing I don't start distributing it to outsiders (especially if I sell it to anybody with the money!!) and providing I take reasonable measures to read-protect it. That would seem to answer the fears about somebody raiding his prsonal computer just because he keeps his personal mailing list on it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Feb 84 08:38 EST From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Database notification and privacy To: willis@Rand-Unix.ARPA Cc: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA, MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA In response to Willis Ware's comments on the cost-benefit aspects of REM's proposal for mandatory, annual notification of individuals by database maintainers: Your points are interesting, but I'm not sure that they are convincing. Granted that a mailing of ~150 million is nontrivial, it's not obvious to me how serious the incremental burden on the mail system would be. (The IRS forms mailing is indeed similar; how about Publishers' Clearing House or Reader's Digest promotions? Remember, too, that we're talking about at most one or two additional pieces of mail per household--how many do you get in a day already?) The basic point is sound though; one does not have a good mechanism for knowing where records about him exist or what they contain. It's a hit and miss proposition and even individuals who are well informed and adroit in tracking down things will occasionally be startled to uncover a new and unexpected collection of data. Perhaps we have a basis for a clearly feasible proposal. If in fact the burden of annual individual notification is determined (how?) to be excessive relative to the {benefit of | public demand for} such service, how about the establishment of a central facility, to which all individual databases are required to make themselves known, which forwards requests by individuals to all such databases, to which they must respond (directly, or through some sort of pooling) "yes, we have you/no, we've never heard of you"? Mark ------------------------------ Date: 10 February 1984 05:23 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #16 To: TREITEL @ SUMEX-AIM Cc: dehn @ MIT-MULTICS people wioth eidetctic memories shall be lobotomized if they learn anything about you... How's that agin? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 1984 1150-EST From: Wang Zeep Subject: A frightening Thought The latest issue of "Infoworld" mentions that a think tank believes that in a few years, all students will be required to have portables. These (lap-sized, I guess) portables would have a "write-only memory" recording all test scores and exams. Only school officials would be able to read the results in the WOM and would use these results to determine competency and graduation. They predict that this will eventually replace SAT's and such; universities would recieve transcripts of all this data and decide admissions on such a basis. wz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 16:52:51 PST From: Matthew J. Weinstein To: ddern@bbn-unix Subject: A Hacker by Any Other Name ... Other locales have developed names for the same (sane?) type of behavior. When I was an undergrad, (real) hackers were often called `munchers', and the verb was `to munch' (of course, we might have had `munchkins', and you know what we did when we had `the munchies')... - Matt ------------------------------ Date: 9-Feb-84 00:36 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Re: nuclear winter simulation collaboration To: Robert Elton Maas Cc: Arms-D@MIT-MC This refers to a dialogue in Human Nets V7 #14 - #16. From: Robert Elton Maas Or quicker, just write one of those early-type BASIC programs that simulates the volcano and WW3, so kiddies can play with the parameters and get flamboyant printouts of the results. World III (Limits to Growth) simulations in BASIC and Dynamo have existed for Apples and TRS-80s for a few years now. But it is not clear that, for disseminating simulations, the disk/cartridge technology by itself is the best way to encourage user support/collaboration on the simulation. Computer networking may need to play an important part in such an augmented global consciousness. At least, that is one of the things I would expect to find out from a telecollaborated simulation project like the Gaia Adventure. I went to the Palo Alto CPSR meeting tonight and listened to the talk by one of the NASA Nuclear Winter modelers that published in Dec 23 Science. In a private conversation after the talk, I learned some interesting facts. It is impossible to get any public funding to build or improve a model because results take a year or more. They had NO official support for any of their work! They even got their budget cut because NASA decided they must have too much money if they had time for such a project. Any future research may be done exclusively by the DoD at Livermore (classified?). Their model takes 60 seconds on their Cray for one run but they have very primitive and flaky network access to the Cray. None of the people on the project have access to an electronic mailbox. The effort it would take to make their simulation available for use and collaboration by a paying (EM) public, such as in the Gaia Adventure, would be great, but it could be the only way it will ever get the resources necessary to produce convincing results. -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: 5 February 1984 00:59 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Correct use of "hack" on "Whiz Kids" tonight, and wiretap Ritchie said "I'm going to try to hack something together in 5 minutes" meaning he was going to do a rush job of programming, not care about subtle bugs or user interface or structured programing etc., just try to get it working in an emergency. Indeed he found a way to transfer a digitized photo from the Aethena-society computer over the phone to the newspaper reporter's portable computer with printer. The Aethena-society fellow whose computer he was going to do this on looked worried, and Ritchie assured him he wasn't going to damage anything. It sounds like the script writer is making some attempt to bring back the correct definition of "hack" at least. By the way, earlier in the program a maidservice pretended Ritchie's mother had won a prize, a monty's maid service, and the "maid" planted bugging devices including on Ritchie's phone, used for his modem. I was thinking this would develop into some kind of plot to record the data when Ritchie logs into remote hosts, obtaining login procedure and passwords, but that part of the plot was dropped for no apparent reason. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 03 Feb 84 23:41:02 EST From: reiser (brian reiser) @ cmu-psy-a Reply-to: Brian Reiser < Reiser%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT > Subject: CMU Human-Computer Interaction Program ***** ANNOUNCEMENT ***** Graduate Program in Human-Computer Interaction at Carnegie-Mellon University The field of human-computer interaction brings to bear theories and methodologies from cognitive psychology and computer science to the design of computer systems, to instruction about computers, and to computer-assisted instruction. The new Human-Computer Interaction program at CMU is geared toward the development of cognitive models of the complex interaction between learning, memory, and language mechanisms involved in using computers. Students in the program apply their psychology and computer science training to research in both academic and industry settings. Students in the Human-Computer Interaction program design their educational curricula with the advice of three faculty members who serve as the student's committee. The intent of the program is to guarantee that students have the right combination of basic and applied research experience and coursework so that they can do leading research in the rapidly developing field of human-computer interaction. Students typically take one psychology course and one computer science course each semester for the first two years. In addition, students participate in a seminar on human-computer interaction held during the summer of the first year in which leading industry researchers are invited to describe their current projects. Students are also actively involved in research throughout their graduate career. Research training begins with a collaborative and apprentice relationship with a faculty member in laboratory research for the first one or two years of the program. Such involvement allows the student several repeated exposures to the whole sequence of research in cognitive psychology and computer science, including conceptualization of a problem, design and execution of experiments, analyzing data, design and implementation of computer systems, and writing scientific reports. In the second half of their graduate career, students participate in seminars, teaching, and an extensive research project culminating in a dissertation. In addition, an important component of students' training involves an internship working on an applied project outside the academic setting. Students and faculty in the Human-Computer Interaction program are currently studying many different cognitive tasks involving computers, including: construction of algorithms, design of instruction for computer users, design of user-friendly systems, and the application of theories of learning and problem solving to the design of systems for computer-assisted instruction. Carnegie-Mellon University is exceptionally well suited for a program in human-computer interaction. It combines a strong computer science department with a strong psychology department and has many lines of communication between them. There are many shared seminars and research projects. They also share in a computational community defined by a large network of computers. In addition, CMU and IBM have committed to a major effort to integrate personal computers into college education. By 1986, every student on campus will have a powerful state-of-the-art personal computer. It is anticipated that members of the Human-Computer Interaction program will be involved in various aspects of this effort. The following faculty from the CMU Psychology and Computer Science departments are participating in the Human-Computer Interaction Program: John R. Anderson, Jaime G. Carbonell, John R. Hayes, Elaine Kant, David Klahr, Jill H. Larkin, Philip L. Miller, Alan Newell, Lynne M. Reder, and Brian J. Reiser. Our deadline for receiving applications, including letters of recommendation, is March 1st. Further information about our program and application materials may be obtained from: John R. Anderson Department of Psychology Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #21 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-02-22 17:58:45 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 22 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Query - Whiz Kids??, Computers and the Law - Person Numbers (2 msgs) & Database Information Reporting (2 msgs), Computers and People - Security Backdoors (3 msgs), Information - Satellite Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1984 03:45:17-PST From: dave porter Subject: Whiz Kids ?? Human-Nets occasionally refers to a TV programme called "Whiz Kids" which seems to have a plotline dealing with computer hackers and the like. Anyone care to send in a brief outline of the programme, for the benefits of any readers in parts of the world that don't get it? (Since my net address is probably meaningless to most of you, let me point out that I'm in Reading, England.) dave ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1984 08:10-PST Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: National Databases and National Socialism - lest we forget In European countries under occupation during World War II, government offices were ``burgularized'' with such information as social security files and tax information stolen shortly before the rounding up of Jews and other ``undesirables.'' Sometimes even the most well-meaning government assurances don't help. If the data is there, the potential for abuse exists. - Geof ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 16 Feb 1984 08:50:47-PST From: decwrl!rhea!krikit!porter@Shasta Subject: Person numbers Interested to see comments on `person numbers' in a recent hnt. In the UK there has been a recent move to introduce plastic cards with magnetic stripes as a replacement "National Health Service card". An individual has an NHS number, which is sort of like a social security number. However, this number doesn't seem to get used all over the place. The only place I can remember seeing mine written down is on my "National Health Card", and THAT's only a piece of thin card that I present to the doctor when I register with a new doctor, and I think that's only useful to him so that he can claim me as a registered patient and ask the Government for some money for looking after me. My pay slip does have a slot labelled "NI Number". However, the contents are blank. This might be because I didn't tell them my NI number (well, how would I know what it is anyway?) or because they didn't ask me; I can't remember. Excuse the rambling aside... anyway, the protagonists of the plastic cards say that there's no big deal about it, the cards merely contain the same information that the old cards did, just encoded differently. I see it another way; I see it as the first move towards establishing a unique, easy-to-digest handle on an individual. Just like an American social security number now is. No, thank you. I prefer my bent piece of cardboard which I lose all the time anyway (each time I move and register with a new doctor, I am indeed unable to find my NHS card). A final historical note: apparently, we used to have some numbering scheme for people, probably introduced to control rationing during WW II. However, the system was dismantled in 1951 (I believe) owing to abuse of it. dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1984 09:55:01 EST Subject: Database Access and Reporting To: wmartin@office3 In regard to the discussion about the contents of databases, I'd just like to relate a true story that is, in fact, still in progress. About a year ago, one of the people I live with was the victim of a purse-snatching. Like any sensible person, she immediately reported the loss of the contents -- credit cards, checkbook, driver's license, library card, and so on. Within a few weeks, everything except the $40 or so in cash had been replaced. The criminal was never caught, and she assumed after some months that the case was closed. Unfortunately, this was not the case. About nine months after the crime, she began to receive dunning letters from various chain stores located 30-60 miles from our home, claiming that she had written bad checks in payment of bills. None of these were placed she'd ever stopped. After some investigation, it was determined that what had happened was this: several months after the original robbery, someone took several of the pieces of id found in her handbag, split them open, and replaced the photos with different pictures. They then went to several local banks and opened checking accounts using my friend's name, but a different address (claiming that she was awaiting new id after a recent move, according to one of the banks involved). These accounts, which had my friend's social security number as the tax id on them, were used to write the bad checks. The various stores found my friend by hiring dunning agencies, which, in turn, used private detectives to locate her. She had to take several days off from her job to go and personally visit the banks to prove that the accounts were not really opened by her, and also had to do a fair amount of letter writing to explain all this to the credit departments of the stores. In one case, the store used one of the national check-verification-by-phone services to approve the bad check. This service has its "local" branch located about 45 minutes drive from our home, and has repeatedly told my friend that unless she makes a personal visit to them, they will not clear the record they hold on her, since her various notarized statements are, apparently, not sufficient. She is, needless to say, having her lawyer look into the legality of this behavior. In the meantime, her credit rating is, in part, impaired through a set of actions that were in no way her responsibility or fault. The incorrect info remains in a nationally-accessible database used by a fair number of check-verification firms, and she has no access to it, even to correct clearly untrue statements. (In my opinion, she may have grounds for a suit under the Fair Credit Protection Act, but I'm waiting to see what her lawyer says...) Clearly, there is a problem with the way this database is being maintained, a problem which the existing law seems not to be correcting (unless, that is, the check-verification firm is merely flagrantly violating the law, believing that nobody will bother to prosecute them...). Any suggestions for improving the way databases are handled should, clearly, deal with such situations. --Dave Axler ------------------------------ Date: 19 February 1984 08:59 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Notification of individuals re database entries To: WMartin @ OFFICE-3 Credit-extending organizations (like department stores or bank card offices) should be required to include a summary of the info they have on file with the statement once a year -- thus this would be NO added mailing cost. Unfortunately unless you receive your mail at a locked box and nobody else, even in your family, has access to that box, it's too easy for such mailing to go astray, especially since somebody wanting that info knows (could easily find out) when it'll be mass-mailed, and stage a sweep of all mailboxes in a geographic area. This is worse than sending 4-digit ATM passwords in the mail, which might get stolen, but which are sent at random times when a privacy-invader wouldn't know when to look for it and certainly couldn't conduct a sweep. On the other hand, if the info is sent out only on request, it would complicate the system too much to send it in the same envelop as some monthly billing, so it would have to be sent under separate cover the way 4-digit ATM passwords are now, voiding your claim of no additional mailing cost. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 84 10:53 EST From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: WarGames & Backdoors Cc: mrc@SU-SCORE.ARPA Perhaps the allegation about backdoors was slanderous if it implied it to be a common phenomenon (I don't remember exactly what it said), but in fact they do exist and for the sort of purposes hypothesized in the movie. It turns out that all the computer security vulnerabilities used as plot devices in the movie WERE IN FACT BASED ON REAL-WORLD EVENTS. Admittedly there was a lot of artistic license, the human factors were unbelievable, and the AI stuff at the end horrible science fiction, but the security stuff wasn't all that bad for a popular portrayal. I know of at least two incidents really involving backdoors or "time bombs"; one moderately serious, the other not. Don't ask me for details, however -- it is common courtesy NOT to discuss them in public. Ted ------------------------------ Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 22:14:46-PST From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: WarGames & Backdoors To: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA While "backdoors" or "time bombs" may exist, the implication of their being commonplace is grossly exaggerated. Some of these "real world events" may be totally blown out of proportion. For example, how many of these "backdoors" turn out to be merely that a former employee's account was not deleted when that employee left? Just because that account wasn't deleted doesn't mean the ex-employee left a "backdoor". An explanation both for a "backdoor" or a "time bomb" could be a legitimate design flaw which, after later reflection, the designer recognizes but is unable to repair. The most absurd thing about "Wargames" was the suggestion that a "red" system would be accessible on the public telephone network. The US military isn't *that* foolish. Reports on how "red" systems are secured are unclassified. If you want to know about "red" systems on Milnet, read BBN Report 1822, with special attention to the section on Private Line Interfaces. To be brief, "red" systems can only talk to other "red" systems; they cannot talk to "black" systems nor can "black" systems talk to "red" systems. Any Milnet site you can Telnet, FTP, or Mail to is "black", not "red". ------------------------------ Date: 18 February 1984 06:07 EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: "Wargames" To: MRC @ SU-SCORE uh -- truth is an absolute defense at libel and slander suits -- are you ssure "back doors" aren't fairly traditional? ------------------------------ Date: 14-Feb-84 02:51 PST From: William Daul Tymshare OAD Cupertino CA Subject: Satellite Insurance To: space@mit-mc Cc: DIA.TYM@OFFICE-2, SGK.TYM@OFFICE-2, PAMV.TYM@OFFICE-2 >From COMPUTERWORLD (Feb 13, 1984 p. 11) Will mishap hike insurance rate? NEW YORK -- The insurance industry is feeling repercussions from the failures to properly launch two $75 million communications satellites from the space shuttle Challenger this month. The Westar VI communications satellite owned by Western Union Co. was insured for $105 million; Western Union had paid a premium of about $5.5 million for the policy. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., a New York brokerage company, was the underwriter for the policy, according to a Western Union spokesman. ... ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #22 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-02-22 18:33:41 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 23 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Response to Query - Computing Worlds, Computers and the Law - Person numbers (3 msgs)& Database Information Reporting, Computers and the Media - "The Computer for the rest of Us" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Feb 1984 2051-PST From: Rob-Kling Subject: Computing Worlds Cc: uc.gds%mit-eecs%MIT-MC%UCI-750a@csnet2 Sherry Turkle is coming out with a book that may deal in part with the cultures of computing worlds. It also examines questions about how children come to see computer applications as alive, animate, etc. It was to be called, "The Intimate Machine." The title was appropriated by Neil Frude who published a rather superficial book with an outline very similar to that Turkle proposed to some publishers. Frude's book is published by New American Library. Sherry Turkle's book promises to be much deeper and careful. It is to be published by Simon and Schuster under a different title. Turkle published an interesting article called, "Computer as Rorschach" in Society 17(2)(Jan/Feb 1980). This article examines the variety of meanings that people attribute to computers and their applications. I agree with Greg that computing activities are embedded within rich social worlds. These vary. There are hacker worlds which differ considerably from the worlds of business systems analysts who develop financial applications in COBOL on IBM 4341's. AI worlds differ from the personal computing worlds, and etc. To date, no one appears to have developed a good anthropological account of the organizing themes, ceremonies, beliefs, meeting grounds, etc. of these various computing worlds. I am beginning such a project at UC-Irvine. Sherry Turkle's book will be the best contribution (that I know of) in the near future. One of my colleagues at UC-Irvine, Kathleen Gregory, has just completed a PhD thesis in which she has studied the work cultures within a major computer firm. She plans to transform her thesis into a book. Her research is sensitive to the kinds of langauage categories Greg mentioned. (She will joining the Department of Information and Computer Science at UC-Irvine in the Spring.) Also, Les Gasser and Walt Scacchi wrote a paper on personal computing worlds when they were PhD students at UCI. It is available for $4 from: Public Policy Research Organization University of California, Irvine Irvine,Ca. 92717 (They are now in Computer Science at USC and may provide copies upon request.) Several years ago I published two articles which examine some of the larger structural arrangments in computing worlds: "The Social Dynamics of Technical Innovation in the Computing World" ^&Symbolic Interaction\&, 1(1)(Fall 1977):132-146. "Patterns of Segmentation and Intersection in the Computing World" ^&Symbolic Interaction\& 1(2)(Spring 1978): 24-43. One section of a more recent article, "Value Conflicts in the Deployment of Computing Applications" ^&Telecommunications Policy\& (March 1983):12-34. examines the way in which certain computer-based technologies such as automated offices, artificial intelligence, CAI, etc. are the foci of social movements. None of my papers examine the kinds of special languages which Greg mentions. Sherry Turkle's book may. Kathleen Gregory's thesis does, in the special setting of one major computing vendor's software culture. I'll send copies of my articles on request if I recieve mailing addresses. Rob Kling University of California, Irvine ------------------------------ Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 05:48:36-EST From: Marc Shapiro Subject: Person numbers French Social Security numbers are very indiscreet. [[[NOTE: THE ACTUAL DATA IS REMOVED FOR PRIVACY CONSIDERATION. THE DESCRIPTION IS LEFT FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES]]] Mine is XYYZZAABBBCCC, meaning: X = sex YYZZ = month and year of birth AA = if born in France, number of department of birth BBB = country if not in France, if in France, number of city within department CCC = to ensure uniqueness ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 1984 0719-PST Subject: Person Numbers From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: ole at NTA-VAX Quite an interesting discussion on "person numbers" -- it brought a few questions to mind: What information besides sex is known at birth in order to compute the "control digits"? Eye and/or hair color? (Or are 90% of the individuals covered blond with blue eyes anyhow, and it isn't enough of a distinguishing factor to include?) Handicaps? Or am I wrong in assuming that the number is assigned at birth -- maybe not until the child is some months or years old? Idle speculation -- does the number change if the person gets a sex-change operation? Please don't go to any trouble to locate the entire algorithm, but it would be interesting to know what sort of data are considered valuable enough and worthwhile to store in this coded number. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Feb 84 07:10:32 -0100 From: ole@NTA-VAX (Ole Jorgen Jacobsen) To: WMartin@Office-3 Subject: The Person Number Algorithm Here is the description I found in my old high-school Computer Science book ("EDB for videregaaende skoler", NKS-Forlaget, 1974): Each person is assigned a number N consisting of a 6 digit birthdate and 5 additional digits labelled as follows: d1 d2 m1 m2 a1 a2 n1 n2 n3 k1 k2 \--------------/ \------------/ Birth Date Person Number The first six are obvious. n1 through n3 are used to dis- tinguish people with the same birth date. The first, n1, is used to indicate whether the person was born before or after 1900. If it is >= 5 then the person was born before 1900, if < 5 then he/she was born after 1900. The last, n3 is the "sex indicator", female = 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8, male = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Examples: d1 d2 m1 m2 a1 a2 n1 n2 n3 k1 k2 Birth Date Sex -------------------------------------------------------- 0 2 0 6 6 5 4 7 8 7 9 June 2 1965 F 2 6 0 8 2 7 4 9 4 5 3 August 26 1927 F 2 5 0 7 9 2 6 7 5 2 2 July 25 1892 M 2 5 0 7 2 9 6 7 5 2 2 ------bogus------ Now for the fun part, to check N's validity, first compute t = 5*d1+4*d2+3*m1+2*m2+7*a1+6*a2+5*n1+4*n2+3*n3+2*k1 Secondly compute the remainder: r = t - [INT( t/11 )]*11 If r = 11 - k2 then OK else BOGUS! (I discovered that if r=0 then k2 must be zero as well, this condition seems to have been omitted in the above) According to the text, no other information is extractable from these numbers, boring isn't it? There are only a total of 4 million people in this country by the way which accounts for the relatively short magic number. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1984 0707-PST Subject: Re: Notification of individuals re database entries From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: REM at MIT-MC I must admit to being mystified by the stated objection (that "privacy-invaders" could conduct a sweep of mailboxes to steal summaries of credit ratings sent out with bill mailings once a year). This seems so far-fetched as to be meaningless to me. Of course, they COULD. (Whoever "they" might be.) But why on earth WOULD they? If someone wants credit histories/data on a large group of people, all they have to do is to become a business, either for real or fraudulently (and only a business or government would have any such desires, I think). Then they can much more cheaply simply BUY the data from the credit bureaus like any other business does. Areas where mailboxes are stolen from are traditionally ghetto and slum neighborhoods. Nobody cares about the credit histories of the mass of the inhabitants of these areas anyway. So no "privacy invader" (sounds like a video game) would bother "sweeping" such an area. It is much harder to do this in the neighborhoods where people live whose credit histories would have some value; I'm not claiming that the mailboxes are secure -- they probably are much LESS secure if nobody ever steals from them! But the little old ladies are watchful, being nosy, and the cops come when called, and the USPS pays attention to reports or complaints more promptly. (You should see the newspaper debates about carriers walking across lawns! What they would do about organized thefts from the mailboxes I shudder to conjecture!) And what good would it do somebody/some organization to get all this info in this obvious manner (someone will notice if all the bills from Grubb's Department Store are missing in this square mile...). What are they going to do -- blackmail people? What would they do that the credit bureau people don't do now? (Another thought -- at least around here, mailings are staggered by the first initial of the last name, not geographically, so I can get my department store bill two weeks before (or after) my next-door neighbor anyhow.) Sorry, not convinced. So far, I stand by my original posting... Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 20 Feb 1984 1703-PST Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #20 From: Ian H. Merritt To: RSaunders.TCSC@HI-MULTICS Subject: No documentation is a feature??? I have just seen the most interesting commercial on the TV. I feel it is for the new Macintosh but the story line goes Look at this IBM pc and its 200 pages of instructions, Look at this cute new Macintosh with its 30 pages of documentation, Which is more advanced. Is this an IBM comercial in disguise?? It presents an interesting concept, that a computer can get by with 30 pages of documentation, but I wonder who the pitch is aimed at. The point of the commercial, unless I misinterpret it, is that a layperson (not a genius, but not entirely stupid either) should be able to learn how to use the computer with only the ~30-page manual shown in the ad. Presumably, that's not the only documentation provided with the system, however. You and I tend to look at a computer system as a scientific tool, and tend to expect gobs of complex detailed documentation. J. Random BusinessPerson, however, wants a box that just does what he needs. We in the computer business could learn to work the Macintosh from 30 pages, because of experience with similar systems, but would never buy a system that did not have the background information to tell us HOW it works. John Q. Public couldn't care how it works, but having nowhere to turn but his Apple dealer when he is confused doesn't sound like something I would be advertizing. Maybe Apple feels that people are so stupid that they will shell out $2500 (or whatever it costs) for a machine that does 30 pages of tricks, but I doubt it (but I could be wrong). We in the computer business could probably sit down in front of the thing and learn to use it with no documentation at all, as I did with the first version of the Lisa when it was introduced. The little ~30-page manual is nothing more than an introductory and quick reference document. Having spent considerable time trying to teach non-computer people how to use various software for among other toys, the IBM-PC, I am painfully aware of the difficulty introduced by excessive documentation as a subsitute for well written, self-explanatory software. I think the average home/small-business computer user will fully understand and identify with what the ad is saying. <>IHM<> ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #23 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-03-03 02:48:14 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 2 Mar 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Article w/o From: field, Queries - Setting Reading Time & Electronic Publishing of "Consumer Reports"?, Computers and the Law - Computer Access Law & Person Numbers & National Databases, Computers and People - No Documentation is a Feature, Information - New Magazine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Feb 84 05:49:08 EST From: Charles Subject: Article w/o From: field In the V7 #21 the appeared an article with the header: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1984 09:55:01 EST Subject: Database Access and Reporting To: wmartin@office3 In regard to the discussion about the contents of databases, I'd just like to relate a true story that is, in fact, still in progress.


From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #24 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-03-09 21:22:19 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 9 Mar 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Response to Query - Computer Culture, Computers and the Law - Person Numbers, Computers and the Media - PCs hit Corporate America, Information - Communications Policy Panels from MRI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 March 1984 03:04-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: Sherry Turkle's book on computing culture To: Kling%UCI-20B @ UCI-750A Date: 18 Feb 1984 2051-PST From: Rob-Kling Sherry Turkle is coming out with a book that may deal in part with the cultures of computing worlds. It also examines questions about how children come to see computer applications as alive, animate, etc. It was to be called, "The Intimate Machine." . . . Sherry Turkle's new title is ``The Second Self: The Computer and the Human Spirit'' (Simon & Schuster, May 1984). It is excerpted in ``The Intimate Machine (Eavesdropping on the secret lives of computers and kids.),'' which appears in the April issue of Science 84. If this excerpt is typical, the book should be very good indeed. The article is very readable and informative, telling the story of several children who encounter computer games and computer programming. It pays particular attention to the difference between an "engineer's" and an "artist's" viewpoint, and to the difference between a boy's and a girl's view. Read it! -- Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 01:31:33-PST From: David Roode Subject: personal i.d. numbers All of this discussion of personal i.d. number makes me think of the laughable amount of non-use to which the government puts social security numbers when used as taxpayer i.d. numbers. They apparently do a very poor job of cross checking amounts reported by payers against amounts declared as taxable income. It seemed ludicrous for withholding on interest payments to be proposed as a means of applying some tax to cheaters. Wouldn't that encourage more people to cheat? The implication was very strong that cheaters were not going to get tapped otherwise. I don't see how any further invasion of privacy could be used to improve the information the government had at hand. Yet seemingly no use is being made of the data. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 84 10:02:22 EST From: Mark S. Day Subject: Computer ad - stranger than fiction The following (condensed) ad was in TWA Ambassador for February 1984. It presents an interesting image of a computer as the concealed weapon of the truly macho financial analyst: THE COMPUTERS WHIRRED ALL NIGHT. BY DAWN THE COMPANY WAS OURS. (The following is based on a true story as told by a financial analyst. Names and places have been changed to insure confidentiality.) IT WOULD BE A TOUGH FIGHT. Takeover battles always are. We knew we were in for a grueling negotiation with a tough, elusive quarry. So we burned the midnight oil, doing extensive computer modeling and analysis. And when we boarded the plane for New York, my computer was tucked into my briefcase. FIRST WE GOT THE WORD FROM MAHOGANY ROW. [The orders from financial execs.] OUR BATTLEFIELD? THE PARK LANE HOTEL. [Setting the scene.] WE WERE EVENLY MATCHED -- ALMOST. It was their senior vice-president vs. our senior vice-president. Their corporate counsel vs. our corporate counsel. Their investment bankers vs. our investment bankers. But that's where the match came apart. Because their was their financial analyst vs. me and my . Sure they had a "portable" computer installed in their strategy room. But they didn't have the power of a -- the one in the briefcase right at my feet. THE BATTLE BEGAN. Right off, their analyst flourished a ream of printouts, demonstrating their position was so solid they could repulse our advance. Or maybe drive up our bid price? We replied with our own analysis, modeled on my . "We've been through your entire operation with a fine-toothed comb," our chief negotiator said. "Your capital investments have been compromised by two years of inadequate return. The weakness has been obscured by your highly diversified portfolio, but we've found it and analyzed the consequences. Therefore we're forced to devalue your projected worth. And the cash part of our offer now comes in at $200 million, not $285 million." They were annoyed. But quickly recovered to say contemptuously, "Of course, you can substantiate your claim." ALL EYES FOCUSED ON THE FLAT BLACK BOX. I had pulled out my , placed it square on the table and plugged it in. Their analyst said, "What's that, a computer?" Then his boss halted him with a stern glance. Meanwhile, I raised the flat electroluminescent screen into position, and rotated the so everybody on their side of the table could see the bright amber display. First I modeled the performance of all their capital investments. It wasn't near where it should have been. Next I broke it out by basic industries. There was the culprit. Their forestry investments had pulled down the entire division. I modeled the performance without forestry, and I modeled forestry alone. The two graphs could not have been more divergent. "If we do a regression analysis," I said, "we can predict the effect of these investments over the next five years." I showed them the intricate formula for the analysis. With two keystrokes it turned into a simple graph with an obvious trend. "Our projections show the true value of this segment to be 30% less than the value initially presented," I said. The amber glow from the reflected in the glasses of their analyst as he peered at the screen. THE TIDE OF BATTLE HAD TURNED. [The ability of the computer to plug into the Dow Jones news service further disconcerts the bad guys, and leaves our hero feeling momentarily sorry for his counterpart.] THE COMPUTERS WHIRRED ALL NIGHT. The rest of that day and all that night the computers whirred. While they crunched the numbers on their under-powered portable, I put together ten more models covering every angle, every stratagem, every possible avenue of escape. I used the to access our corporate computers to capture the very latest data. I produced graphs to illustrate our analysis. And I wrote a summary document substantiating our position. As dawn approached, I knew we had them where we wanted them. WE CLOSED THE DEAL. My boss told me that just one of the models I created on my computer saved the company $85 million. Their analyst came over and asked me about that black box in my briefcase. I told him it was just another business tool. "More like a concealed weapon," he said. I didn't reply. You never talk about the edge you have over someone else. --Mark Day ARPA: mday@BBN-UNIX UUCP: ..!ihnp4!decvax!bbncca!mday ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 84 07:49 EST From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA, *bboard@MIT-MC.ARPA Massachusetts Research Institute Program on of Technology Communications Policy THE CENTRAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION (BELL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH) THURSDAY, APR. 5, 1984 MARLAR LOUNGE, 4 - 6 PM BUILDING 37-252, MIT 70 VASSAR ST., CAMBRIDGE ROCCO MORANO, BELL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH ERWIN DORROS, BELL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH MANLEY IRWIN, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE A "central services organization" for the Bell Operating Companies (BOCS) was mandated in the AT&T Consent Decree as a "point of contact" for national security and emergency preparedness coordination and planning. What has been created is a 10000 employee organization, Bell Communications Research, Inc. -- primarily drawn from Bell Labs -- providing research, product evaluation, standards coordination, and a host of other services to the BOCS. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 84 07:47 EST From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA, *bboard@MIT-MC.ARPA Massachusetts Research Institute Program on of Technology Communications Policy THE EFFECT OF REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THURSDAY, MAR. 22, 1984 MARLAR LOUNGE, 4 - 6 PM BUILDING 37-252 70 VASSAR ST. CAMBRIDGE STANLEY BESEN, THE RAND CORPORATION CAROL RISHER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS MARIO BAEZA, DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON/HARVARD LAW SCHOOL New reproduction technologies -- photocopiers, videocassette recorders, computers -- threaten copyright owners with loss of control over their product. But it is difficult to calculate actual or potential losses, or to determine whether these losses actually impair the incentive to create intellectual property. Regulatory solutions, such as redistribution of compulsory license fees on copying equipment and materials, have been proposed but involve additional costs and raise difficult administrative and policy problems. Dr. Besen is finishing an NSF-funded project that develops economic models for the problem of "home" copying and analyzes the production, distribution, and pricing policies of firms that face the problem.. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #25 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-03-16 19:06:20 PST HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 16 Mar 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Query - Employee Environments, Response to Query - Setting Read Times, Information - Bell National Security Group In Operation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 March 1984 1800-pst From: Jerry Bakin Subject: Employee Environments Cc: Bakin @ HI-MULTICS, WORKS @ RUTGERS I am trying to change the "Standard Cube" where I work on the basis that it is too small, provides insufficient resources, and hence depresses employee productivity. To prove this, I am trying to write a small research paper showing the effects of certain resources on worker productivity. I have only one small problem: I know nothing about this. I have developed two lists to help me, a list of questions I would like to answer, and a list of places to look for answers. I would like to include these two lists here, and ask for the net response. Any other questions that need to be answered? Any more places to look for responses? Do you know of any specific studies (hopefully supportive) that respond to these questions. While I have a vested interest pertaining to software engineering, I am looking for any information that is available. While I would also like to know what the standards are at your company is, I would first like to make a standard machine analyzable questionaire which I hope to post to the net in two weeks. Of course, a summary will be posted in human-nets, but don't expect one soon. Also, I would appreciate mail sent to: Bakin @ HI-Multics In all of this I am trying to show that Maximum Productivity does imply a need for employee comfort. List of Questions to be examined: o What is Productivity? o What is Efficiency? o How are creature comforts taken into place in Productivity and/or Efficiency? o What is the Productivity Equation? o What is the Efficiency Equation? o How much floor space is needed per employee for maximum Productivity/Efficiency? o How much unoccupied floor space? o How much table/desk space? o How much clear table/desk space? o How much storage space? (bookshelves, filing cabinets) o What questionaires have been designed for these studies? o What questions should be included in such studies? Software Engineering adds the following Questions: o How much computing power per engineer? o How many engineers per terminal? o How much table space near each terminal? o What kind of hardcopy power? o Power of Terminals? o How should terminals be arranged? Terminal Rooms, or A Terminal on every Desk? List of Places to Look for Answers: (Note how blank these are, do you know where I should look for these?) Productivity Studies: (Where would I find these?) Human Factors Studies: "" Quality of Work Life Studies: "" Work Station Justifications: "" Are there studies specific to: Engineers? "" Software engineers? "" Okay, where would YOU begin? Jerry. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 10 Mar 84 15:24:17-PST From: Lynn Gold Subject: Read times in presentations To: US.JFA%CU20B@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA Funny you should mention this...I'm working on a film project in which I'll be shooting crt screens and printer output for a class out here. I was once given the following formula which I intend to use: Time yourself as you read the passage slowly out loud to yourself. Add 3-5 seconds to that time, depending on how much information is on display (i.e., if it's less than five words, go on the light side; if it's a screenful of credits, go on the heavy side), or just count to four. Ideally, you want the info to stay on the screen long enough for people to read it, but not so long that they get bored. When in doubt, you're better off making them wait, rather than causing them to lose information. Good luck! --Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 12-Mar-84 18:40 PST From: William Daul Tymshare OAD Cupertino CA Subject: Bell's National Security Group In Operation To: TELECOM@MIT-MC Cc: weeks@ames-vms, ARC.TYM@OFFICE-2 >From MICROWAVE SYSTEM NEW (Feb. 1984) The Central Services Organization of the seven Bell Regional Holding Companies said that its National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) Group, located in Washington D.C., is now operating to meet the nationwide telecommunications planning and response needs of the Bell companies. In order to meet NS/EP requirements after the split-up of the Bell System the federal court agreement requires that the company establish and maintain a centralized communications group as a single point of contact for all national security and emergency preparedness matters, Marvin Konow, director of the group said. The group will advise and provide coordination to the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) in the development of national security and emergency preparedness technical standards and nationwide telecommunications planning. An emergency alerting and respone center has been formed to alert the BOCs in the event of an emergency or crisis, the spokesperson said. The group will also participate in national industry-wide groups sponsored by the government to coordinate emergency and crisis communications activities and nationwide network planning. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (daemon@ucbvax.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #44 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-08-05 11:22:11 PST From MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA Sun Aug 5 11:21:02 1984 HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 5 Aug 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Silence is Golden?, Queries - NEXIS, NEWSNET and XANADU & Crackers/Hackers & Computer Assisted Technical Documentation & Algorithms Library, Response to Query - Database of Algorithms, Computers and People - Multi-Language Documents and Mail (2 msgs) Chess - Request for Players ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun 5 Aug 84 14:00:00-EDT From: Charles Subject: The Long Silence Rutgers has been off the Arpanet (our connection was being changed) and so there has unfortunately been a long delay in putting out a digest. Anyone who has sent a message to be included in the digest in the past two weeks (that isn't in this digest), please resend it. Thanks, Charles ------------------------------ Date: Sat 21 Jul 84 10:10:37-EDT From: Wayne McGuire Subject: NEXIS, NEWSNET & XANADU Two questions: 1) I would like to know if anyone here has searched occasionally, or searches regularly, NEXIS and/or NEWSNET (two commercial databases which store the full text of many leading U.S. magazines and newsletters). Has anyone found either database to be a particularly useful source of information about developments in artificial intelligence, WorldNet and related topics? Opinions, impressions, evaluations, tips, gripes, etc. would be appreciated. 2) Would any of the Xanadu experts on the list describe for those of us who are only superficially familiar with Ted Nelson's work what the project is all about? What functions and powers would Xanadu/ Hypertext include that are not present in such currently operating full-text databases as NEXIS and NEWSNET? -- Wayne McGuire -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 84 19:40:15 cdt From: David Wilson Could someone please explain the difference between a "hacker" and a "cracker" as described in Vol 6, #68 for an ignorant undergrad? ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 2 August 1984 10:16:52 EDT From: Purvis.Jackson@cmu-cs-cad.arpa Subject: rhetorical software I am interested in developing computer assisted writing tools for producing technical documentation, and I would appreciate any info on the topic of "Computer-Aided Invention" software. I am familiar with Hugh Burns's approach, but I want to approach the problem from a somewhat more task-oriented perspective. Also, is anyone out there in netland familiar with the software marketed by PromptDoc of Denver? If so, what are the strong and weak points of their package? Replies to pmj@cmu-cs-cad.arpa Thanks. --Purvis Jackson ------------------------------ Date: Sat 28 Jul 84 21:37:46-PDT From: Kenneth Brooks Subject: database of algorithms [Forwarded (with permission) from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] I have just come back inspired from Siggraph. At one of the panel sessions there, Alan Kay showed a demo film of Sketchpad, the first interactive computer graphics editor. It has a lot of really excellent features, not seen in many graphics editing systems now being written and sold. He commented, we ought to be standing on the shoulders of others. We ought to be doing AT LEAST as well as systems of the distant past. Why don't we? Why do we keep on reinventing the wheel, in the process neglecting to reinvent such amenities as the rubber tire? I can answer for my own case: I have reimplemented many a standard textbook algorithm, and have reinvented several algorithms that might have been learned from a textbook, because I did not know where to look. Other such programs may exist, yes - but buried how deep? How long might it take to dig up the program from a thesis done in '72? I think we could do something very effective about this problem: apply some database technology and come up with an on-line database of algorithms. What I would like to be able to do is come up and type in a key phrase like "balanced 2-3 tree" or "b-tree" or "command parsing" or "hidden surface". The database should then come up with one or more headers, each of which could be delved into at will. Entries might be of several forms: 1. The source of a program, or a module or fragment of a program, that implements an algorithm for this purpose. The program should be moderately well-commented, though it need not be extremely general-purpose. I can translate programs; seeing a real implementation with bugfixes for the nitty little bugs would be immmensely valuable. 2. A pointer to a program on-line here or elsewhere. This is much worse than direct retrieval, as it quite likely adds 24 hours or more to the effective retrieval time; however, it is alot better than nothing. 3. An exerpt from a standard text, discussing the topic and hopefully presenting the algorithm in pseudocode. Where we can get the author's permission, that would be great. 4. A reference to a standard text. Once again, slow retrieval problem, the user probably cannot use this reference until tomorrow when the library is open. 5. A pointer to a commercially available product that handles the problem. Probably not useful in many cases, but in some it might be. If we had such a database with material for all the interesting algorithms implemented at Stanford, it would be a treasure; if we could get code from elsewhere as well, even better. If we could get funded to provide this service to the CS community as a whole, in the same way that MIT has provided MACSYMA as a service, it would be really wonderful, and would well repay the funders (could we ever get them to understand that?) Any comments? Kenneth ------------------------------ Date: Sun 29 Jul 84 04:33:39-PDT From: Ethan Bradford Subject: CS: Database of algorithms. [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] The ACM publishes a reference book (with periodic supplements) called "The Collected Algorithms of the ACM", which has most of the information you ask for, though it is on paper. It does not point to net-available implementations of the algorithms, however, and on-line lookup has many advantages. One problem with providing pointers to implementations is protecting against sloppy code and Trojan horses. -- Ethan ------------------------------ Date: 20 July 1984 09:12-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Sci.Am. article on multi-language computer-documents To: TREITEL @ SUMEX-AIM Neither. It's infeasible to do automatic translation or to develop a new lingua franca (Latin, Esperanto and Interlingua all failed to become a common business language), thus we must allow multiple languages to exist in a single document so that the language of origin can be used whatever it is but translations (by humans) can be added later and the reader can always compare the original with the translations to verify the translations are correct. At least that's my interpretation/suggestion. ------------------------------ Date: 21 July 1984 05:40-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." Subject: Multilingual text and electronic mail The PTT's of the world have been working over the last 8 years to develop a standard for an electronic mail system which would be able to handle all the world's languages. Introduced about four years ago beginning in Germany and Scandanavia was a system called Teletex or "super telex". A key feature of Teletex is an alphabet with 256 characters which allows for all the diacritical marks (umlaut, cedilla, etc) of ALL of the latin-based languages. In revisions over the last four years, the standard has been expanded to provide for negotiated character sets. This allows two terminals to decide before file transfer that the incoming bytes are to be interpreted as from an Arabic or Persian font as opposed to latin. Extension to a two-byte font code even allows the terminals to negotiate the use of Kanji (Japanese and Chinese ideograms). See CCITT standard S.70. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 84 10:53-PDT From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa Subject: Delphi Experiment: group play against 8-ply machine [Please read the note at the end of this message before replying to this message. Thanks. - Charles] I would like to conduct a Delphi Experiment with this list. The format of the experiment is as follows. All interested chess players will vote for their choice of move in an on-going game between them (the group) and the Fidelity Prestige which will be set to search a minimum of 8-ply deep (like Belle and Cray Blitz). This Prestige has the ECO opening modules (80,000 variations). A move with the most number of votes will be chosen above others and made in the current position. A couple days will be given for gathering the votes. In the event of a tie between two or more moves, the move will be selected randomly. The resulting position will then be handed to Prestige 8-ply which will conduct a brute-force search to at least 8-ply. Its move will be reported (the search usually takes about 3-15 hours) to the players and another move vote will be solicited. This process will continue until the Prestige mates the group or the group mates the Prestige or a draw is declared. The moves, as they are made, will be reported to this list. Please include the move number and the move in either Algebraic or English notation. >>>>>>>>> Prestige 8-ply will play White. >>>>>>>>> Prestige 8-ply moves 1. e4 (P-K4) BR BN BB BQ BK BB BN BR BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP -- ** -- ** -- ** -- ** ** -- ** -- ** -- ** -- -- ** -- ** WP ** -- ** ** -- ** -- ** -- ** -- WP WP WP WP -- WP WP WP WR WN WB WQ WK WB WN WR Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure. DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of the above addresses. [Moderator's note: Due to the loss of our Arpanet connection, I have not received several moves. Currently I beleive Stuart is up to move 5. I will have the most up-to-date move I can in the next digest. -Charles] ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (daemon@ucbvax.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #45 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-08-08 19:53:20 PST From MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA Wed Aug 8 19:52:29 1984 HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 8 Aug 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Query - Latitude and Longitude, Response to Query - Program Specification Database (2 msgs) & Hacker vs. Cracker, Chess - The Delphi Experiment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 84 16:07:07 PDT (Wednesday) From: Hodges.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Latitude and Longitude encoding question... To: Astronomy^.PA@XEROX.ARPA, cc: Kluger.pa@XEROX.ARPA Hi, I need to keep latitude and longitude information in a record containing information about a network. The initial values will be in ascii text contained in a string (e.g. "109 26 33" ). I expect the units of the initial values will always be degrees, minutes, and seconds. I want to find out if anyone is aware of standard latitude and longitude encoding (packing?) schemes. Are there reasons other than economy of storage to encode latitude and longitude? Why? (comparison operations, etc?) Thanks for your help, Jeff Hodges ------------------------------ Date: Mon 6 Aug 84 11:05:13-PDT From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA Subject: Program Specification Database I think the following interchange talks about a good idea but just manages to miss it: Cc: cwr at WHITE Date: Sat 28 Jul 84 21:37:46-PDT From: Kenneth Brooks Subject: database of algorithms [Forwarded (with permission) from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] I have just come back inspired from Siggraph. At one of the panel sessions there, Alan Kay showed a demo film of Sketchpad, the first interactive computer graphics editor. It has a lot of really excellent features, not seen in many graphics editing systems now being written and sold. He commented, we ought to be standing on the shoulders of others. We ought to be doing AT LEAST as well as systems of the distant past. Basically, of course, I agree with what you are trying to say -- avoiding duplication of effort is like Mom and apple pie. Alan (and Mark Vickers who showed that tape in the session I was in) state a good GOAL, but no one has discovered how to achieve it. The library of algorithms is of no real help at all. Not all things get better through time, look at air quality. We cannot automatically expect that if program X is written before program Y that Y is necessarily better than X. The issue is more than simple ignorance of what has gone before. Program Y is likely written under very different constraints (different CPU, different display device type (eg vector/raster), different graphical input devices). This is not just a matter of "device independence" but rather of different user interface techniques being more appropriate for different types of hardware. (Newer faster hardware make fancier user interaction styles practical.) Sketchpad was a very large system (especially for its day), very few of its algorithms were particularly unique. A library of algorithms would not address this problem -- its just one of software bulk and non-trans-portability. -c ------------------------------ Date: Sun 5 Aug 84 14:50:46-PDT From: Richard Treitel Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #44 re: Crackers and Hackers A nice simple easily memorisable definition is the following: "A cracker is a CRiminally inclined hACKER" Some people may take exception to the implication that even a minority of hackers have criminal inclinations, and others may argue that most crackers are not talented enough to deserve to be called hackers. I get more and more sympathetic to Mark Crispin's fondness for the plain old word "vandal". - Richard ------------------------------ Date: 7 August 1984 07:41-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: hacker vs. cracker To: wookie @ RICE A "hacker" is somebody who has a penchant for understanding how computer systems really work instead of the misleading or incomplete descriptions that occur in documentation, and using such knowledge for making things work more efficiently than by advertised means or for making things work that seem impossible based on published information. A "cracker" is somebody who has a penchant for violating the security of computer systems. It used to be the two were related, if you were an expert at the security aspects of a system you could possibly figure out how to violate them. But now with thousands of random people banging away at a security system until one person accidently discovers a flaw in it, and that one person advertising a recipe for violating the security on hundreds of bulletin boards arond the country, then thousands of random users of those bulletin boards using that recipe to violate that one system, you don't have to know anything about a system to break into it using a recipe you happen to see on a bulletin board, so crackers aren't necessarily (or even usually) hackers any more. ------------------------------ Date: 7 August 1984 08:05-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Delphi Experiment: group play against machine -> just people To: mclure @ SRI-UNIX I'd be more interested in a delphi experiment with Go instead of Chess. Pick some starting position (probably not start of game, there are too many good ways to play the fuseki) and see if we can converge on the optimum way for both sides to play through to the end. Allow backtracking at any time, thus if you suddenly see where one side made a mistake you can change your vote at that point. If changed vote(s) cause an alternate branch to have largest vote, the experiment shifts to explore that branch instead of the one that had largest vote before. Either allow everyone to vote for both black and white moves, or divide the membership into two teams and have them select only their own moves not opponents. Note that my method doesn't require a go-playing program/machine to play one side of the game. To speed up the experiment, allow a voter to specify a whole sequence of moves in advance, contingent on the opponent choosing the same move as in the sequence. (For example: now I move ..., if he replies ... then I conterreply ..., etc.; abbreviated of course.) So long as the first move agrees with the voted move and the reply agrees with the voted reply then the next move will be counted as a vote. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (daemon@ucbvax.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #46 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-08-15 18:42:31 PST From MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA Wed Aug 15 18:41:36 1984 HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 15 Aug 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Responses to Queries - Latitude and Longitude Encoding & Hacker vs. Cracker (2 msgs), Computers and People - People who want mail contacts, Chess - 7th move ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 9 Aug 84 09:39:29-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Re: Latitude and Longitude encoding question... To: Hodges.pa@XEROX.ARPA Cc: Astronomy^.PA@XEROX.ARPA, Kluger.pa@XEROX.ARPA Jon Bentley presents a case for encoding latitude and longitude as 3-D x, y, and z coordinates in his Programming Pearls column, CACM, February 1984. The application involved finding, for each of 20,000 points, the nearest neighbor in a set of 5,000 points on the surface of a sphere. This computation could be carried out far faster in rectilinear coordinates than in spherical coordinates. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: 9 August 1984 03:21-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: hacker vs. cracker To: REM @ MIT-MC Cc: wookie@ RICE Right on. Hackers can be bu are not necessaril crackers, and usualy are not; crackers in general cannot be hackers, and only in exceptional circumstances know how to hack anything. ------------------------------ Date: 9 August 1984 03:40-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: wookie @ RICE A hacker is admirable. A cracker is contemptible. On these two definitions hang all the Law and the Profits. Pournelle"s Fourth Law. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 84 18:37 +0200 From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: People who want mail contacts Please forward the list below to all users of your CBMS List of some users of the COM computer conferencing system at the QZ University Computing Center in Stockholm, Sweden, who are interested in communicating via mail networks with people with similar interests overseas. To send a message to any of the people below, take the name of the person, replace spaces with underlines, and add "%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA", at the end, e.g. Trevor_Smith%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA +---- NAME -------+ +--- WORK --------+ +--- INTERESTS --------------+ Trevor Smith Computers Inc. Expert systems, multi-micros Ingemar Joelsson Medical Univ. Obstetrics, Gyneology, Message systems Roy Goodman MacNeal-Schwendler Teleseminars, communication design Orjan Ekeberg NADA Techn. Univ. AI, Interactive programming Arne Kannel RIT Techn. Univ. Synthetic fuels from biomass Mats Ohlin Datakul Consultant SIMULA, The future Bo Einarsson LIDAC Univ. computing Director, numerical software Gisle Hannemyr University Cognitive ergonomics, multi-media CBMS Rick Blake Essex Comp. service DEC-10/20, Networks, systems Eng-Leong Foo Medical univ. Microbiology, biocas, nitrogen fixation Bertil Hansson ADB University Computer science Richard Friedman Scientific consult. Supercomputers, array processors B. Mahon Comp. networks Networks, human interfaces, services Bj|rn Larsen UiO University CBMS, LAN, Network standards, OS Arne Franse'n FOA1 Military Research Operations res. Extreme values distr. Les Hewitt ICI UK Computer Center TOPS-10, VAX/VMS Per Lindberg QZ Univ. computing Personal comp., OS, Simula, C, KERMIT B.Svante Eriksson Consultant Comp. netw., protocols, WAN, LAN, PABX Torbjorn Lindelof CERN Program libraries, games, AI, workstat. Bj|rn O Fabricius University Microbiology, Microcomputer databases Yrjoe Solantausta Techn. research Biomass conversion Bjorn Danielsson Univ. computing TOPS-20, LISP, PROLOG KPJ Jaakkola QZ Univ. computing OS, error-free software Robert Harper University Nitrogen fixation, comp. conferencing Willie Black Oxford University Networks, TEX, high energy physics Dennis Jennings University EARN, Networks, Univ. computing Ulf Beyschlag CERN CERN Networking, CBMS Kari Raiha Univ. University Database theory, algorithms Bo Janzon Military research Terminal Ballistics, weapons effects Gillis Een Consultant Food technology, Biotechnology Petri Kutvonen University Comp. architecture, perf. evaluation Paul Bemelmans UiO University TOPS-10/20, Photography, Scandinavia Robert L. Fink Univ. comp. center Local networks, remote networks B Pehrson COSYL University Computer system design, architecture Hans Eriksson Tek Techn. university DEC and Nord computers Klaas Lingbeek Agricult. univ. TOPS-10/20, VMS, UNIX, CPM, RSX-11 Anatole Klyosov Academy of Science Biochemistry, Enzymes, Carbohydrates Tomas Baiget CIDC University Online systems, micros for libraries Hans Albertsson SUF P.T.T. VAX-11 Olle Andren SLU Agricult. univ. Soil microarthropod activity Daniel Karrenberg University UNIX Jacob Palme QZ Univ. comp. center Computer conferencing, Comp. games ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 84 2:47-PDT From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa To: chess @ Sri-Unix, ailist @ Sri-Ai.arpa Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 7th move. The Vote Tally -------------- Folks, the moves are in and have been tallied. The winner is: 6 ... a6. The runner-up was 6 ... e5. We had a narrow mix of moves. One person recommended the pawn stab 6 ... h5. I made this a somewhat faster vote so only a total of 11 votes were cast. Please relay this message to any friends you have who might be interested in participating. This includes non-net people. If you are in a chess club, take along a copy of this message and get a group vote from your club. The Machine Moves ----------------- The Prestige 8-ply replied 7. Bf1 from book in 0 seconds. Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BK BB -- BR 6 ... a6 5 ** BP ** BB BP BP BP BP 6 ... e5 3 BP ** BN BP -- BN -- ** 6 ... d5 1 ** -- BP -- ** -- ** -- 6 ... e6 1 -- ** -- ** WP ** -- ** 6 ... h5 1 ** -- WP -- ** WN ** -- WP WP -- WP -- WP WP WP WR WN WB WQ WR WB WK -- Prestige 8-ply The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 c5 6. Re1 a6 2. Nf3 d6 7. Bf1 ??? 3. Bb5+ Nc6 4. o-o Bd7 5. c3 Nf6 Commentary ---------- Brad Merrill, Rtillson.Merrill@DEC-MARLBORO, USCF 1902, said: I recommend 6 ... a6. This will greatly restrict whites options. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure. DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of the above addresses. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (daemon@ucbvax.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #47 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-08-22 09:58:45 PST From MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA Wed Aug 22 09:56:08 1984 HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 21 Aug 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Computers and the Law - Tapping lines to halt software smuggling, Information - Low level Microwaves and Cancer, Chess - Delphi: Move 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 84 14:39:11 PDT From: Rutenberg.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: U.S. may tap lines to halt software smuggling by phone The following is from a recent issue of the San Jose Mercury News. Besides the obvious potential impact on network users, it also has significance for censorship & restrictions of foreigners from conferences (they want to be able to place "intellectual property" on restriction lists). Some issues that the article raises include: - How are they going to spot a restricted program being sent? The NSA already does interception based on keywords for international Telex traffic so obvious keywords in plain text should be easy, but what if the restricted program is scrambled before being sent (e.g. compiled for a specific machine or encrypted). - Is tapping phones really going to stem the flow of software out of the country? Surely it is rather trivial to physically smuggle it out; a tape holds 150 MBytes and even a tiny Macintosh diskette holds almost half a megabyte. In any case, it is rather obvious that solid encryption is going to become a necessity. It also brings up the issue of DES's security again since the government apparently doesn't see DES as an easy way to avoid their monitoring. I'm confused! Mike ------------- U.S. may tap lines to halt software smuggling by phone The Washington Post The Reagan administration may expand electronic surveillance activity to prevent sensitive computer software from being smuggled overseas through international telephone calls, according to U.S. officials. The effort to control software exports is part of the administration's drive to deny the Soviet bloc access to high technology that could be used for military purposes. Software - the instructions that tell computers what calculations to perform - can be used for a wide variety of military applications, ranging from designing weapons to keeping track of materials. However, unlike main-frame computers, machine tools, or other pieces of hardware that can be physically inspected before export, computer software and data not only can be exported on disc or tape, but they can also be transformed into electronic impulses and sent at the speed of light to virtually any country over the international telephone network. Commerce Department officials and Pentagon analysts say they need a way to monitor the flow of international computer communications to detect illegal exports. Devising such a surveillance policy poses special problems for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Existing criminal wiretap laws and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 were designed primarily for monitoring voice communications and generally require court approval. The extent to which the National Security Agency and Justice Department monitor conversations under those laws is not known. A key issue to be resolved is whether those laws allow monitoring of data communications without court approval. "We don't believe that (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) constitutes a statutory prohibition against all warrant-less surveillance involving non-aural acquisition of communication," a Justice Department official said in response to an inquiry from Sen. Patrick Leahy, R-Vt., earlier this year. Several Justice Department officials believe that the wiretap laws also do not prohibit monitoring of data communications without a warrant. "Exporting of controlled technologies through signals and modems" - devices which let computers "talk" with one another over telephone lines - "does create problems for us," said Theodore H. Wu, deputy assistant secretary of commerce for export enforcement. He acknowledged that discussions pertaining to wiretap technology as a means to aid enforcement "have taken place." "This is going to present a real problem, not just in the context of computer programs but in the context of an open society, because the need is there," he said. Intelligence sources indicate that the National Security Agency, which has the technology to monitor the transmission of data from the United States, is involved in analyzing the software export issue for an interagency export control group. The effort to deal with potential software-smuggling by wire reflects a major push by the Defense and Commerce departments to place various kinds of intellectual property - especially computer software - on the lists of technologies that face export restrictions. To date, there have been no reported cases of software being exported illegally over phone lines. It would be technologically feasible for the owner of a personal computer in Washington, for example, to make a five-minute phone call to London and "export" a computer aided design program that would be useful to a weapons engineer. Many companies such as International Business Machines Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Texas Instruments Inc., reportedly transmit computer data and software internationally over phone lines. Such transfers usually require export licenses or a "letter of assurance" from the Commerce Department. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16-Aug-84 14:29:03 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Low level microwaves and cancer a212 1114 16 Aug 84 AM-Microwaves-Cancer, Bjt,730 Study Finds Microwave Exposure Linked With Higher Rates of Cancer By BARTON REPPERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Glandular changes and a higher rate of cancer were found among laboratory rats chronically exposed to low-intensity microwaves, according to a study by University of Washington researchers. Results emerging from the $4.5 million study sponsored by the Air Force, have prompted substantial concern among researchers investigating the biological and health effects of non-ionizing radiation, according to Microwave News, a specialized scientific newsletter. ''In addition to a general increase in cancer incidence, the experimental results suggest that microwave exposure is responsible for wide-ranging effects related to the adrenal glands and the entire endocrine system,'' the publication reported. The adrenal glands, adjacent to the kidneys, and other glands of the endocrine system produce chemical hormones vital to the regulation of many bodily functions. The Microwave News account noted that the findings could provide an experimental basis for widely reported complaints of headaches, dizziness, memory loss and fatigue from workers chronically exposed to microwave radiation Microwave radiation is emitted by a wide variety of sources including thousands of military and civilian radar installations, satellite ground stations, relay towers for long-distance telephone links, television transmitters, as well as microwave ovens and citizens band radios. Environmental Protection Agency surveys have found that 99.4 percent of the people in 15 major cities were exposed to microwave and radiofrequency radiation at power levels of 1 microwatt per square centimeter or less. Government microwave-oven regulations mandate that at the time of sale, radiation emitted from the devices must not exceed 1,000 microwatts per square centimeter, measured at a distance 5 centimeters from the oven's outside surface. For older ovens, the limit rises to a maximum of 5,000 microwatts per square centimeter. Although the University of Washington study utilized the same frequency used in many microwave ovens, the experiment also exposed the rats to special pulsing and modulation characteristics that are not found in the consumer cooking devices. If confirmed by other researchers, the test results ''would undermine the 1982 American National Standards Institute radiofrequency and microwave radiation exposure standard,'' according to Microwave News. This voluntary standard sets safety levels of 1,000 to 5,000 microwatts per square centimeter for human exposure to microwave radiation. The research team, headed by Professor Arthur W. Guy at the university's School of Medicine in Seattle, exposed rats up to 25 months to pulsed microwaves at a level of 480 microwatts per square centimeter. The EPA has prepared draft ''guidance'' for establishing a legally enforceable safety standard for exposure to mirowave and radiofrequency radiation. But the document's release - originally set for June - has been delayed, reportedly due to an internal dispute within the agency. EPA Assistant Administrator Joseph Cannon has said the agency is considering a number of options, including abandonment of the draft standard. Results of the University of Washington study were presented at a scientific conference last month in Atlanta. The researchers disclosed that there were 16 malignant tumors among 100 exposed rats, compared to four tumors among 100 control animals. The 16 tumors in exposed rats included seven involving the endocrine system - two thyroid, two pituitary and three adrenal gland tumors. The average weight of the adrenal glands in the exposed animals was double that of the control animals, the researchers said. In addition, there were six benign adrenal tumors - known as pheochromocytomas - in the exposed rats, but none among the controls. This type of tumor has been associated with high blood pressure, headaches and stress in human patients. Dr. Samuel Milham, an epidemiologist for the Washington State Health Department, said results of the study appeared to point to a ''stress reaction'' in the exposed animals. ''It looks like the microwave radiation may have been a tumor promoter,'' he said in a telephone interview. ''It didn't initiate the cancers, but once some cancer cells got going it promoted growth of the tumors.'' Milham has conducted statistical reviews that found increased rates of leukemia among power-station operators, aluminum workers, power and telephone linemen as well as other workers chronically exposed to electric and magnetic fields. ''The scientific data suggest the need for further epidemiological studies involving workers exposed to microwave and radiofrequency radiation,'' said David LeGrande, director of occupational safety and health for the Communications Workers of America. ''Many thousands of workers may be exposed to hazardous levels, and they need to know what the dangers associated with such exposure might be.'' ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 84 20:46-PDT From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa To: chess @ Sri-Unix, ailist @ Sri-Ai.arpa Subject: Delphi: number-cruncher out of book The Vote Tally -------------- Folks, the moves are in and have been tallied. The winner is: 7 ... e5. The runner-up is 7 ... g6. A total of 17 moves were cast. Please relay this message to any friends you have who might be interested in participating. This includes non-net people. If you are in a chess club, take along a copy of this message and get a group vote from your club. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Estimate 8 ply d4 10 hours, 6 minutes ~3.6x10^7 -= I will delay publishing the principal variation and the evaluation score, because these might be a boon to the humans. These will be published at the game's end. Note that the machine thinks it is at a positional disadvantage. Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BK BB -- BR 7 ... e5 8 ** BP ** BB ** BP BP BP 7 ... g6 6 BP ** BN BP -- BN -- ** 7 ... Bg4 1 ** -- BP -- BP -- ** -- 7 ... e6 1 -- ** -- WP WP ** -- ** 7 ... b5 1 ** -- WP -- ** WN ** -- WP WP -- ** -- WP WP WP WR WN WB WQ WR WB WK -- Prestige 8-ply The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 c5 6. Re1 a6 2. Nf3 d6 7. Bf1 e5 3. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4 4. o-o Bd7 5. c3 Nf6 Commentary ---------- George Eldridge, , USCF ??? Once we get this thing out of the book it should be an interesting game. The style of play should be very similar between a group of humans voting and a chess program. For both it is difficult to develop a long term strategy, therefore the game is guided by tactics rather than stratetgy. Blunders by the human side should be eliminated by virtue of the group vote. Of course, the computer algorithm is assumed to be good enough to prevent blunders. It should be a close match. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure. DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of the above addresses. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: daemon@ucbvax.UUCP (daemon@ucbvax.UUCP) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #48 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-08-23 21:25:34 PST From MCGREW@RUTGERS.ARPA Thu Aug 23 21:24:26 1984 HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 23 Aug 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: Computer Networks - Telephone Taps on Int'l Calls (2 msgs) & Crack the Data Encryption Standard? Information - Re: Low level microwaves and cancer Chess - Number-Cruncher vs. Humans: 9th Move ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 22:06:39 pdt From: fair%ucbarpa@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair) Subject: Re: Telephone Taps on Int'l Calls The USENET link to Europe goes at 1200 baud from Merrimack, NH to Amsterdam, Holland. Do you think the NSA will be interested in huffman coded netnews? Only 16Mbytes per month! curious, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA P.S. Among other things, this digest goes over that link... ------------------------------ Date: 23 August 1984 03:56-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: U.S. may tap lines to halt software smuggling by phone To: Rutenberg.pa @ XEROX What did the article SAY? It is rotten journalism. one official is named; he is quoted as saying that "discussion took place", not that he thought tapping phones would be any use. he is also quoted as saying that "it will be a problem to us." All the rest of the article is speculation, or quuotes ananymous sources, with no possible verification. It may be that they're planning to do something about telephoned software, but you sure can't prove that by anything in the article, which seems to be pure spec. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 14:33:45 pdt From: E. Howard Alt Subject: Crack the DES? I don't remember if the DES and cryptography have been brought up here before (I was probably asleep or somthing), but I guess I'd like to comment about the DES, etc. The effort to develop the DES (Data Encryption Standard) was a joint effort between the No Such Agency and the Incredible Bowel Movment. IBM developed a cryptographic scheme that is fairly changable (key length, internal variables, etc). NSA specified the various parameters (key length, internal variables, etc). There are 2 ways to break a cryptographic system. The first is to discover the key that was used to generate the ciphertext. The second is to break the system itself so you don't need the key. The first situation is easy to solve (in theory), all you have to do is make the key so big that it would take too long to run through all possible combinations (and protect it... but that is a different sort of attack). The other method is based on finding a shortcut through the algorithm so you can find the key. There are people in the (non government) cryptographic world that believe one could (today) spend $20 million and build a machine that could mount a known plaintext attack and discover a key. Note that the requires the bad guy to have some plaintext-ciphertext pairs. Also note that a ciphertext only attack is not possible under this machine. The idea is that we went out and stole some messages that were sent, and we also have a copy of the encrypted version of the message. We are assuming that further messages we might want to read are encrypted under the same key. The way we discover the key is to do an exaustive search over the 10^17 possible keys. If we could check one key every microsecond, we could do all of the keys in 10^11 seconds (or 10^6 days). Now, if we build a million of these little machines (10^6), and each are checking one key, it only takes one day to solve for a key. If the key were 128 or 256 bits, it would cost $2 X 10^25. In fact, quantum mechanical and thermodynamic considerations rule out exhaustive searches on keys of several hundred bits. The DES is pretty complicated, and I don't feel like looking in the fips pub and describing it here. In a very general way, here it is: There are 3 user supplied part to the DES, the plaintext, the ciphertext and the key. The plaintext is split up into 64 bit chunks to be applied to the 56 bit key, and out pops the 64 bit ciphertext (this is encryption if you haven't guessed). Between the popping in and popping out, the 64 bits gets shifted, permuted and xored according to various parameters. The parameters are all variable are set by the NSA for the standard. According to the cryptographic heavys, the NSA chose very funny numbers for these parameters. In fact, they say that one could just about pick the parameters at random, and chances are very good that they would be better than the ones NSA chose. These people are pretty much convinced (at least this is what they say) that NSA didn't pick these parameters to create a trap door in the DES (although they did believe this at one time). Oh yes, I should mention something else. I have been mumbling a lot about NSA, but you chould know (if you don't already) that NBS (National Bureau of Standards) is the group that is the official part of the government responsible for DES. I doubt NSA is officially responsible for anything (other than keeping an eye on things like this... hi guys). If some company wanted thier encrypted data to be secure (although non standard), all they would have to do is change the DES parameters around a bit, or do a more sophisticated application of DES (there are several well known methods that make DES much more secure). Pretty exciting, eh? I always fall asleep in talks about this sort if thing... I almost fell asleep writing it... Howard. ------------------------------ Date: 23 August 1984 04:00-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Low level microwaves and cancer To: vortex!lauren @ RAND-UNIX So that's why the Russians were beaming microwaves at our Embassy? ------------------------------ Date: Thu Aug 23 14:47:43 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: ailist@sri-ai Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 9th move The Vote Tally -------------- Folks, the moves are in and have been tallied. The winner is: 8 ... cxd4. A total of 20 moves were cast. Please relay this message to any friends you have who might be interested in participating. This includes non-net people. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine's Est 8 ply cxd4 18 hours, 7 minutes 6.5x10^7 += Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BK BB -- BR 8 ... cxd4 8 8 ... Qe7 1 ** BP ** BB ** BP BP BP 8 ... Qc7 3 BP ** BN BP -- BN -- ** 8 ... Be7 3 ** -- ** -- BP -- ** -- 8 ... Qb6 1 -- ** -- WP WP ** -- ** 8 ... e6 1 ** -- ** -- ** WN ** -- 8 ... b5 1 WP WP -- ** -- WP WP WP 8 ... d5 1 WR WN WB WQ WR WB WK -- 8 ... Bg4 1 Prestige 8-ply Note that the machine now thinks it is ahead positionally. The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 c5 6. Re1 a6 2. Nf3 d6 7. Bf1 e5 3. Bb5+ Nc6 8. d4 cxd4 4. o-o Bd7 9. cxd4 5. c3 Nf6 Commentary ---------- Goodell@xerox, USCF ? I think 8 ... Be7 would be a good move now to prepare for castling to the strong side. My second choice would be g6 followed by Bg7, but I think it would take too long. BLee.ES@xerox, USCF ? 8 ... Qb6 a) develops the queen, b) attacks d4 again, c) discourages movement of white's queen bishop, d) prepares castling long. Tli@Usc-Eclb, USCF ? Unfortunately, the voting will also keep out the inspired moves. So we get an average game of all playing.... SLOAN@WASHINGTON 8. ... b5 It is worth noting a classical problem here in building a chess program: 1) The machine was following its book until this move, 2) As White, the machine should enjoy AT LEAST EQUALITY in the first position following "book" recommendations, 3) However, having switched from "book" evaluation to its own opening/middle game evaluation, the machine now decides that it doesn't much like this position after all! There are several possibilities: 0) Black is superior in the starting position (unlikely!) 1) the book (at least this line) is inferior, and the machine should discard it (anyone out there think that the Prestige will do this?) 2) the book is (objectively) correct, but this line does not match the playing "style" of the machine (i.e., the position is OK, but the machine doesn't know the correct thematic continuations, and hence will indeed find the position to be difficult.) This last possibility is most likely, and is not limited to machine play. Many human players have the same problem when they memorize columns and columns of analysis without understanding the REASONS for the evaluations at the ends of the columns. This leads to post-mortem conversations of the form "That master isn't so strong; I had him CRUSHED in the opening...but he SOMEHOW escaped to a dead drawn ending - he didn't even know that it was theoretically drawn- he refused my draw offer! - I was so mad at him for that that I lost my concentration for 1 move and hung a piece." CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20, USCF ? Qc7 risky, but requiring a non-trivial evaluation by white. JPERRY@SRI-KL, USCF 1893 I vote that Black's eighth move should be 8... cd The reason I voted for this move is that Black can occupy the thematic QB file sooner than white by taking with the QBP. The move 8...ed seems to be a blunder because white can try to prepare favorable complications on the K file with e5. 8... Be7 seems plausible but allows 9. d5 and then Black has no counter play on an open file. All in all, 8...cd seems like Black's most logical retort to the bold 8. d4. tpeters@BBNCCP, USCF ? I vote for 8. ...Be7. I disagree with the computer's assessment. Black may have equalized or white may have a slight advantage, but there is no reason to think that black is better. The following is taken from Sizilianisch II by Rolf Schwarz. It should be viewed as a guideline and source of ideas, not as infallible gospel. 8.d4: A. 8. ...Be7 9.d x c5! d x c5 10. Na3 slight advantage to white [but why not 10. ...b5 equal? TP] B. 8. ...c x d4 9. c x d4 Bg4 10. d5 Nd4 11. Be3! N x f3+ 12. g x f3 Bh5 with slight advantage to white I picked 8. ...Be7 because white's advantage in B. seems small but quite clear. He (it?) has pressure down the c file and the white light-square bishop can become very active on h3. Moreover, his doubled pawns are nowhere near as weak as they may seem to some. At any rate it just doesn't seem reasonable to open the center by 8. ...c x d4 while the kingside is underdeveloped. Schaer.dlos@XEROX, USCF ? I vote for 8 ... cd Cannot stand d5. Don't know what I intend to do after 9. cd, but probably 9 ... Be7 and worry about 10. d5 later. EWG@Cmu-Cs-Ps1, USCF ? The comment that the group of humans won't have a long term strategy is, I think, naieve. It is just as easy for us to analyze lines of play (e.g. kingside vs queenside attack, try to trade off and queen a pawn, etc.) as it is for us to analyze the single position. If anything it's somewhat easier, since we think about that anyway. Why not solicit votes on that level as well and at least report the judgement (if not allowing it to directly choose the move at hand, which would be rash). A suggestion for later in the game, at least. This harkens back to memories of 10 or so years ago when I was still reading the chess books, and ran across a comment by one of the grandmasters (Sam Reshevski, I think?) who liked to play blitz and always used the style of spending a significant time thinking about lines of play at the start of the middle game. His strategy was to have the lines firmly in mind for later play. The comment was that his opponents often got bored waiting for him to reply at that time and wasted the real time; he could then play at blitz pace much better as the game progressed and the opponent struggled for the right line(s) of play. It also had the surface appearance of him putting himself deliberately in time trouble, which wasn't the case. rod@Maryland, USCF 2115 My rating is USCF 2115. I didn't want to enter until you were in the middle game but 7....,e5??? is a mistake. Now, either you allow 9. d5 in which case your queen-knight will be difficult to develop, or you open the game which is very dangerous becouse your king is in the middle and it will take some time to 0-0. If the machine plays right you will end up with an isolated pawn or with d5 which will constraint you. Now here are some of my thoughts: if 8....,cxd5 9cxd4 Nc6 10 Nc3! (no yet d5 so your bishop-king will not go out) and now you are almost forced to get an isolated pawn and the machine is in much better posiiton. In this position oyu may try 10....Qb6 but after 11 dxe dxe 12 Be3! you can't play 12....Qxb2 because of 13 Nb5!+- Let's get back to our initial position. You may try 8...., Nc6 9 Bg5 Rc8 (no 9....,Be7 10d5 Nb8 and the rook can't go out) 10 Na3 Nc6 11 dxe dxe 12 Nc4 Qc7 13 Bxf6 gxf (no 13...,Bxf6 14Nd6+) 14 Ne3 and you are in a very difficult position in spite of the pair of bishops. As you can see is very easy to get out of the book but is much difficult to play well. It much better to think that you are playing the game of your life and that you have to play the best you possible can. Find the best move in every position, no matter who you are playing with. Let's go back again. An interesting move although a little dangerous is the following: 8...., Bc6!? if 9 d5 then 9....,Bd7 you have lost one move but you have close the position so it doesnt matter that much. You will then develop your Q-Knight via a6-c7 and then try b5, a5 and c4. Here comes the interesting part 9 dxe Nxe4 10 exd Qxd6 and no 10...,Bxd6 11 Qc2!! (no 11Kfd2 0-0! 12Kxe4 Bxe4 13Rxe4 Bxh2+! FORGET the last line. 10...., Bxd6 is good! 11 Ng5 0-0!! 12 Bf4+ Kh8 13 Kf7+ Rxf7 14 Bxf7 Bxh2+!+- You will end up much more developed than the machine. So I think she'll play safely 9 d5. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure. DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of the above addresses. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #49 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-09-07 18:38:30 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 7 Sep 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Query - BBoard/Database Pointers, Computers and the Law - Tapping lines to halt software smuggling Chess - Should we have it? & Algebraic -> Descriptive Notation Algorithm? Information - MIT Communications Forum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 84 14:37:02 edt From: gvax.kevin@Cornell.ARPA (Kevin Karplus) To: laws@sri-ai Subject: message for ai and human-nets lists This message is being sent for an acquaintance who does not have access to a network. Please do NOT reply to me but to Bob Parks (607)257-7895 I'm not certain of the address, but I think it's Political Science Dept Elmira College Elmira, NY (zip-code?) He is looking for assitance in setting up a bulletin board/database system (for political scientists) using microcomputers. Anyone who has good ideas or pointers to good ideas on what such a system should include or how it should be implemented should talk to him. I don't know exactly what the system is supposed to do, nor how much money that have to set it up, but they may be able to pay for some consulting help. I assume (from the discussions I've seen) that someone reading the ai or human-nets newsgroups will have the information he needs. Thanks, Kevin Karplus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 84 08:56:04 edt From: chris@maryland (Chris Torek) Subject: Re: U.S. may tap lines to halt software smuggling by phone Oh good grief! I'll bet the Reagan administration has never heard of USENET. (For those of you who haven't, it's a network that is somewhat similar to ARPAnet, except that it (a) isn't high speed; (b) isn't centrally administered, and (c) isn't really all that well defined anyway. However, it has links into Europe and Australia and Korea -- all sorts of places.) Among lots of other stuff, software is broadcast over this net. Let me make a few medium-range predictions: - WORLDNET will happen, eventually. - There will be lots of effort to stop it on the part of those who have vested interests in the current situation, especially governments. - The nature of computer networking (simultaneous broadcast and point-to-point communications) will have as dramatic an effect on society as the printing press. Just think: if you have a worldwide network and want to start some subversive activity, just broadcast two messages. The first contains instructions (or code) for decrypting the second; the second is the subversive message. You can't catch the second by keyword search because it doesn't have any keywords until it's decrypted. (The encryption can be as simple as a Caesar cipher.) Here's another thing to think about. Right now, we can't discuss and vote on ordinary happenings because the information and votes can't happen fast enough. That's why we (the U.S.) have a representative democracy for a government; we're (theoretically) paying these guys to do what we would have done. Now stick in a high-speed computer network. Voila! We *can* discuss and vote on the issue! [Not that we *would*, just that we *can*.] Naturally there are problems with these, but what I'm saying is that *things are going to change*, providing we don't blow ourselves to smithereens first. It won't happen instantly and it probably won't be painless either, but that's the way I see it. Trying to ``put a lid'' on software going out of the country is going to be expensive, and won't succeed, though it will have an effect. The question now is, ``is the effect worth the cost?'' Personally, I doubt it. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 84 13:41:20 PDT (Fri) Cc: mclure@sri-prism Subject: Chess in Human-Nets From: Martin D. Katz Maybe the chess "Delphi" should be its own mailing list? I don't think that Human-Nets is a good forum. ------------------------------ Date: 26 August 1984 06:17-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 9th move To: mclure @ SRI-PRISM Cc: ailist @ SRI-AI query: is there a program that can convert from the algebraic notation to descriptive notation? I learned P-K4 and like that, and there is no possibility that I will ever have an intuitive feel for cxd4 and the like. Can it be converted for those of us who are algebraic cripples? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Sep 84 09:22 EDT From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Communications Forum To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA, *bboard@MIT-MC.ARPA MIT COMMUNICATIONS FORUM National Media Policymaking September 20, 1984 4-6 p.m. Marlar Lounge, E37-252, 70 Vassar St., MIT speakers: Jeremy Tunstall, City University of London Jack Lyle, Boston University Rapidly developing mass media technologies have ended a relatively stable, "classical" era of national and international policy. Familiar concerns about cultural integrity are now mixed with desire to participate in advanced technologies as a matter of economic policy. The policymaking process has attracted many newly interested parties and engendered much debate, sometimes between government agencies. Professor Tunstall has undertaken a study focusing on the policy making process in the United States, Britain, and France, and the prospective effect on the relationships between the United States and the countries of Western Europe. ****** Multichannel MDS: Wireless Cable? October 4, 1984 4-6 p.m. Bush Room, Bldg 10-105, MIT speakers: Howard Klotz, Contemporary Communications Peter Lemieux, Information Architects/ MIT A new band of television has been created which may provide for as many as 28 different television channels. The FCC has reassigned eight channels in the ITFS band to MDS and is permitting the leasing of "excess capacity" on ITFS channels to commercial users. In effect, This service has been termed Multi channel MDS (or MMDS) and is seen as potential competition for cable television. MMDS would be free from local regulation and would not have to carry broadcast signals. To be successful, however, it may require creative arrangements between commercial entrepreneurs and nonprofit educational institutions. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #50 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-09-16 17:22:09 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 16 Sep 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Queries - Errata-Exchange Mailing List? & Arts Database, Computers and the Law - Export Control of Software & Privacy vs. Commercial Databases, Information - ACM'84 Conference Announcement, Chess - Chess in Human-Nets & Move No. 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Sep 1984 0801-PDT From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Humorous typo, errata-exchange mailing list?? Sometimes typographic errors can be funny. For example, the latest issue of RAG (Random Access Guide, a computer-faire publication) says on page 3 that the Altair 8800 was the first computer. (They probably meant to say the first microcomputer.) I'm interested in starting an errata-exchange mailing list, whereby people like myself who find typos and other errors in printed or online media can exchange listings of errata. When two people read the same document/article, the errata from the first person's reading can save the second person the trouble of bumping into the errors again. Even when only one person reads a particular item, others can get a sample of the accuracy of that kind of item from that source, and use that info to evaluate whether they should trust that source in the future. -- Anybody else interested in such a mailing list? ------------------------------ Date: Sun 9 Sep 84 12:49:16-EDT From: Janet Asteroff Subject: Arts Database Query Reply-to: us.jfa%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa I am trying to find out if there is a database service that deals with film--specifically film periodicals, for the purpose of keeping up on a wide range of film criticism without collecting boxes of paper. Something like Dialog or ABI/Inform, where abstracts can be looked at and complete copies can be ordered. If anyone knows of such a database, information would be appreciated. /Janet (US.JFA%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 84 16:57:09 EDT From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Export control of software I'm sure the NSA will conclude that controlling software export is impossible. If the USSR wants to export a piece of code they need only send it to one of their satellites, either by microwave or laser. The former could be camoflagued as a satellite TV receiver, the later could use a small IR laser and would be nearly invisible. Controlling the physical export of software is also difficult. I need only encrypt the software and carry it on my person. If stopped, I could refuse to divulge the password (5th amendment). Could the government then confiscate the diskette (or whatever)? They'd have no proof it was restricted. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 84 19:42:22 EDT From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Privacy vs. Commercial Databases The best way for me to make sure inaccurate personal information about myself isn't transmitted is for me to distribute the information directly. One can imagine a system in which each person maintains or hires someone to maintain a personal database. There is no point in making such a database available to others unless it is autenticated, but at least that reduces the role of credit agencies from that of sole sources of information to that of accuracy checkers. If detailed information about my finances is useful to others, it could be extremely valuable to me. A comprehensive financial database, including a list of all my expenditures, would make possible a computerized tax advisor program that could potentially save thousands of dollars a year (not to mention saving time and hassle if you're audited). The big problem here is data entry. Some sort of EFT is desirable for electronic receipts (using a public key signature scheme?). Failing that, you'd want some sort of poortable data entry device to record expenditures, such as a "smart credit card" or a portable voice input device (it wouldn't have to operate in real time if sufficient recording capacity were available, or if the recorded input could be dumped periodically to a stationary computer). In the shorter term, a machine readable bank statement would be useful. ------------------------------ From: Eugene Miya Date: 13 Sep 1984 1528-PDT (Thursday) Subject: ACM'84 Conference Announcement Please send information requests to Lew Bornmann (bornmann@ames-nas-gw), not me. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center ====================================================================== ACM-84: The Fifth Generation Challenge What: ACM-84, the Association for Computing Machinery's 1984 Annual Conference. When: October 8 to 10, 1984, with an "Early Bird" reception on Sunday, October 7. Where: At the San Francisco Hilton and Tower, Mason and O'Farrell Streets, San Francisco Theme: The Fifth Generation Challenge The Conference will examine: The Impact of the Fifth Generation. Specifically, the effect that Fifth Generation computers will have over the next decade on society, industry, the professions, and computer science. The Building Blocks of the Fifth Generation. An examination of current developments, new techniques, and new products which will take computing into the 1990s. The Character of Integration... in the Fifth Generation. How the Fifth Generation building blocks will fit together, and the impact of integration. The technical conference program will complemented by: o Professional Development Seminars. o An exhibit program. o An educators' program. o A computer chess championship. Social events will include a "Themes of San Francisco" gala evening and an awards luncheon. Special travel arrangements have been made with Corporate Travel Services of Sunnyvale, Ca. These include discounted air fares and pre- and post-conference tours. (CTS toll-free phone number: 800/851-3478; in California: call 408/734-9990 collect.) Advance Registration Fees: $110.00 ACM Members $150.00 Non-ACM Members Accommodations: Blocks of rooms for ACM-84 have been reserved. Please contact the Hilton directly for reservations. When calling, specify ACM-84 for reduced rates. Director of Front Office Operations San Francisco Hilton Tower Mason and O'Farrell Streets San Francisco, Ca. 94102 (415)771-1400 Room rates: Singles begin at $67 Double begin at $87 For any additional information, contact: (415)948-6306 ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 84 22:21:56 EDT From: Dave Subject: Re: Chess in Human-Nets To: Katz@UCI-750A.ARPA, mclure@SRI-PRISM.ARPA There is a digest in which the "Delphi" chess experiments also appear. That is the Chess digest. This is not to say that the Human-Nets community is not also interested. ds ------------------------------ Date: Mon Sep 10 22:12:57 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: chess@sri-unix, ailist@sri-ai Subject: number-cruncher vs. the world The Vote Tally -------------- The winner is: 11 ... Nxe2 (NxB). A total of 11 moves were cast. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine's Est 8 ply Qxe2 5 hours, 43 minutes 2.06x10^7 += (QxN) Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BK BB -- BR 11 ... Nxe2 7 ** BP ** -- ** BP BP BP 11 ... Nxf3 1 BP ** -- BP -- BN -- ** 11 ... b5 1 ** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- 11 ... Nxe4 1 -- ** -- ** WP ** BB ** 11 ... Qb6 1 ** -- ** -- ** WN ** -- WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP WP WR WN WB -- WR -- WK -- Prestige 8-ply The machine still thinks it is ahead positionally. Its evaluation dropped from 13% of a pawn to 8% of a pawn. The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB) 2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) 3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4) 8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP) 9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5) 10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q5) Commentary ---------- JPERRY@SRI-KL I vote for NxN rather than NxB because White's king bishop is a bad bishop (as is Black's). We would rather give up our, heretofore, inactive queen's knight for White's active king knight rather than his KB which is hampered by his own pawns. If white replies BXN (likely), then Q-Q2 would be a better reply than BXB because the Queen can cause more damage on White's vulnerable light squares. AVG@SU-AIMVAX Please put avg@diablo on the list for this game. I vote 11 .... Nxe2. Move 11 looks obvious, but what should our plan be for the future? White has the Q-side, so our chances lie on the K-side and the theme is to attack the base of White's pawn chain with f5. Two development plans are: (A) Be7 and retreat Bd7 if the bishop is kicked. Then O-O and Ne8, preparing f5. This keeps our d-pawn well guarded, but offers little scope for the B on e7. Also, White can capture exf5 and gain e4 for a knight, leaning on the d-pawn. We might play g6 before f5 so we can recapture gxf5. (B) Like (A), but retreat Bh5 if the bishop is kicked with h3. This may well provoke g4, inhibiting our f5. (C) g6 and Bg7 and retreat Bd7 if the bishop is kicked. Then O-O and Ne8 or Na5, preparing for f5. Now if exf5, we have gxf5, with control of e4 and a mobile pawn center; thus White is unlikely to capture exf5. The drawbacks are the weakness of the d-pawn and the pin after Bg5. I would favor (C) against a person because it is more active. I dont think White can build enough pressure on the d-pawn to cause serious problems. If Bg5 h6, Bh4 we can break the pin at the right moment with g5 and get in f5 soon after. This furthers our overall plan of a King-side attack. However against a computer, (A) is probably better. Without any obvious targets, the computer may have trouble forming a plan. Meanwhile we can prepare quietly for f5. (B) maintains a pin, but I dont see any value in the pin for us, and dont care to provoke g4. ACHEN.PA@XEROX 11 ... Nxe2 is the only sensible move. White's Be2 is just a set up for possible 12 Nxd4 and threatening with Bxf4. for the same reason, Black can't 11 ... Nxe4. I thought White's 10 d5 was too conservative, this move took the most of the pressure off King file. If 10 Be2 ... Black would be forced to retreat the lone bishop else stand a chance of either losing it or King's pawn. I am willing to agree with Prestige that the current position does favor the White, since Black's attack seem to be stalling. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism or Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #51 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-09-24 18:37:47 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 24 Sep 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Query - Function keys vs. Escape keys & Looking for a Book, Computers and the Law - Privacy vs. Commercial Databases (2 msgs), Computers and People - Big Brother is Watching Visalia CA, Chess - Delphi: Move 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 01:40 EDT From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Function keys vs. escape keys This has probably been asked before, and this is also probably not the right forum, but here goes anyway. Having finally installed a flexible enough communications package on my Apple that I can use it as a terminal to EMACS, I began to wonder whether anyone has done a competent study comparing editors (special-purpose terminals) with lots of function keys to ones using the ordinary touch-typing keyboard and escape keys. Now I admit it would be difficult to make an exact comparison: EMACS supports something like around 130 different functions (that number is a bit too big, since it includes a few duplicates and a few very special purpose ones), where a function is invoked with either one (ctrl-key) key-stroke or two (escape, ctrl-x, or ctrl-z followed by another), all derived from the 96 or so ASCII characters -- I don't think I've seen a special-purpose (i.e., function-keyed) terminal with more than say 30 function keys (including cursor movement), where a upper/lower shift also applies. Now I don't want to bring in mouses etc. -- just small keyboards vs. big ones, and the groundrules are that we are talking about experienced users, although they admittedly do get rusty. Anyone seen such a comparison (accuracy, speed, learning time, retention of skills, etc.)? Ted Lee ------------------------------ Date: Thu Sep 20 18:05:08 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: sf-lovers@rutgers Subject: book query Does anyone out there know more about the book called How to Enjoy Yourself During the Decline of Western Civilization --- -- ----- -------- ------ --- ------- -- ------- ------------ I don't know who the author is. I am wondering if anyone out there has read it and if so, what you thought of it. Stuart ------------------------------ Date: Mon 17 Sep 84 09:53:49-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Commercial Databases Dietz' suggestions about maintaining our own financial databases are interesting, but I disagree that a computerized tax advisor would save people thousands of dollars per year. (I refer to average savings for a large population, which I admit was not his thesis.) Assume that such an advisor existed. It could undoubtedly be mass produced for a few hundred dollars or less per copy, making it an essential purchase for anyone paying taxes. (It would even be a deductable expense.) The result would simply be that the government would raise everyone's taxes to compensate for its decreased revenue. What of people too poor or illiterate to buy (or rent) such an advisor and to keep their own records? There is no way that our government is going to shift such an enormous tax burden onto such people. It will either provide the financial services gratis or will adjust the tax rates for each tax bracket to maintain current levels of taxation. You will still have a choice of whether to be wise or foolish in the handling of your own finances. Assuming that most people choose to be wise, the necessity to maintain records and use an advisory program will simply be an added burden (or tax) on each citizen. This is similar to the current situation in which most taxpayers are forced to provide their own accounting and tax preparation services to the government (rather than pay the additional tax due if they don't keep records or seek out deductions). The only way to reduce taxation is to reduce government spending. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 18 Sep 1984 15:51:53-PDT From: vickrey%coors.DEC@decwrl.ARPA > Date: 16 Sep 84 19:42:22 EDT > From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA > Subject: Privacy vs. Commercial Databases > > The best way for me to make sure inaccurate personal > information about myself isn't transmitted is for me > to distribute the information directly . . . . It occurs to me that this is also a good way to make sure that inaccurate information >IS< transmitted. Saying that it would have to be authenticated doesn't make much sense - it means that some independent agency must confirm every entry you make, which means they have to have that information already, so why bother? Now, I want to be able to see & challenge anything anybody has recorded about me. But I'm neither a Pollyanna nor a wizard - I know that all that information isn't accessible to me, and life's too short to work up an ulcer about it. Susan ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1984 13:19 PDT From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Who's afraid of Big Brother (1984 and beyond) Reply-to: LARS@ACC I was visiting friends in the SF Bay area Labor Day weekend, and the Sunday, Sept 2nd SF Examiner had an article about life in Visalia, CA that I found scary. The following is summarized from memory. Visalia is a small town with only eight full-scale supermarkets, and a market research firm (in Chicago, I think) has signed them all up to collect data for a market research experiment via their checkout stands. 2500 households are paid about two dollars a month to always take a little red card with them when they go to the supermarket, and the research firm then get machine readable complete lists of all purchases, identified by household. But this is just where it begins. Newspapers delivered to these families are doctored with special versions of coupon sections that allow researchers to experiment with just what amount of rebates will induce people to use the coupons. The experiment families get a special two-way cable TV converter, that reports back to the system who has their TV on and what channel. If I understood the description correctly, the converter is also capable of selectively doctoring the commercial breaks .... --- Does anybody else get scared ?? / Lars Poulsen ------------------------------ Date: Sun Sep 23 00:03:31 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: chess@sri-unix, ailist@sri-ai Subject: Delphi: number-cruncher vs. the world, part XIV The Vote Tally -------------- The winner is: 13 ... O-O There were 17 votes, all except one for Castles. The lone hold-out voted for Qa5 (Q-QR4). The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est. 8 ply Be3 9 hrs, 48 mins 3.5x10^7 -= (B-K3) Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ ** BR BK ** 13 ... O-O 16 ** BP ** -- BB BP BP BP 13 ... Qa5 1 BP ** -- BP -- BN -- ** ** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- -- ** -- ** WP ** BB ** ** -- WN -- WB WN ** -- WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP WP WR -- ** -- WR -- WK -- Prestige 8-ply I showed this game to a master who works here at SRI. He said that Black has played much the better game and has good prospects. Congratulations humans! The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB) 2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2) 3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O) 4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) 5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4) 8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP) 9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5) 10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q5) Commentary ---------- TLI@USC-ECLB Yeah, it's time to castle all right. 13 ... O-O. Some other interesting thoughts: 14 ... Qd7, preparing for 15 ... Bh3 (this is for those unsubtle of mind and thought). How about 14 ... Nh5, 15 ... Nf4, 16 Pg3 Nh3. Well, light on the strategy and heavy on the arrogance, but definitely interesting. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #52 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-09-28 20:06:06 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 28 Sep 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Worldnet - Telebox, Computers and People - Big Brother is watching Visalia CA (2 msgs), Computers and the Law - Privacy in Data Bases & Unions Muscling in on Computer Users?, Information - Communications Forums (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24-Sep-1984 2225 From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert) Subject: The Deutsche Bundespost brings up the German part of Worldnet The Deutsche Bundespost has brought the Telebox electronic mail system on line in Germany. Due to the Post Office monopoly on all communications this will be the only mail system in Germany. Based on CCITT X.400, it will allow interconnection to other national email systems and will allow connection, under the rules of X.400, to local User Agents. (For now it is accessed from any terminal, usually via X.25.) What follows is output from the help text for rates, which I will not translate in entirety, but will just summarize: DM 65 set-up charge, DM 40 monthy charge, initial-phase flat usage charge of DM 40, eventual rate schedule as shown, but subject to a DM 40 minimum, rates are given for per minute connect time, daily storage charge, charge per addressee, and the statement of the minimum. For volume users who are not bothered by the hefty minimums, this is very inexpensive, as long as you prepare off line. Compare the standard mail service where the "20 cent stamp" costs DM 0,80. Finally, the planned rates for messages outside Germany are given, first number is the first 2048 characters, second is for each additional 1024 characters. They state that they will connect only to public systems. DIE GEBUEHREN FUER DIE T E L E B O X ------------------------------------ Fuer das Bereitstellen oder Aendern einer (oder gleichzeitig mehrerer) Adresse(n) berechnet die Post einmalig 65,-DM. In der Testphase kommen keine weiteren TELEBOX-Gebuehren auf, es sind nur die Verbindungsgebuehren in den Zugangsnetzen zu entrichten. Ab 01.10.84 kostet jede Adresse monatlich 40,-DM Grundgebuehr zuzueglich 40,-DM pauschale Nutzungsgebuehr, insgesamt also 80,-DM. Erst mit Beginn des Wirkbetriebes werden die Nutzungsgebuehren voll in Rechnung gestellt. Folgende Nutzungsgebuehren sind vorgesehen: -Belegungsgebuehr (Anschaltegebuehr) je Minute........................................0,30 DM -Speichergebuehr je Einheit und Tag...............0,03 DM Eine Einheit umfasst 2 K (= 2048 Zeichen) -Adressiergebuehr je Adresse......................0,10 DM Mindestnutzungsgebuehr je Abrechnungszeitraum (ca. 30 Tage) und Adresse........................40,00 DM Die Aufnahme des Uebermittlungsdienstes in oeffentliche Systeme anderer Laender ist vorgesehen. Die Uebermittlungsgebuehr je Mitteilung wird dann betragen: - in Europa..................................0,70/0,10 DM - in den USA.................................1,20/0,25 DM - in Kanada..................................1,25/0,25 DM - in der uebrigen Welt.......................1,45/0.35 DM Die erste Zahl gibt die Mindestgebuehr fuer eine Mitteilung mit maximal 2048 Zeichen an, die zweite Zahl die Gebuehr fuer jede weitere angebrochene oder volle Einheit von 1024 Zeichen. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 84 09:23:02 BST (Tue) Subject: Re: Big Brother is watching Visalia CA From: Nkb%maths.hcig.nott.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa Reminds me very much of a science fiction short story I read a couple of months ago in a collection called "The Golden Age of Science Fiction". I forget the title, but the basic idea was of a city which had been totally destroyed by an explosion, but then rebuilt as a micro minituarised robot city. Each day, however, was exactly like the last day before the explosion, with the single exception that different advertising strategies were attempted. Makes you wonder whether or not Saatchi and Saatchi (or your American equivalents) wouldn't like to catch something like that. Just think, however, when all that adverstising gets too much for you, there's always the remote control to hand! NKB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Sep 84 9:16:22 EDT From: Ron Natalie Subject: Visalia CA The QUBE cable system installed in Cincinnati (or was it Cleveland) and other places already keeps track of your viewing. There was quite a furor over the privacy of this. More concerning is the phone company who already keeps track of everyone you telephone. -ROn ------------------------------ From: Willis Ware Date: 25 Sep 84 08:13:40 PDT (Tue) Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #51 Appropos of the recent dialogue among Dietz @ Rutgers.arpa, Laws @ SRI.arpa and Vickery%coors.DEC on the subject of privacy in data bases, may I just make the following historical observation. Honest injun, the idea is not a new one -- either that of one keeping his own records or of having a disinterested 3rd party authenticate them. When privacy first became a national issue in the early 70s, I chaired the Secretary's (DHEW) Committee on Auotomated Personal Data Systems; it's report led to the Privacy Act of 1974 which in turn led to the Privacy Protection Study Commission of which I was a member. In the unrecorded discussions of both groups, especially the HEW one, many ways of circumventing centralized recordkeeping were talked about, ways that would hopefully give the individual more control over the accuracy and use of his records. In the early 70s, technology could not of course support the Dietz proposal, but nonetheless the idea was talked about. I personally am partial to the philosophy that a third party is not automatically entitled to personal information about myself; so to speak, a 3rd party should not have it without a need-to-know that in some way is beneficial to me, that would not constitute a latent threat to erupt in the future, and that would not escalate in some way to damage me indirectly. A very tall order to be sure and probably not achievable, but it is of course diametrically contrary to the view of "let it all hang out, I have nothing to hide". Thus notions such as that of Dietz are in the right direction, although troubled by practical problems such as "how to get there from here", or "how do you persuade lawmakers that such an approach is approriate." Don't stop thinking though. New ways of handling privacy are always welcome and someday, we may get the one that will really handle the issue.. Admittedly the protection that we all have from the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 and various other privacy-oriented laws (Fair Credit Billing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc.) together with corresponding ones in many states is far from perfect and far from doing a comprehensive adequate job. But if you don't like the coverage which those laws are designed to provide, worry a little about the scene that isn't covered at all; e.g., electronic mail, checkout stand records, voice mail, electronic communications, 2-way TV records -- to name a few. Willis H. Ware Rand Corporation Santa Monica, CA ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 84 16:31:28 EDT From: Mike Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use To: Poli-Sci@RUTGERS.ARPA Cc: Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA Recently, there has been some discussion in the net.general newsgroup on Usenet about last Sunday's edition of Sixty Minutes. Since I did not see this program, I can only paraphrase what I have read and toss this out as a topic for discussion. Maybe someone out there is watching this situation closely and can comment and be a little more specific about what is going on? What I read: Appearantly, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU), a branch of the AFL-CIO, has been fighting to make it illegal for people to do piece-work type work in their homes somewhere in the New England area. Sixty Minutes interviewed some women who were doing some sort of sewing work at home and earning about $8 per hour. The claim is that these moves against home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down on the computer business in which many people work at home. It is further claimed that unions have been losing members lately and that muscling in on the computer business seems like a good way to bolster their ranks (though attempts so far have not been too successful). Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with a union. At best, it would be a waste of money. At worst, it helps feed a bunch of thugs who should be exterminated. I certainly hope this government movement - if indeed it is one - is quickly stiffled. -- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra, ihnp4] pegasus!mzal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 14:34 EDT From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Communications Forum To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA Cc: Esther@MIT-XX.ARPA MIT Communications Forum THE MIT COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM October 11, 1984 4:00-5:30 Marlar Lounge, 37-252 (70 Vassar St.) MIT, Cambridge David Clark, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science A plan to provide a data communication network for MIT has been evolving over the last several years, and implementation of the network is now in progress. Since the MIT campus has a rich set of requirements, the design of this network provides insights for the design of other sophisticated networks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 84 14:58 EDT From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA MIT Communications Forum COMPETITION FOR INTELSAT Thursday, October 18, 1984, 4-6 p.m. Marlar Lounge, Bldg. 37-252, 70 Vassar St., MIT, Cambridge For two decades INTELSAT has had a near monopoly of international satellite telecommunications. This was justified on many of the same grounds as AT&T's monopoly of domestic telephony: the merits of uniformity and standardization; cross-subsidy of less-developed by more developed areas; and economies of scale. Orion Satellite and several other potential competitors have recently applied to serve the lucrative North Atlantic routes. This has touched off intense debate about "cream-skimming," the value of INTELSAT, and America's international communications policies. Christopher Vizas, Orion Satellite Corporation Joseph Pelton, INTELSAT ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #53 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-01 23:59:51 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 1 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Query - E-mail to distribute telephone messages?, Computers and the Law - Unions muscling in? (2 msgs), Computers and People - Say What?, Chess - Move 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 22:56:42-PDT From: Richard Furuta Subject: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone Subject: messages? To: Tops-20@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Unix-Wizards@BRL.ARPA Is anyone out there using electronic mail to distribute telephone messages? The system we use now is to write the message on a little green piece of paper which is subsequently filed for the recipient. We are interested in switching to an electronic mail based system. However, it's unfair to ask the already busy person answering telephone calls to switch to a system for message taking that will increase the workload. It seems to us that using a vanilla mail interface will increase that workload particularly since the information that comes in on the message often doesn't arrive in a linear form (e.g., the telephone number may be given before the name of the caller and each might precede the name of the intended recipient). What I hope is that someone has already solved the problem and can point me to a piece of software (preferably running on Tops-20 or on Berkeley Unix) to aid in this process. In any case, I'd be interested to hear from anyone whose organization is using electronic mail for the telephone messages with details of how it is done and how well it is working. Since the amount of information on Human-Nets and Unix-Wizards overwhelmed me long ago, I'd appreciate it if responses could be mailed directly to me. --Rick Furuta@Washington (Arpanet, CSnet) ihnp4!uw-beaver!furuta (Usenet) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 84 12:49:10 EDT From: John R Ellis Subject: Re: Government on the move: Home computer use To: Mike The claim is that these moves against home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down on the computer business in which many people work at home. According to the most recent issue of National Review, the AFL-CIO considers "telecommuting" the same as "home work" in traditional manufacturing and wants to ban it. ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 1 Oct 1984 06:46:49-PDT From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber) Subject: Re: Governement on the move: Home computer use I think the case you are talking about deals with people in Vermont who are knitting ski caps at home for various large retailers. The union has been pressuring the feds for many years now to put a stop to it. So far, the feds have been smart enough to stay out of it, but with an election coming up the knitters are at a great disadvantage because they are a small number of individuals in a single state, and the unions are organized across the nation. Obviously, a union can spend more money, send more letters to more congressmen, and sway more votes than a few folks working independently out of their homes in Vermont. Politians are not usually nasty people, but they make their living by winning a popularity contest every few years decided by large groups of single-issue voters. If these individuals send letters to their respective congressfolks saying, "Stop the Vermont knitters or I won't vote for you" then there can be little question that the pols would rather put some faceless people in another state out of work, than be out of work themselvs. (Especialy given that their replacement will probably pass the law anyway.) Skillful statesmen get through issues like this by keeping legislation from getting out of committee and by distracting unions and other special interest groups with other, hopefully more generally beneficial, legislation that they want more. But time is against the knitters. Sooner or later the unions will make it more of a priority to stop independent workers. The polititians will be faced with the choice of doing something they know is wrong, and getting thrown out of office (where they might do some good later) while the wrong gets done anyway. It's a classic problem in philosophy. Probably they'll pass some sort of compensation bill for the knitters (drawn out of social security, no doubt) and close them down. The only way to stop the unions is with a larger, more organized force. There are no signs that such a force is likely to form. National Right To Work laws never get enough support to make it to the floor. The majority of individuals support the concept, but they are not motiviated to make the effort of a special interest group. This screed should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of unions. Unions have helped form our present society. You wouldn't like your life quite so much if it weren't for the gains that unions bought: the 40-hour week, paid vacation, company-paid medical insurance, the list goes on to include virtually every benefit we take for granted in high-techdom. The unions have also screwed up the economy, made poor quality a hallmark in American manufacturing and have earned the image of "thugs." I think unionism is like communism... a good theory, but difficult to translate into practice. As to unions in the computer trade, they really aren't a good fit. A union is at its best when it is protecting workers from an exploitative management. At the present, it is the skilled workers who are exploiting the companies. We don't need unions yet. When it is no longer a seller's market in the computer biz, then organization might be a better idea. Remember, most people who sit on one company's board of directors, also sit on others. It's a very small world at the top; everyone knows everyone. They have de facto organization. It's still not uncommon to hear of price-fixing and non-competitive agreements made between large companies at "secret" meetings. That's really all unions are about. Wage-fixing at the bottom of the pyramid. >>>==>PStJTT ------------------------------ Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 16:49:19-EDT From: Janet Asteroff Subject: Luddite Theory From the "No Comment" department: "What is the effect of the flat, two-dimensional, visual, and externally supplied image, and of the lifeless though florid colors of the viewing screen, on the development of the young child's own inner capacity to bring to birth living, mobile, creative images of his own? Indeed, what effect does viewing the computer screen have on the healthy development of the growing but unformed mind, brain, and body of the child?" -- Douglas Sloan Teachers College Record Summer, 1984 ------------------------------ Date: Sun Sep 30 16:02:03 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: ailist@sri-ai, human-nets@rutgers Subject: Delphi 15: cruncher nudges bishop The Vote Tally -------------- The winner is: 14 ... Ne8 There were 16 votes. We had a wide mixture. The group seemed to have difficulty forming a plan. Many different plans were suggested. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est 8 ply h3 6 hrs, 4 mins 2.18x10^ +4% of a pawn (P-KR3) Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK ** 14 ... Ne8 4 ** BP ** -- BB BP BP BP 14 ... Rc8 3 BP ** -- BP -- ** -- ** 14 ... Nh5 3 ** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- 14 ... Nd7 2 -- ** -- ** WP ** BB ** 14 ... Qd7 2 ** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP 14 ... Nxe4 1 WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP ** 14 ... Qb6 1 WR -- ** -- WR -- WK -- Prestige 8-ply The machine's evaluation turned from negative to slightly positive. Apparently it likes this position somewhat but still considers the position even. The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB) 2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2) 3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O) 4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) Ne8 (N-K1) 5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3) 6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4) 8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP) 9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5) 10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q5) Commentary ---------- BLEE.ES@XEROX 14 ... Ne8 as 14 ... Nh5?; 15. h3 B:f3 (if 15 ... Bd7?; 16. N:e5 and white wins a pawn) 16. Q:f3 Nf6 (now we've lost the bishop pair, a tempo and the knight still blockades the f pawn and the white queen is active...) (if 16 ... g6?; 16. Bh6 Ng7; 17. g4 and black can't support f5 because the light square bishop is gone) while 14 ... Nd7?; 15. h3 Bh5; 16. g4 Bg6; and black has trouble supporting f5. I expect play to proceed: 15. h3 Bd7 16. g4 g6 17. Bh6 Ng7 18. Qd3 f5 (at last!) 19. g:f5 g:f5 JPERRY@SRI-KL In keeping with the obvious strategic plan of f5, I vote for 14...N-K1. N-Q2 looks plausible but I would rather reserve that square for another piece. SMILE@UT-SALLY 14 ... Nh5. Paves the way for f5. Other possibility is Qd7 first. Either way I believe f5 is the key (as it often is!). REM@MIT-MC I'm not much for attacking correctly, so let's prepare to double rooks: 14. ... Q-Q2 (Qd7) (It also helps a K-side attack if somebody else can work out the details.) VANGELDER@SU-SCORE 14. ... Nxe4 (vote) In spite of what the master says, White can indefinitely prevent f5 by h3, Bd7, g4. Will the computer find this after Ne8 by Black? Stronger over the board is 14 ... Nxe4. If 15. Nxe4 f5 16. N/4g5 f4 and Black regains the piece with advantage. The majority will probably not select this move, which may be just as well, as attack-by-committee could present some real problems. Nevertheless, the computer presumably saw and examined several ply on this line and it would be interesting to see what it thinks White's best defense is. An alternate line for White is 15. Nxe4 f5 16. N/4d2 e4 17. h3 Bh5 18. Bd4 Bg4!? 19. Nxe4 fxe4 20. Qxe4 Bxf3 21. gxf3 Rf4. There are many variations, but most are not decisive in 8 ply, so the computer's evaluation function would be put to the acid test. ACHEN.PA@XEROX 13 ... Nh5 (keep up the pressure) this might provoke 14 g3 Bd7, either 15 Nd2 or h4 to start a counter attack. the black is hoping to exchange the remaining knight with queen's bishop 16 ... Nf4 then maybe attempt to encircle the white with Qb6 attacking the weakside behind the pawns. (note: if 13 ... Nh5 can't 14 ... f5 for the obvious reason) Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #54 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-02 18:55:58 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Response to Query - E-mail for telephone messages? (2 msgs), Computers and People - Re: Lifeless Screen?, Computers and the Law - Unions muscling in? (6 msgs), Computer Security - Use of Excessive Force, Chess - Computer Chess Tournament ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 04:58:05-EDT From: Michael Rubin Subject: Re: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone Subject: messages? To: furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA The receptionists here in the Columbia CS Dept. often distribute phone messages using vanilla MM on TOPS-20. Message recipients don't especially care about formatting, and the -20 is used for most departmental word processing and memos anyhow, so the secretaries know about MM and Emacs. The load is light because the front desk doesn't answer individual office phones when people are out. The department chairman has his own secretary and probably gets his messages on paper (he's a mathematician, not a hacker). Paper messages for other people aren't too practical because the front office is far away from most everything else, and people don't pass by it often. The ordinary mail program should be fine for all but the really busiest receptionists (the kind who spend 120% of their time answering the phone -- they must do it with pipelined architecture!) as long as it's always up on their terminal (or easy to invoke). A proper set of aliases and a good MM.INIT (or .mailrc) might help. This assumes the receptionist is reasonably familiar with the operating system.... But if you want something specialized for phone messages, it's easy to write your own mail program on Unix. It might use keywords or terminal function keys to distinguish the fields of the message, then arrange them in a standard order before feeding everything to sendmail. --Mike Rubin ------------------------------ Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 02:01:21-PDT From: Richard Furuta Subject: Re: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone Subject: messages? To: RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA I guess the problem here is that the receptionist fields phone calls and also fronts for the academic advisors and so has a bunch of students coming in at the same time. I tend to favor the keyword or function key approach to using vanilla MM because it allows one the flexibility to enter parts of the message in random order (including the intended recipient). Lots of places seem to be using vanilla MM, though. --Rick ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1984 06:15-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Luddite Theory To: US.JFA @ CU20B well, what is the effect of the flat lifeless printed page? Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 16:49:19-EDT From: Janet Asteroff To: HUMAN-NETS Re: Luddite Theory From the "No Comment" department: "What is the effect of the flat, two-dimensional, visual, and externally supplied image, and of the lifeless though florid colors of the viewing screen, on the development of the young child's own inner capacity to bring to birth living, mobile, creative images of his own? Indeed, what effect does viewing the computer screen have on the healthy development of the growing but unformed mind, brain, and body of the child?" -- Douglas Sloan Teachers College Record Summer, 1984 ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1984 06:11-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use To: Ellis @ YALE Cc: ZALESKI @ RUTGERS for intelligent people, labor union policy is to labor as bird shot is to birds. They do not know how to organize the electronic cottage; therefore, it must be banned. Date: Sat, 29 Sep 84 12:49:10 EDT From: John R Ellis To: HUMAN-NETS, Mike Re: Government on the move: Home computer use The claim is that these moves against home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down on the computer business in which many people work at home. According to the most recent issue of National Review, the AFL-CIO considers "telecommuting" the same as "home work" in traditional manufacturing and wants to ban it. ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1984 06:14-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Governement on the move: Home computer use To: taber%kirk.DEC @ DECWRL obviously people who want to do productive work without government permission must be stopped. First forid them; then try court orders; then fine them; and if they do not pay fines, then do jail or shoot them. Workiing without permission indeed! ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1984 06:39-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use To: ZALESKI @ RUTGERS Cc: Carter @ RUTGERS, Poli-Sci @ RUTGERS it is already illegal under federal law to make ladies garments for sale if you work in your own home. ilgwu doesn't need to get a law; they only need to (1) keep the one they have and (2) get marshals to jail the women who use their home kniting machines to make ski caps, underwear, etc, if intended for women. If intende for men it's legal; women are EXPECTED to make clothing for men, apparently. ILGWU strikes again. Sing, sing the praises. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 06:52:13-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: 40 hour weeks Where in the computer industry do 40-hour-weeks exist? Certainly not in Silicon Valley, where the norm is 50-60 hours. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Oct 84 9:44:25 PDT From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: reply to PStJTT on Unions To: taber%kirk.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber) One aspect of unions that you neglected to mention is that they are no longer voluntary organizations. The government (NLRB) has done much to reinforce the power (economic and political) that unions wield. The problem isn't so much that unions aren't useful in the current economy as that they are using their power to exploit some of the people who are forced to pay dues to them in order to hold whatever job they've chosen. The extent to which the government is interfereing in the situation is illustrated to some extent by the effect the Reagan administration has had on the situation. Now that he has gotten his hooks into the NLRB, and some rulings have started going against the unions, they have started saying that maybe the NLRB has outlived its usefulness. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 11:18:43-PDT From: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: telecommuting may not be so good after all A recent collection of messages on Human Nets and the Unix USENET presented the case for telecommuting and against the ban against working at home (the Vermont knitters) proposed by the trade union movement. The issues are somewhat more complex than the "they just want to regulate us out of existance" messages I have been seeing. There are several disadvantages to working at home -- the work environment may not be as safe as in an office or factory (poor lighting and seating arrangements, for example). More importantly, when you work alone at home, you may lose some important aspects of work: Social status -- your peers don't see the value of your efforts. Sense of community -- you don't see the relevance of your work in a greater context. Also, you lose the socializing aspects of work: especially the "old-boy" network that many feel is important for advancement. Use and development of one's resources -- at-home jobs are likely to be repetitive dead-end work, such as data-entry (or knitting). Working at home will make it more difficult for you to locate a more challanging job. While it is certainly true that turning labor into a collection of cottage industries will erode union control and power, it would be unwise to ignore other aspects of the situation. Martin Minow decvax!minow @ berkeley.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 12:23:25-PDT From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber) To: hn%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Use of excessive force I was just reading in EE Times about a product that is supposed to stop software piracy by damaging the disk of people who use a pirated s/w product. The interesting part of the article is: "When detected, Prolok-plus warns the user to remove the illegally duplicated diskette. If the user continues to try to use the program, then Prolok-plus performs the retributive act of using a so-called programming "worm" to randomly destroy data until the system is shut down. This sort of data loss is particularly catastrophic for hard-disk users who store most of their information on one large disk." I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the pricipal of "use of excessive force" applies here. This is the same law that says a shop owner is in the wrong if he shoots someone who steals a candy bar. Given that you can't know who is using the pirated copy (a kid runs it on his parent's bookkeeping computer, for example) and you can't know what data you're destroying (lab results, data used to control a dangerous machine, etc) I don't think you can be justified in randomly destroying things. I give the idea an "A" for effort, but an "F" for common sense. I have great sympathy for anyone trying to stop pirates. (I make my living as a software engineer.) But I can't say I'll feel sorry for this outfit if they lose their shirts in court. >>>==>PStJTT ------------------------------ Date: Tue Oct 2 12:24:29 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: ailist@sri-ai, sf-lovers@rutgers, chess@sri-unix Subject: reminder of upcoming computer chess tournament in San Subject: Francisco This is a reminder that this coming Sunday (Oct 7) will herald the beginning of the battle of the titans at the San Francisco Hilton "continental parlors" room at 1pm. Cray Blitz the reigning world champion program will attempt to squash the vengeful Belle. Nuchess, a perennial "top-finishing contender" and descendent of Chess 4.5, wants a piece of the action and would be very happy to see the Belle/Cray Blitz battle cause both to go up in a puff of greasy, black smoke, leaving Nuchess as the top dog for the entire year. It promises to be as interesting as it is every year. You don't have to be a computer-freak or chess-fanatic to enjoy the event. Come on by for a rip-roaring time. Stuart ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #55 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-04 19:07:22 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 4 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Query - Biofeedback Instrument Link, Information - MIT Communications Forum Update Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (7 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3-Oct-84 23:53 PDT From: William Daul / Augmentation Systems Div. / McDnD From: Subject: PC <--> Biofeedback Instrument Link (info wanted) To: ARPANET-BBOARDS@MIT-MC.ARPA To: INFO-IBMPC@USC-ISIB.ARPA, INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA To: INFO-MICRO@BRL-VGR.ARPA, WorkS@RUTGERS.ARPA A friend has asked me to see if I can uncover some information for him. So...here goes... He wants to connect an EEG biofeedback instrument to a personal computer (IBM or APPLE). He hasn't decided on which. 1. What are the necessary componets of such a system (hard disk, disk controller, etc)? 2. He wants to get a spectrum analysis (FFT) of the recordings, both real time and compressed. Does anyone know of existing software he could use? Emre Konuk MRI 555 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Tel: 415-321 3055 -- wk 415-856 0872 -- hm I suspect he would like to know if anyone knows of existing groups doing similar work. If you have information, you can send it to me "electronically" and I will pass it on to him. Thanks, --Bi//(WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 07:54 EDT From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: MIT Communications Forum To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA The seminar by David Clark, "The MIT Communications Problem" has been postponed to October 25 (originally October 11). Same time, same place. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 23:01:56-PDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: [minow] telecommuting may not be so good after all As one who participates in a Army work-at-home experiment, I must say that I have considerably better light and seating in my personally-designed home office than I do in my office-building office. Since I am on the ARPA/Mil Net, I also seem to have contact (and more personal, at that, for the most part) with a lot larger community than I ever did at the office. For the most part, my co-workers and immediate supervisor have a lot better idea of what I'm doing, and the worth of my work, than most of the people in our organization have about their co-workers and subordinates. What I, and the other WaH-experiment people, am doing is about the farthest thing in the world from being dull or repetitive. Granted, I'm in sort of an idealized situation, but then that's probably the situation ANY home-worker in our industry will be in for quite some time to come. Rich Zellich USAMC ALMSA St. Louis, MO ------------------------------ Date: 3 October 1984 02:56-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: telecommuting may not be so good after all To: minow%rex.DEC @ DECWRL You state the case for the "I know what is good for you much better than you do" theory well. John Adams had the view that "each person is the best judge of his own interest" ; one does wonder, what has happened to freedom? Must I go work in an office? ------------------------------ Date: 3-Oct-84 00:13 PDT From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD From: Subject: Re: telecommuting may not be so good after all To: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Martin Minow had good points regarding what one may lose working at home. But there are many people that would gladly give up those aspects. I work at home 2 days a week. I feel that I get the best of both worlds. I have not had any problems getting any equipment (within reason) I need for home. My biggest concern is that others may take advantage of this flexibility and wreck it for the rest of us. I would like to hear about others experiences of working at home...what did/do you do...how is management done...general comments. --Bi// ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1984 0652-PDT From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Programming via telecommunicating The claim was made that at-home jobs are likely to be data-entry or other non-interesting jobs. Using that argument to stop computer programmers from doing some of their work at home is nonsense. If the unions really want to make work interesting they should point out computer programming as one of the rare exceptions to "most work, at home or at office, is boring", and encourage more people to do computer programming instead of boring things like answering telephones in an office or soldering parts in a PC board in a factory or putting parts on automobiles in a factory or running a cash register in a store etc. The point was made that at home you lose social life. I agree, except that social life with co-workers is often discouraged anyway, especially romantic relationships, so maybe it's just as well to have to get social relationships away from the workplace where they don't distract from work and don't violate company rules against co-worker romance. Besides, in my case, there aren't any eligible women where I work and if I want to relate to men-only I can always play Go or send electronic mail etc. which are men-dominated, so looking for social or romantic affairs at my workplace wouldn't be of essential value anyway, merely more of what I have already elsewhere. The "old boy" network may be more efficient on the net than in person, making that argument against at-home telecommunicating invalid, but I'm not sure so won't argue that point at this time. In summary, unions should be encouraging at-home computer programing and other tasks, to make work more interesting and fruitful, to ease the load on child-care facilities and reduce the number of children who come home from school to empty houses until their parents get home from work, and eventually to eliminate the need for unions so the union leaders can get on to more productive and interesting work themselves. An at-home person has more time to think "do I really like this job" when not under direct supervision of somebody yelling "work faster, stop daydreaming and get back to work", so I doubt at-home sweatshops are likely when individuals work directly on terminals. Only at-home groups where one person supervises others needs to be watched lest the supervisor push the other employee(s) too much. But I'd worry about small offices with one boss pushing one secretary just as much. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 10:07:50-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Computer Homework To: Poli-Sci@RUTGERS.ARPA Re: Women are EXPECTED to make clothing for men ... The 60 Minutes piece made the point that the homework law was passed (about 30 years ago) to correct specific abuses. At the time, men's clothing was commonly made in factories using heavy machinery. Women's clothing was, I presume, more detailed, individual, and delicate; it was commonly made by hand either in factories or at home. Times have changed and the law is now absurd, but I don't expect the law to change until some larger issue such as computer homework forces a complete restructuring. (Factory sweatshops also exist; there are separate laws covering them, but enforcement is lax. Milton Friedman apparently supports such shops as an entry for immigrants and the poor into the mainstream of the American economy. The same can be said for homework. We certainly should not shut down the workshops unless we provide alternative channels for these people.) Computer homework and factory work can be just as abused as any other kind of work. Not every terminal is going to have mailer capability or storage of personal files. Terminals can be made to count keystrokes and are thus ideal overseers. Some legislation may indeed be necessary; let's just make sure it's sensible legislation. Don't you wish your congressman had a terminal? -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 84 1311 EDT (Wednesday) From: Gail E. Kaiser (C410GK60) Subject: homework This is in response to Minow's comments on working at home. I had the impression that, in general, the "Vermont knitters" are women with small children who want to stay at home with their children. These people don't care about getting into the old-boys network (which they're excluded from anyway) or socializing with their fellow workers. They want paid work and they want to do it at home. Since they have found a company that is willing to support this, I think the unions and the government should stay out of it. I'm sure there are lots of people, male and female, who want to work at home because they have children or elderly dependents there, or just because they feel like it. In many of these cases, the choice is between working at home or not working at all. I believe in the "right to work" and I'd support a national right-to-work law that would hopefully get rid of all this union garbage. -Gail Kaiser (gk60@cmu-cs-a.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 10:10:05 PDT From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: re: telecommuting may not be so good after all decvax!minow pointed out a number of things that people who work at home have lost by not working in an office or a factory. We really should assume that the people involved knew what they were doing when they made the choice. In all of the recent cases that have come to light (either in sympathetic articles or in the few complaints to "the authorities") the people involved WANTED to work at home. None of them could have been considered to have been forced to give up these things that WE think are important. What the unions want to do is to prevent a person from making the choice of working at home when he or she thinks something about that situation (being with the kids, no commute, flexible hours, etc.) is better that some job they could get away from home. Chris ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #56 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-05 22:26:30 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 5 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: Computers and People - Big Brother is Watching us Watch TV, Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (3 msgs), Chess - Move 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 84 11:17 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: Big Brother is Watching If They have the technology to target the mix of commercials on cable TV, says my cubemate Laurie Harrington, the next steps are obvious: 1) When a network can't decide which series to air, it can simply air both -- "The A Team" for male-headed households, "Remington Steele" for female-headed households. 2) From there, it's a short step to manufacturing the news according to what you want to hear -- on the West Coast, the 49ers beat the Patriots, while on the East Coast, we hear the score the other way. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 17:29:23-PDT From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA Subject: Unions vs telecommuting To: minow%rex.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA After reading the following, I just had to comment. (Just my thoughts - not intended to be a flame.) ...You wouldn't like your > life quite so much if it weren't for the gains that unions bought: > the 40-hour week... I don't quarrel with the basic thesis that unions have made valuable contributions, or with the rest of the points mentioned, but I'm a bit unsure about this one. I seem to recall (perhaps somebody can confirm or deny) that the 40-hour work week came from management, not the unions! I have no doubt that many managements had to be prodded into the 40-hour week by unions, but I believe the original 40-hour week came from some interested manager (vague memories that it may have been Henry Ford) who discovered that it *increased* productivity, because of reduced fatigue. Workers (at least, manual workers) are more productive on a 40-hour week than on a longer one. There were incidents during the Battle of Britain where armament-plant workers, voluntarily working long hours to increase production, were asked to stop doing so -- after a brief initial spurt, fatigue and boredom had reduced net production below what was normal for a 40-hour week. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu 4 Oct 84 14:53:45-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Homework To: Poli-Sci@RUTGERS.ARPA I just ran across a short article on the telecommuting homework problem in the May issue of Data Communications. At that time Reagan was trying to eliminate the homework laws (including knitting, etc.); other candidates had taken no position. It seems that the AFL-CIO has already petitioned that the current laws be extended to include computer homework after the members of one of their subunions (United Service Industries Employees?) voted for such an action. Politicians have not been very receptive to the AFL-CIO position. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: Thu Oct 4 23:57:12 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: chess@sri-unix, ailist@sri-ai Subject: Delphi 16: cruncher entices you to do battle. The Vote Tally -------------- The winner is: 15 ... Bd7 69% favored it out of 16 votes. Surprise -------- One surprise is that Cray Blitz, the current world computer chess champ, submitted a vote, but unfortunately this is only a machine vs. humans event, not machine vs. (humans and machine), so the vote had to be disallowed. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see what a machine would do for you humans. It agreed with your Bd7. The message explaining Cray Blitz's vote is included below. Also, Cray was asked to play a move for White after its Bd7. The Prestige 8-ply played the same move as Cray's recommendation, a somewhat machine-like move shown below. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est 8 ply Qc4 15 hrs 5.4x10^7 +3% of a pawn (Q-B4) Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK ** 15 ... Bd7 11 ** BP ** BB BB BP BP BP 15 ... Bh5 3 BP ** -- BP -- ** -- ** 15 ... Bxf3 2 ** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- -- ** WQ ** WP ** -- ** ** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP WP WP -- ** -- WP WP ** WR -- ** -- WR -- WK -- Prestige 8-ply The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB) 2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2) 3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O) 4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) Ne8 (N-K1) 5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3) Bd7 (B-Q2) 6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 16. Qc4 (Q-B4) 7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4) 8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP) 9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5) 10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q4) Commentary ---------- JLG@LANL My vote is 15 ... Bd7. Cray Blitz agrees: 8-ply search, 8 minutes 53 seconds, Blitz places black about 1/6 pawn down. After 32 minutes and 26 seconds, Blitz predicts white will play 16 Qc4, with White up by about 1% of a pawn. The 32 minute search was quite a surprise, 5-10 minutes for 8 plies is more typical. It's a very quiet position though, so it probably found few killer moves or alpha-beta cut-offs. Note that Qc4 is not a very useful move, computers tend to wander in quiet positions. This tendency is why computer programs still get beat by the masters. [More accurately: computers, even deep-searchers, don't have plans like masters such as "put a Knight on d6 via this route c3-d5-b6-c8-d6 and move our Bishop at c3 to a good square during all this, all in order to cramp our opponent's castled Queen-side." Essentially these master plans are nothing more than horrendously deep searches, but because the masters don't worry about specific variations, they just keep trying to get the Knight to that square if the opponent's plan intervenes. The key to all of this is the complex database of chess patterns in the master's mind. The database tells him when a Knight at d6 might be good in cramping an opponent. He may have played over numerous games in Informants in which another master has put a Knight at d6 with interesting results. The master's database "flags" him that this might be a good thing to do now. When computers are able to do this sort of complicated thing throughout a game, plus have a tactical sense at the level of Belle's (perhaps in parallel with the plan database), then and only then will we have world-championship-caliber artificial chess play. I think this will happen in 25 to 50 years. It is a dandy problem for 10 or 15 PhD theses, now that academia seems to have neglected this once promising area because architecture and algorithm analysis have been the main moving force of late. Along the road of this plan, the master tries to watch out for tactics too. There are numerous cases where a master has made an awful tactical blunder because he was "blinded" by following his own plan too obsessively, something he becomes very enmeshed in. Also, if the circumstance warrants it, this plan can be changed, or the master can even have sub-plans and sub-goals. These effectively increase his search tree up to 20 ply or more. Note that masters have played 20-ply combinations (cf. Alekhine, Tal, etc.) but opportunities for these are rare. The above planning is what distinguishes masters most from non-masters. --Stuart] WEBBER@RUTGERS Bd7 (B-Q2) seems forced here in light of the previous maneuvers. JPERRY@SRI-KL I vote for 15...B-Q2. B-R4 is an ERROR because after 16. P-KN4 B-N3 now we can no longer move the King's Knight's pawn one square to enforce our plan of pushing the KBP. After 15...B-Q2, White CANNOT stop our plan of P-KN3, N-N2, and P-KB4. Furthermore, it is difficult to see a counter- plan for white in this position that will succeed nearly as quickly. REM@MIT-MC Anyway, after h3, Black's reply is obvious, Bd7. Why not Bh5? That would give white the option of playing g4 which simultaneously locks the black bishop in a corner and prevents black from playing f5. If the pawn advance is prevented, maybe the bishop would rather be on the other side. With my move, Bd7, if white plays g4 then not only is it not sente (black doesn't have to answer it), but the bishop has the option of working on the other side, or looking toward advancing the pawn to f5 later anyway when circumstances are better. Why not BxN? Besides trading bishop for knight, a disadvantageous trade most of the time, it opens up things too much before black has finished bringing out his pieces, rather risky. VANGELDER@SCORE If White finds 16. g4, we should proceed cautiously. E.g., 16. ... g6 17. Bh6 Ng7 18. Kh2 f5? 19. gxf5 gxf5 20. Rg1 gets very uncomfortable for Black. This position (after 16. g4) is similar to some closed Ruy Lopez lines. Black NEVER gets in f5. The question is whether WHITE can break through after doubling on the g-file. Nevertheless, if we play 18. ... f6 (instead of f5?) we may be able to build up slowly while the computer wanders around aimlessly. Alternatively, on 16. Nd2 g6 17. Nc4 the Black Q needs a flight square, so 17. ... Ng7 and 17. ... Bg5 come into consideration. It looks like White can trade off our good Bishop in this line. Therefore, we may need to answer 16. Nd2 with an immediate f5. Let's hope the computer chooses a different move. HPLABS!IHNP4!INUCXC!INUXD!CLAUS My vote is for Bh5. This might not be a good move but I think it is better than taking the knight or tying up our other pieces. [The following message, from a master, came in a bit late and couldn't be included in the last digest, so here it is. He recommends a radically different course of action than this list is taking and eschewed our recent Ne8.--Stuart] QUINTANAR%TI-EG.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY In my opinion black is only very slightly better than white at move 14... I really don't see how on earth any computer can ever beat a group of humans that contain at least 1 expert, much less a master. [I explained to Sam that Belle has an excellent record against masters, so disparaging computers is of no use. --Stuart] I recommend 14....b5 (P-QN4) for black because it prevents white from establishing a queenside bind by playing a4(P-QR4) and developing either the control of b6 with bishop and knight or developing favorable play on the queenside if black decides to contest b6. Since blacks main force is concentrated on the "h" half of the board it doesn't make sense to try mixing anything on the queenside. The preventative I suggest also creates the threat against whites e4, thus adding more pressure on the side of the board on which black already pressures. My main line of analysis runs: 14....b5 15 h3 Bh5 16 g4 Bg6 17 Bg5 =+ The only reason black may have any edge at all depends on the feasibility of cracking white "weakened" kingside. If white successfully builds an unassailable fortress black can quickly have the inferior game because knights will be stronger than bishops in the ensuing closed position on the kingside. White may then quickly transfer his knights to the queenside attack while black will have great difficulty transfering his bishops thru the web of restrictive pawns. Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #57 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-09 20:09:58 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 9 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Chess in Human-nets?, Queries - Telematics Technology & The Size of the Internet & Student/Faculty Electronic Mail, Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (5 msgs), Computers and People - NYT Article on Flaming ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 09 Oct 84 16:00:00 EDT Subject: Do we want to see Chess any more? From: Charles I have received several comments from readers wondered on the inclusion of the "Delphi Experiment" Chess game in Human-Nets. I must admit that since it is published elsewhere (on the chess list, at least) I can't see a real good reason for including it any more. While it is a game of humans vs. a machine, the real thrust of the messages seems to be on chess, rather than on human-computer interaction. If no one objects, I will no longer publish the Delphi moves in Human-nets. Charles ------------------------------ Date: 05 Oct 84 14:18:36 PDT (Fri) Subject: Telematics Technology. From: Reginald/Reggie Renard Hutcherson I recently became a recipient of the human-nets mail and noticed the introduction summary mentioned Al Poskanzer (i sent him this message , but he hasn't responded) was interested in what is called "Telematics Technology" (i.e, the fusion of computer and telecommuncation technology). I have become interested in determining how I could best pursue the fusion of my computer science background (B.A in cs from u.c.berkeley) with that of telecommuncation. If at all possible, could you illuminate some of the areas that telematics would focus on, or literature on the subject, moreover, any graduate programs that offer a telecommunication program. Thanks in advance for you time and benevolence. -- hutch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 14:28 EDT From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Size of the Internet Has anyone ever made an estimate (with error bounds) of how many people have electronic mailboxes reachable via the Internet? (e.g., ARPANET, MILNET, CHAOSNET, DEC ENET, Xerox, USENET, CSNET, BITNET, and any others gatewayed that I've probably overlooked?) (included in that of course group mailboxes, even though they are a poor way of doing business.) Ted ------------------------------ Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 10:12:50-EDT From: Janet Asteroff Subject: Electronic Mail Query I am looking for examples of faculty and students who use electronic mail to communicate about course work, e.g., homework collection, explanations, deadlines, course bibliographies, as well as for sharing general information, which could also include such areas as doctoral advisement. If anyone is using electronic mail for these purposes, I would appreciate hearing from you. thanks Janet Asteroff (US.JFA%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: 5 October 1984 09:29 GMT From: jmccombie @ dca-eur Subject: homework and unions Hmmm... From the discussion so far about homework and unions, it seems that people are missing (what is to me) an essential point: unions, their rhetoric aside, are NOT in the business of keeping workers happy, making the work conditions safer, etc. (though they originally started out that way). Unions today are in the business of making money for unions. Home workers, since they are not unionized (and likely never will be -- it's much easier to strong-arm a worker entering a factory than to strong-arm a person in his/her home) cost the unions money by taking away "union jobs." Unions SHOULD be fighting for more home work, since it is usually more enjoyable for the worker (at least as we know home work now). But unions WON'T, because it's not in their financial interests. Heavy sigh. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 84 08:22:17 pdt From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley Subject: Re: V7 #55: Programming at Home One thing that I've found is that working outside of the normal 8-5 environment is more productive. Most of this is because of all the interruptions that come up in during the typical 8-5 day. Your boss might come out and see how work on the latest bug is going, or you might get called away to a meeting to decide which features need to be added or dropped, or you might have chatty co-workers who stop by and ignore the "keep out" sign on your door, knowing that it doesn't mean *them*. I've found that I often accomplish more working 3-4 hours at 2am or on the weekend, than I do working a full 8-5 day! Since I am currently single, I also have no interruptions at home, and often make up for the lack of progress I make during the day by logging in from home. I can control the environment so that I feel most comfortable, and break away to do something else when I feel like I need break. Here, my company would benefit from my working at home by my being more productive. On the other hand, they would see it as being inconvenient for themselves, because they would have to schedule meetings to correspond with the times that I come in to the office and how could they check in with me to see how things were doing. Electronic Mail you say? A nice idea, but I'm about the only one on-line at this time. Someday... roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 1984 1130 PDT From: Alvin Wong Subject: Toiling at home - Other considerations There are other variations of people "working at home". What about the small independent farmers (a dying breed, to be sure)? The economy of this country started with farming. What happens to people who "work at home" growing livestock? This not only includes cows, chickens and goats but the more exotic animals like chinchillas (for fur). These enterprises now serve mostly as auxiliary income if they exist at all. A "no work at home" law could be used very deviously. Al Wong ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1984 12:21:43-PDT From: smith%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: Working at home As someone who works at home as well as in other peoples' offices, I need to reply to Minow's message. Some of the points may be valid for EMPLOYEES of companies coerced into working at home, but I certainly disapprove of restrictions on 'independent contractors'. There are several disadvantages to working at home -- the work environment may not be as safe as in an office or factory (poor lighting and seating arrangements, for example). True, it is up to the worker to fashion his/her own comfortable environment if working at home. I would be surprised if there were many homes that violate OSHA workplace safety standards. If any violations exist, they're probably in lighting, which most people know how to fix. Don't forget that the IRS will give you a deduction for the equipment you dedicate to your home workplace. Social status -- your peers don't see the value of your efforts. This is true of many jobs that take place on employers' premises as well. If you're running a machine that knits ski caps you probably won't identify the caps as 'your efforts' anyway. But you certainly will if you're knitting them at home. Sense of community -- you don't see the relevance of your work in a greater context. Again, you'll feel that way in a factory if you spend all day machining widgets that get mounted in the middle of an engine block. You might see the car, but you can't tell if your part is really there or not. Also, you lose the socializing aspects of work: especially the "old-boy" network that many feel is important for advancement. This only applies to the kinds of jobs that can't be done at home anyway. "Junior executives" and "management trainees" clearly can't do their work at home. They have to be at the office watching what 'real' managers do. Use and development of one's resources -- at-home jobs are likely to be repetitive dead-end work, such as data-entry (or knitting). I don't think it's fair to lump data-entry with knitting. I don't knit (my wife does) but I've certainly done my share of data-entry. In fact, I don't know anyone who does data-entry as a hobby, while I know many people who knit. Yes, there are lots of boring, unfulfilling jobs that can be done by piecework at home and some of them may involve knitting. But creative handwork can also be a very fulfilling thing to do at home. Working at home will make it more difficult for you to locate a more challanging job. Again, it depends on where you work. Most places I worked strongly discouraged any discussion of working for other companies. Many bosses discourage talk of changing jobs even within the same department or same company ('too long to retrain,' ad nauseum). I found it easiest to find new jobs through my own 'old boy' network made up of friends I made while learning my trade. Also, it's probably harder for your boss to know if you're job hunting if you do it at home. But, as the comments implied, the toughest part of working at home is that you miss the social effects of sharing your experiences with your co-workers. Gee, maybe if everyone meets at the guildsmans' hall (read 'union hall') once a week for a social evening..... Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 00:02:44-PDT From: Tom Dietterich Subject: re: unions and home work I'm amazed at the strong anti-union sentiment expressed by the majority of the recent contributors to this list. I think the unions are just a bit slow (just like virtually every bulky institution in the US) when it comes to understanding the ways that computers and communications are going to revolutionize society. I can imagine very strong distributed unions forming around a variety of issues as more workers work at home and have access to electronic mail. If there are inexpensive public networks, then employees will be able to organize more effectively than ever before. Unions (and other organizations such as environmental groups, gun lobbies, and consumer groups) will probably become more democratic and less centralized. Home work used to be a form of divide-and-conquer that prevented effective organization. Worldnet will change all that. If there aren't inexpensive public networks, I suspect that all of us already connected to worldnet will get organized ourselves! --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 84 11:53:24 PDT (Tuesday) From: Jef Poskanzer Subject: The New York Times on Flaming. To: SocialIssues^.PA@XEROX.ARPA Reply-to: SocialIssues^.PA@XEROX.ARPA By Erik Eckholm New York Times Computer buffs call it "flaming." Now scientists are documenting and trying to explaim the surprising prevalence of rudeness, profanity, exultation and other emotional outbursts by people when they carry on discussions via computer. Observing both experimental groups and actual working environments, scientists at Carnegie-Mellon University are comparing decision-making through face-to-face discussions with those conducted electronically. In the experiments, in addition to calling each other more names and generally showing more emotion than they might face to face, people "talking" by computer took longer to agree, and their final decisions tended to involve more risks than those reached by groups meeting in person. As small computers proliferate, business discussions that were once pursued face-to-face, by telephone or on paper are now taking place by way of keyboards and video display terminals. The unusual characteristics showing up in computer communications should not be seen as entirely negative, say the researchers. "This is unusual group democracy," said Sara Kiesler, a psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon. "There is less of a tendency for one person to dominate the conversation, or for others to defer to the one with the highest status." Studies of electronic mail in several Fortune 500 corporations have confirmed the tendency for people to use more informal and expressive language on the computer than when communicating in person, by telephone or by memo. The company studies also indicate that computers are permitting much wider participation in discussions than in the past, with employees far from headquarters now able to follow debates and make their views known. Unusually expressive language has been one of the most striking characteristics of computer discussions studied in many different contexts. "It's amazing," said Kiesler. "We've seen messages sent out by managers - messages that will be seen by thousands of people - that use language normally heard in locker rooms." ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #58 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-11 19:05:43 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 11 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Query - White House Email, Response to Query - The Size of the Internet (2 msgs), Computers and People - Flaming & Electronic Decision Making & Working at Home (5 msgs), Chess - Chess and Planning ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 12:00:00 edt From: Charles Subject: The Delphi Chess Game Hi, I received a number of responses to my message last issue about the inclusion of the Delphi Chess experiment, and I've decided based on those to compromise: I will only include the final message on the game when its done, but for anyone who wishes to receive the messages on the game that cannot get them any other way, I will redistribute the ones I get from Stuart Mclure. So, anyone who wants to still get the mail for the Delphi experiment should mail me and I'll put you on that list. Thanks, Charles ------------------------------ Date: Wed 10 Oct 84 09:24:02-EDT From: Janet Asteroff Subject: White House Email Reply-to: us.jfa%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa I am looking for references to articles or information on the use of electronic mail in the White House/executive branch. I have seen a few popular articles on it, but none with any substance. I know they are using some special service of Compuserve, but would like to find out how it was initiated, who uses it, and for what, and what are the future plans. Any references to in-depth articles, or any other information, would be appreciated. thanks /Janet (us.jfa%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 84 01:50:10 edt From: bedford!bandy@mit-eddie To: TMPLee@mit-multics Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #57 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 14:28 EDT From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Has anyone ever made an estimate (with error bounds) of how many people have electronic mailboxes reachable via the Internet? (e.g., ARPANET, MILNET, CHAOSNET, DEC ENET, Xerox, USENET, CSNET, BITNET, and any others gatewayed that I've probably overlooked?) (included in that of course group mailboxes, even though they are a poor way of doing business.) Gee, my big chance to make a bunch of order of magnitude calculations.... just /how/ many piano tuners are in Chicago, anyway? USENET/DEC ENET: 10k machines, probably on the order of 40 regular users for the unix machines and 20 for the "other" machines so that's 100k users right there. BITNET: something like 100 machines and they're university machines in general, which implies that they're HEAVILY overloaded, 100-200 regular active users for each machine - 10k users. Chaos: about 100-300 machines, 10 users per machine (yes, oz and ee are heavily overloaded at times, but then there's all those unused vaxen on the 9th floor of ne43). 1k users for chaosnet. I think that we can ignore csnet here (they're all either on usenet or directly on internet anyway...), so they count for zero. ARPA/MILNET: Hmm... This one is a little tougher (I'm going to include the 'real' internet as a whole here), but as I remember, there are about 1k hosts. Now, some of the machines here are heavily used (maryland is the first example that pops to mind) and some have moderate loads (daytime - lots of free hardware at 5am!), let's say about 40 regular users per machine -- another 10k users. I dare not give a guesstimate for Xerox. So it's something on the order of 100k users for the community. Hm. That's half the population of the country (there are people in other countries that are trivially mailable to, but there aren't all that many of them). Well, it could be 50k people, but these >are< order of magnitude calculations... Now that I've stuck my neck out giving these estimates, I'm awaiting for it to be chopped off. andy beals bandy@{mit-mc,lll-crg} ------------------------------ Date: 10 October 1984 03:24-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Size of the Internet To: TMPLee @ MIT-MULTICS about three years ago someone, I believe PDL estimated the size of the universe at about 30,000; I may remember incorrectly since I did not write it down and i have a notoriously bad head for numbers. ------------------------------ From: pur-ee!ef.malcolm@Berkeley (Malcolm Slaney) Date: 9 Oct 1984 2330-EST (Tuesday) To: poskanzer.pa@xerox.ARPA Subject: Re: The New York Times on Flaming That article on flaming was wonderful....I had noticed the same phenomenon but don't understand why it happens more with electronic mail. Does somebody have access to the people at Carnegie-Mellon and can keep the list up to date on their ideas? Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Oct 84 18:03:11 EDT From: Brint Subject: Electronic Decision Making This topic is motivated by the recent item on "flaming." More intriguing, however, is consideration of distributed decision making as studied by those examining "flaming" or why people are more impolite and frank at the terminal than they are in person. (Obviously, one reason is because it's easier to insult someone if you're not looking him/her directly in the eye!) Beyond this, however, considering the possibilities in distributed decisionmaking are staggering, to say the least. I've reacted to a few excerpts from the digest article to illustrate: ---------------------------------- Excerpt: ...In the experiments, ... people "talking" by computer took longer to agree, and their final decisions tended to involve more risks than those reached by groups meeting in person. Reaction: Relative to what? As I write this, the U.S. Congress is passing their fourth or fifth "temporary funding" bill to keep the government (and my salary) going for another day or two. I cannot imagine how it would have taken any longer to finish the FY-85 budget if every voter in the U.S. participated in the debate via Usenet! Excerpt: As small computers proliferate, business discussions that were once pursued face-to-face, by telephone or on paper are now taking place by way of keyboards and video display terminals. Reaction: This obviates the need for "quorum calls" or for a designated set of people to be in the same place at the same time. It provides, in human interactions, the same kind of asynchronous buffering that allows multiuser computers to achieve efficient resource sharing. Excerpt: The unusual characteristics showing up in computer communications should not be seen as entirely negative, say the researchers. "This is unusual group democracy," said Sara Kiesler, a psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon. "There is less of a tendency for one person to dominate the conversation, or for others to defer to the one with the highest status." Reaction: The relevance of these comments to the U.S. Congress is staggering in its implications! Imagine if there were less of a tendency for one committee chair or powerful politician to dominate while others defer! Excerpt: The company studies also indicate that computers are permitting much wider participation in discussions than in the past, with employees far from headquarters now able to follow debates and make their views known. Reaction: Then, might not computers permit wider participation in democratic government by the voters, themselves? After all, did we not formulate a representative democracy as a means of overcoming transportation and communication problems otherwise inherent in an 18th century self-governing nation? ------------------------------------------------------------------- I am led to ponder an inescapable thought: that technology is now in hand which permits the United States to be truly self-governing. I do not argue that this would be good or bad or that it would produce a better or worse system of governance than we now use. But, technically, it is feasible, and, as more people realize this, we shall be forced to evaluate alternatives. Thanks for "listening" Regards, Brint Cooper (301) 278-6883 AV: 283-6883 FTS: 939-6883 ArpaNet: abc@brl UUCP: ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc Postal: Dr Brinton Cooper U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md 21005 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 84 10:55 EST From: Steven Gutfreund To: rex%minow.dec%decwrl.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa Cc: leichter%yale.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: Re: Homework 1. I think it is merely an anachranism (sp?) that one only finds menial tasks being done at home, there is no reason why heavy technological tasks can't be done at home. 2. I find the actual act of creative work to be very personal, and not social. I have to work out the concepts myself. THEN later I use the social environment of work to discover overlooked objections and to clarify the presentation of the ideas. (as for typing at a terminal, it is a very anti-social activity - I could certainly do it at home). * Conclusion - Few would suggest removing completely the enhanced social network avaialble via work, but its role will decrease in the future. When you compute the total societal costs of 30 minute commutes, parking-lots, buildings that are vacant 2/3 of the day, life-support systems (vending machines , cafeterias) you realize that we are paying too much for an enhanced social network that can be arrived at via alternative (cheaper) methods. - Steven Gutfreund (hey martin, you have all sorts of interesting people stopping by your house, why are you complaining?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 15:05:12-PDT From: Richard Treitel Subject: Re: working at home And what will the AFL-CIO's position be when a company provides its programmers with both a well-equipped office and a terminal to take home, and tells them to use whichever they prefer on any given day? - Richard ------------------------------ Date: 9 October 1984 05:24-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: homework To: Gail.Kaiser @ CMU-CS-A WHAT ever happened to FREEDOM? What the hell business is it of you or a union or anyone else where I work or wat I work at so long as I am not doing something harmful? Of course those women making ski caps at home are obviusly antisocial enemies of the people. ------------------------------ Date: 10 October 1984 03:30-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: unions and home work To: DIETTERICH @ SUMEX-AIM as former President of a writer's association (not a union, but we did represent our members in grievances) I am not always against voluntary collective association of workers; indeed, what people want to do shoould govern their associations. But to use the power of the state to prevent people from working at home, or up a tree, or ina pond, or in their car seems to me a thorough misunderstanding of the purpose of association and government. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 10 Oct 1984 14:44:54-PDT From: redford%shorty.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Redford) To: jlr%shorty.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Re: advantages of telecommuting I work in an engineering group where everyone is given home graphics terminals and 1200 baud modems, and the company pays the phone charges. The company's investment has been paid back many times by the extra work that people have put in on weekends and evenings. And yet, true telecommuting is non-existent in our group. Everyone comes in at some time during the day even though they have good access to the main machines and their mail programs. The reason becomes clear when you look at what kind of work people do at home. They start up simulation runs, or briefly examine results, or do minor schematic edits, or write programs for their own use. In other words, they do things that don't require communicating with their fellow workers. As soon as you need to discuss something with someone, the limits of mail and the terminal phone programs become obvious. They are slower than speech, you can't draw any diagrams, and you can't both go look at some piece of equipment that is not connected to the computer. Mail is fine if the recipient can take quite a while to respond (eg hours or days), but not so good if you need a response immediately. So working at home is really only practical if you know just what you have to do for the next few days. As soon as you need to talk to someone, you're frustrated by the limited communication possible through the machine. Knowing just what you have to do is relatively unusual in our kind of work (VLSI design). The problems are too complex to be managed by one person. In fact, if someone in the group has not been in touch for two or three weeks, you can be sure that she or he has gone off in the wrong direction. It's true that you can get more done without the distractions of an office, but that doesn't help if you don't know what to do or are doing the wrong things. John Redford ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 21:07:34 edt From: krovetz@nlm-mcs (Bob Krovetz) Subject: chess and planning A very nice paper on a program that uses planning in making chess moves is: "Using Patterns and Plans in Chess", Dave Wilkins, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 14, 1980. The program is called PARADISE, and has found a mate that was 19 ply deep! -Bob (Krovetz@NLM-MCS) ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #59 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-14 22:24:52 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 12 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Queries - Optical Scan Readers/Response to Email & Bugs List?, Response to Query - Size of the Internet (2 msgs), Computer Networks - 56K Baud is Here, Computers and People - Flaming (2 msgs) & Unions/Working at Home ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11-Oct-84 11:27 PDT From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD From: Subject: Use Query // electronic mail responses I would like to hear from the readership regarding the use and/or potential use of Optical Character Readers. How many of you have access and use them? How often? How many of you feel that if you had one you would use it? I realize that this note is going to MANY users, but my experience is that very few people answer general questions like this. That brings me to another point/question. Has anyone studied the response rate using electronic mail in a general network environment like the INTERNET? I have been continually surprised at the lack of response to questions. Yes, I realize that it could be my questions. I have asked a few others and they support my observations based on responses to their questions. Comments? --Bi\\ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 21:54:58 est From: ECN.davy@Purdue.ARPA (Dave Curry) Subject: bugs A long time ago (2 years, maybe?) someone sent me a huge collection of "humorous" bugs and programming errors -- things like the infamous "DO I=1.5" and the "moon over the horizon missle attack" bugs. I think the discussion of these originated in this list. Unfortunately, I zapped the file about a year ago -- if anyone has a collection of these stories, could you please send them to me. Thanks in advance, --Dave Curry ecn.davy@purdue.arpa {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax}!pur-ee!davy ------------------------------ Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 22:45:45-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: size of the Internet I seem to remember something like 10K being quoted as the size of the REGISTERED users of the ARPANET with the actual number being much larger. The Internet is several times the size of the old ARPANET. I should note that Stanford University probably can count for 10K (at least) mailboxes addressable from the Internet. The actual number of Internet users is much smaller, of course. That is why questions about the "size of the small-i internet" are hard to answer. Do you answer: . how many users are registered? . how many users actually use it? . how many users are addressable? The third number is larger than the other two by perhaps an order of magnitude. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 84 01:51:59 PDT From: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Electronic mail at Xerox To: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Cc: Murray.pa@XEROX.ARPA There are ~4000 users on our Grapevine system. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 12 Oct 1984 11:38:33-PDT From: redford%shorty.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Redford) To: jlr%shorty.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: new high speed digital phone service The Sept '84 issue of Computers and Electronics has an article about AT&T's new high speed digital home service. With special equipment in the home and at the local switching center they can pump 56 kbaud through the present phone lines. They are testing it now in Illinois. The phone company has been leasing 56 kb lines for some time, but they had to be specially conditioned. Now they've got a technique that works over ordinary twisted pair. It works by buffering up the data in a specially designed chip, sending it out in a carefully synchronized burst, and then letting the noise and reflections in the line settle out before sending the next burst. What effect will this have? Three hundred baud was fine for getting low cost access to the network, but is too slow for reading large quantities of text or using screen editors. Twelve hundred baud is good for reading since it goes a bit faster than your eye, but is still not enough for quick skimming. Single chip 1200 baud modems are just coming out. For more money you can get 2400 or 4800, and some maniacs at Bell Labs have even been able to fit 9600 baud into the 3.5 kHz phone bandwidth. At 9600 baud every cycle that goes out has to carry three bits, so you're talking about serious modulation trickery. Don't expect to get a modem like this in your Radio Shack Model 100. Fifty six kb, though, is a quantum leap. An entire Macintosh screen can be loaded in three seconds. A 100,000 word novel can be transmitted in a minute and a half. Music of the fidelity found in Compact Disk players can be transmitted only twelve times slower than in real time. Slow-scan TV, where the picture is updated every couple of seconds, is now possible. Everybody starts out with only text in their communication medium, because text is the ultimate bandwidth compression algorithm. Speech takes something like 50,000 bits per second to faithfully transmit, and the same speech turned into text would only need 100 bps, a compression ratio of 500 (beat that, you linear predictive encoders!). But now you can get more than just text on your home system; you can get images and music. I wonder how much Bell will charge for it? John Redford ------------------------------ Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 09:44:42-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Flaming "It's amazing," said Kiesler. "We've seen messages sent out by managers - messages that will be seen by thousands of people - that use language normally heard in locker rooms." Information retrieval systems may need a whole new set of keywords. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 84 14:52:31 PDT (Thu) To: SocialIssues^.PA@xerox Subject: Re: The New York Times on Flaming. From: Martin D. Katz The article seems to factor out a consideration: People tend to be more careful as the communication becomes more immediate. That is, people who are writing to newspapers are less careful about tact than writing to friends. It has also long been part of our culture to expect that people will be more honest, and more intimidated if confronted in person than by telephone (there is some psychological evidence, but I don't have refs.). Another aspect is that people tend to write faster and send messages immediately when communicating electronically. Writing a letter by hand permits (demands) more thought between the time the idea arises and the time the message is sent. I wonder how much of the messages sent on the net are mostly "Free association?" I think this subject deserves a research project. ... Any takers? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 84 14:42:52 PDT (Thu) To: Tom Dietterich Subject: Re: unions and home work From: Martin D. Katz I'm amazed at the strong anti-union sentiment expressed by the majority of the recent contributors to this list. I think that the problem we are having is like mixing apples and oranges. A union is an organization of employees of a firm (or a small number of firms in the same geographic area and industry) who band together to bargain as a group for improved treatment (pay, conditions, etc.). Organizations such as AFL-CIO and Teamsters are national organizing bodies for a large group of unions, not unions in and of themselves. These organizations provide many services to the unions (coordination of retirement funds, legal assistance, etc.). In addition, these organizations were early forms of PACs (and in some ways the reason and model for general PACs). As you say, the purpose of AFL-CIO is largely to provide services to unions. One of these services is to provide public relations and political pressure which is intended to increase union membership. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 1984 09:34-CDT Subject: Telecommuting From: SLONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA There has been much discussion on telecommuting in the past few weeks on this list. I would like to make a couple of observations, if you would permit me. 1. The idea of working at home vs at the office is new to this society. If one looks back just a couple hundred years (not even that long, really) to pre-industrial times, one will find that working AWAY from home was quite an oddity. The few exceptions were occupations such as merchant, soldier, and politician. Most other jobs were performed at home with an occasional trip to the market place to sell ones product. It was the industrial revolution which brought about the urban society and the outside-of-the-home job. The issue now is simply a reversal of an earlier sociological trend. (Is it any wonder the Greeks saw life as a circle)? And with such, those benefited by the trend, whether by wealth or power (ie UNIONS) will do all they can to resist and prevent the change. 2. The issue I see here, which some have already stated very frankly, is not so much the aesthetics of "at home" vs "at the office", i.e. lighting, safety, interruptions, or insufficient means to communicate concepts, but rather that there are those who are trying very hard to make the option illegal. The particulars of working at home are left up to each organization according to their needs. If one company finds this new concept counter-productive, then they should have the option to decline from doing so. If another company finds telecommuting to improve and/or increase production, then, by all means (including the law), they should be allowed to do so. The individual employee is free to choose to work wherever he may if he doesn't like the way the company does business (subject to qualifications, openings, etc - please, no lectures or flames on this; the basic concept is there). We should be fighting to keep the option open. 3. Since we are all so avid in expressing our views on the net, I hope we should do likewise in expressing them to our governmental representatives, either collectively or individually, or both. The AFL-CIO has demonstrated its political pull many times. If we don't stand up to counter them in an active and vocal manner, 1) who will, and 2) they will win. The political arena is won, not by passive complaint to one another (which conservatives are so often guilty of), but by becoming vocal to our representatives (which is how many liberal rulings and decisions are passed - liberals are often activitists). I do not propose starting another union, for unions have to do with management vs laborer. What I am proposing is, perhaps, starting some form of a lobbyist movement. Like it or not, if you want to win in politics, you have to play the politicians' game. They listen to pressure and large-group representatives. (In fact, so few people write representatives that a politician in office counts one letter to represent 10,000 constituents! What if N of us wrote one letter? 10,000 x N people is a lot!) I hope this has given sufficient food for thought. Constructive comments would be appreciated. Flames may be tolerated, if I bother to read them. -- Steve ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #60 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-13 19:44:52 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 13 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Response to Query - OCR and Electronic Mail, Computer Security - Break me!, Computer Networks - Cost of 56KB home data service, Computers and People - Flaming(2 msgs)& Unions/Working at Home(2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 12 Oct 84 22:49:48-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: OCR & Electronic Mail Response To: WBD@OFFICE-2.ARPA I used to think that it would be wonderful to scan in documents via OCR and throw the originals away. I have since discovered that 1) ordinary copying and paper filing work just as well for most purposes, 2) it is much easier to generate new text from scratch (if you understand a topic) than to make a sensible document by pasting old paragraphs together, and 3) I can't throw the originals away because on-line copy cannot capture the feel, the beauty, the mystique (not to mention the graphics) of an original. I do occasionally wish I had an OCR wand at my terminal for tabular data entry (names, addresses, etc.) or for lengthy quotations. I also sometimes wish I had my entire personal library on disk so I could do keyword searches. Usually, however, I am quite happy manipulating paper copies of things that come to me on paper. As to net responses: As moderator of the AIList digest, I have been in a position to observe many request/response cycles. The variables involved are exceedingly difficult to quantify, and I certainly don't have the answers yet. This would be a wonderful area for someone to study. I have noticed a few regularities. People who make general requests ("Does anyone know anything about ...") seldom get much response. A specific request, however, will draw answers only to the specific query; this is often not very helpful. Flames often draw the most response -- opinionated statements draw rebuttal, which may in turn spark support for the original idea or mention of related topics. The best query is thus one which sets forth a hypothesis and asks for opinions. (People will then often provide facts as a way of buttressing their arguments.) The dynamics of the interchange are delicate, however. Few people will respond to a raving lunatic, or to a naive beginner asking about the obvious, or to someone exhibiting expertise (e.g., by citing references). [Exceptions: philosophers seem to love nothing better than cutting down another philosopher, and there are rare situations in which practitioners in other fields will have a genuine dialog.] I suppose the problem is one of motivation. It takes considerable time to answer net queries. (More accurately, to be the kind of person who frequently answers queries.) There is also considerable emotional risk in exposing one's views and perhaps one's poor spelling and grammar or even misunderstanding of the entire question. There are also mechanical difficulties: many readers don't know how to construct a valid return address for a digest message. (My mailer couldn't handle the double From: lines in the message I'm replying to.) Those who surmount these obstacles take a chance on never receiving a thank you, thus oscillating between feeling used and wondering if the message ever got through. Or the mailer might spit back an error message a week later, and the good Samaritan finds that his effort has been wasted unless he goes to extraordinary effort of finding a consultant who knows how to get the [now outdated] message through. And, of course, there's apathy. We can't even get people to vote in presidential elections, a contest where the winner gets >>us<<; how can we expect anyone to trouble with smaller matters. There are rewards to answering queries, of course. It's a good way to make friends, although you have to be a real net freak to feel warmth toward someone you only know as "foo!bar@baz". (Someday I hope to meet the people I've corresponded with.) It's also a good way to make professional contacts, although it may take years to pay off in anything recognizable as tenure credit. Most of all, though, it's a chance to show off. I admit it, I enjoy brushing off my knowledge and trotting it out. Some people like to show off a little in a private response, others like to make a public show. Regardless, I hypothesize that you will get the most replies to a query if you can appeal to people's desire to strut their stuff. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.] >From a ComputerWorld Ad: Dear Hackers: ...We at MicroFrame have developed a device to keep you out...called Data Lock and Key...Our own computer is protected by a Data Lock. We invite you to dial in (201-828-7120). You will be answered by a 1200 baud modem. The data we gather from your efforts will help us...For clues call our voice line (201-828-4499) and ask for Data Security. (MicroFrame, 205 Livingston Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901) (discussion in net.crypt only, please). -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@maryland CSNet: mark@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12-Oct-84 20:54:27 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Cost of 56KB home data service If you have to ask, you won't be able to afford it. Seriously, with costs for Plain Old Telephone Service shooting through the roof, it doesn't take too much imagination to guess how much *any* sort of special data service is going to cost. Such services are really oriented toward relatively well-heeled business users, *not* toward typical home users. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: pur-ee!ef.malcolm@Berkeley (Malcolm Slaney) Date: 12 Oct 1984 1639-EST (Friday) To: abc@brl.ARPA From: Brint Subject: Electronic Decision Making Excerpt: ..In the experiments, ... people "talking" by computer took longer to agree, and their final decisions tended to involve more risks than those reached by groups meeting in person. Reaction: Relative to what? As I write this, the U.S. Congress is passing their fourth or fifth "temporary funding" bill to keep the government (and my salary) going for another day or two. I have to agree with the except. Given my group of friends and any one decision I have noticed that decision discussed electronically take much longer than the ones done face to face. I think this is because electronic mail tends to hide the personalities that make it possible for a "leader" to forge a consensus. I wonder if it is this characteristic of electronic mail that leads to flaming.....a member of a group that is "not happy with the way things are going" can flame and people will just ignore the mail, while in a face to face conversation the person would quickly be excluded from the conversation. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 84 10:05:49 EDT From: Brint To: Malcolm Slaney You make a good point. Certainly, the impersonality of electronic mail permits stronger language than one might care to use in person. And the power of a personal leader might certainly be reduced in the electronic media. Perhaps for concensus-reaching activity to be effective in an electronic mail environment certain ground rules would be needed. For example, the opportunity to respond to debate or express a position might require an expiration date and time to avoid foot-dragging. Perhaps an entirely new set of parliamentary rules a la Roberts Rules of Order would be needed. My other point, made with half a tongue in cheek, is that if last week indicates the best that Congress can do, new technology might render the Congress less useful to a more self-governing society. In the extreme, we might envision voters settling "legislative" issues at their terminals! Brint ------------------------------ From: decvax!minow@decwrl.ARPA Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 18:59:45 edt Subject: Homework/Piecework/Telecommuting, forwarded from Usenet The following article was distributed on Usenet recently. I am forwarding it to Human-Nets with the author's permission. She does not receive Human-Nets -- I will forward replies to her, or you can do so to "decvax!!ihnp4!psuvax1!burdvax!kew@decwrl.arpa" Martin Minow decvax!minow From kew@burdvax.UUCP (Karen Wieckert) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Homework/Piecework/Telecommuting Homework, piecework and home computer work (telecommuting is the favored word) are becoming major concerns of women's organizations, unions and businesses. There are numerous examples of companies who rely upon piece work, including CRAY computer. Many companies do this sort of work overseas where the laws are not as stringent and the wages are considerably lower. There are laws which disallow piecework/homework which date back to the 1920s or so. These laws were enacted because of grave abuses of homework by businesses. I am no expert on the labor movement of the early 1900s, but there is little doubt that some sort of change at that time was necessary. The issues are returning in the 1980s. In particular, many women who want to stay in the home, but also need to support the family with additional income, are pushing for "reform" of the labor laws. This is particularly a concern in Maine, where women are isolated on farms or whatever and are unable to work in the traditional settings. It is an important economic concern for these women who would not be working at all if they could not do knitting, etc. in their homes. Rep. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), has introduced legislation in the House which would allow for such work. However, it will never get a hearing on the House Education and Labor Committee. The companion legislation was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and hearings have been held by the Labor and Human Resources Committee (which Hatch happens to chair). However, I do not believe the Republican Senate is even interested in dealing with the issue. The text of the legislation is thought to be broad enough to include computer piece work/homework. It is important to note that women could form their own home businesses. The issue is being able to do work for another company and be paid for each unit of product produced for that company. Many women's organizations have taken strong stands against homework legislation. Their concern is that women will be exploited; being forced to work in the home for low wages and no benefits. They also are concerned about peripheral issues such as day-care and the erosion of fragile child care programs already underfunded. I believe there are legitimate reasons to be concerned. Unions are concerned because of the loss of employee benefits and issues related to office automation generally. For instance, an example of Equitable Life Insurance in Syracuse NY in which a computerized claim entry system was put in place. Women - an nearly all of these claim clerks were women - were inputing these claims at terminals eight hours per day with 1/2 hour lunch breaks and two 10 minute breaks during the day. Their work was monitored for how fast they could enter claims and for how many keystroke errors they made per day. We have all heard these horror stories of the "factory office." After seeing a 60 minutes program, (amazing what 60 Minutes does for all sides), about 9 to 5 and Working Women - office worker unions - the claim clerks asked 9 to 5 to attempt a union drive in their office. The company got wind of it, hired a union busting firm and low and behold the very first thing that was implemented was home computer work for claim entry. Computer terminals were rented from the company and people doing the work were paid a flat rate for every claim entered. The homeworkers were not given any other benefits, like health insurance, etc. They ended up making about the same in wages but also were working considerably longer hours each day as well as on the weekends. Last I heard, the union negotiations were still going on. 9 to 5/Working Women have been witnesses at various hearings on office automation, health concerns and such. Home computer work has come up as an issue in these other hearings but only as a union concern. This has been a long-winded article whose only purpose was to lay out some of the concerns and to suggest that it is far from a simple issue. Ka:ren ------------------------------ Date: Fri 12 Oct 84 13:37:01-PDT From: Richard Treitel Subject: homework and env't To: redford%shorty@DECWRL.ARPA John's message clarifies a few points but raises others. It is not unusual for a research student such as myself to work for days or a whole week without needing to contact anyone else, and indeed my adviser might be grateful for the lack of interruption. But we insist quite tenaciously on our right to a desk in the Department, even if we don't use it much (I, in fact, use mine every day, and would rather not transfer my work to home) because of all the other advantages inherent in working on campus. I *live* off campus because (i) there's not much housing on campus (ii) I prefer it. If offered a job which gave me no choice but to stay at home, I'd turn it down. Those for whom turning down jobs is a luxury they cannot afford would have a legitimate complaint if this were the only kind of work they could get, and they didn't want it. None of this should be read as support for legislation ... - Richard ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #61 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-17 14:10:55 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 16 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Responses to Queries - EMAIL usage & Internet Users & Bug List, Computers and the Law - Cal. Bboard Sysop Case, Computer Networks - 56KB home data service, Computers and People - Electronic Democracy & Unions/Working at Home ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun 14 Oct 84 04:15:43-MDT From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #60 After almost six years of using electronic mail, it seems to me that there has been an evolution of my EMAILing style. This would make sense, since it took me longer than that to learn to talk in the first place! Probably what happened was that I began by trying to elicit feedback by doing a direct translation from speech to keystrokes; then when the feedback was different than what I expected, my behavior started to change to fit the new environment. I wonder if the managers who use "locker room" language on their email systems are new users. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 11:34:49 est From: Rich Kulawiec (Vombatus Hirsutus) Subject: Internet Users I applaud the effort of Andy Beals (bandy@mit-mc) to make a first guess at the number of users reachable via Internet; however, I'd like to comment on his estimate for the number of users reachable via various Unix machines. Here at Purdue, we have something like 15,000 users spread across 40 Unix systems; I suspect that a similar situation may exist at other university sites. If so, this would greatly increase the Unix-based part of the overall estimate. (Note that we experience a user turnover of several thousand every year, as well.) ---- Rich Kulawiec UUCP: pur-ee!rsk, purdue!rsk ARPA: rsk@purdue ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 14:37:48 est From: ECN.davy@Purdue.ARPA (Dave Curry) Subject: bug list I have received a couple of copies of the "famous bugs" list, thanks to all who replied. If you would like a copy, send me some mail.... --Dave Curry ecn.davy@purdue ------------------------------ From: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 22:42:35 pdt To: bang!info-micro@brl-vgr I'm not sure the following information is appropriate for this list, but it contains some very interesting information for those of you who have been following the Tom Tcimpidis case. Forwarded from P.dBMS - Lakeside, CA ------------------------------------ Msg #8885 on 10/12/84 @02:17 (132) Subj: New MogUr twist, To: All From: Matt Yuen, Los Angeles, CA ->FWD The following is a transcript of John Dvorak's column in the Sunday October 7 issue of the San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle. John Dvorak Periscope KEYSTONE KOPS CAPER IN COMPUTER COMMUNITY It was supposed to be the computer "crime" of the year. It will turn into an embarrassment for everyone. It started with a May 16 Los Angeles Police Department raid of an innocuous computerized community bulletin board in Grenada (sic) Hills. The cops were prompted by Pacific Bell to bust a guy named Tom Tcimpidis (pronounced Sim-pedis). Somehow, somebody posted a telephone calling card number on his system. Basically, anyone hooked into a computerized community bulletin board can post messages that can be read by others on the system. All it takes is a home computer coupled to a modem, which links the computer to the telephone line, and the password. State law prohibits board users from posting telephone credit card numbers and calling card numbers. (That's what the telephone company gives you to charge calls nowadays.) In fact, it's a felony if someone posts a number on your bulletin board because it's considered a conspiracy. If you're the operator of the board and you post the number yourself, it's only a misdemeanor. You don't even have to know who posted the number to be charged with a felony. That's what happened to Tcimpidis, or so it seemed. This case has become *the* cause celebre of the microcomputer community. The L.A. Times, L.A. Herald-Examiner, InfoWorld, the Associated Press have written stories. And like falling dominoes, users and operators of the thousands of bulletin boards around have found out about the shutdown, and everybody is mad as hell at the phone company. A lawyer's special interest group involved in computers is preoccupied with the case. Lawyers are volunteering their time to defend Tcimpidis. Among other things, they say there's a freedom of speech issue. If you run an open community bulletin board, are you as the owner responsible for all its contents? The whole Pac Bell approach seemed like much ado about nothing. Hey, there was only one card number posted, and Tcimpidis says he didn't even see it. OK, so it's a big deal. But everyone, and I mean everyone, has screwed up like nothing I've ever seen. Sure, the applicable law is a disaster. But is this the case to rally around? Let's start out with the fact that the owner of the number posted on the bulletin board knew Tcimpidis and Tcimpidis knew him. This is a critical fact that has been overlooked by the police, the media, the angry computerniks, the attorneys, the district attorney, everyone. Why? Because nobody bothered to call the number that was posted and see who the heck this guy was! So I did. I did it because I checked the bulletin board and it looked pretty harmless. (There are "phone phreak" boards that do carry a lot of questionably legal information.) So I called the number and got hold of a fellow named Murray Krow of Murray Krow Productions, a video production company in Los Angeles. Hey, what do you know--Tcimpidis works in video, too! It turns out that Tcimpidis worked for Krow back in March--just before the number was posted on Tcimpidis's board. According to Krow, Tcimpidis was hired as a video engineer by a subcontractor named Terry Donahue to work on a production for IBM, some industrial training tape. Krow claims, he "had trouble with Tcimpidis." There were "technical errors" that luckily turned out not to be a problem. Krow indicated that he wasn't satisfied with Tcimpidis, and Tcimpidis hasn't worked for Krow since. Krow told me that he never lost his calling card or had it stolen. During a shoot, though, the card number got used by all the staffers and maybe 100 or so calls were made on it. According to Krow, it is possible that anyone could have used the card. Soon after the number was posted on the bulletin board, Krow got a phone bill with a couple of weird calls to Australia and Israel and a lot of short, unexplainable five-minute calls. "It was less than $100 worth of phony calls," Krow told me. Krow didn't remember when the bum calls took place. Pac Bell can figure it out. Krow was flabbergasted that his number appeared on Tcimpidis's bulletin board. (Actually, Pac Bell did call him, but Krow at that time said he didn't recognize Tcimpidis's name.) When I confronted Tcimpidis with this unusual coincidence, at first he didn't remember working for Krow. "Doesn't ring a bell," he said. He did remember working for Donahue on the IBM job, though. When I got more specific, then he remembered Krow. He recalled the shoot at some boring management-oriented video. He said he doesn't know anything about any "technical errors" and has worked for Donahue since then. Tcimpidis goes on to say that he, too, is shocked by the coincidence, claiming that he didn't know the number belongs to Krow until I told him. Tcimpidis also claims that soon after he was shut down he checked a bunch of other bulletin boards and found the same number posted on one of them. The date of the posting, according to Tcimpidis, was 45 days earlier than the posting on his board. (Tcimpidis was raided after his message was on his board for 70 days.) Tcimpidis surmised that since Krow was passing the card around and making hundreds of calls, anyone could have noted the number. After all, the video technician community is loaded with computer-types, right? Why didn't Tcimpidis see the message on his board? "It got by me," he said. But who cares, anyway? The cops sure don't. They resent doing Pac Bell's dirty work and certainly haven't been very diligent in gathering material on which to build a case. When they raided Tcimpidis's house, they left evidence behind and took the wrong diskettes. The district attorney's office can't make up its mind what to do. And all along, the media meekly parrot Chuck Lindner's (Tcimpidis's attorney) complaints about the phone company. (One L.A. Times reporter called Tcimpidis to find out why Tcimpidis was busted for running a prostitution line from his bulletin board. Great reporting.) What it comes down to, and this is pathetic, is that this is a high-profile case that could turn out to be a big zero because of trumped-up felony charges, Keystone Kop antics, buck passing, and dubious coincidences. This isn't the case for thousands of users and hords of gung-ho lawyers to get behind. It's been too poorly handled by everyone to be a good test case for anything. More importantly, it's liable to cause a legislative ruckus. Well-meaning zealots, who lack a basic understanding of simple microcomputer technology, are going to try (to) pass laws that are far worse than the current statute (Cal PC502.7.). Stir into this witch's brew a naive and technophobic public with the dull-witted, antsy and technologically naive politician, and you've got trouble in River City. The answer is, of course, a sincere effort at self-policing these boards by the people who run them. Unfortunately, there has been no real movement in that direction. And here is the response from Tom Tcimpidis's attorney, Chuck Lindner: --------------- 10/7/84 From Chuck Lindner: Everyone....This is important!!! Please give this message maximum distribution on all bbs systems. There is an article by john dvorak in the sunday san francisco "chronicle" & "examiner" that tom tcimpidis apparently worked as a television engineer for a producer named murray krow. It appears that it was krow's number that was the att credit card number used....Tom denies knowing it was krow's number....I have interviewed tom and am satisfied that he is telling the truth....Now, for the hard part....Because of mr. Dvorak's revelation (which we did not know), I am compelled to disclose defense evidence.....We have absolute and utterly concrete evidence that mr. Krow's credit card was in circulation on the los angeles bbs network, on numerous boards, more than a month before it found its way to mog-ur, and well prior to tom's working with or meeting mr. Krow....Mr. Dvorak regrettably thought he was solving a mystery. Unfortunately, as a defense attorney, I could not tell him all of our evidence before trial...But since he has chosen to create innuendoes ..I thought it necessary to clear tom's name...The defense of tcimpidis and mog-ur will proceed as before. I would appreciate it if this message could find its way to mr. Dvorak. CHUCK LINDNER (213)-680-4435 ATTORNEY FOR TOM TCIMPIDIS ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 84 12:24:34 PDT (Monday) From: CharlieLevy.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: Cost of 56KB home data service To: Lauren Weinstein Lauren-- Now that the basic idea is out, what's to stop some enterprising company from doing it......just like they've offered cheaper inter-city phone service. The way I understand the scheme (just from reading Human-Nets), they send a blast of data (at a speed probably higher than 56kb) and check the parity a real lot. Why not send a relatively large block of data, with LOTS of error checking and self-correcting codes in it, perhaps at a speed higher than Ma Bell. There are lots of codes that can CORRECT, not only detect, many errors in a block. Might be an opportunity for a startup company. Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 11:34:49 est From: Rich Kulawiec (Vombatus Hirsutus) Subject: Electronic Democracy I'd like to concur with the notion expressed by several folks that the requisite technology exists to bring about a true participatory democracy; but there is one so-far-unmentioned problem I'd like to bring up. Tallying the votes of dozens of millions of individuals is not a conceptually difficult task; but a participatory democracy includes discussion and debate as well as decision-making. How then, do we decide who will "speak"? If one in ten thousand individuals wishes to make a comment on an issue, then (assuming a participatory community on the order of 80 million) 8000 messages will be generated, each of which must be forwarded to 80 million recipients--and read. We now have the technological problem of making 640 billion transactions to assure everyone of a chance to be heard--and the human problem of coping with 8000 comments on a subject before making a decision. Rich Kulawiec UUCP: pur-ee!rsk, purdue!rsk ARPA: rsk@purdue ------------------------------ Date: Sun 14 Oct 84 04:26:35-MDT From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Working at Home A lot of the recent discussion on this subject has concerned peoples' right to choose to work one way or another. Let's keep in mind that most people don't HAVE very many choices in life - they live in subsistance economies and do what they can to survive. The readers of Human-Nets are a very small and privileged subset of humanity. A single mother with a poor education is pretty much forced to take anything she can get. The historic function of labor unions has always been to provide such people with the choices that you and I take for granted. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #62 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-17 19:41:22 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 17 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Famous Bugs List, Query - Organizing a Database, Computer Networks - Home Banking & 56KB Home Data Service (2 msgs), Computers and People - Electronic Democracy & Electronic Publishing & Unions/Working at Home (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Date: 17 Oct 1984 23:00:00-EDT Subject: Programming Mistakes Re: references for the DO10I=1.20 mistake.. In famous.bugs is the often-asked for list of famous programming boo-boos. You can FTP the file using login name anonymous, and any password. Charles ------------------------------ Date: Tue 16 Oct 84 22:22:46-EDT From: Drew Anderson I saw a similar message to this on human-nets, so I'll assume this is the place ask such a question. I have the task of organizing a thermodynamic data-base and utilities program. The data-base is to contain about a million (no exaggeration ). empirical thermodynamic constants for most metallic and organic elements/compounds known to man. The accompanying program will have to read in a given chemical reaction, search the data-base for the necessary empirical thermodynamic data, and then calculate common thermodynamic values such as reaction free energy, enthalpy, and entropy. I also hope to tie in a graphics interface such that answer can be portrayed graphically as a function of ambient conditions ( such as temperature ), or numerically. If anyone has heard of any work related to this type of project ( I've heard rumors of such systems existing at McGill University in Canada ), or have any information that might help me, it would greatly appreciated. Send replies to : DDA@CMU-CS-C.ARPA David B. Love c/o DDA@CMU-CS-C.ARPA Carnegie-Mellon University Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Material Sciences Pittburgh, PA 15213 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1984 1510-PDT From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Worldnet today - home banking via computer-modems This afternoon I got a demo of Bank of America's home banking, which is available via several kinds of modem (I tried Bell 103a and Bell 212a, both of which worked perfectly). Jim from BoA called me as a followup from last winter when I inquired about home banking but didn't decide to give it a real try. He didn't know anything about different modems (never heard of Bell 103 or 212 or 202 or Vadic), so he gave me the demo dialup number and today's password and let me give it a try. Test-customer dials 800-238-9999 (might be a California-only number, don't know), wait for modem connection, press return, wait for it to ask or password, etc. It always prints out a menu when entering a new mode, and when I got lost and typed ? it gave me help. It even allows sending electronic mail to their office, although lines are only 35 characters long in messages. Perhaps Jim will let some more of you give it a try. Call 800-652-1111 (I don't know whether this number too is California only) and ask for Jim. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 84 16:06:38 pdt From: >> From: redford%shorty.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Redford) >> and some >> maniacs at Bell Labs have even been able to fit 9600 baud into the >> 3.5 kHz phone bandwidth. At 9600 baud every cycle that goes out >> has to carry three bits, so you're talking about serious >> modulation trickery. It looks like the AT&T Ministry of Truth has been stuffing leaflets into John Redford's mailbox -- what did Bell Labs have to do with the development of 9600 baud voice-grade modems? Does AT&T even sell one? David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 15:35:13 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: Cost of 56KB home data service To: CharlieLevy.es@XEROX It's not the backbone that's the main expense as far as customers as concerned, but rather the local CO costs and local distribution costs. It's unclear, given the current state of the universe, how much these can really be reduced. Note also that there are various legislative thrusts now underway to raise the price for most data services in an attempt to keep ordinary local service from shooting through the roof. These new legislative actions will effect all carriers, not just AT&T, so the opportunity for undercutting will gradually diminish over the next few years. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 84 01:47:57 PDT From: David Booth Subject: Electronic Democracy proposal Electronic Democracy: What Is It? What Could It Be? Widespread availability of computers and electronic communication holds great potential for improving our self-governance. The purpose of this message is to solicit ideas of how this potential might be used to improve our existing system of government, or as a cornerstone in a completely new and better system of government. We seem to know so little about different possible systems of government, but government being so serious, it's difficult to experiment with it. Nonetheless, experiments starting on the small scale are possible and should be tried, with a view to scaling them up if they're successful. Electing Representatives: Choosing the Lessor of Two Evils The system of electing a representative always ends up as a choice between two candidates. But since the population includes a whole spectrum of political views, whichever candidate is elected truly represents only a small fraction of the population. As voters, we inherently end up choosing between the lessor of two evils at election time. Eliminate Elected Representatives? I propose that when the house or senate brings a bill up for vote, the entire population gets to vote on it, rather than just the house and senate members. The house and senate members would still be elected to write the bills and bring them up for votes. We now (or will soon) have the technological ability to implement this. The prospect of everyone voting several times a day immediately brings up two problems: (1) very few have the time to vote on every issue; (2) very few have the knowledge to vote intelligently on every issue. But suppose you could, in advance, give your vote to someone else -- anyone else -- who you thought was more qualified and would vote on all the issues for you? At any time you could give someone the power to cast your vote (i.e act as your proxy), or you could revoke this power and vote yourself. A Proxy System Anyone could be a proxy. This would allow each one of us to select our representation just as descriminately as we want. And proxies could be paid based on how many people they actually represented on the votes. This would allow professional proxies, who could make it their sole job to be informed on the issues. Proxies would be prohibited from buying people's votes, of course. Since votes would have to be bought on the large scale to have any impact, forcing vote-buying underground would eliminate the problem. Questions Is the proposed system inherently flawed? How could it be improved? What other system might be better, and why? Could the members of the house and senate also be eliminated? How could bills be introduced without them? Could the PRESIDENT be eliminated? Again, the purpose of this message is to stimulate ideas. -- David Booth {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 15-Oct-84 14:10 PDT From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Re: AILIST as a source of info.... To: AIList@SRI-AI Cc: Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA From: Allen Many recent AILIST discussions have fascinated me, and I'm sure that at some point in the near future I'll be using information presented here for a paper or two. Just exactly how do I credit an electronic bboard in a research paper? And who (i.e. moderator, author of info, etc.) do I give credit to? This reminds me of Ithiel de Sola Pool's lament in note 8 to a paragraph in his chapter on electronic publishing in Technologies of Freedom (Belknap Harvard 1983): "... The character of electronic publishing is illustrated by the problem of citing the information in this paragraph, which came from these interest group exchanges themselves. Shall I cite the Arpanet list as from Zellich at Office-3?" I am NOT an expert on obscure citations, so I can freely throw out the following suggestion using Allen Lutins' original query for an example. "12345" would be the message ID if any had been provided: Lutins, Allen, "AILIST as a source of info...." message 12345 of 14 Oct 1984 19:56 EDT, Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA or AIList Digest, V2 #138, 15 Oct 1984, AIList@SRI-AI.ARPA. -- kirk ------------------------------ From: mcb%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch) Date: Sun Oct 14 19:48:23 1984 Subject: Home work & freedom of choice To me, the issue isn't whether computer (and other) home work is a good idea or not, but rather whether it is the proper function of government to "protect" people from it regardless of their feelings about it. Since we have based our fundamental American institutions on the principle that people who are over the age of majority, of sound mind, and free of duress ought to be able to make their own choices, why do we need laws to make the choice for them? Even if the concerns raised about erosion of childcare programs, enforced piecework, and so forth are valid (and I happen to think they are not) it still doesn't justify banning home work for the 99% of workers who would treat it as a positive development. Frankly, it smacks of totalitarianism to me. I'm just glad there's more of US than THEM out there (leastaways I hope so) and that WE have terminals and modems to keep in touch with. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis.ARPA ...ucbvax!lbl-csam!lll-tis!mcb ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 84 11:02:00 PDT (Monday) From: Wanless.PA@XEROX.ARPA Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #60 To: kew@DECWRL.ARPA RE: "Many women's organizations have taken strong stands against homework legislation. Their concern is that women will be exploited; being forced to work in the home for low wages and no benefits. They also are concerned about peripheral issues such as day-care and the erosion of fragile child care programs already underfunded." Why don't they just draft legislation that says that homeworkers are covered by the same benefits as factory workers, and that their wages must be the same as if they were working in the factory ? It seems like this should be obvious, that workers for the same extablishment should be treated the same, wherever they are working. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #63 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-19 23:09:26 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 19 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Response to Query - Biofeedback Instrument Link, Computers and People - Electronic Democracy (2 msgs), Computer Networks - SuperScout Gateway & 56KB Home Data Service & Home Banking & To read or not to read (Email) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 October 1984 09:00-EDT From: Devon S. McCullough Subject: PC <--> Biofeedback Instrument Link (info wanted) To: WBD.TYM @ OFFICE-1 Lee Bristol (Hmm, was that really his name?) who I believe majored in Physics at MIT, and ran the original Apple dealership in the Washington, DC area, was always talking about doing that but I don't know what ever came of it. Last I heard he had moved up route 270 to Gaithersburg, Maryland, but I've been out of touch for a long time. If you like I can try to track him down. --Devon ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 03:03:07-EDT From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy proposal (V7 #62) I speak as a pseudo-libertarian, who believes that the only proper function of government is to protect individual's rights. (Of course I am free to define and interpret rights much more liberally than others. For example, I can say that people have a right to equality of opportunity.) The proxy system bothers me, since it has the potential give less service for more money. If proxies are paid according to how many people they represent, people might become proxies just for the money. They would be acting for their own best interest, not that of their constituents. The proxy system also doesn't seem to be that great of a change from our current system. Senators and Congressman are nothing but proxies, in a sense. I would rather see parts of your proposal implemented on a small scale, and gradually expanded to include larger groups if people are happy with the results. Maybe a three-house system (House of Representatives, Senate and The People) would be a better alternative. Trying to get 240 million people to discuss the issues presents problems of scale that aren't present with 435 individuals. What should change is that you should be able to write your congressman for 'free'. After all, you're paying for them to be able to write you for free. Maybe MCI Mail will try do this for the PR value. - Ralph Hyre (ralphw@mit-xx.arpa) ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 11:30:24-PDT From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA Subject: Electronic Democracy by Proxy Subject: Electronic Subject: SuperScout & SuperNet Cc: zbbs%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Following is an excerpt from an article in a local newspaper about a new service offered by Business Computer Network which provides a single powerful gateway to all the leading commercial online database services. The concept behind the service is brilliant, and I, for one, hope it handsomely succeeds. (Let's hope that their next move will be to attach a natural language front end to the system.) Has anyone on Human-Nets any personal experiences to relate about SuperScout or BCN? [begin quote] A two-year-old southern California company has torn a page from the shaving industry's marketing book, giving away the razor to sell more blades. Business Computer Network, headquartered in Cardiff, near San Diego, is giving away its SuperScout communications software disk, which it values at $200 a copy, to anyone who calls its 24-hour toll-free number (800 446-6255). BCN hopes that once you have the disk you'll use it to gain access to 14 major online database services, and Western Union's EasyLink, which makes your microcomputer a sophisticated Telex machine able to send electronic mail to any type of personal computer. ''We currently have 5,000 subscribers and are looking forward to participating in [the] $4.1 billion online database services marketplace,'' said Robert Smith, BCN's marketing vice president. He said he expects small businesses and home users to boost subscriptions to 150,000 within 18 months. SuperScout subscribers pay $5 a month for access to BCN's system. The software is free and the company even provides a modem. For that $60 a year the subscriber gets access to all the member databases, including CompuServe, Dialog, BRS, General Electric, Nexis and others. The subscriber communicates with BCN's mainframe in Wyoming, via toll-free number. With the push of one button the mainframe does all the work of connecting the user to the database. The subscriber gets one monthly bill, for time on the system and the $5 fee. Smith said initiation fees and monthly charges alone for all the services if purchased separately would cost $3,500 a year. Users can also take advantage of promotional offers by the different database services, often getting free time on line. BCN sends subscribers a newsletter which lists the availability of free time, rate changes and other database related news. But who wants or needs access to 14 databases? Smith answered that individuals in corporations and small businesses will use SuperScout at home, discover its varied applications and bring it into the workplace. ''Most all grass roots movements, like the microcomputer movement, started with home users responding to the new technology. We're looking forward to that same movement in telecommunications. ''There was a lot of resistance from small business.... The more sophisticated home user is going to bring the new technology into the marketplace. Within the next 24 months there will be a revolution in business communications. ''We see that as being the wave of the future and we're making a big bet on it,'' Smith said. The size of that bet is between $2 million and $5 million, which is what Smith said it is costing to set up the company. [end quote] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 20:00:57-PDT From: Mabry Tyson Subject: Cost of 56KB home data service Sometime back I talked to Pacific Bell about various options. At that time, if my figures are right, 9600baud service (from home) costing was $28/month and $.65/kilopacket (a packet is 212 characters). DO NOT PUT MUCH FAITH IN THOSE FIGURES. I found my scribbles on some literature I got from them but I am not sure that those are the right price. Do consider that if you are using full duplex character i/o from your terminal, then each character of input would probably be a packet. Some of the features of the LADT Dedicated Access are 1) No time element (Pay for data sent or received) 2) Up to 9600 baud 3) Uses existing phone line (but it has to be close enough to the central office) 4) Not distance sensitive (I guess like a hardwired line?) 5) Simultaneous voice and data 6) Incoming and outgoing calls 7) No modem required 8) Bulk discounts The 56Kbaud service that has been talked about here is their LADT high speed access. I didn't get any prices on that because I don't think it was available here when I was looking. It seems that it would be pretty much the same as the LADT above. I believe the difference is that the difference is that once your signal gets to the main office, it is sent out over a high speed network (multiplexed with other signals) and then eventually to your host. I don't know much more about the details other than this. We were actually looking at something else at the time (fiber-optic net at very high bandwidth) so I didn't pay as much attention as I might have. The one thing I was interested in using the 56KB service for would be for accessing office equipment (such as lisp machines) at a high enough band width that downloading the megabit screens (or screen differences) wouldn't take too long. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 84 21:23:04 PDT (Wed) Subject: Re: Worldnet today - home banking via computer-modems From: Jerry Sweet I tried BofA's home banking for a few weeks. My conclusion: nice try, but no cigar. After making some suggestions (some of them, to my shame, quite tactless), I was sufficiently disgruntled by the responses to terminate the service. Good things about BofA's home banking: - They do respond to mail that you send them in short order. - The list of organizations to which you can make payments is quite impressive. - Vadic 1200 is supported, at least at the number that I called in Southern California. - The menu interface appears to be simple to use. - The system appears to be reasonably secure, if a bit cumbersome in some cases (paperwork required). The bad things about BofA's home banking: - All technical decisions are apparently made primarily by marketing people. - Many terminals cannot be supported because of the limited number of characteristics assumed. If null padding is required for certain operations, you're out of luck. - The display is assumed to be about forty characters wide. End of story. - The "electronic mail" facility is so primitive that most experienced users (read "spoiled") will be frustrated terribly. - The system interface is hardly more sophisticated than an ATM. It is apparently some special subsystem of Compuserve (?), and makes no provision for local storage of configuration information, notes, or copies of electronic messages sent. - The service is expensive, especially when you consider the fact that you are making it easier on THEM--not the other way around. Guess they decided that the service provides "status value", and they could turn a buck by charging for it. I don't care whether some of my technical complaints are unreasonable to solve from their point of view. The fact remains that home banking is digustingly primitive, lackluster, and only barely useful. I only hope that other banks can compete effectively with nicer systems, forcing BofA to do better. -jns ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 20:24:19-PDT From: Mabry Tyson Subject: Usage of mail or lack thereof I imagine most of the readers of human-nets use electronic mail regularly. To me it seems an efficient way to do business (except for typing it in). However, I have recently found out that the person in charge of the computer I am using has gotten out of the practice of keeping up with his mail. He was almost bragging (well, bragging is too strong a word; I believe he was trying to impress me with how much work he had to do) when he showed me that he had more than 1000 unread messages. Some of these were mine and were about the operations of the facility he manages. Needless to say my opinion of his managerial skills dropped. What a way to run a business! However, he may not be alone in that. I know another director of computing at another organization who likewise is averse to reading his mail. In order to be sure he reads it, we have to send it to an assistant who helps him. I was not pleased about that either. I have been told there are a lot of people out there that habitually avoid their mail because they get too much of it. These are people at places that have programs to filter their mail (ie, reject messages from xxx, show messages from yyy, etc.) so that isn't enough. I guess some people need secretaries to read their mail as well as answer their phones! ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #64 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-21 13:28:27 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 20 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Computer Networks - 56kB Home Service & Banking at Home, Computers and People - To Read or not to Read (Email) & Unions/Working at Home & Electronic Democracy (7 msgs -- wow!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 00:32:55 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: LADT service $28/month? Judging from the tariff proposals I've seen, unless there have been some DRASTIC changes, that's *way* below the real figure. Note that Pacific Bell recently tried to boost local flat rate service to almost $18/month. They didn't get it that time, but... --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat 20 Oct 84 12:31:19-PDT From: Sam Hahn Subject: HomeBanking from BofA I was sent mailings from BofA about a year ago for their homebanking system, which I saw demonstrated on a local TV show (where they couldn't even establish a connection correctly for about 10 minutes--they were filming live), and wrote to the VP of something or other (whose name was on the brochures) about what I thought of their banking service through the phone. The point really is that the service, which is still questionable in value to the consumer, is now a great service to the provider (the bank), and I think it's robbery to charge what they charge so that we can make life easier for them. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 6:07:56 EDT From: Stephen Wolff To: Mabry Tyson Subject: Re: Usage of mail or lack thereof Sure -- letting mail pile up is dumb, boasting of it even dumber. But - How much mail do you get each day? How long does it take you to clear it? What would YOU do if you received 300 or more messages a day, NOT including junk/list mail? ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk@Berkeley Date: 17 Oct 84 14:08:32 CDT (Wed) Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #59 (a) the AFL-CIO's opposition to homework is based on the vast majority of homeworker's today, which are not well-paid white-collar professionals sipping cappucino and writing code. It is based on the sweatshops set up by the service industry for data entry. Many homeworkers are paid on a piece basis with no benefits. They will get no benefits unless they are organized. It is almost impossible to organize them. If you're for this situation because you're against unions, say so. But make no mistake that this is basically a sophisticated anti-union stategy. The solution to the problems of working mothers is a good daycare program like those existing in Western Europe. (b) The rise of computer networks as alternative communications means is a maybe. Personally, I think it will be a means for the upper middle-class and well-off. But that remains to be seen. In any event, it is no substitute for face-to-face talking, which is really what organizing is all about. Mike Kelly ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 19 Oct 1984 14:30-EDT From: sjc@Mitre-Bedford Subject: Electronic Democracy Suggestion for a preliminary step towards complete electronic democracy (all citizens debating and voting, via email, on issues which the Congress now legislates): Each senator and representative should have an electronic mailbox on a network so that people could send email to their representatives. There would be an increase in the amount of mail they received because 1) there would be another method, besides the USPS, for receiving mail 2) some people would write more often because sending email would be more convenient for them than sending paper mail. Anything that increases the amount of mail that representatives receive is advantageous because the more mail a rep receives the more basis s/he has for deciding how the constituency wants to vote on particular issues. Sue Cohen sjc@mitre-bedford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 11:56 MST From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy Some random thoughts about the proposal for electronic democracy: First, the U.S. system of government is based on a tripartie arrangement (legislative, Executive, and judicial -- I'm remembering my school days here). Further, the legislative branch is divided into a 'populist' part (the House) and a 'statist' part (the Senate). The idea is to separate popular sentiment from the legislative process, at least to a degree, and to preserve states' rights (the Senator from Hawaii has the same vote as the Senator from California -- er, Senators). Now, electronic democracy would go a long way towards direct representation, but wouldn't it tend to erode interest in 'local' politics, and indeed interest in state politics? Also, if people could vote by proxy, then I suspect someone like Jerry Falwell or Ralph Nader could become a political titan. I think the idea invites pure demagoguery. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 20:37:57 EDT From: Brint Subject: Electronic Democracy A good point was raised here concerning who would be allowed to speak and to whom in an "electronic," fully participatory, democracy. 1. Local governments usually make available time in which citizens can speak publicly about the proposed budget, the proposed SCHOOL budget, or other pending issues. Attendance in our community is quite poor. This seems to generalize throughout our state. 2. Usenet provides a model for unrestricted talking and selective listening. In a democratic "real time" forum, by contrast, everyone listens (presumably) while but a few talk. Perhaps these teach us how to proceed. Naturally, "electronic democracy" must evolve; we could not "cut over" to it at Midnite, 31 December with the throw of a switch. During this evolution, we might learn: 1. that not everyone wishes to speak; 2. that the "n" key will be the first to wear out on most keyboards; 3. that regional distributions, a la Usenet, might circulate to anyone who logs in, and that any user may request to read the discussion groups of another region. Consider this: by exchanging views in this manner, we have already taken the first step. Our own ideas are enhanced and modified by this exchange of viewpoints. The next step is some sort of measurement of consensus. Best regards, Brint (301) 278-6883 AV: 283-6883 FTS: 939-6883 ArpaNet: abc@brl UUCP: ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc Postal: Dr Brinton Cooper U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md 21005 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 17:43:53 PDT From: David Booth Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Discussion? ". . . Participatory democracy includes discussion and debate as well as decision-making." That is a problem. I would suggest some kind of tiered system, based on coalitions: anyone could express a view or opinion to a small coalition. If it the idea was accepted by this group, it would be passed on to a group representing a larger segment of the population, and they would consider it. This process would continue up to the national level. This tiered system should not be based on fixed groups corresponding only to place of residence, or minorities would often be squelched entirely. Instead, groups should be formed on issues, by people with common views on those issues, and anyone can belong to many groups simultaneously. Thus, you could submit your ideas to the group you think would be most sympathetic. Note that something like this could be used to bring bills up for vote, as well as for discussing issues. Does anyone have further ideas as to how this might work? -- David Booth {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 15:52:39-EDT From: Bernard Gunther Subject: Proxy voting There is a major problem with having the legislature of the country decided by those who get proxies to represent their viewpoint. The Weimar government in Germany after WW1 had a similar system. The system was set up such that people voted for a party and then the party got however many seats as people who voted for them. The only change between that system and the present German government is that they now have a rule which says that a party must get 5% of the vote before they get any seats in the legislature. One small group of people, who are devoted to some goal, can effectively stop the government from working except when they agree with what is going on. In a networked system around the US, this group could generate mail at such volumes as to prevent an useful messages from being sent. The NAZIs used similar methods to come to power in Germany before WW2. One can also see the effects of splinter parties in the way the Italian or any other coalition government works. Given those choices, I sort of like our present government. Bernie Gunther ------------------------------ Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 20:17:53-PDT From: Tom Dietterich Subject: Re: Electronic democracy While it is true that communication technology provides the ability for everyone to VOTE on an issue, it doesn't provide the ability for everyone to NEGOCIATE. A crucial function provided by legislatures is the creation of a forum in which opposing factions can negociate a mutually agreeable (or at least tolerable) set of laws. In a sense, whenever there is a strongly polarized vote in a legislature, it is a sign that the negociation process has failed (or that an election is near). Complete democracy is rarely a good idea: witness the poor quality and ambiguous wording of the initiative statutes passed by referundum (e.g., Prop 13). Because these initiative referundums are "all-or-nothing" votes, bugs in the statutes can't be repaired very easily. The issue is not so much who is allowed to vote as it is who decides what laws are put to a vote. A challenge for those of us interested in communication is to find ways of improving the negociation process. Networks seem to be good vehicles for collecting bug reports and suggestions for improvements, but I don't think they work well for consensus-building. At present, there seems to be no good substitute for getting representatives of the opposing parties into the same room, face-to-face. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat 20 Oct 84 13:30:20-MDT From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy One misfeature of our current form of representative democracy is that it creates a strong incentive for cost-ineffective projects. For example, the Central Utah Project, which is a very elaborate expensive way to move water from eastern Utah to the Salt Lake metropolitan area. If the beneficiaries were paying for this project, they would meet their needs for water from less expensive sources. However, most of the cost is being borne at the Federal level, probably because of the way the incentive structure works. Assume that Utah has 0.5% of the population of the United States, which is pretty close. That means that if the Federal government pays one dollar for a project in Utah, then Utah taxpayers contributed only half a cent of that dollar. The remaining 99.5 cents are the profit made by manipulating the system of representative government. Our congressional delegation has a strong incentive to wheel and deal with the other representatives in Congress to achieve this result. Other forms of representation, such as proxy voting, would probably tend to produce similar results. However, I would expect a significant difference in a direct democracy. It seems difficult to believe that a project which screws 99.5% of the population would be voted under a direct system. I don't think that the N! nature of debate would remain a problem for very long, either. I suspect that various entrepreneurs and interest groups would produce digestified forms of the issues much as they do now. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #65 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-23 21:35:32 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 23 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Query - Cancelling Electronic Mail, Response to Query - Internet Size, Computer Networks - BoA Homebanking (2 msgs), Computers and People - Electronic Democracy (5 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 01:43:22-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: cancelling electronic mail Here's a topic for conversation: cancelling electronic mail. Should users of an email system be allowed to cancel pending electronic mail messages that they sent? If so, why? If not, why not? My personal belief as the developer of a major mailsystem is that users should not be allowed to cancel their pending messages. The postal system disallows this, and for good reason (other than the obvious practical ones). I feel that the possibility of message cancellation will only lead to more irresponsibility in electronic mail sending. People should be aware that once they say "send this message" it is out of their control, and should always carefully consider the consequences of their actions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 84 05:18:55 cdt From: decvax!genrad!harvard!uwvax!geowhiz!karsh@uwvax.ARPA To: uwvax!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!human-nets Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #58 In reply to Andy Beals comment that there are 100k users of the nets and thats 1/2 the country. The population of the US is over 200 million. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 84 05:18:48 cdt From: decvax!genrad!harvard!uwvax!geowhiz!karsh@uwvax.ARPA To: uwvax!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!human-nets Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #57 In-reply-to: your article <2446@ucbvax.ARPA> I guess that there probably has already been too much discussion of the union-homework issue already, but I just wanted to make one point: Unions are supposed to protect labor. Software designers are normally considered management. I see no problem with management working at home. God knows they have always had to work at home, even before computers. But I see big problems of exploitation of workers when they do piecework at home. Unions have their place. Does anybody think its a good idea to go back to the days of non-unionized worker exploitation? Hasn't anybody read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", or similar works from the pre-union days. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 01:38:58-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: Bank of America Homebanking I've been a user of Homebanking for almost a year now, and I think it is fantastic. As I do a great many financial transactions, I am almost at the point where I am recovering the $8/month service charge in the postage I save (yes, that would be 32 electronic checks/month). There are rumors that soon you'll be able to add arbitrary payees (e.g. your landlord) so there would be virtually no reason to use paper checks at all. There is another VERY valuable thing about Homebanking payments as opposed to ordinary checks. In your monthly statement, instead of saying "check number 249 for $49.59" it would say "payment to PG&E for $49.59". It makes recordkeeping MUCH more unified. I also save, on the average, about 10 trips to the ATM/month whose purpose was solely to do balance inquiries or to make credit card payments. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 84 2333 PDT From: Robert Maas Subject: BofA homebanking Perhaps BofA needs to modularized their software into a layered design where the user interface is clearly separate from the data-access and security innerds. They can provide a direct interface (JSYS/UUO/SVC etc.) for various kinds of locally-provided user interfaces, as well as a network protocol for user interfaces on remote computers to access the database. They can experiment with several designs of local interface while permitting hackers (expert&original computer programmers) to develop their own user interfaces on their home or small-business computers and perhaps eventually provide a value-added service (split the profit with BofA). But I doubt BofA would do this kind of thing in the near future. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 84 16:54:12 EDT From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Electronic Democracy I discussed the electronic proxy idea some months ago on POLI-SCI. Buying proxy's votes: sure, why note? In fact, i'd expect the proxies to charge for the service they provide, and you'd be able to switch proxies at any time. A proxy who voted against his customers intent would quickly go out of business. The problem with the current system is that I can't switch proxies, so if he's bought by someone else, I'm screwed. Steps to electronic democracy: Once personal computers are sufficiently abundant and networked I'd expect some enterprising congressman to announce that he'd poll his constituents to decide how to vote on all important issues. This could be very popular with the voters. If this system catches on the elected representatives will serve only to introduce bills, not vote on them. If people don't want to be bothered to vote on everything congress does they could send their congressman a multiple choice summary of their politcal position, or use a proxy. The important thing to realize is this system could be adopted with no constitutional amendments (the compliance of individual congressmen would have to be voluntary). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 1984 17:07 EDT From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA To: "Ralph W. Hyre Jr." Subject: Electronic Democracy proposal (V7 #62) As far as writing your Congressman for 'free' goes, how about going one further and letting everyone read his mail? This would allow interested parties to debate (?) each other in the poor Representative's inbox, promote some free exchange of ideas among his constituency, and generally stir things up. (It might be worth implementing some kind of screening system so that some PAC doesn't flood the medium with 200,000 identical "I'm against postage stamps and I vote" messages, but this shouldn't be too hard for the message-processor to deal with.) In some ways this isn't all that different from the idea of a discussion group that includes a huge part of the American people, the principal distinction being that the system is divided up into 435 geographical regions, but it seems that this division would make it a bit more realizable. --Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 18:36:54 PDT From: David Booth Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Proxies vs. representatives Re: People might become proxies just for the money Proxies should be paid based on how many people they represented, but not necessarily proportionately. There should probably be a ceiling, or the pay should taper off at the top. Proxies who represented many people should be paid enough to live comfortably. Otherwise, only the rich could afford to be proxies, since being a proxy would involve significant time spent researching issues and voting. Re: Proxies acting in their own interest -- not their constituents' This is similar to the problem we currently have with representatives, but there are some important differences. For one, once elected, we're stuck with representatives. There's no way we can revoke our votes, as many people probably wished during Nixon's Watergate months. Second, with a proxy system, if we felt particularly strongly about an upcoming issue, we could bypass the proxy and vote ourselves. Third, we would have a much wider range of possible proxies than we do of representatives. -- David Booth {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 22:04:53 pdt From: wildbill@Berkeley (William J. Laubenheimer) Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #62 > From: David Booth > Could the members of the house and senate also be eliminated? How > could bills be introduced without them? Could the PRESIDENT be > eliminated? Let's try this on for size: A couple of Warsaw Pact tank divisions cross the East German and Czechoslovakian borders, headed for the Rhine valley. Moscow posts a message on the GovNet for all the proxies, saying, From: kremvax!ivan Subject: Invasion of Germany We are currently engaged in the process of assisting our brothers in Marxism-Leninism of the German Democratic Republic in reclaiming their rightful territory from the capitalist imperialists of the so-called Federal Republic of Germany. We request that you not interfere with this action. After three days of arguing between the "Nuke the d*** Russkies out of existence" and the "Let'em have Germany, they're just a bunch of Nazis" factions, a consensus is hammered out and the Army is allowed to begin their counterforce operation. Of course, by this time a tactical nuke has taken out Wiesbaden, most of the smaller bases have been overrun and captured, and the President of Germany lives in Berlin. ----- The point of all this is that there are some decisions that just can't wait. Frequently these are also among the touchiest decisions. In the interest of getting these decisions made, the size of the body making the decision should be small; it's a lot easier to get 5 people to agree on something than 435 or several thousand. So you'd better have a committee of proxies in charge of the armed forces. But I thought the whole point of this was that the proxies were distinguishable only by the number of people they represent. Say you only have one proxy deciding what you do with the armed forces. What do you call him? Commander-in-Chief? I call him the President. I think it makes sense to have one person whom we trust to make the tough decisions the world forces upon us in a way which, if not the way we would make those decisions ourselves, is at least not grossly unacceptable to us. Often, doing anything is far more productive than doing nothing, which seems to be exactly what this system is oriented towards: a very small number of excellent decisions, arrived at after a great deal of time. Bill Laubenheimer UC-Berkeley Computer Science ucbvax!wildbill ------------------------------ Date: Sun 21 Oct 84 14:28:19-PDT From: Richard Treitel Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #63 Re: proxies, and "money is power" I don't like the idea of proxies being instantly recallable: all it takes is one nasty rumour, started by some enemy, and an otherwise good and useful representative can lose most of their power in a day or two (or, be forced to waste most of their time responding to such rumours). I'm also uneasy about starting on a small scale: I don't think such ideas would necessarily scale well from local, presumably fairly homogeneous, communities up to national level. However, these are implementation problems; I'm in favour of some proxy-like system, but let me point out to you that the PAC stuff as currently organised has some merits. You can decide how strongly you wish to support each PAC (within legal limits, which are more generous than I would want to spend on politics), withdraw your support at will (but they get a chance to present their case each time they ask you for money), and even support two PACs which might have opposite views on a small subset of issues. The main problem is you have to have money. Well, the Feds could provide "politics stamps" or something, redeemable only by registered PACs to whom the owner gave the stamp. Hmmmm ... - Richard ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #69 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-10-31 23:21:32 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 31 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Reformatting Digests for UNIXers & Happy Trails to Electronic Democracy, Query - Bell Labs and Modems Computers and People - USIA satellite broadcasting (2 msgs) & Electronic Democracy, Computer Networks - Recalling Email (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 84 15:52:12 est From: Douglas Stumberger Subject: human-nets reformatting For those of you on Berkeley UNIX installations, there is a program available which does the slight modifications to HUMAN-NETS digest necessary to get it in the correct format for a "mail -f ...". This allows using the UNIX mail system functionality to maintain your digest files. You can also use the same program to reformat the AILIST for similar purposes. For a copy of the program, net to: douglas stumberger csnet: des@bostonu bitnet: csc10304@bostonu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 84 17:30:00 EDT From: Charles Subject: Electronic Democracy discussion moves to Poli-Sci The recent discussion on what we have come to call 'Electronic Democracy' has been most interesting, but it really belongs on the Poli-Sci digest (which was originally a spinoff of HN to handle political issues, after all). I will remail all as-yet unpublished articles to JoSH Hall, the moderator of Poli-Sci. If you want to get on the digest list, send mail to poli-sci-request@rutgers, and submissions for the digest itself to poli-sci@rutgers. I'd like to thank all the participants of the discussion (so far), and hope to see you all in the smoke and flame of Poli-Sci! Charles ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1984 11:31-EST Subject: Bell Labs and Modems From: WTHOMPSON@BBNF.ARPA While Codex does indeed have modems incorporating Trellis Coding, I believe they are leasedline modems, rather than dial-ups. Am I mistooken? William Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 29-Oct-84 15:40 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Re: effects of USIA satellite television broadcasting To: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA The major effect claimed for beaming Voice of "America" style satellite TV into other countries (especially third world) is that it will give the U.S. a very powerful means of cultural domination, engendering "culturocide". I have not been following the debates in the related international arenas, but my impression is the third world countries emphatically do not like having their cultures dominated in this way. Supporters claim anyone should have a right to broadcast what ever they want. That seems fair except that most third world countries do not have the resources to compete with the US TV programming technology. It is not unlike trying to hold class in a classroom where there is one person with a megahorn constantly blasting deafening appeals for freedom of speech and I Love Lucy reruns. Thus, it would seem third world countries will continue to fight the allocation of orbital arcs for such satellites. Who knows how successful they will be? I'm not sure who really cares if a little of this U.S. government produced propaganda unavoidably gets beamed to U.S. citizens. We are already so habituated to our brand name deoderants, drinks, and soap operas, it wouldn't make any difference. Who in the U.S. would tune it in, anyway? Of course the major broadcasting corporations may not see it that way, but who are they to complain? -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 84 06:34 EST From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: MIT Communications Forum To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA MIT COMMUNICATIONS FORUM: November 29, 1984 4-6 p.m. Room 37-252 "As satellite communications becomes increasingly effective and commonplace, the United States Information Agency has moved boldly to use the technology in its public diplomacy program. It has already established its own private television network and has recently funded a major feasibility study of direct satellite broadcasting for the Voice of America. "Although international shortwave radio broadcasting is an accepted medium of public diplomacy, satellite broadcasting and television are as controversial as they are powerful. What are the long-range opportunities for using satellites and television? How will they affect or be affected by international attitudes towards information and communication? What will be the effect on Intelsat and on the allocation of the orbital arc? How will it change the domestic presence of the USIA, including the prohibition against domestic distribution of Agency productions? Dan Mica, Chairman, House Subcommittee on International Operations; Michael Schneider, USIA; Hewson Ryan, Director, Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy, The Fletcher School ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 84 13:48:22 PST (Mon) To: Dehn@mit-multics Subject: Re: electronic democracy??? From: Martin D. Katz the whole POINT of a tax system is to spend your money on things that you don't want it spent on. I agree with you, but would word it differently: I thought that the whole point of a tax system is to charge everybody to support projects for the common good. This includes many things which one might support directly, but equalizes the contributions and reduces the overall amount of decision making effort. To expand on the issue: It is my belief that "republican" systems of government (not party politics) is based on this reduction of effort. It turns out that concentration of decision making effort reduces the total amount of decision making and the total communication necessary. Some quantitative political models indicate that the size of a representative body should be about P^(2/3) for an adult population of P in order to minimize the communication problems in government. With electronic communication, it becomes possible for each of us to have more input because the communication costs are reduced. The problem is that the communication costs for debate increase with the square of the number of representatives. It might be possible to double the size of the house of Representatives, but a much larger body would find it very difficult to communicate internally. Other possibilities, such as questionaires are practical. If there are issues which each of us has an opinion on, then we can each notify our representatives of our views. The problem is cost: Assuming that it takes only one hour a week for me to peruse the important news, an additional hour to peruse the important governmental questions, and a quarter hour to vote, this is a total of a quarter billion hours each week for 100 million people to run the country. On the other hand, with our representative system, the federal government policy level (senate, house, the immediate staffs of senators and representatives, and assistant secretaries and up in executive branch) is only 2000-3000 people, for a total of less than 125000 hours, a savings of a factor of 2000 over direct democracy. In California we have 20 or 30 ballot measures put before the public each year. For the most part, these are poorly drafted, and complicated. Many of them are placed on the ballot by petition and opposed by the state legislature. I oppose those who want to eliminate the initiatives, but feel that there has to be a better way. The problem is that most voters have too little time and training to properly study these measures before voting. The result is private interests spending tens of millions of dollars in advertising to coerce the public into voting one way or the other. I don't see much success in expanding this system. I aggree that a proxy system would give the individual more clout, but relative to the automatically assigned proxies, this clout is not significant. In fact, you probably have about 5000 times as much clout now (if you consistently write your representatives) as you would with a proxy system. As to the individual assigning the fraction of his (or her) tax dollars to go to each program, this could become like the California propositions. Can you imagine DoD running television ads: "Vote for a Strong US -- put all of your tax money into defense." We would wind up spending Billions on advertising to try to convince the public that various services require funding. On top of that, just think of the effort to decide where to put the money ... It's hard enough to fill out our taxes now, any serious attempt at deciding how much to pay for each of dozens of programs would take weeks. One final point (I have been too long winded already): paying taxes to an organization which then doles them out to programs is exactly what we are doing now, except that we can't individually decide on the organization. In practice proxy system would probably be very similar to this scheme. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 84 12:53:27 edt From: ulysses!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley Subject: Recalling EMAIL is good. On one of the mail systems at waterloo, they allow the recall of electronic mail. And it's very, very useful. I wish it could be extended to net mail as well, and many people wish it on unix mail. I have used it for many purposes including saving my ass because of a silly mail message, and saving the other person the trouble of reading an out of date mail message. After all what's bette - two messages, one that is in error and one that makes a correction, or one correct message? Most people DON'T read all their mail first and then reply, so it's quite often that the recipient acts on the first message before seing the correction? The whole point is you are drawing a (somewhat) arbitrary line when the person hits that final CR. None of you would advocate that once I type "mail human-nets" and am put in the editor that I MUST send a message to human nets. You'll all agree that I should be able to break out and not send a message, or go up and correct a previous line. Why can't I do the same thing, if it's possible, after the message is "sent." I know that it does add a slight bit of luck, but it's really worth it. Can anbody really care that a message to them got cancelled if they know the sender wanted to correct it? Do you have a "right" to a message just because somebody wanted to send it to you once? Brad Templeton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 00:34:11 PST From: Matthew J Weinstein To: human-nets@rutgers Subject: Re: cancelling electronic mail Mail systems generally forward electronic letters to their recipients immediately after they are sent. As has been pointed out, this sometimes leads to problems; permitting cancellation of mail has been suggested as a solution. A solution that does not involve cancellation of mail that has been delivered, nor is enroute, comes to mind; the solution would be to more closely model existing `real' mail services. Typically, `real' mail is only picked up at certain times of the day, at specific intervals. In a similar fashion, the electronic mailer could be changed to forward mail only at certain times, or after a certain interval had elapsed (i.e. 1/2 hour, excluding lunch breaks...). Before that time, the mail would be the sender's property, as if it were sitting on his `desk'. After that time, tracking down the letter would be difficult or impossible (as it is now). Of course, certain letters could be marked `Urgent', and these would be dispatched immediately. Other letters could be marked with specific delivery times (relative or absolute). I believe this technique is used in voice-mail systems, but it seems to have been overlooked in many conventional mail systems. - Matt ------- UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4,randvax,trwrb!trwspp,ism780}!ucla-cs!matt ARPA: matt@ucla-locus ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #70 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-04 20:15:23 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 4 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Query - Copyright Laws, Computers and People - Killed ED topic again? & USIA Satellite TV Broadcasting & To Read or not to Read (Email), Computer Networks - Cancelling Electronic Mail, Computers and Education - 'Cute' bugs and social loss Information - CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE -- 1985 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 1 Nov 84 14:18:12-PST From: Richard Treitel Subject: copyright laws There's a Stanford law professor (whose name I forget, but ...) asking for input on the following issue. He is in touch with some lawyer who works for the relevant Senate Subcommittee, so the input may actually be heard. You can reply to me as TREITEL@SUMEX (or E.EEYORE@LOTSC) and I will take some note of your response, or you can flame. Now: the sellers of software are bummed out about Locksmith and similar programs, which they claim are costing them sales. They want Congress to change the law so they can sue the locksmith makers. Right now they can't, because although by default it is against the law to help someone copy a piece of copyrighted material, the present law allows you to make backup copies of software which has been sold to you, even if it is copyrighted and encrypted, so the locksmiths can argue that their program has legitimate uses. OK, so how much copying goes on? Just who is copying just what? Would they pay sticker price for it if they couldn't get it this way? Are there better ways to protect software? Is the problem going to fade away in a few years due to new advances? Are there differences (for this purpose) between game software and business software? What if software sellers were reasonable about giving you backup copies? Are they? and so on. There's more I could say, but I want to keep this msg relatively short. - Richard ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1984 0240-PST From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Killed the topic again? Reply-to: REM@MIT-MC Date: Wed, 31 Oct 84 17:30:00 EDT From: Charles Subject: Electronic Democracy discussion moves to Poli-Sci The recent discussion on what we have come to call 'Electronic Democracy' has been most interesting, but it really belongs on the Poli-Sci digest (which was originally a spinoff of HN to handle political issues, after all). Shit. When this issue arose several years ago I was eager to continue discussion, but as soon as the POLI-SCI list spun off everybody else on the new list except me switched the topic from electronic democracy to general bullshit flaming, i.e. it changed from Political SCIENCE to POLITICS despite retaining the POLI-SCI name as a facade. I tried to keep the electonic democracy subject going but nobody on that garbage-eating list was interested. After a few weeks of nothing but political trash and virtually nothing on the topic that caused the spin-off in the first place, I dropped off. I don't want to get back on that cruddy list unless it gets back to this original topic and omits the politics trash. If Human-Nets won't discuss, and Poli-Sci won't either, then there seems to be no forum for it at all, as was the situation for the past several years until it revived on Human-Nets momentarily. Would somebody on Porta-Com like to open a conference for this specific topic so we can discuss it and not get the POLI-SCI [sic] nonsense overwealming it totally? [Ed. Note: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my decision.] ------------------------------ Date: 1 November 1984 04:56-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: effects of USIA satellite television broadcasting To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2 Cc: Kahin @ MIT-MULTICS Isn't there a little something wrong with your analogy? US satellites and TV stations broadcasting into other countries is NOT like one person in the class with a megaphone. Megaphone prevents you from hearing anyone else. You are concerned that these poor unsophisticated third world people won't listen to anyone else because their own country and culture cannot compete with Proctor and Gamble and Soap Opera and Dallas and the like. It may or may not be true. It may well be that we ought not broadcast any such thing to third world countries; but surely our using one channel to broadcast USIA programs does not prevent anyone from using other channels to broadcast their own, does it? The universal declaration of human rights rather pretentiously probclaims the right of every person to send, receive, and obtain information from any source. Of course that was drafted in a less nationalistic era. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Oct 84 13:41:10 EDT From: Mike Subject: Electronic mail Electronic mail: I used to like it, but now I try to avoid it. I have found that going and talking to the person (who I typically want to do something) has a faster and more positive response rate. If I am working at home, I'd phone or write (TALK to DEC people) to them on their terminal. Mail is a last resort. The manager who bragged to one of his employees about a backlog of 300 computer messages was probably trying to make a point to his employee: If it's really important, get in touch personally. -- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1984 21:51-PST Subject: Cancelling electronic mail. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow As long as "the message" has not departed the users home system domain (meaning his file directory or other mail queue file pickup directory), I think it is well and good to offer the user the ability to cancel mail. I have canceled mail a few of times over the years, since Tenex stores queued mail in a directory as [--UNSENT-MAIL--].User@Host files or (more recently) [--NETWORK-MAIL--] files which have the address contained within. However, once a mailer has touched and delivered any recipient of a queued message file the ability to retract such a message is about zero. Consider, for example, an electronic mail address which in turn produces a hardcopy message? Or one which perhaps gets broadcast via a one-way means, say, to a persons alpha-numeric display pager/beeper? Or that perhaps get forwarded across some type of `occasional' gateway link which is unavailable at the time you desired to send the cross-net cancel order? Other issues which might further complicate the canceling would be, using the Tenex case as a real world example, local users whose mail files which are directly appended by the senders user agent, while the other recipients in network land, are routed thru the mailer. If we all lived on one giant time sharing computer and/or all our mail was stored in big database on one central main frame, it could be done. However, in our current world of disconnected and distributed nets the ability to technologically cancel mail is nearly impossible I figure. Moral being: count to 10 before you ^Z. g ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1984 0933-PST From: Rob-Kling Subject: Cute bugs, unreliable software and social loss Cc: neumann@SRI-CSL, nancy@UCI-750A Recently someone inquired about "cute" bugs. The bugs usually discussed as "cute" are often logically cute, but can lead to system failures which cost lots of money or human lives. Peter Neumann at Stanford Research International has been keeping tracking of failures in high-risk systems for some time. Accounts appear in a Software Engineering Notes, a newsletter published by the ACM. I've attatched Peter's annotated bibliography of these system failures. For brevity, SEN= Software Engineering Notes. The current level of *routine* education about these matters is in a sorry state in universities and in the society at large. Many of the "good" computer science departments regularly offer courses in software engineering where students may be exposed to the problems of designing highly reliable systems (inlcuding, but not limited to software). However, these courses are usually elective, and while they may be well attended, are taken by a minority of students graduating with CS degrees. Every year, tens of thousand students enter industrial software development careers with CS degrees. Many more begin software work with good backgrounds in engineering, bio-sci, physical sci, or mathematics, and even less exposure to key ideas in software engineering. While many are "savvy about systems," a significant number are probably enchanted with the belief in perfectable systems. Fortunately, a very tiny fraction of the computer-based systems developed place human lives or large $$$ at risk. And an even tinier fraction, mostly military weapons-related systems, can place thousands or millions of lives at risk when there are gross failures. However, we are moving toward a period where more and more vital social activities, including financial transactions, run on computer-based systems. I think we would all be much better off if software specialists learned the art and limits of reliable software design the way that "modern medics" learn about proper hygene in hospitals. While these examples from Software Engineering Notes are more cautionary than rich in prescriptive measure, we would be better off if they were simply common knowledge for software specialists. Rob Kling University of California, Irvine kling.uci-20b@uci OR kling@uci (from ARPAnet or CSnet),and/or ucbvax!ucivax!kling (from UUCP) [Ed. Note: Rob included Peter Neumann's file, which has already been made available to human-nets readers, so I didn't include it. If you would like to see the file, it is the second half of famous.bugs, and can be gotten by anonymous FTP from Rutgers, or by mail from me(human-nets-requests@rutgers.)] ------------------------------ Date: 3-Nov-84 21:33 PST From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD From: Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS - CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE -- 1985 Conference On Softway Maintenance -- 1985 Wahsington, D.C., Nov. 11-13 The conference will be sponsored by the Association For Women in Computing, the Data Processing Management Association, the Institute for Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc., the National Bureau of Standards and the Special Interest Groups on Software Maintenance in cooperation with the Special Interest Group on Software Engineering. Papers are being solicited in the following areas: controlling software maintenance software maintenance careers and education case studies -- successes and failures configuration management maintenance of distributed, embedded, hybrid and real-time systems debugging code developing maintainance documentation and environments end-user maintenance software maintenance error distribution software evolution software maintenance metrics software retirement/conversion technololgy transfer understanding the software maintainer Submission deadline is Feb. 4, and 5 double-spaced copies are required. Papers should range from 1,000 to 5,000 words in length. The first page must include the title and a maximum 250-word abstract; all the authors' names, affiliations, mailing addresses and telephone numbers; and a statement of commitment that one of the authors will present the paper at the conference if it is accepted. Submit papers and panel session proposals to: Roger Martin (CMS-85), National Bureau of Standards, Building 225, Room B266, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #71 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-06 19:09:45 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 6 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Query - Research for DoD -- A Moral Problem?, Response to Query - Copyright Laws (2 msgs), Computers and People - USIA Satellite Broadcasting, Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail, Information - Grad. Study Plan: Social Impacts of Computing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 84 21:51:24 pst From: zauderer%ucbcory@Berkeley (Marvin M. Zauderer) It seems that much of today's Computer Science research is funded by Defense Department (DoD)-related agencies. Specifically, it seems that much of the CS research in our nation's universities is funded by the DoD. Although I've only been involved with CS research for a short time, I've managed to get the following impression: a significant number of researchers are uneasy about their direct/indirect ties with the DoD. For example, a researcher may worry that his DoD-funded work will be applied for immoral or unethical purposes by our government. (I suppose "unethical" and "immoral" are words defined by the particular researcher. Stay with me for a moment.) Granted, not all researchers have to worry that their work will aid in initiating global war. Yet some DO worry, and for good reason, too. To those who have wrestled with this dilemma: how have you resolved it, or have you? Does forced ignorance run rampant, and is it the best choice? Is it best to say, "I want to do research, and I want to do it at a university, so more likely than not the money will come from the DoD. If that prospect upsets me, I should go elsewhere." or IS there a "best" philosophy? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue. (Translation: flames encouraged). To those who have not wrestled with this dilemma: what do YOU think? I am a new "subscriber"; I apologize if this topic has been discussed here before or if it is inappropriate for this digest. If the latter, please suggest another forum. If the former, please don't send me hate mail; I think a continuing discussion of this topic is of primary importance. -- Marvin ------------------------------ Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 20:38:16-MST From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: copyright laws One friend of mine is planning to purchase a personal computer, and we were discussing what kind. I was advocating a certain system based on its technical merits, but she had a compelling argument in favor of another system: She knew where she could copy $20k worth of software free. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 16:25:45-PST From: Richard Treitel Subject: more copyright To: boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA, asp%mit-oz@MIT-MC.ARPA, bmg@MIT-XX.ARPA Finally got hold of a copy of the original memo sent out by the Washington lawyer. He requests comments on (a) the desirability of any of five legislative options (see below) (b) what other ways are there of providing access to backup copies (c) do software sellers provide such access, in relation to encrypted products (d) can a legal definition of Locksmith programs be formulated so as not to sweep up other products for which there is unquestionably a need (e) can software be so packaged as to be immune to accidental damage, e.g. on a laser disk (f) the impact of copy protection on ability of customers to customise software they have bought. Of course some of you have, in your replies to date, already commented on several of these issues; but I'd still be interested in additional comments on the others. Now here are the legislative options mentioned: (1) outlaw making backup copies, even. A drastic measure. (2) leave it up to the courts to decide if Locksmith is legal under present law (3) give you the right to make your own backups *only* if there is no other way to get one (4) plain well outlaw locksmith programs (5) like (4), but reduce the legal remedies available to software sellers who fail to provide backups, when they sue other people for copying. My reactions are (1) ridiculous (2) yuck (3) kludgy (4) impractical (5) all of the above. I'd like to get this wrapped up shortly. Thanks to all of you who have replied. - Richard ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Nov 1984 21:17 EST From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Effects of USIA satellite broadcasting Does anyone deny that one of the main effects of USIA satellite TV broadcasts would be cultural domination by the U.S. over cultures that do not have the programming and broadcasting resources to compete? Just what sort of programming is envisioned for this project? Since when has "cultural domination" been wrong, or even avoidable? I'll admit that I don't trust any particular government to go out and do it as national policy, but *our own* culture is based almost *entirely* on the cultures of others. By cutting off societies from one another, one merely encourages balkanization of the planet into many mutually-distrustful ethnic blocs. I don't see cancelling attempts to improve communication between peoples merely because you suspect the motives of the persons implementing the system. --Jim ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 1 November 1984 05:17-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: effects of USIA satellite television broadcasting To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2 cc: Lippard @ MIT-MULTICS Are you saying that everyone else's culture is so fragile that mere exposure to US TV will result in US cultural domination? I understand that freedom is not much in fashion, and the notion that people ought to be able to get information not filtered through a government is abhorrent to certain kinds of personalities, but would it really be so horrid if people were merely exposed to USIA broadcasts? You may be sure that they will be exposed to others, regardless of what we do. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 84 23:58:42 EST From: Mike Subject: Canceling Electronic Mail It seems to me that a good electronic mail system would always provide an ability to attempt to cancel mail messages (practical considerations may not always allow it to be done, of course). In fact, it is hard for me to imagine why people would object to a mail system which allows one to attempt to cancel messages. Clearly if *I* sent a message that I wanted to cancel, I should be able to. After all, the computer is there to serve me and it should be able to do whatever I want (within reason). Saying: "The Post Office doesn't ..." or "It would be too hard ..." just isn't good enough. If someone else sends me a message and they want to cancel it, why should I complain? Oh sure, I may miss some interesting flames, juicy gossip, misdirected mail, and other choice stuff, but I think I could live without it and respect another person's right to change his/her mind about what sending me somethng. Finally, why should anyone object to other people having the right to try to cancel mail they sent to anyone else? Aside from these, I can't think of any other cases of mail canceling to consider. -- Mike^Z [ ihnp4!, allegra! ] pegasus!mzal Zaleski@Rutgers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 12:45:17 EST From: Brint Subject: Cancelling e-mail Surely you wouldn't want anyone, including a sender, to reach into your own mailbox for anything? So clearly, point of no return exists at the recipient's mailbox door. Now, the question is, should recovery of in-transit mail be allowed? Consider: 1. the risk that an imperfect e-mail system (and it is flawed) might permit unauthorized tampering in a global arena; 2. the additional traffic that could be geneated if large scale recalls were permitted; 3. the irresponsibility that unlimited recall priveleges fosters. You might conclude, then that you should be permitted to recall mail that is in your possession or that of your local agent only. Brint ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1984 1157-PST From: Rob-Kling Subject: Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine CORPS ------- Graduate Education in Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society at the University of California, Irvine This graduate concentration at the University of California, Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting which supports reflective and sustained inquiry. The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM). Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social dimensions of computing. The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's. The faculty and students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the social sciences. The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of inquiry: 1. Examining the social consequences of different kinds of computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger society. 2. Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed, disseminated, deployed, and sustained. 3. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the deployment and use of computer-based technologies. 4. Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the development and use of computing in pro-social ways. Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems, expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated command and control systems, and computing at home. The questions vary from study to study. They have included questions about the effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them, the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences, and their social carrying costs. CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation - (i) in focussing on both public and private sectors, (ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within organizations, (iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in vivo" in ordinary settings, and (iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences. Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM. Admission requirements for this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM. Students with varying backgrounds are encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research promise. The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and the Graduate School of Management. Additional faculty in the School of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS students. Research is administered through an interdisciplinary research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the Public Policy Research Organization. Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration should write to: Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci) Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine Irvine, Ca. 92717 714-856-5955 or 856-7403 or to: Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci) Graduate School of Management University of California, Irvine Irvine, Ca. 92717 714-856-5246 ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #72 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-08 20:29:12 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 8 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Computers and the Law - Computers go to college & Lockpick and Piracy, Computers in the Media - Hackers Vote!, Computers and Health - VDT Sickness, Computers and People - Direct Satellite Broadcasting & Research for DoD, Computer Networks - Cancelling Email, Information - Seminar Announcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Nov 84 12:18:08 EST From: Mel Subject: Computers go to college The following article appeared in New Jersey's Newark Star Ledger on Saturday, November 3rd: * * * * * * * When Gov. Thomas Kean submits his budget for the 1986-87 fiscal year, it is likely to contain funding to implement a requirement that all new students to the state-run colleges and Rutgers University must own a personal computer. The Department of Higher Education already is exploring ways in which to provide financial help to prospective students who could not otherwise afford to purchase a microcomputer, which, depending upon capacity and sophistication, can cost between $1,000 and $5,000 for models that might meet approved standards. Equally important, a department memorandum anticipates the development of new courses required by advances in "information technologies," and proposes that all disciplines from the arts and sciences be required to seek appropriate incorporation of computers. Let's face it. Society, is hard-pressed to deal with today's information explosion. The computer is responsible for the proliferation of available data, analysis and explanatory matter. And it is the device which makes the profusion of information manageable. Students would be grievously disadvantaged in their quest for education if they did not have the computer at their fingertips. This is so because only the computer is able to expedite the orderly retrieval of relevant information from the data banks. New Jersey education officials are among the first to acknowledge the value of the computer as an essential tool for college students by moving to require ownership by all undergraduates, and unless other states begin to play catch-up, New Jersey will be first in implementing the requirement. Two privately operated institutions, Drew University at Madison and Stevens Institute of Technology at Hoboken, already insist that their students own a computer. Adding the state colleges and Rutgers University is in keeping with Gov. Thomas Kean's efforts to upgrade education and, as an additional benefit, will bolster New Jersey's claim to leadership among the states in the high-technology sweepstakes. * * * * * * * ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 6 Nov 1984 22:33:33-PST From: goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA To: self%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: Boebert's lawyer-friend's RFC Well, I didn't see the option I'd like in the five extant options. I would like a guarantee that I will be able to use a purchased piece of software indefinitely and without interruption. I envision this as being provided by the vendor according to the following rules: I should pay full price for an original copy and the license to use it. I should pay only for media and shipping for backup copies. I should pay nothing for replacement copies -- not even shipping. (If purchased at a local dealer, replace "shipping" with "markup".) Basic mechanism is that every purchase includes a license, which I fill out and send in. Duplicate licences cost nothing, or money back. Thus, if I buy multiple copies initially, when I send in my licenses, I get back the difference between purchase (or list) price and (media cost + shipping). If I turn in my licenses to the dealer at the time of sale (instead of mailing them in), I get the additional copies at discount. If order a backup copy from the factory at a later date, they will know that I have (or have not!) a license for its use, and I will get my backup copy at the cost of media + shipping. If I need a replacement, I need only surrender the defective copy. It should be pretty obvious if it's an original or a rip-off. (Ignore for the moment the notion of exact forgeries -- solutions are pretty obvious.) If I bought the software on high-reliability media in the first place, I get the replacement totally free; otherwise I may have to pay a nominal handling charge, or media, or shipping, or some combination thereof -- it's up to me (the market) how much I am willing to pay for totally guaranteed media, and how much I'm willing to pay for warrantee replacement copies. Under such a system, there should be no need for Locksmith et al. Are lock-picking tools illegal? If so, then we could ban Locksmith-type packages on the same grounds. (Actually, it would probably still be okay to use them if you were a registered software locksmith -- i.e. someone registered/certified to bail out people whose media died.) If Locksmith-type packages were banned from general use, the market (vendors + buyers) could determine the details (incl. $$$) of the general scheme described above. -- Kenn Goutal ------------------------------ From: pur-ee!malcolm@Berkeley (Malcolm Slaney) Date: 7 Nov 1984 0144-EST (Wednesday) Subject: Media and the Hackers Tonight on CBS's coverage of the national election results Diane Sawyer made an interesting comment. After listing a number of statistics about how the various voting blocks voted she said there was one more small but interesting statistic. CBS broke the vote down by those that owned or used computers (there was a two to one margin) and concluded that the "hackers have spoken." While I wouldn't call all people that own computers hackers, it is nice to see the media not thinking of hackers as crooks. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 12:35:49 EST From: Brint Subject: VDT Sickness I wonder if some of it isn't plain old "stress." Many VDT workers are working to production quotas; claims examiners for Blue Cross and Blue Shield come to mind. The VDT, being something of a novel phenomenon even yet, may become the focus for something which has always been there -- the stress of having to produce according to a tight schedule. Brint ------------------------------ Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 23:41:53-PST From: Tom Dietterich Subject: Re: cultural domination by TV (FLAME) I can understand the concerns of those who fear the destruction of their culture through television. I intend to postpone as long as possible the exposure of my children to US commercial TV. I want my kids to learn to read, write, think, and speak before they become couch potatoes. Most programming on US commercial TV is a threat to western culture. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 22:56:01 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: direct satellite broadcasting I have some difficulty understanding how this issue can be more, in reality, than a paper tiger at this time. There are several points to consider: 1) Many of the cultural areas that would be the most likely to be targeted for direct broadcast satellite (DBS) transmissions have very few television sets per capita, making this a very expensive and ineffective method of disseminating information to these areas. 2) Most current technology DBS systems require specialized equipment (small dish antennas) and thus cannot be received on the sort of television equipment that would be widely available in *any* country. 3) Even if a DBS scheme that *could* broadcast to "standard" television receivers without additional equipment *could* be developed, such broadcasts could be trivially jammed by local broadcast facilities at relatively low cost. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 10:10:01-PST From: Ken Laws Subject: Zauderer's DoD/CS Request Three points about DoD-related CS research: 1) It is not in the interests of this nation to fall behind the current state of technology. 2) Whether current technology is used for military purposes is a political decision, and depends very little on what the current technology is. 3) Much of the DoD's present research is aimed at achieving military objectives without nuclear weapons (and possibly without great loss of life). If the politicians insist on having military objectives, at least this is the better approach. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: Tue 6 Nov 84 23:58:10-PST From: Mark Crispin Subject: cancelling electronic mail For the information of those readers who are not familiar with TOPS-20's mailsystem, MM, I should document its delivery characteristics. MM does not deliver mail itself; rather, it queues the message to a system daemon. There is a "wakeup" scheme by which the daemon, MMailr, has its incoming queue request stream woken up. Because this stream does not attempt network deliveries, it runs very quickly. It is not uncommon to have a copy-to-self delivered before you get the next command prompt in MM! There is also a once-only queue for network deliveries which occasionally gets backlogged, but generally runs through quite fast. The overall result of all this is that it is virtually impossible to do anything to cancel local delivery; it happens too fast. Only if the recipient is over disk allocation would the delivery be prevented. Network delivery can also happen quite quickly too. In general, if the delivery agent has reasonably high performance, cancelling mail is at best a chancy proposition. Additionally, many "please cancel" types of requests have been for messages which made it off-site. The validation problem where the sender is on one system and the queued message is on another is quite hairy. I firmly believe that the solution is for mail composition agents to be less aggressive in sending messages without warning -- that is an ergonomics issue -- and for human users to be more thoughtful in sending their mail. The profession as a whole has to grow up. ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1984 20:40-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: [Henry: Seminar announcement] From: Subject: Seminar announcement There's More to Menu Systems Than Meets the Screen Henry Lieberman Thursday, 8 November, 1 PM AI Playroom, 8th Floor, 545 Tech Sq., Cambridge Love playing with those fancy menu-and-graphics systems, but afraid to program one yourself? Are you scared of mice? Feel constrained by TV:CONSTRAINT-FRAME-WITH-SHARED-IO-BUFFER? Everyone agrees using these systems is fun, but programming them isn't as much fun as it should be. Systems like the Lisp Machine provide powerful graphics primitives and compute power, but the casual applications designer who desires a simple, straighforward menu interface is often stymied by the difficulty of mastering the details of window specification, multiple processes, interpreting mouse input, etc. We present a kit for building simple interactive menu-based graphical applications, called EZWin. Many such applications can be conveniently described as generalized editors for sets of graphical objects. An individual application is described simply by creating an object to represent the application itself, objects to represent each important kind of graphical object, and an object representing each command. The kit provides many common services needed by these systems. A unique interaction style is established which is insensitive to whether commands are chosen before or after their arguments. Interactive type-checking of arguments to commands removes a common source of frustrating errors. The system handles mouse sensitivity, managing the selection of commands and arguments with the mouse according to the current context. The concepts will be illustrated with a description of how to implement a simple diagramming system using EZWin. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #73 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-08 21:48:59 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 8 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Computers and People - Labor Unions (2 msgs) & USIA Satellite Broadcasting & Research for DOD & To Read or not to Read (E-mail), Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail (3 msgs), Information - Symposium On Security And Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 11:07:15-EST From: Larry Seiler Subject: Labor unions for the disadvantaged To: haas@UTAH-20.ARPA Cc: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA It is true that unions were formed to give choices (or at least better fixed conditions) to people who had no choices about where and how to work. To a certain extent, they still do so. But a funny thing happened - the union members got prosperous - middle class, even. And many unions (such as the AFL-CIO group, to go by the evidence) also changed from providing disadvantaged people with choices into businesses that seek to insure their own prosperity (which is usually, although not always, equivalent to the prosperity of their members) at any cost. So we see independent truckers getting beaten up by union goons, whole groups of people forced by law into becoming paying members of unions, whole groups of people being forced not to work because they don't belong to the union (and in many cases, can't join even if they want to), and yet more people being forced to GIVE UP CHOICES about how and where to work, because those choices threaten the union's control over workers. Funny, these unions are starting to act just like the companies whose practices they were originally formed to fight. What's the solution? Beats me. Breaking up the unions is not a solution - we'd end up with the same injustices being perpetrated by companies again (or still - there are a lot of workers still being unfairly treated by their companies). But when a union changes from seeking the welfare of workers (not just its members) into seeking its own increased power at the expense of workers, then things have gone too far, and it is time to oppose the union, at least until it goes back to its original charter of giving choices instead of taking them away. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 16:56:10-MST From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: Labor unions for the disadvantaged To: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA I could add a few horror stories about union stupidity from my own personal experience. However, I tend to support the union movement overall because there are a lot of people in very menial jobs, such as migrant farm laborers, who desparately need unions. Two thoughts occur to me: one is that we could probably make some progress toward a more sensible solution for everybody if we worked out laws that would protect our own freedom of choice and at the same time guaranteed that the people who need unions can have their protection. The other thought is that the ability to unionize a job is directly related to the technology which defines the job. In the case of a factory, the union can potentially exert power by making the factory unusable. Similar tactics are also available to workers in the hotel and restaurant industry, and anywhere that the business is defined by a fixed installation which is labor-intensive. However, it would seem very difficult to effectively unionize an industry that was highly portable and widely distributed. I would think that any form of distributed information processing application would be inherently hard to unionize. Regards -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 11:09 CST From: Giebelhaus@HI-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Effects of USIA satellite broadcasting Good for ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA for stating the obvious that people seem to have such a hard time precieving. It is my hope that we would start swaying away from such nationalistic policies. Of course, with Regan back, that dashed my hopes somewhat. ------------------------------ Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 14:27:47-EST From: "Art Evans" Subject: Research for DOD To: zauderer%ucbcory@UCB-VAX.ARPA Marvin M. Zauderer raises questions about DoD sponsorship of Computer Science research in universities (though the issues raised are equally relevant to DoD sponsorship in any field in any place). I gave a lot of thought to such matters before becoming involved with development of Ada some years ago, and I find that I still accept the conclusions I reached then. Given the complex inter-relationships of science today, I do not believe it possible to be professionally active in any area of scientific endeavor without taking the chance that the military might take advantage of results. For example, research on the structure of the compound eye of various insects, an apparently benign topic, turned out to be useful in building certain "smart bombs". Inasmuch as I have spent my career in computer science and I enjoy the practice of that field, I do not elect right now to give it up in favor of farming, or some other "safe" occupation. On the other hand, I am all too aware that anything of value that I produce could well be put to uses of which I do not approve. What I've decided, then, is this: I will work on projects providing that what I produce could be used equally well for peaceful or military uses; I will not work on projects whose sole apparent purpose is military. Thus I had no problem contributing my efforts to Ada. While I have every confidance that programs will be written in Ada whose purpose is exclusively werapons-oriented, I am equally confidant that other Ada programs will be written to which I can take no exception, and further that the results of Ada-related development will benefit the entire computer science community. Now for the question raised by Zauderer of DoD sponsorship of university research: It seems to me that the important issue is not *who* pays for it but rather *what* is being done. If the research is as likely to benefit non-military purposes as military, then I see no problems. Art Evans/Tartan Labs ------------------------------ Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 12:25:45-PST From: Mabry Tyson Subject: Re: Electronic mail To: ZALESKI@RU-BLUE.ARPA It was not a "manager bragging to one of his employees" but a person (with backlogged mail) whose organization is SUPPOSED to perform a service (specifically, provide computer service) for another organization. His failure to read his mail is a failure of his service. Yes, phones are more direct. However, I notice you didn't call me about your reply (via Human-nets) to my message. Nor the thousands of others who read this. Even if you did try to call me, I seriously doubt you would catch me at my phone. If it is important, contact the person as soon as possible. If you don't want to sit on the phone all day (trying to contact someone who is sporadically available), use computer mail! If you only need it done today, computer mail is certainly fast enough for people who read their mail. (Why should anyone bother to answer his phone if he doesn't bother to read his mail?) You didn't say why you don't like computer mail. Perhaps it is because you ran into people who didn't read their mail (like the one I'm complaining about). As for the issue of canceling electronic mail, I do not believe I have seen one good reason in this list against doing it (except in the case of messages delivered to some of the recipients). I still don't understand why. If no one has seen a message you have sent, why in the world could it cause any harm to cancel it? Granted, there are technical issues about how to implement it, but I think lack of time to do it right is no excuse to say it is wrong to do it! ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 7 Nov 1984 10:12-PST Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: Re: Cancelling E-Mail From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa `Brint' (abc brint? brint abc?) made the point that you wouldn't want someone to tamper with your mailbox. I wouldn't want a PERSON to tamper with my mailbox. But I would be willing to let the MAILER tamper with it -- after all, that's how I get mail in the first place. If someone sends me a message, and I see it (or the header in my mail box listing) then they can't retract it, because they can't retract my memory of it. The harm, if any, is done. But until I see the message, what do I care if someone changes their mind? They might have changed their minds several times before actually sending the message (the magic ^D). As I write this, I realize that I might just decide not to send it after reconsidering. Could I not equally reconsider after sending the message? Would you care (well, pretend the message is less charming and witty)? Discussion about the possibility of a buggy mailer tampering with mail seems to me to be off the point. We are discussing whether cancellable mail is a good idea. This presumes that a good (and safe) technical solution can be found. I think that the ability to cancel a message up to the point the recipient detects its presence is a good idea (you can question whether the ``You have mail'' message is a detection of the presence of a particular message). [There was to be another paragraph here, but I decided to cancel sending it] - Geof Cooper ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 1984 11:20:33-EST From: sde@Mitre-Bedford Subject: mail unsending My understanding of the law on paper mail is that: 1) until the letter is postmarked, it is owned by the sender and retrievable, at least in principle; 2) after being postmarked, the physical letter is owned by the recipient; 3) at all times, unless explicitly transferred by the author, a common law copyright to the contents exists which prevents the recipient from reproducing the letter. The rules seem reasonable to extend to E-mail, leaving open only the question of what constitutes postmarking. Of course, there is nothing physically transferred, so that part of the question is moot. David sde@mitre-bedford P.S. I am not, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, but I do recall reading an article on the issue several years ago, from which I extracted the relevant points. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 18:20:09 pst From: dual!fair@Berkeley Subject: Cancellation of Electronic Mail While the USENET is not really an electronic mail network, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that we have the ability to cancel a USENET message network wide with a `cancel' control message. All USENET messages (just like mail that properly conforms to RFC822) have a Message-ID field in the header, with a network wide unique message id. The original sender of the message can request the cancellation of a message that he sent by sending out a message with the header field `Control: cancel ' This gets broadcast to all the neighboring sites (and so on, and so on) until the cancel has reached all 1052 USENET hosts. The main problem with the current implementation is that it assumes that the messages arrive in the order that they were sent, and it is possible for the cancel control message to get ahead of the message that it intends to cancel, therefore failing to cancel the target at the sites where it arrives before the target message. It is also possible for people to read the `cancelled' message between the time that the message arrives and the cancel control message arrives. But these relatively minor glitches in the system in no way invalidate the concept. Many, many people send things out, only to regret having done so later on (or so I surmise, since we receive somewhere between 40 and 60 cancel messages per week out of total traffic of around 3000 messages)... Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA {ihnp4,ucbvax,hplabs,decwrl,cbosgd,sun,nsc,apple,pyramid}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California ------------------------------ Date: 3-Nov-84 21:33 PST From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD From: Subject: CALL FOR PAPER -- 1985 Symposium On Security And Privacy 1985 Symposium On Security And Privacy Oakland, Ca., April 21-24 The meet is being sponsored by the Technical Committee on Security and Privacy and the Institue Of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, Inc. Papers and panel session proposals are being solicited in the following areas: security testing and evaluation applications security network security formal security models formal verification authentication data encryption data base secutity operating system secutity privacy issues cryptography protocols Send three copes of the paper, an extended abstract of 2,000 works or panel proposal by Dec. 14 to: J.K. Millen Mitre Corp. P.O. Box 208 Bedford, Mass. 01730 Final papers will be dur by Feb. 25 in order to be included in the proceedings. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #74 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-09 19:56:54 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 9 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Computers and the Law - Copyrights and Piracy (3 msgs), Coputers and People - Research and the DoD (2 msgs) & Direct Satellite Broadcasting (2 msgs) & Unions, Computer Networks - Cancelling E-mail, Computers and Health - VDT-disease, Information - Expert Systems Symposium ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 November 1984 02:55-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: copyright laws To: Haas @ UTAH-20 I have a more compelling argument: I know where they are keeping about $100 K worth of rare books under inadequate security; it would be no trick at all to steal them, sell for $75K (for quick turnover) and buy the software... Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 20:38:16-MST From: The alleged mind of Walt To: HUMAN-NETS Re: copyright laws One friend of mine is planning to purchase a personal computer, and we were discussing what kind. I was advocating a certain system based on its technical merits, but she had a compelling argument in favor of another system: She knew where she could copy $20k worth of software free. ------------------------------ Date: 9 November 1984 02:56-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: more copyright To: TREITEL @ SUMEX-AIM Cc: bmg @ MIT-XX, boebert @ HI-MULTICS, asp @ MIT-OZ all impractical and unenforcable. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 13:37 CST From: Boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Boebert's lawyer friend's RFC Boebert does not have, and never has had, a lawyer friend. The RFC came from elsewhere. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1984 0002-PST From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Military-related work? I see two problems with working for possibly-military research at a university or elsewhere: (1) if the work is obviously useful primarily for conducting war, for example if you are working directly on a weapons system; (2) if the work is classified secret either before or after the work is done, so that you cannot publish it, so that even though it may have both military and commercial/personal use, it cannot be used for anything except military because of its classification. The solution is to not work on anything that is obviously a military application, and to insist from the employer the right to publish. To make sure the employer doesn't change the rules after you've done the work, make copies of all the results and distribute them to other people whom you trust so there's no way to call them all back later. When working for a private company there's a problem with (2) that in general good new work constitutes trade secrets, which you can't publish or distrubute to non-employees. In such cases, instead of insisting on publishing, make sure the work is actually used in some commercial device that isn't sold exclusively to the military. ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 8 Nov 84 23:33:36 CST (Thu) Subject: Re: Research for DoD -- A Moral Problem? It seems to me that this is the wrong question. The question is not who's funding the research, but what the research is about. Whether your work will be used for what you consider immoral purposes is not really a question of who pays the bills. If something looks useful to DoD, they will use it regardless of who funded it. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 8 Nov 1984 07:18:51-PST From: redford%doctor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: re: cultural domination We've already seen one case of Western cultural domination having a harmful effect in the Nestle baby formula scandal. African mothers were so taken by Nestle's advertising that they gave up breast feeding their infants and fed them formula instead. Since the formula was often diluted and in unsanitized bottles, this caused a lot of health problems. After years of pressure and boycotts from various groups, Nestle finally withdrew their advertising campaigns. The whole point of advertising is to manipulate people's buying habits. It's as direct a form of cultural domination that you can find, and in this case it caused some harm. Nevertheless, I support the right of the United States Information Agency (USIA) to broadcast news to other countries. The reason is that there is a difference between news and propaganda (advertising is commercial propaganda). Real news is as objective as possible. There may be biases in it, but they are not deliberately introduced. Propaganda is deliberately slanted towards one point of view. Negative events are ignored, positive ones are played up, and opinions are presented as facts. Its producers do not want to give their audience an accurate view of the world; they want to present one favorable to their cause. Small countries are right to be wary of propaganda, because it is a form of political manipulation. It's as if foreign agents were going among their people whispering things in their ears. News, on the other hand, is only feared by dictators. Only governments that are afraid of letting their people know the truth are afraid of genuine news programs. To the extent that the USIA is dispensing news and not what the US (or Reagan) want people to hear, it is doing a service to these countries. It is also doing a service to America. If the USIA broadcasts come to be seen as propaganda rather than truth, then its listeners will not trust them. Eventually they will not trust anything that the US says or does. Our best policy is to tell the unvarnished truth both about what we do and what other countries do. If we are so dubious of our own policies that we think they need to be warped for foreign consumption, then we should improve the policies, not warp the news. Politicizing the USIA would lead to both its exclusion from many countries and to a drop in its effectiveness. John Redford DEC-Hudson ------------------------------ Date: 9 November 1984 02:38-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: direct satellite broadcasting To: vortex!lauren @ RAND-UNIX lauren, you are trying to inject rationality and sanity into a highly emotional debate. Shame on you. ------------------------------ Date: 09 Nov 84 09:37:56 UT (Fri) Subject: Unions.. From: Nkb%maths.nott.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa As you may have seen on your news, over here we're having a few problems of our own with labour unions - particularly the Miners. With reference to the message about unions dominating their membership - quote from the BBC 9 o'clock news last night (Thurs), from a striking miner outside another mining branch headquarters as a vote over whether or not to go back to work was been taken: "I'm quite happy for them to vote over whether or not to strike - that's democracy isn't it? As long as they vote to stay out." Democracy it isn't - whether or not you agree with the principle of the strike, its difficult to justify the intimidation of those who don't. Personally I couldn't believe my ears. (By the way, the vote was to stay out, by a 9 vote majority - with 69 [I think] working miners abstaining - possibly from fear of harrasment by the large contingent of working miners who turned out to 'persuade' the voters to stay on strike) Neil. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 8 Nov 84 03:13:14-EST From: Michael Rubin Subject: cancelling electronic mail: human factors A lot of mail-that-needs-to-be-canceled seems to be misdirected replies (e.g. to an entire newsgroup instead of an individual posting, or vice versa). Some of these might disappear if mail programs actually told you where the reply was going before they sent it. (MRC, if you're listening -- would that be an easy patch to MM?) Similarly, some mail programs encourage sending half-finished messages because the "finish entering message and send immediately" command is easy to type by accident (ESC in Twenex BBOARD used to do this, and ^X^S in EMACS-under-MM still does). Yesterday at the Sun Users' Group meeting in Boston, somebody from {CMU? Purdue? not sure} talked about an experimental mail program called Dragon Mail that knew about things like running conversations, so it could separate messages into logical groups and show you which messages had already been answered by somebody else. He claimed this avoided the problem of replying to the first message in your mailbox only to find that it was immediately followed by 27 answering messages which changed the topic completely. Unfortunately it speaks only to other Dragon Mail's (it adds Internet headers for net mailing only, and removes them again at the other end)... foo! In other words, much of this cancelling problem is the fault of user interface brain-damage, not facilities lacking in the postal system. (BTW, is there a reasonable UNIX mail program anywhere? Vax and Sun users here are forwarding their mail to their -20 accounts because they refuse to put up with mail(1)'s stupidity.) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1984 2317-PST From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: VDT-disease differences between terminals I started having neck cramps/stiffness about the time my Beehive 3a stopped working and I had to switch to a borrowed Datamedia Elite 2500. I suspect the problem is jitter due to different power supply in video or different phosphor, or more lines per screen (24 now, formerly 20) causing stress trying to differentiate the many close lines or follow them from margin to margin. The problem in industry with "VDT disease" may be that there are such differences between terminals and the industry has opted for the bad version in many cases. Perhaps with terminal emulators put between the terminals and the machines, so that any kind of physical terminal can look like any other kind of terminal to the operating system, it would be easy to substitute various kinds of physical terminals and see if employees have less "VDT disease" with kinds/brands other than what they presently use? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 1984 14:17:36 EST (Monday) From: Marshall Abrams Subject: Call for papers: Expert Systems Symposium To: add1:@mitre Call for Papers Expert Systems in Government Conference October 23-25, 1985 THE CONFERENCE objective is to allow the developers and implementers of expert systems in goverenment agencies to exchange information and ideas first hand for the purpose of improving the quality of existing and future expert systems in the government sector. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently been maturing so rapidly that interest in each of its various facets, e.g., robotics, vision, natural language, supercomputing, and expert systems, has acquired an increasing following and cadre of practitioners. PAPERS are solicited which discuss the subject of the conference. Original research, analysis and approaches for defining expert systems issues and problems such as those identified in the anticipated session topics, methodological approaches for analyzing the scope and nature of expert system issues, and potential solutions are of particular interest. Completed papers are to be no longer than 20 pages including graphics and are due 1 May 1985. Four copies of papers are to be sent to: Dr. Kamal Karna, Program Chairman MITRE Corporation W852 1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard McLean, Virginia 22102 Phone (703) 883-5866 ARPANET: Karna @ Mitre Notification of acceptance and manuscript preparation instructions will be provided by 20 May 1985. THE CONFERENCE is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and The MITRE Corporation in cooperation with The Association for Computing Machinery, The american Association for Artificial Intelligence and The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics National Capital Section. This conference will offer high quality technical exchange and published proceedings. It will be held at Tyson's Westpark Hotel, Tysons Corner, McLean, VA, suburban Washington, D.C. TOPICS OF INTEREST The topics of interest include the expert systems in the following applications domains (but are not limited to): 1. Professional: Accounting, Consulting, Engineering, Finance, Instruction, Law, Marketing, Management, Medicine Systems, Intelligent DBMS 2. Office Automation: Text Understanding, Intelligent 3. Command & Control: Intelligence Analysis, Planning, Targeting, Communications, Air Traffic Control 4. Exploration: Space, Prospecting, Mineral, Oil Archeology 5. Weapon Systems: Adaptive Control, Electronic Warfare, Star Wars, Target Identification 6. System Engineering: Requirements, Preliminary Design, Critical Design, Testing, and QA 7. Equipment: Design Monitoring, Control, Diagnosis, Maintenance, Repair, Instruction 8. Project Management: Planning, Scheduling, Control 9. Flexible Automation: Factory and Plan Automation 10. Software: Automatic Programming, Specifications, Design, Production, Maintenance and Verification and Validation 11. Architecture: Single, Multiple, Distributed Problem Solving Tools 12. Imagery: Photo Interpretation, Mapping, etc. 13. Education: Concept Formation, Tutoring, Testing, Diagnosis, Learning 14. Entertainment and Intelligent Games, Investment and Expert Advice Giving: Finances, Retirement, Purchasing, Shopping, Intelligent Information Retrieval ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #75 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-12 19:56:29 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 12 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Computers and the Law - Copyrights & Hackers and the Law, Computers and People - DOD Funding USIA Satellite Broadcasting (4 msgs) Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail (2 msgs) Labor - Unions for the Underprivileged ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 11:23:42 pst From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley To: TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM Subject: Re: more copyright I'd like to predict what would probably take place if LockSmith were outlawed: Right now, there are probably only a handful of different LockSmith type programs. If I buy a piece of software that is copy protected, then it seems reasonable to me to also spend the money to buy a LockSmith clone to make a backup copy with. It would be unreasonable for me to spend the time to figure out how to make a backup copy, since my time in investigating this is worth more to me than the cost of the backup program. However, if I were *not* able to purchase LockSmith "legally", then I would have the choice of buying an illegal copy, or inventing a way to copy the copy-protected software myself, as I view it as my right to do anything with a piece of software in the privacy of my own computer, as long as I do nothing to infringe the rights of others. (You might say that I infringe on the rights of the software publisher to provide me with backup copies, but I view that as a service that he may choose to provide, but not one that he can require me to use.) I don't think my own definition here is much different than a lot of other people, so we would find instead of a handful of LockSmith type programs, an explosion of hundreds of them! After all, though I would find giving a copy of XYZ program to a friend unethical, I would feel it absolutely no problem to give someone my XYZ copier, and if he gave my XYZ copier to someone else, that would be fine, too. Now if my friend used my XYZ copier to make a copy of XYZ to give to a friend, that's his problem, right? Here's where things begin to break down. If I'm the owner of a pawn shop which sells a gun to someone who goes out and uses it to kill someone, that person (hopefully) goes to prison, but not me. If I throw a party at which I serve drinks, and one of my guests gets drunk and goes out and kills someone in his car, then I'm guilty as well, right? So, my reaction to the options given would be to choose: > (2) leave it up to the courts to decide if Locksmith is legal under > present law If the court would decide to outlaw LockSmith because it can be used to break the law (i.e. make illegal copies), I would urge to judge to also outlaw guns and cars. -- roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug ------------------------------ From: Jerry Leichter Date: 9 NOV 1984 10:10:53 Subject: Computers, hackers, and the law For some of the more intelligent comments on this subject I've seen of late, see Jack Reeves' letter to the ACM Forum in the November CACM (pages 1085- 1086). I will not attempt to summarize his points here beyond saying that he makes an attempt to assign responsibility where it belongs, rather than going along with what are really attempts to load all the blame on the party with the least political clout. -- Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Nov 84 18:31:56 est From: estrin@mit-comet (Deborah L. Estrin) Subject: DOD Funding The Spring 1984 newsletter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) includes a very thoughtful article by Terry Winograd (Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University) entitled "Some Thoughts on Military Funding". I will be happy to send a photocopy of the article to anyone who is interested. Please don't forget to send me your US MAil Address, I do NOT have a copy of the article online. Deborah Estrin (estrin@mit-comet or estrin@mit-xx) ------------------------------ Date: 9 November 1984 02:58-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Effects of USIA satellite broadcasting To: ASP @ MIT-OZ "and the idiot who praises, with ingratiating tone, every century but this and every country but his own..." Alas, 'tis not a new phenomenon; and your views, although sensible, are not likely to be highly thought of among the intellectoids. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 22:36:10-PST From: Mark Crispin Subject: USIA Anybody who believes that the USIA isn't in the business of propaganda has never read, heard, or seen any of their stuff. The Voice of America (VOA) is pretty bad; as a moderately patriotic American I am ashamed of it. They are in the same league as Radio Moscow (which has better music) and Radio Beijing (which has better cultural programs). Fortunately, many people who can listen to VOA understand some English and tune into US Armed Forces Radio, which is *much* closer to American mainstream (it's for the consumption of US GI's overseas) than VOA. USAFR also has better news. VOA glosses over unpleasant details of American life, and basically tries to leave the impression that every place outside the USA is a total slimehole and that streets in the USA are paved with gold, etc. Disgusting. At one time VOA was good. The slide started during Vietnam. It has gotten worse under the present administration. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1984 22:55:13 PST Subject: Direct broadcast: Who's holy and who's not. From: Dave Dyer The USIA and others promoting direct broadcast would sound more convincing if their sponsoring governments practiced what they are preaching. Imagine the furor if the Russians started broadcasting on channel 29! News, on the other hand, is only feared by dictators. Only governments that are afraid of letting their people know the truth are afraid of genuine news programs. To bring reality into this discussion, even the "best" of governments (I mean ours) get paranoid about "foreigners" talking to "their" people. The U.S., under Reagan at least, is using McCarthy era laws to exclude foreign nationals from speaking engagements in this country. Among those denied visas are Nobel lauriates and a former NATO general. Read the current ACLU publication "Free Trade in Ideas" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Nov 84 12:38:49 cst From: riddle@ut-sally.ARPA (Prentiss Riddle) Subject: Re: cultural domination by TV (FLAME) I know nothing about the organization and have yet to receive any of their literature, but the other day I saw a small ad in an obscure magazine for a group called: Society for the Eradication of Television (S.E.T.) Box 1124 Albuquerque, NM 87103 --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 10:47:34 pst From: dual!paul@Berkeley Subject: Re: Cancelling E-Mail - HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #73 Date: Wednesday, 7 Nov 1984 10:12-PST Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: Re: Cancelling E-Mail From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa It would be really great if mail sending could be as simple and reliable as, say TELEX, before decisions are made about whether it is desirable to try and cancel messages in mid-air. At the moment assistance is normally required from the local "electronic postmaster" before anything can be sent. Paul Wilcox-Baker. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 84 16:55:25 EST From: TRUDEL@RU-BLUE.ARPA Subject: Cancelling e-mail All this talk of cancelling e-mail has, in my opinion, missed the mark. Although there has been talk about the desire to cancel e-mail after it has been sent to the user, no one has proposed what I do now. Has anyone thought of setting up some type of software mailbox that the user sends his outgoing mail to? This could help the problem greatly, but along with this proposal, there are some points that need to be clarified- 1) This type of setup would emulate a normal US mailbox. The e-mail you put in your mailbox would be picked up by the system at predesignated times, and would permit message cancellation until that time. 2) Mail generated this way is de facto not urgent, so another type of mail can be used- the standard mailer in use right now should suffice. I personally am against cancelling e-mail, although there were several times when I wish I could have cancelled mine. In my opinion, allowing someone to cancel a message after the person has recieved it can lead to irresponsibility on the part of the sender, ie. hotheads blowing off steam, people who don't check their facts, etc., but there should be some way to recall those messages sent by people who see their errors. So, what do you think? Many details must be ironed out before such a system is implemented, though. Of course, the code has to be designed and tested. Also, some type of standard pickup time is needed (ie- one hour after message creation, 3:00, etc). Finally, each user will have to determine which type of mail he or she is sending- urgent or standard correspondence - disgression is the key here. Some sort of cancellation should be possible, but not complete message. This is in no way a final solution, but it's a start. Trudel@ru-blue "there's nothing more useless than a lock with a voiceprint."- The Doctor, when president of Gallifrey........ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Nov 84 17:20:44 -0200 From: eyal%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Eyal mozes) Subject: Re: unions for the underprivileged > It is true that unions were formed to give choices (or at least > better fixed conditions) to people who had no choices about where > and how to work. Wrong! If you study the history of business in the USA, you will see that before the rise of labor unions, anyone willing to work as hard as he can had a choice about "where and how to work". Enterpreneurs always had more and more jobs to offer, and since they couldn't coerce anyone to work for them, they had to compete for the workers by offering better pay and working conditions. (My own country, Israel, never went through this stage - it had unions from the very start, and the state of her economy shows it). > more people being forced to GIVE UP > CHOICES about how and where to work, because those choices threaten > the union's control over workers. Funny, these unions are starting > to act just like the companies whose practices they were originally > formed to fight. What practices exactly do you mean? The worst any company can do to a worker is fire him - and leave him free to take any job another company offers him. In what possible way can a union "give choices" to a worker - except by barring other workers from a job in order to offer it to him? THIS is the only purpose and function of unions, and the only one they ever had - to limit the choices of some workers (and of the employers) in order to make life more secure for an elite few (i.e., the union members). The solution? Very simple! We certainly shouldn't break up unions - if workers WANT to unionize, its their right. But union's power to limit people's choices doesn't come from their mere existence - it comes from all the laws giving them special powers, allowing them to force unwilling employers to deal with them, coerce unwilling workers to join them, and use violence without fear of the police. So the solution is - repeal these laws. Eyal Mozes eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA (CSNET) eyal@wisdom.bitnet (ARPA) ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #76 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-19 20:23:54 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 19 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Incorrect 'From' Credit, Computers and Travel - Overseas Travel, Computers and People - USIA, Computers and Education - IBM in CAI, Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail (2 msgs), Computers and the Law - Piracy & Unions/Work at Home (3 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 13 Nov 1984 12:25-PST To: shasta!HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #75 From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa dual!paul@Berkeley's (Paul Wilcox-Baker) message concerning TELEX was mistakenly listed as from me. I did not send the message. - Geof Cooper [oops! Sorry!] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 15:03 CDT From: Kenneth_Wood Subject: FOREIGN Travel I am not an expert in this area. Howwever, I recently attended a conference in Munich, Germany. I arranged for a machine to be made available locally, and only brought with me two boards to put in the local PC. To do so, however, I had to obtain paperwork for a temporary export liscence to leave and return to the US with the boards, and I also needed a commercial import liscence to get into Germany. As it turned out, since I was bringing the boards back with me, German customs just glanced at the paper work and then passed me through. However, if I had not had the paper work with me, the boards would have been "retained". In general, if you are going overseas on business, check with your company's traffic or shipping department. they most likely know what you can and cannot take, and what paperwork you need. -ken wood ------------------------------ Date: 14 November 1984 20:39-EST From: Gail Zacharias Subject: USIA I was in Poland last year, and found that the primary source of information there is BBC, at least among people I talked to. This is quite a change from about 10-15 years ago, when most people used to listen to Radio Free Europe and/or Voice of America. USIA has already lost much of its credibility, and I doubt it can regain it unless BBC starts losing its objectivity as well. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 11:44:24-CST From: Cliff Subject: IBM advertisement Following is the text from a two-page, four-color advertisement from IBM in the November 1984 issue of the Smithsonian magazine. The first sentence is sprawled across the tops of both pages in a childish doggerel. The rest of the text appears beneath that. It is quoted here verbatim and with no alterations of punctuation. "CLOUDS ARE SO BEAUTIFUL THAT I CAN BITE MY TOES. The writer quoted above is a recent kindergarten graduate. And the words are only a few of many he could read and write for you. The future laureate, Matthew Howse, was part of a unique educational project. A two-year study of that project, sponsored by IBM, has led to an important new IBM product called the Writing to Read System. It simply teaches children how to convert sounds they can already say into sounds they can write. At first, there's little emphasis on spelling and punctuation. (Matthew, for instance, needed help with the word "beautiful.") The important thing is, children learn to express their own feelings and ideas. Thousands of kindergartners took part in the project. After one year, their reading ability as a group was significantly higher than the national norm. What's more, seven out of ten could write words, sentences, even stories. Skills not expected of beginning readers. To help develop Writing to Read, IBM provided personal computers, Selectric typewriters, workbooks and tape recorders. As well as money to train teachers and underwrite the project. We think the idea is so beautiful that, well, ask Matthew Howse." Below that there is an address to write for more information. I think the author of the ad should write. There are two sentence fragments contain therein: the penultimate and the last in the anti-penultimate paragraph. There is also one violation of case in the third paragraph. "...a unique..." should be "...an unique...". Normally I would not make much of such errors given the current communicative abilities of the general population but in an advertisement about teaching children the fundamentals of writing I think it incumbent upon the authors to be more careful. To IBM I say congratulations on the project but get yourself a new advertising agency. <@> cc.Wilkes@UTEXAS ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 13 Nov 1984 07:00:32-PST From: goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: lockpicking I hereby retract my suggestion to make Locksmith-type software illegal. The argument put forward by Roger Long convinced me. By the same argument, the possession of conventional lock-picking tools, even by someone *not* a certified locksmith (if there is such a thing), should not be illegal either. It's harder to imagine legitimate uses for such things, but that's not my problem. Great! One *more* law off the books! -- Kenn Tue 13-Nov-1984 09:59 EST ------------------------------ Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 21:22:47-MST From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: unions for the underprivileged To: eyal%wisdom.BITNET@UCB-VAX.ARPA A good example of how unions have made choices available can be quoted from the experience of the mining areas near here. In the ninteenth century hard rock miners at first did their work by drilling into the rock with steel bars that were hammered in by hand. This was, as you can imagine, a slow and laborious process. Then someone invented the pneumatic hammer, which you have all seen being used to dig up city streets. This greatly increased the rate at which rock could be drilled. In the process, the pneumatic drill also greatly increased the rate at which rock dust was produced. This caused the miners who used the new technology to develop a serious lung disease called silicosis. Fortunately, it was fairly easy to control the dust; all you had to do was squirt a small stream of water on rock that was being drilled, thus turning the dust into harmless mud. Unfortunately, this cost a couple of bucks and didn't produce a corresponding increase in productivity, so the owners didn't install the water supply equipment. The result was that literally thousands of miners were permanently crippled by silicosis. So, you say, they had the choice of not working in these mines! Sure, and they could watch their families starve too, since there isn't much other work that a hard rock miner can do, especially one fresh off the boat with no money and little knowledge of English. The situation was finally resolved when good ole' John L. got the UMW together. Regards -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 13 Nov 1984 13:10:00-PST From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl (Nolite id cogere; cape mallem majoram) To: hn%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA, me%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: still more on the unions I've been away from the net for a longish time, and am surprised to see that the union question is still raising hackles. Of the replies, many are cogent, most are obviously made those who have never been in a position to need unions. It's a lot like listening to men talk about abortion... I'd like to comment on the message from Eyal Mozes that says in part "If you study the history of business in the USA, you will see that before the rise of labor unions, anyone willing to work as hard as he can had a choice about 'where and how to work'." This message is distilled in the old saying, "If you ain't rich you ain't trying." A lovely thought dear to the hearts of people who are rich and those, like me, who are trying to be rich. But cold comfort to those who were/are denied the chance to try. The history of business in the USA that I read mentioned that there were towns where everything was owned by THE COMPANY, and if you wanted to eat, you worked for THE COMPANY. And by the way, the prices were so rigged, that you always OWED money; you never got ahead. So if you wanted to exercise your right to quit, and you couldn't pay your debts, then you went to prison. This does, in the strictest sense, constitute a choice of where and how to work, but not one I would be comfortable with. And, yea verily, the debts of the father were visited upon the son, so poverty was their inheritance. Further reading of history tells of the cities, which were too big for one company to own, but in which the heads of all the companies knew each other, and if some thankless employee chose to leave the service of the company, the head of that company would call his friends and see that the fellow was denied work anywhere. Unless he had saved up traveling money, he was stuck. Surely, you say, competition would prevent companies in like industries from cooperation of this sort. Wrong-o, answers history. In unskilled labor it's a buyer's market, and all the buyers knew it was better to keep it that way. More history... the use of criminals to enforce the company's desire to keep unions out and the use of criminals to enforce the union's desire to bring the company to its knees are well documented -- each by the other side. Union goons would kill, torture and terrorize people who wouldn't join the union. Companies would kill, torture and terrorize employees who wanted to form a union. Eventually, we have to come down to the fact that neither unions nor employers are intrinsically good or evil. The goodness or the badness comes from individuals. Some unions have acted like a bunch of goons. Other unions insure the quality of work that their members produce, and protect the members from capricious treatment by goonish bosses. -*- The whole argument got started over the question: Does the attack against workers at home foreshadow a move by the unions to prevent computer-people from working at home? Our laws are based on precedent and parallels. I think under the law, people who are authors of software would be treated like authors in general. We can work at home. Data entry might be a different story, because it tends to be a more dehumanizing task, and the people who do it are usually not in a good position to defend themselves. I find it specious to argue that this is a case of freedom to choose to work at home .vs. government interference. The only freedom that is in question is the freedom of unscrupulous employers to victimize people who are not in a position to organize for their own defense. We who are free to use this net to argue (probably pointlessly) the abstract pros and cons of working at home are not in jeopardy. This is our time of history; we have industry by the tail. People, i.e. society, i.e. the Law has a duty to intrude to protect the rights of people who are not in a position to defend themselves. This includes lettuce pickers, garment workers and people hired to do data entry at home. Until there is abuse, there probably won't be any legislative action. But chances for abuse are clearly evident, and history tells us that abuse will probably occur. If you think that people who are abused are accomplices by allowing it to happen, then you should cheer unions, which are victims banding together to stop abuse. If you think it is the right of everyone to do whatever they can get away with, (the abused people could always stop working and starve, yes?) then meet me on Capitol Hill at dawn, Congressmen in hand to settle this matter as gentlemen. >>>==>PStJTT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 84 15:41:10 -0200 From: eyal%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Eyal mozes) To: Haas@utah-20.ARPA Subject: Re: unions for the underprivileged I am not familiar with the particular case of the pneumatic drill, but, if you think this really is an example of your point, maybe you can answer a few questions: a) It seems to me that preventing your workers from becoming unable to work because of a disease would cause a rise in productivity, more than "corresponding" to a process which costs "a couple of bucks". Did the water-squirting process really cost "a couple of bucks", or was it actually, at the technological level of these days, so expensive as to make the whole mining process uneconomical? b) Are you sure the union wasn't formed shortly AFTER the owners started using the process (which they would have done after technological progress made it economically feasible)? c) Are you sure the introduction of the process didn't throw thousands of miners out of work, by making the mining business much less profitable and thus forcing owners to close down some mines? d) What was the market situation for the mine-owners at the time? Was there free competition among them, or were there laws protecting the established owners against competition, thus allowing them to engage safely in these kind of practices? In the later case, that would be the very familiar situation of government controls offered as a solution to problems created in the first place by earlier controls. e) Didn't, perhaps, some mine-owners institute the water-squirting process long before the unions came into the scene? Maybe these owners offered the workers lower wages (which they would have to do in order to cover the costs of the process), and therefore most workers preferred to work elsewhere. In that case, you may argue that most workers were unwise, but you would still have to admit that it was THEIR choice, which the union took away from them. All union "achievements" I've heard off are such that the answer to some of the above questions would make them look like not-so-great achievements after all. It can also be proven theoretically that it would have to be so (for that, the best place to look is books on economics by Ludwig Von-Mises or Henry Hazlitt). Eyal Mozes eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA (CSNET) eyal@wisdom.bitnet (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 9-Nov-84 17:19 PST From: Kirk Kelley Subject: Canceling and spying on mail If it is a good idea to allow canceling mail, is it also a good idea to allow anyone to find out if you have "read" an item? The canceling technology makes this "spying" ability demandable. -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 10:01:30 EST From: Ron Natalie Subject: Cancelling E-Mail. There is nothing that keeps you from cancelling E-mail before it leaves your machine now (except maybe unfriendly local software). This is a change that doesn't require any concensus from the net, since it only affects your machine (in the same way that there is not one official document anywhere on how mailing lists are dealt with). As for mail not being an urgent thing, I beg to differ. It may not be in your environment, but my phone starts ringing whenever mail stops flowing. Our laboratory runs on electronic memos. -Ron ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #77 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-11-22 21:57:10 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 23 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Queries - Are Books Obsolete? & Is Work at Home Illegal at NASA? Computers and Education - Re: IBM ad (3 msgs), Computers and the Law - Unions (3 msgs), Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail, Computers and Security - How Secure are your Credit Cards? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Nov 84 16:55:09 EST From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Are books obsolete? Sony has recently introduced a portable compact optical disk player. I hear they intend to market it as a microcomputer peripheral for $300. I'm not sure what its capacity will be, so I'll estimate it at 50 megabytes per side. That's 25000 ascii coded 8 1/2x11 pages, or 1000 compressed page images, per side. Disks cost about $10, for a cost per word orders of magnitude less than books. Here's an excellent opportunity for those concerned with the social impact of computer technology to demonstrate their wisdom. What will the effect be of such inexpensive read-only storage media? How will this technology affect the popularity of home computers? What features should a home computer have to fully exploit this technology? How should text be stored on the disks? What difference would magneto-optical writeable/erasble disks make? How will this technology affect education? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 84 20:19:15 pst From: Don Reynolds To: HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: Re: "still more `n the unions" I too have been away from the net for some time (Ex AMES-TSS). Have moved to 4.2 bsd and am now gritting my teeth over the supposedly wonderful editors, vi and EMACS (oh, right, editor-people is another list). I read somewhere that UNIX is for people who love chess & wish the entire world was equally as complicated. Even H-NETS had a chess game a few weeks ago. The subject: I was recently informed that somewhere in the NASA regulations, it is AGAINST THE RULES to work at home. I am a NASA employee so this applies to me. Is my Government trying to protect me from itself? myself? Best, Don Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: 20 Nov 1984 13:28:25 PST Subject: IBM ad From: David Booth Cc: cc.wilkes@UTEXAS-20.ARPA It wasn't a matter of being careless, since the incomplete sentences were most certainly intentional. This is very common in advertising. However, they were irresponsible and possibly counterproductive to IBM's objective. "A unique" vs. "an unique" is another matter. "A unique" is absolutely correct: "a" is converted to "an" for phonetic reasons -- not typographical. Phonetics are determined by pronunciation -- not by spelling. We say "a unique" just as we say "a youthful"; "an hour" as we say "an outing". American Heritage Dictionary, under "a": "A" is used before a word beginning with a consonant ("a frog") or consonant sound ("a university"); "an" is used before a work beginning with a vowel ("an egg") or a vowel sound ("an hour"). David Booth DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Nov 1984 16:48 EST From: Jim Aspnes To: Cliff Subject: IBM advertisement Nonsense. There's an important difference between writing technical essays and ordinary prose, one that should not be ignored when one attacks advertising copy. Sentence fragments? Nothing wrong with them ... And "an unique"? Please. I don't think there is an (?) use for "an" before that particular "u". The greatest curse of grammar is the twits who insist on enforcing their own peculiar interpretation of it. I have pity on anyone who may someday learn to read under your supervision. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 14:32:43-CST From: Clifford A. Wilkes Subject: Apology Please, hold your flames. I've already been taken to task for my message about the IBM advertisement. The errors were excessive and inexcusable. I apologize to IBM for my lack of tact and to the net for being subjected to my ranting. <@> P.S. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to be able to cancel an electronic mail message you'd sent? ------------------------------ Date: 20 November 1984 03:23-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: unions for the underprivileged To: Haas @ UTAH-20 Cc: eyal%wisdom.BITNET @ UCB-VAX My wife's father had his house blown up the pinkertons for organizing the miners in Wallace Idaho. After he was retired (without pension) because with silicosis he couldn';t work any more he moved to Seattle and became an electrician. Clearly unions are useful. When they exceed their utility they become something else. ------------------------------ Date: 20 November 1984 03:25-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: still more on the unions To: taber%kirk.DEC @ DECWRL Cc: hn%kirk.DEC @ DECWRL, me%kirk.DEC @ DECWRL Hell, anyone has the chance to try to be rich. My inheritance was debts. My college tuition was GI Bill and those of us in Korea earned that the hard way. If you are really compassionate, YOU help out; collectively gettting me to is a different story. When a union bargains with an employer that's fine. When it tries to get the polivce to put me out of work that's not so good. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 13:15:49-MST From: The alleged mind of Walt Subject: Re: Unions for the Underprivleged It's hard to make very general statements about the effects of unions and government regulations on mining in the western US, since the industry was created by an intricate mix of private and government action. To give you an example of the complexities, it first became possible to move these minerals to market when the Federal government hired private contractors to build the Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Then connections from the mines to the main line were built with a mixture of private venture capital and State and local grants and preferences. The mines themselves were created largely by individuals who were able to claim Federally owned land by finding economic concentrations of minerals on the land. Much of the market for these minerals was created by the Federal government's use of silver for money, and many silver mines went bankrupt when silver was demonetarized. Of course all mines automatically are bankrupt when they exhaust their ore, and many mines in this area closed for that simple reason. The economics of mining is also greatly affected by market conditions; right now, mineral mining in Utah is at a virtual standstill because Reagan has raised the value of a dollar to the point where it is cheaper to import metals than to mine them here. Price fluctuations have of course been regular and in many cases extreme since the beginning of mining. Happily, I guess, many persons unemployed in mining have been able to find jobs in the guided missle business, so we will now be able to blow each other up better as a result. For all of these reasons, it is hard to judge exactly what effect the costs of various health and safety measures had. Undoubtedly there are costs of adding water to pneumatic drills, but they can't have been very high, even in the ninteenth century. Remember that there was already plumbing in place to connect the compressed air from the compressor to the drill, and it would have been easy to add parallel plumbing for water. Remember too that steam pumping of water was highly developed by this time, and indeed was necessary for many of these mines. This was of course the original application of the steam engine. You can to this day go up to these old mines and see the huge boilers that drove the hoists and pumps that ran the mines, so as far as I can see pumping a small amount of water next to the drill would have been pretty trivial. There was, however, a strong economic incentive in operation; namely, labor was dirt cheap. The United States was at this time absorbing enormous numbers of immigrants, many of whom had little to offer but unskilled labor. Many of them were attracted by the possiblity of discovering a rich deposit and laying claim to it. Some did, too; an unusually large number of millionaires came out of the Rockies in those days. However, needless to say, most miners didn't get rich. So there was a large pool of cheap labor available, plus intense competition between mines, which gave an incentive to cut costs any way possible. One way to cut costs is, of course, to force somebody else to pay them, and the owners did exactly that by giving the miners minimal protection against silicosis. Notice that the incentive here is very different from the incentive to protect against caveins. If your mine caves in, you can't dig up ore and sell it, so you can't make money. However, if you make one miner sick in a buyer's market for labor, there is another guy standing behind him to replace him. Hence there is no incentive to protect the miner from silicosis, unless the miners create one by reducing the supply of labor. In order to do that they have to organize a union, and then defend it. The first mining unions were attacked by the local militia and had their leaders executed. Eventually, however, the unions more or less prevailed, in a sense. One way that they prevailed was to get the Federal government to establish MESA, the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration, which made mining safer and accordingly reduced the incentive to join a union! Mining is now a high tech business run by highly trained technicians, at least near here, and so there is no longer a guy ready and able to replace anybody who gets silicosis. For one thing, it takes a long time to train miners to operate their machinery. Having acquired this much education, they now are in a better bargaining position as individuals, so they are not subject to being jacked around more than the owners. As I mentioned, the owners get jacked around quite a bit themselves by market conditions, so there is much more parity between labor and management now because of MESA and the change in technology. One thing interesting to speculate on, for the future of my local society: When the miners started to unionize, they were a motely crew of different nationalities and ethnic groups. They had a strong economic incentive to band together, and I suspect that learning to do this set much of the tone of our social tradition of getting along with various groups. Now that the economic incentive is reduced, I wonder if we will continue to value this, or will we end up Balkanized? Regards -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 09:58:10 est From: "Alan T. Bowler [SDG]" From: Subject: Canceling mail I see nothing wrong with the ability to cancel a message up until the point that it has been read by the recipient. The mail system I am currently working on implements this, and allows canceling messages on remote machines running a compatible mail. It is true that this allows the sender to determine if the receiver has taken delivery of a message, (I won't say "read" because there is not way to guarentee he has understood the message.), and in a sense this is "spying" on the receiver. However, there is nothing wrong with this. The ability to determine if a message has been delivered, is restricted to the originator of the message and is not available to "anyone". There is an analogy to this in regular registered mail, which allows a sender to determine that a letter has been delivered. In this entire discussion on cancelling messages many people seem to be assuming that E-mail must work by writing the whole text of a message into the recipients mail box at the moment the originator sends the message (or at least queuing the text for transmission). While this is certainly one feasible technique, it is certainly not the only possibility. It is equally possible, to send a short notification, and only move the actual text when the recipient says he wants it. Under this scheme, the sender knows when the recipient accepts delivery because until that point the sender still has the text in his outgoing mailbox. He can cancel it merely by removing the message. A remote recipient might be informed "message cancelled by sender" but that is the worst that can happen. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 1984 1223-PST From: Rem@IMSSS Subject: Security of physical & electronic According to a TV news story today, criminals can forge credit cards from just the info on the carbons that are thrown away when a purchase is made in a store. The story gave the advice that you should never give your credit card number to a stranger. Well it seems to me this advice means you can't ever use your credit card. After all, how many people do you personall know, how many people you do business with are not really strangers to you? Do you know the random person who waits on you in a deparement store? The random person who answers the phone when you order merchandise by telephone? The receptionist at the emergency hospital where your life was saved? The random and possibly temporary employee who pumps your gasoline whenever you drive outside your home town or even in your home town stop for gasoline at a station other than your regular station? Except for your favorite Chinese restaurant, do you really know the person who waits on you when you go out to eat? What about movies, theatre, concerts, opera, professional lectures, etc. Do you really know the clerk who handles your credit card? Since your local grocery store probably doesn't take credit cards, and your favorite Chinese restaurant prefers cheques, and the clerk who handles your credit card (or takes your number over the telephone) is a stranger in virtually any other business dealing, the advice given is effectively "don't ever use a credit card". I hope with electronic credit cards we can freely send public-key credit vouchers to random strangers and be rightly confident the voucher will be used only for the intended purpose, and won't compromise the security of your electronic credit card. (Replies to REM@MIT-MC.ARPA or to REM%IMSSS@SCORE.ARPA, as I'm no-longer on this mailing list.) ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #79 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-05 02:33:07 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 4 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: Query - Removal from US MAIL Mailing Lists, Information - Latest Columbia Journalism Review, Computer Technology - Compact Disks, Computers and People - Are books obsolete?, Computer Networks Registered E-mail (3 msgs), Computers and the Law - Unions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2-Dec-84 12:33 PST From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD From: Subject: US MAIL QUERY Does anyone have the address of the company that will permanently remove one from all JUNK mail? Is there a way to remove one from all RESIDENT/OCCUPANT mail? Thanks, --Bi\\ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 1984 12:06:16-PST From: smith%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Subject: Nov/Dec '84 Columbia Journalism Review The latest issue of Columbia Journalism Review has three articles likely to be of interest: 'Privacy and the Electronic Newsroom' is about the use of terminals in newsrooms and in particular about inadvertent or intentional compromises of confidential information. The article consists primarily of quoted stories by newspeople who had unfortunate and sometimes funny experiences. In a way it reads like stories about university timesharing systems of a dozen years ago. The article concludes that "privacy depends, as it did in the typewriter newsroom, more on the atmosphere of the organization than on the strength of the drawer lock." There were also two articles and an editorial on VDT radiation hazards. The editors of CJR are worried that the media coverage of VDT hazards doesn't take the problem seriously, so they are making a conscious effort to publish whatever facts they find on it. An interesting point is that anxiety by itself is a well known cause of miscarriages, so that anxiety about VDT hazards may be as damaging as the hazards themselves, if any. On the subject of VDT Hazards... someone mentioned recently (maybe in Human Nets) some experiments that related physiological symptoms (dizziness, vertigo, anxiety) to visual aspects of VDT's (i.e. scrolling, screen refreshing, etc). Does ANYONE know where this work is described, perhaps in some research journal? Rick. [smith.umn-cs@CSNet-Relay] [...ihnp4!umn-cs!smith] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 01:10:04 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: compact disk prices vs. INFORMATION prices To: HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS The disks may theoretically be cheap in quantity, but don't expect the information providers (publishers, record producers, database owners) to slit their own throats by pricing such "data" below what it would cost to release in more conventional forms. In fact, I would expect the price of, for example, a dictionary on compact disk, to be (maybe much) higher than a comparable printed dictionary. The argument will be that once people have the dictionary in "online" form they can get much more "value" from it, and also that it subjects the data to much easier duplication, transfer through networks, transfer to other media (magnetic tape, conventional disks, etc.) In other words, there are data ownership, value, and even piracy problems to consider that go far beyond the cost of the media itself. Remember that an empty reel of conventional computer magnetic tape only costs a few dollars. But put information (software, operating systems, data, etc.) on that tape, and suddenly it can be worth 1000's or 10's of 1000's of dollars. On the more mundane hardware level, it can be expected that the controllers and interfaces for the disk players, for use with popular micros, will probably result in a considerable price increment above the sorts of prices we are now seeing quoted for the players themselves. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya) Date: 2 Dec 1984 1834-PST (Sunday) To: ames!riacs!jlg@lanl.ARPA Subject: Are books obsolete? -- People are missing the point I note comments in both the AIList and the Human-Nets lists on this subject. I am only posting to the human-nets on this. This discussion surprises me in two ways: 1) the surprisingly limited ways people are thinking about the question (in particular Jerry P. and Jim Giles), and 2) that neither Adele Goldberg nor Alan Kay, nor any of their coworkers have answered this question. Books are only obsolete if you want to think of them in that way. My library consists not only of books but thousands of 35 mm slides, records, and video tapes, and computer tape and disks. I don't (quite) consider a particular media better than another of storing "pure" information (however, don't push me when it comes to music for instance). Does it matter that music is stored in digital or analog form so long as it comes out at a decent 20 KHz? Practically all of the discussion centered on the cost/capacity comparison of storage media. This sort of reminds me about the discussion of human memory some two years ago on this list. The bottom line is that users will need as much of a media as they can get a hold. I think this discussion was somewhat shallow. Books lack a certain degree of flexibility (part of this is in structure) and interaction. This might not be terrible. I am considering writing a "book" on the C programming language in which an instructor can hopefully move the chapters around and restructure the material as he (she) sees fit. The important issue missed is the software! We haven't given thought (like in the early days of computing) about the software. The only earlier classic works are things like Bush's Memex (1945) and Goldberg and Kay's Dynabook (1977). We are not just talking about statically storing information, with reasonably large systems we have the potential for things like man-machine dialogues. We might bring back the concept of apprenticeship (maybe not). Perhaps, if we had software back at the time of Shakepeare, a student could "hold a dialogue" with the Bard himself. I would like to think books helped to augment human thought like NLS/Augment and Tioga at Xerox augment human thought (my hats off to Doug Englebardt(sp?)). So, it will be with Dynabook software. Lastly, I should mention that there are potentially bad side effects. Consider Orwell's 1984 and the government's ability to rewrite history. If an author perhaps has remote control of some "dynamic document" [Peter Wegner's terminology] and decides to change some idea in all copies of his document, what is the point of citation? Consider this note you are reading changing before your eyes because I change my thought. Jim Giles in the AIlist points out about the portability issue of all this information. I own a Mac which I carry (20 lbs) in my Lowe Alpine Systems day pack on my bike to work. (I am careful about dropping it, don't worry.) I don't think size is something we need to worry about for some time, we will probably have Cray-on-a-lap before the end of the Century. No, books (especially old ones) are not obsolete. Our concept of moving information around is changing. Fortunately, the public libraries are slowly moving along in this direction, otherwise, if libraries only concerned themselves with books, I would think we have cause for concern. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,vortex,lll-crg}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA or eugene@riacs.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 30-Nov-84 00:29 PST From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD From: Subject: Re: Registered-type mail To: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA Acknowledge-receipt: Requested The Augment mail system supports two types of acknowledgment of delivery. We can request an acknowledgment from our mail process, of the delivery to another Augment recipient or if the recipient is not on our host, the mailer will send an acknowledgment that it handed the message to a foreign mail system. The other acknowledgment is a request from the recipient that he/she/it send an acknowledgment when they receive the mail item. If the recipient decides not to, the sender will remain in the dark forever. The capablity comes in handy. <---for what it is worth --Bi\\ ------------------------------ Date: 30-Nov-84 07:05 PST From: David Potter Augmentation Systems Division / MDC From: Subject: "Registered" E-Mail To: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA Acknowledge-receipt: Requested Well, our mail system -- the one I'm using now (part of AUGMENT) does allow requesting either or both of: a return receipt from the recipient (this requires an explicit action on the part of the recipient -- has to say "Send Acknowledgement (for message)...." Requires a couple keystrokes; a delivery acknowledgment from the receiving mail system. This of course says nothing about whether or not the intended recipient ever read the message -- but it does confirm that it made it through the vast regions (of hyperspace?) without getting zapped by the network Klingons.... Wonder who else has implemented such a mechanism? Incidentally, I'm requesting both kinds of acknowledgment for this message. The "return receipt" request shoud show up in the message header; the delivery acknowledgment is, I suspect, invisible to you, but shows up in my author copy. -- David Potter ------------------------------ Date: 30-Nov-84 07:30 PST From: David Potter Augmentation Systems Division / MDC To: Subject: Frwd: "Registered" E-Mail To: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA Comment: FYI -- thought you'd be interested in seeing the following, which are the message header from my author copy of the message I send you a few minutes ago, and a copy of the delivery receipt message on the same item. TYM-DAP-5W82G 30-Nov-84* "Registered" E-Mail From: DAP.TYM; David Potter Augmentation Systems Division / MDC To: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA Cc: human-nets@rutgers Identifier: TYM-DAP-5W82G Acknowledge-receipt: Requested Posted: 30-Nov-84 10:08-EST Received: 30-Nov-84 10:08-EST MAILER-5W82B 30-Nov-84 Delivery acknowledgement: TYM-DAP-5W82G From: MALR.TYM; AUGMENT MAILER To: DAP.TYM Identifier: MAILER-5W82B Posted: 30-Nov-84 10:05-EST Received: 30-Nov-84 10:23-EST Message: (TYM-DAP-5W82G) has been delivered to the following addresses: :RUTGERS: human-nets :MIT-XX.ARPA: Seiler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 16:35:09 pst From: hpda!hptabu!dclaar@Berkeley (Doug Claar) Subject: unions for mediocrity? As a condition of employment, one of my friends must belong to a union. His major gripe is that, no matter what kind of job he does (good or bad), he'll get the same raise as everyone else. Unions protect those who are doing marginal jobs, and ensures that they can't be fired, and will get the same raise as everyone else. They have to, or people won't join. My friend wants a chance to compete, because he believes he would come out ahead. But the union (and his job is the type of job that's largely unionized) precludes that possibility. This is free enterprise? ------------------------------ Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 23:05:38-PST From: Richard Treitel Subject: unions and choices Brint's suggestion of comparing employee conditions in the last century versus this one seems to me to be off-track. Rather, compare two otherwise similar countries, or industries, or companies, that differ now in the extent (or existence) of unionisation. That will show you what unions are good for now, as opposed to what they were once good for. If you compare across countries, you should not look too hard at fringe benefits because they are strongly affected by other factors such as taxation and existence of free social services (where "free" does not mean free, they are paid for out of taxes ...). - Richard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 14:53:34 pst From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya) Subject: More on Unionization My friends-- I felt (as many of you) that in this high tech day and age that perhaps unions have out lived their usefulness. That was until yesterday. First, I felt that in many ways technology was a type of equalizer which could help reduce such problems as discrimination like the power of media with television and warfare. In 1980 or so, I attended a Unix user group meeting in San Francisco, CA where I saw an excellent presentation on Deafnet given by someone who was hard-of-hearing. The audience gave a standing ovation on this use of technology to break down barriers. However, yesterday (after a protracted battle) a friend lost an ongoing 'discussion' with her management. My friend is employed as a technical writer for an H-P spinoff whose name will remain anonymous. We tend to think companies like this are forward thinking socially [thereby removing some of the need for unions]. My friend is by training a liberal arts major (as many in Santa Clara are) and she works in an engineering department. She came up for her review at which time she was thinking that she would formally get the title "technical writer." Instead, another totally independent department reached across and denied her title and so she gets the title "documentation clerk." This is a necessarily shortened version of the entire story. This is not even an issue of pay anymore. I know that many of you would say "What's in a name?" but there are problems in title with many technical organizations. This company does appear to discriminate regardless of the EOE line on the bottom of forms. I wanted to mention this in the net because until 24 hours ago I did not think this way. It is totally shitty! My friend is technically competent [Anybody in Silicon Valley interested in a technical writer with some Unix experience? mail to me]. We must be careful. Many nuclear scientists were similarly naive in the period from 1930 to 1950. [This latter is an example and not the issue of this mail.] I hate to say it, but there appears to still be a place for unions, but they must evolve to the types of problems people face today. --eugene miya {hplabs,dual,nsc...}!ames!aurora!eugene The opinion expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #81 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-12 08:17:09 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 12 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Computers and People - Compact Disks vs. Books (3 msgs), Computer Networks - Notification of Mail Delivery, Computers in the Media - Pilot for New PC show? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 1984 17:02 EST From: Jim Aspnes To: Wayne McGuire Cc: AIList@MIT-MC, asp%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, zbbs%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Don't capture my soul in your little silver box Ah, yes. The ultimate record; the convenience of having one's every written thought, shopping list, and love letter archived away with an army of daemonic librarians to call them back. It eliminates so many of the problems of human memory: vagueness, forgetting, the "creative" aspects of recall. But among these it eliminates a most important feature. Privacy. There has not yet been a government which has not chosen at some time to pilfer the files of dissidents, journalists, opponents, and/or writers in order to expand its power or silence opposition. Consider now our 100-disk, world-hopping information superman. It's 1995, and his conscience forces him to join a possibly-socialist group protesting, say, a nuclear freeze or equal rights for gays. He comes home one afternoon to his study, finds his archives gone, and a note on his desk saying simply: "We've got a file on you that fills 100 optical disks. Watch your step." This is not to say that archives would not be useful, nor that the Feds can't raid your space-consuming pen-and-paper file cabinets. I just hope that the optical-disk sorceror's apprentice is rigged with unbreakable encryption (and it had better still be unbreakable thirty years from now), and is encased in thermite. And even then I'd still put my money on the Thought Police. It's sad that computers, which have so much potential, have so much of it invested in the purposes of the authorities. I wonder if some day we'll be looking back at what we did in the 1980's the way many atomic physicists ended up remembering the 1930's. Jim Aspnes (asp%mit-oz@mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: Mon 10 Dec 84 00:29:18-EST From: Wayne McGuire Subject: Optical Disks Vs. Paper Media To: zbbs%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA It seems certain that the optical disk will heavily cut into the use of traditional books and other paper media, such as newspapers and magazines. Imagine if we had a portable machine somewhat along the lines of the Data General/One, but smaller, lighter, and with a much crisper and more readable visual display. Imagine also that this machine possesses 3MB of RAM, a 3 1/2" 3MB micro-floppy disk drive, a 3 1/2" 20MB micro-hard disk drive, and a 2" .5GB optical disk drive (IBM is rumored to be working currently on 2" optical disks). It is not far-fetched to think that a machine with this general range of specifications will be available within a very few years. Imagine then that, on a train or at the beach or anywhere, one could easily insert into this machine a 2" optical disk containing _War and Peace_, the last month of _The New York Times_, or the last ten years of the journal _Artificial Intelligence_. (It would be an easy matter to carry around 20 or 30 of these tiny disks in a briefcase.) Imagine also that this portable system for reading texts was fitted with the following capabilities: 1) One could easily search the full-text of large documents, by complex combinations of terms or concepts, to pinpoint specific passages of interest. 2) One could easily copy passages of interest from optical disk, to floppy disk, and later to a master archival optical disk at one's home base. These passages would be automatically documented with full bibliographical data. 3) One could easily annotate passages in the optical disk read-only text. This system might use a split screen: in the upper half of the screen would appear the original text (let's say James Joyce's _Ulysses_), and in the lower half one could compose and edit an annotation of unlimited size. The precise passage annotated (even just a phrase or word or diacritical symbol) would be marked in the upper screen, and linked by a unique identifier to the annotation. The annotations would perhaps be stored on free space on the same disk which holds the original read-only text. Later, when rereading _Ulysses_, one would have the option of reading an unmarked cleantext of Joyce's epic, or a mode which displayed (perhaps in a margin or between the lines) pointers to all the annotations for given passages. One could then split the screen, and call up previous annotations in the lower half. (I suppose there is no reason why one could not also annotate previous annotations, and annotations to previous annotations, and so on ad finitum.) With this method the reader could handily record and retrieve and analyze all his or her thoughts about a text like _Ulysses_ over an entire lifetime. One argument for paper media is that they are more portable than computers, but is that really the case? Scanning, annotating, and copying passages from ten volumes of a journal on a train, in a library, or even at home would certainly be much easier and more efficient with a Data General/One-type machine and a 2" optical disk than with the hardcopy original. Even reading a single newspaper or paperback book, especially if one is in the habit of making annotations, could be more convenient with an optical dynabook than with a paper copy. Before the end of this century optical disk-based notebook-size portable computers will probably replace traditional paper documents as the medium of choice for knowledge workers and perhaps the general public as well. (The great majority of the general public will probably be knowledge workers in any case.) The advantages of the optical disk over paper media are overwhelming. -- Wayne McGuire (wayne%mit-oz@mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: Sun 9 Dec 84 23:11:51-PST From: Ken Laws Subject: Re: Optical Disks Vs. Paper Media To: MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA I personally doubt that there will be many knowledge workers in, say, another century. Most people will be employed in social work and service industries, if they are employed at all. (See Nils Nilsson's AI Magazine article on economics for the alternative, namely that machines work and people receive investment income.) The purpose of knowledge work is to extract useful information from knowledge streams in which it is implicit or scattered. This is currently done by humans because 1) we don't have good algorithms for extracting "obvious" patterns in naturally occurring data, and 2) we don't have sufficiently powerful parsers and knowledge representations to decode human-generated knowledge streams. The first problem will be solved by the development of better knowledge-based pattern- recognition algorithms. The second will be solved by both better parsing tools and by constrained data generation so that knowledge streams contain more formalized knowledge. Progress in the first task will mean fewer human-generated knowledge streams, simplifying the second task. There may come a time when the only knowledge work left for people is that for which automation is not economically justified, e.g., the analysis of ancient texts. That era will quickly fade as frustrated "knowledge workers" with powerful tools and little to do take up the automation of other people's hobbies as their own hobby. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1984 2013-GMT From: CCD-ARG (on Dundee Tech DEC20) Subject: Automatic notification of mail delivery The U.K. standard JNT Greybook mail which is based on RFC822 has defined the additional header field "Acknowledge-to:". Any full spec mail system in the U.K. academic community should return an acknowledgment back to any specified receiver when it either places the message in the users mailbox or, in some implementations, when the recipient actually reads the message. This is fine in theory but in practice many mail servers just ignore this field ! Here's the relevant section from the greybook protocol document. ======================== 5.1. Delivery Notification In exceptional circumstances, a user may require positive confirmation that a message has been delivered. This will be indicated by the insertion of an optional field: "Acknowledge-To" ":" mailbox ; address to ; acknowledge to It is recommended that the header also contain a Message-ID: field. The server will then generate an acknowledgement message to be sent to the address specified. To determine the full source route to be used, the guidelines of appendix E on the handling of trace information should be followed. This address should not be used for error notification or for any other purpose. An implementation should take steps to prevent acknowledgement messages from generating error notification messages, as discussed in Appendix I. The acknowledgement is used at a user level, and is not intended for automated analysis. It should indicate exactly what has happened to the message (e.g. that the message has been placed where the user can read it, or that the user has read the message). It may be appropriate to send more than one acknowledgement message. The text of the acknowledgement message will contain the address or addresses being acknowledged, and the value of the Message-ID: field (if present). Use of a References: field is suggested. Automatic generation of acknowledgement requests is not recommended, as such messages are not needed in most cases. It is noted that this field may cause problems in the area of distribution lists, although this problem is beyond the scope of this protocol specification. ======================== Put simply, this means that if I send a message to say FRED@DCT from host DDXA and wish to know if it actually arrives (pretty pointless in this case as its not involving the message being routed through lots of gateways) then I would send a message somthing like this: Date: Sun 9-Dec-84 8:05PM-GMT From: someone To: Fred@DCT Subject: Testing acknowledge Message-ID: Acknowledge-to: someone@DDXA Message text as usual If you want to try it for yourself you could try mailing to me at Alan%DCT@UCL-CS.ARPA with an Acknowledge-to field and see what if anything you get back ! It should manage to trace a route back to Arpa sites although its never been tested... Alan Greig Computer Centre Dundee College of Technology Dundee Scotland ------------------------------ Date: 12 December 1984 01:12-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: [CRISSE: forwarded] MSG: *MSG 3512 Date: 12/11/84 14:33:35 From: CRISSE at MIT-OZ Date: 11 Dec 1984 14:36 EST (Tue) Message-ID: From: Crisse Ciro To: *mac%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13 CHANNEL 2, 9:00PM "THIS COMPUTER THING" This is a pilot for what may be a 13 show series concerning personal computers. The show features Robin Young and our very own Randy Davis, so if you've a chance, please make a note of it and tune in! (Profuse apologies to those in AI who have already received this msg.) ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #83 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-16 12:49:51 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 16 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Hold the Phone! Computers and People - Networks and Manners & "Idea Processors" & Compact Disks (2 msgs), Humor - Mr. Rogers in the nuclear neighborhood. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 December 1984 13:24-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: [PARKER: Correction to Levy and HACKERS!] To: AILIST @ MIT-MC MSG: *MSG 3521 Date: 12/16/84 07:31:19 From: PARKER at MIT-OZ Re: Correction to Levy and HACKERS! Date: Sun 16 Dec 84 07:29:20-EST From: Randy Parker Subject: Correction to Levy and HACKERS! To: bboard%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: gerber%MIT-ATHENA@MIT-MC.ARPA (Please do not contact me about this program, I'm only posting this as a favor for interested parties and an old lady with her phone off the hook.) A CONVERSATION WITH STEVEN LEVY AND THE HACKERS AT THE COMPUTER MUSEUM. Steven Levy will be at The Computer Museum in Boston on Sunday, December 16, 1984 to talk about his recently published book, "HACKERS: Heroes of the Computer Revolution." , , , The CORRECT number to call for information from the Computer Museum is: 423 - 6758 [The other number rings a private residence.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 21:57:41 EST From: The Home Office of Subject: Networks and Manners I'm sure, as a recent contributor observed, "the world will look a lot different 20 years from now." I don't know if it follows that we all will be glued to terminals as the primary form of interpersonal communication. I've been "laid up" as they say since 1 November and have been working at home. This will continue, probably, for seveal more weeks (are you reading, boss?) But for the cat, I am alone for the entire day. I miss the old "water cooler," the communal cup of coffee, the lunch with a friend, passing folks in the hallway, etc, etc. Worldnet will never take the place of these. For analogous behavior, we might consider radio amateurs. For decades, they have squirreled themselves away in their shacks operating in a pre-cybernetic "Worldnet." Yet, give 2 or 3 of them the chance to have an "eyeball QSO," and they jump at it. Brint ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 12 Dec 84 06:08:20 CST (Wed) Subject: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint > We already see a trend towards general purpose idea processors in > such micro products as Framework, Symphony, Thinktank, Clout, > Dayflo, Factfinder, and The Desk Organizer. What we see is, to put it bluntly, the latest fad in microcomputer software marketing. I fail to see strong evidence of a lasting trend here. While I'm sure that there are valuable ideas under all that sludge, I conjecture that there will be much less enthusiasm for such things after the fad runs its course. Don't get me wrong. I don't mean that the basic concept -- helping to organize knowledge -- is silly. What I'm saying is that the current spate of programs will fade because most of them do not address the basic problems very well... because we don't know *how*. Megabytes of memory are not an adequate substitute for lack of thought. If really spiffo "idea processors" are possible in N megabytes of RAM, then a convincing (i.e., *not* crude) prototype should be possible *now*. The conclusion that "everything will be better when there's more memory" is patently silly; memory helps only when you know how to use it. A fast comparison of IBM-PC software with Apple II software will make this clear: yes, the extra address space helps... but the distribution of damn fine programs between the two machines is nowhere near as skewed as you might think. (The volume of trash is much greater for the PC, but so what?) > A sign of the times: Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus, recently > commented in an MIS Week interview that the next key step for his > company would be to explore current AI research in depth, and to > develop new more powerful products that were capable of > sophisticated qualitative, not just quantitative, information > processing. Once again, this is marketing hype. C'mon, *everybody* knows that AI is the great buzzword of computers right now. Along with "5th generation", that is. Not one tenth, not one hundredth of these inflated schemes will ever come to fruition. Hey, guys, this has happened over and over again: big claims, bubbling optimism, followed by hard work and severe disillusionment. When will the bubble burst *this* time? > Optical disks would nicely interface with the next generation of > general purpose idea processors. With them one could easily store, > retrieve, and manipulate all the vital information and minute > details in one's life: financial transactions, notes for > miscellaneous projects, diary entries, address books, medical > records, rough drafts, datebooks, electronic mail, shopping lists, > statistics, papers, bibliographies, administrivia, programs in > progress, graphs, abstracts and full-text documents downloaded from > commercial databases, etc. I'm surprised you didn't mention recipes, since that is the standard silly-and-pointless "what you can do with your new home computer" example. Why in the world would I put my shopping lists on a computer? The whole "idea processing" fad has overlooked the simple fact that pencil and paper are remarkably effective ways of doing some jobs. > The set > of storage optical disks for a program of this kind would constitute > for anyone, in compact and efficient form, an extremely thorough > journal of his or her life. Agreed; this would be the biggest threat to individual privacy since the enactment of mandatory income-tax returns. > ... (Literary scholars analyzing the biodisks of future Walt > Whitmans or Virginia Woolfs would be able to reconstruct in > microscopic detail the evolution of their subjects' works and > themes, and the interaction of quotidian life events with their > imaginative creations.) I wonder how enthusiastic the Virgina Woolfs or (my Ghod!) Walt Whitmans will be about leaving this sort of audit trail behind. The whole thing strikes me as a literary scholar's dream, but a privacy-minded individual's nightmare. I don't mean to scoff the notion out of existence; it *would* have its good points. Certainly would be handy for some things... And I don't mean to imply that big promises from the AI enthusiasts have *always* proved false. (Hear those afterburners lighting?) I am cautiously optimistic that there will be *some* useful developments coming out of the current applied-AI craze. And some of the "idea processing" widgets actually strike me as being *almost* useful enough to justify buying one of them rather than a pad of paper, some file folders, and a pen. Maybe with decent bulk storage they would actually be reasonable. Maybe. And optical disks... now *they're* going to be useful. No arguments there. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 84 16:55:01 EST From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA Subject: CD-ROMs High Technology magazine has a 2 1/2 page article on CD ROMs in the January 85 issue. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 84 20:11 MST From: "Glasser Alan%LSL"@LLL-MFE.ARPA Subject: storage capacity of a CD I have a couple of interesting ways of comprehending the magnitude of the storage capacity of a compact disc. Consider a CD with a capacity for one hour of music. Suppose the sampling rate is 50 KHz, and each sample consists of 2 16-bit words, one for each stereo channel. This comes to 720 Megabytes. By comparison, this represents 2000 5.25" floppies holding 360 KB each. It represents 72 10-MB hard disks as used on the IBM PC/XT, or 36 of those used on the PC/AT. A typical encyclopedia holds about 40 MB of words, so you can carry 18 of them around in your shirt pocket. A high-density screen with a resolution of 1024x1024 and 16 simultaneous colors represents half a MB, so you can store 1440 of these images in uncompressed raster form on the CD. Of course, there are some pretty good algorithms for compressing graphic images, so you could probably do a bit better than that. Anyway, I find these figures impressive. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 1984 20:04-PST Subject: Mr. Rogers in the nuclear neighborhood. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow To: Info-Cobol@MIT-MC n034 1025 11 Dec 84 BC-CHEER (Newhouse 002) (Note to editors: Karen E. Henderson is a staff writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer) By KAREN E. HENDERSON Newhouse News Service CLEVELAND - The strains of Mister Rogers' neighborly theme song no longer linger on the airwaves at the Perry nuclear power plant, but anonymous signs on plant bulletin boards assure workers that Rogers is not dead. He has only been fired. Promptly at 7:30 a.m. every day for three months, plant workers would hear Mister Rogers' reassuring voice crooning over the public address system: ''It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. ... Won't you be my neighbor?'' Last Wednesday, Mister Rogers sang for the last time at the Cleveland plant. Security guards, who had been trying to catch the culprit who had been playing the Rogers' tape, swooped down a flight of stairs and caught electrician Larry Nudelman in the act of trying to cheer people up. Officials of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (CEI) weren't laughing. They were especially irked when Mister Rogers came on the air precisely at 7:30 a.m. two weeks ago when CEI was running a mock disaster drill at the plant which was overseen by officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Shortly after the theme was played, a CEI official came on the system and informed workers a test was in progress, and the public address system was not to be used for unauthorized business. Nudelman says he believes that was what really got the utility angry. Nudelman, 38, of Highland Heights, Ohio, says they took his tape recorder and tape. They told him to go back to work, but he was fired from his job with L.K Comstock Inc. two hours later. Nudelman says he started playing the 50-second tape to cheer people up and help them get started. ''A lot of guys drive 45 minutes to get to work,'' he says. ''They feel like they've already worked half a day by the time they get there. ... It brought a little bit of something to everyone's day. I had only planned to do it for a week or so, but I'd hear people talk about it. And nobody said it was wrong or to stop doing it.'' If they had, he said, he would have stopped. ''Some days it would be raining hard, and Mister Rogers would come on and say it was a beautiful day,'' says Nudelman. ''Then somebody would get on the public address system and say that Mister Rogers was blind.'' It was good for a laugh, he adds. Officials of Comstock could not be reached for comment. CEI spokesman Glenn Heffner says Nudelman was fired for unauthorized use of the public address system. ''The system is specifically for emergencies and plant business,'' he says. Nudelman says it has been used by workers in the past. ''Last Christmas, I guess they had a dog barking Christmas carols,'' he says. The system is easily accessible, with phones all over the plant. Security personnel began trying to isolate the area in the plant from which the Rogers message was being sent. Nudelman says the day he was caught, guards apparently had been stationed near many phones. Although Nudelman says he believes getting fired was too harsh a punishment, he does not plan to fight it. It is the first time he has been fired in 20 years, he says, but he is working at a construction site in Cleveland. ''I won't play Mister Rogers over there, but we do have a radio going all the time,'' he says. Though Mister Rogers is gone, the broadcasts are not forgotten. A notice on a plant bulletin board offered a $1,000 reward for the capture of the security guards - referred to on the notice as ''gestapo agents'' - who did away with Mister Rogers. JM END HENDERSON (DISTRIBUTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE) nyt-12-11-84 1323est *************** ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #84 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-20 23:01:04 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 21 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 84 [Ed. Note: Happy Christmas!] Today's Topics: Computers and People - "Snagging" your Phone Line & "Idea Processors" (3 msgs) & CDs vs books, Information - Papers on 'Programming in the Large' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 19 Dec 1984 07:44:52-PST From: goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: two corporate nasties Can barely type this, I'm so upset. Just got a call from one of those book clubs with whom I've been doing business for about a year. After a live introduction, a taped message came on and informed me that I was past due and then went on to give some 800 numbers to call to straighten things out. Fine. Soon as I got the number, I hung up, thinking to call them right away. (Why wait?) No such luck! When I lifted the receiver again, instead of a dial tone, there was that tape yapping away. I had heard that it was possible to snag somebody's line by calling them up and just never hanging up, but when I tried this when I first heard it several years ago the system just broke the connection no matter who hung up first. I just assumed that it was a bug that had existed at some point that had been fixed before the rumour got to me. Can anyone explain what's going on here? I don't mind taped messages if they're truly informational (such as this one and the ones from Sears to tell me my order is in), but to usurp my line is outrageous! What if I had a fire? Second item in same story: Finally was given my line back. Called them up, a little peeved. However, made best effort to be nice and just inform them that it was a 'mere' oversight and that they'd have their money soonest. But before I was allowed to tell them, "What's your account number?" "Beats me. It's upstairs. I'm downstairs. This is where your machine called me." "Well, I need your account number." I hung up. Called right back, thinking, well, I'll tie up their line (an 800 number, so no cost to me, right?) for a while. Same story, of course. I told the lady "I've got a name, and it's unique across the United States!" (True, to the best of my knowledge.) "If you can't do anything without my account number, it's because you've got a STUPID PROGRAMMER!" Sure enough, "All right, what is your name?", tappity tappity tap tap beep! "Our records show..." And so on. So, next time some clerk gives you that b--- about needing an account number, consider rejecting it as fact, making sure to place the blame not on the clerk (or the machine) but on the programmer or the DP department. It could well be just a line. (Now as long as the sheriff doesn't show up at my door anytime soon, I'm all set.) Anyway, can anyone explain about how they hung up my line, what that ability is a function of, is there a bug in the switching software somewhere along the line, can it be legal, can it be fought, can it be worked around? -- Kenn Goutal Wed 19-Dec-1984 10:46 EST ------------------------------ Date: 17 December 1984 03:08-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry @ UCB-VAX Dear sir--oh, my very dear sir. Is NOTHING going to cheer y ou up? Can the micro revolution do nothing to help you? Oh, well. For me, I keep remembering what a joy Electric Pencil was after typing millions of words on a Selectric; and while nothing that has come after Pencil has been the quantum step up that Pencil was in 1977, there has been steady improvement. Computers make my life simpler. (Well, actually more complex; but I get more done, and spend more of my time doing that which I LIKE doing...) I wish you as well, some day. JEP ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 18 Dec 84 13:03:55 CST (Tue) To: POURNE@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Re: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint > Dear sir--oh, my very dear sir. Is NOTHING going to cheer y ou > up? Can the micro revolution do nothing to help you? Nope, I'd rather be grumpy and play Devil's Advocate. Bah. Humbug. (Who is that odd fellow with the chains coming through my wall...?) > For me, I keep remembering what a joy Electric Pencil was after > typing millions of words on a Selectric; and while nothing that > has come after Pencil has been the quantum step up that Pencil > was in 1977, there has been steady improvement. Computers make > my life simpler. (Well, actually more complex; but I get more > done, and spend more of my time doing that which I LIKE > doing...) I have similar memories of encountering computerized text editing for the first time, back in 1972. I've never written anything substantial on a typewriter since, and have no wish to. I do appreciate the vast improvement computers have brought, and the continuing improvements in the situation. What I do dislike is sales hype, or the equivalent, which claims that innovation X is going to bring about Nirvana here on Earth in just a few years. I.e., Real Soon Now. (Yes, I read and enjoy your column in Byte.) In particular, the next time somebody tells me that applied AI and/or the Fifth Generation is going to solve all my problems, I think I'm gonna throw up. The AI folks are notorious for exuberant promises followed by failure and disillusionment. I would have thought they, of all people, would be a bit more cautious about predicting the Millenium yet again. Nope, same old snake oil... What I should have made clearer, in my earlier note, was that I do expect some very interesting byproducts from the inevitable failures. I have no quarrel with anyone who merely predicts significant advances and the appearance of useful new tools. This cloud is indeed likely to have a silver lining, even though it's not going to be solid platinum as its proponents claim. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 20 December 1984 00:46-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry @ UCB-VAX Ah well, I suppose I must agree regarding the hype. As to AI: there is a famous story. John McCarthy some years ago is said to have bought a Heathkit television for the Stanford AI lab. When it arrived a student eagerly fell upon it, but was restrained. "We will construct a robot to build the kit," McCarthy is said to have said. Last I heard the box was unopened. The story is probably apochryphal][sp?] but I do recall the Great Foreign Language Translation Revolution predicted in the 60's... ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 18 Dec 84 00:31:57 CST (Tue) Subject: longevity of paper > There is an additional incentive for the changeover to CD's > in the case of archival material such as big libraries of current > and old books and journals. It has only recently been recognized > that wood pulp paper chemically self-destructs after about a > hundred years, reducing itself to dust. This raises the specter > of losing our archives for the past hundred years. Cheap compact > discs and optical readers could solve this problem... Using a better grade of paper accomplishes the same thing, and probably does it rather more cheaply, albeit without some other advantages of digital storage. > It would > also vastly reduce the need for enormous buildings to house > libraries. No argument there. There are other such applications, too. I believe the US Patent Office has been pushing for laser-disk storage for a long time. I would observe, though, that one Compact Disk is not a lot smaller than one paperback book. Clearly the win is getting multiple documents on one disk. This is reasonable for archiving, but the things are unlikely to come that way from the publishers. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 19 December 1984 21:22-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: [feblowitz%gte-labs: forwarded] Date: 12/19/84 02:30:08 From: feblowitz%gte-labs at CSNET-RELAY Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 17:53 EST From: "Mark Feblowitz"@csnet-relay.arpa, "GTE-Laboratories." , mdf0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa To: Arpanet-bboards@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: Call for Papers: Wrkshp on Environments for Programming- Subject:m in-the-Large CALL FOR PAPERS Workshop in Cooperation with ACM SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENTS FOR PROGRAMMING-IN-THE-LARGE __________________________________________________________________ Sponsored by Wychmere Harbor Club GTE Laboratories, Inc. Harwichport, MA (Cape Cod) June 10-12, 1985 ___________________________________________________________________ The engineering of Software Development Environments for interactive software construction has recently made dramatic strides forward. This workshop will address the next step in the design of environments -- support for the special needs of very large scale applications in all phases of the software life-cycle. Topics of interest include: design of modifiable environments, generic support for methodologies, requirements specification and prototyping, change control and consistency management, transformation techniques, formalisms for integrating phases of the life cycle, program-design languages, wide-spectrum languages, software information databases and others as they apply to the special needs of programming-in- the-large. Workshop The workshop will provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences among researchers and practitioners active in the relevant areas. An informal atmosphere is intended to encourage the emergence of new perspectives. For the sake of these goals, attendance will be limited to 60-70 selected applicants representing a broad spectrum. Conference Chairman Thomas Cheatham, Harvard University Program Committee Lori Clarke, University of Massachusetts Larry Druffle, Rational Systems, Inc. David Leblang, Apollo Computers, Inc. Naftaly Minsky, Rutgers University Thomas Ostrand, Siemens Corporate Research, Inc. Jay Ramanathan, Ohio State University Warren Teitleman, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Pamela Zave, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Inc. Stanley Zdonik, Brown University Local Arrangements Chairman Barbara Moore, GTE Laboratories How To Apply Two categories of submission are solicited: 1. Position papers: Not more than five double-spaced typed pages summarizing the author's research or project and how it relates to the workshop theme. (These papers will not be published.) 2. Papers for publication: Approximately 15-25 double-spaced typed pages, presenting the author's work with emphasis on its new and significant aspects. The selected papers will be published in the workshop proceedings. Please send 4 copies of a position paper or 4 copies of the draft of a paper for publication to: Barbara G. Moore GTE Laboratories Software Environments Workshop 40 Sylvan Road Waltham, MA 02254 Submission Deadline: January 15, 1985 Notification of Acceptance: March 20, 1985 Camera-ready Paper Due: April 20, 1985 Authors of accepted papers will be required to sign a form granting permission for the paper to be published in the workshop proceedings. Proceedings will be distributed at the workshop and may be purchased later from GTE. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #85 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-28 18:08:06 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 28 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Query - Programmable Microwave Ovens, Response to Query - A Rural Net of Micros, Computers and People - Hackers...and the Klan & "Snagged" Phone Line (3 msgs) & Paper vs. CD Books, Computers and the Law - Backup of Copy-Protected Software ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 26 Dec 1984 08:55:15-PST From: chuck%hyster.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Hyster::Hitchcock 264-6540 ) Subject: Programmable Microwave Ovens Over the past few years I know there's been many discussions in HN on radiation from VDTs. What I'm curious about is how much radiation leaks out of a microwave oven. How does it compare to the amount of radiation from a color TV (watching it from ten feet away)? In fact, just what type of radiation is being referred to when discussing microwave ovens? (Let's assume a good-quality microwave oven, new in 1984, for purposes of discussion.) Also, the one I have is "programmable" insofar as it can store and retrieve settings for various recipes. What is the storage media in a programmable product like this one likely to use? Note: If there is a power drop or the unit is unplugged, it retains its programs for a short period, so there's some sort of battery backup...but what's being backedup? Chuck Hitchcock DEC/Merrimack, NH ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 84 06:00:30 pst From: dual!islenet!bob@Berkeley Subject: Re: query re rural net of micros Bruce Nevin asks for a friend: We are in the process of starting a worker-owned cottage industry here in the mountains. ... ... we are seriously considering an approach that we call a `Computer Coordinated Community.' We think that, by having computers in most of the households, it might be possible to communicate more effectively. ... Before considering a 'computer coordinated community', your friend ought to have a good understanding of the existing informal communication structure of the community. If possible, peruse Everett Rogers' book "Communication Networks." It is NOT about computer networks. For years Rogers has been studying in depth the social structure of rural communities in "3rd world" countries. The object: to find out how and why new ideas and techniques become accepted and spread into everyday life in small communities. Rogers is perhaps the leading scholar studying "The Diffusion of Innovation" (a title of another of his books, a bit less readable). To oversimplify his central thesis, the formal & obvious political and social structure of a community tends to have far less influence on individuals and families adopting new ideas, practices and ways of life than the underlying informal communication structure of the community. Formal, "official" leaders tend to accept only belatedly new ways of doing things (even though they may talk encouragingly about the new ideas early on), and have a general bias towards maintaining the status quo (which they just might deny if you asked them). "Early acceptors" of new ideas are usually mavericks at the social fringe of the community (in one sense or another), and tend to have startlingly small influence over the rest of the community. Commonly, a new innovation (e.g. a new method of planting crops) gets talked about by official leaders, accepted by a few early acceptors, but most of the community effectively ignores it. Rogers' findings fit in with what experienced, successful agricultural field agents have learned the hard way: convince a few key "influence leaders" in the community to adopt and demonstrate to their friends the new techniques, and the majority soon adopt them. How do you find those influence leaders? First, they tend to be relatively successful -- or at least remarkably competent -- at whatever they're doing, and they're very pragmatic individuals. Second, they tend to have lots of friends within the community. Lots. Not only that, but their friends tend to span the inevitable little social sub-units (cliques) within the community. In fact, the influence leaders tend to act as "gateways" for information flowing between subgroups. They are almost-universally trusted by everyone within the small community of which they are a part. The astonishing thing is that -- within a community of a few hundred people -- there are probably only about 2-3 really effective influence leaders. [Rogers' basic technique is to find out from as many people in the community as possible who each talks to on a fairly regular basis. Drawing the results out as a non-directed graph shows clearly the sub-groupings and the gateway individuals. The gateway individuals are -- actually or potentially -- your influence leaders, provided they possess the other necessary traits.] Whatever your friend's approach, the influence leaders are the key to success. If they adopt new techniques, many will follow. As gateways for the existing flow of information within the community, they'll probably also become key individuals distributing information and advice using whatever form of computer technology is set up. Plus, they'll pass information back and forth to others who are outside whatever computer network you set up. Bob Cunningham ..{dual,ihnp4,vortex}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Dec 84 18:10:34 est From: Rich Kulawiec Subject: Hackers...and the Klan I heard an interesting story on WBBM-AM (CBS radio affiliate in Chicago) the other night...it seems that the Klu Klux Klan has put together a network of Apple II's running some sort of BBS software, and that they are using it for communications, and to store information about people they consider either undesirable or enemies of their cause. It occurs to me that perhaps the "hackers" out there who have been regularly blasted by the media, could undo a lot of the bad publicity they have received by doing something about this... ...which raises some interesting ethical questions. Such as: even if we all agree the Klansmen are [insert favorite obscenity here], do we have any right at all to interfere with their machines? Do we violate their rights if we encourage others to crack their systems? On the other hand, if we stand by and do nothing, and advocate that others do nothing, are we guilty of a greater wrong? Rich Kulawiec ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 02:40:37 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "snagged" phone line In many states, there is supposed to be someone monitoring the line to clear the tape if you hang up. The trick is that it can be very hard to tell when you've hung up if the tape isn't making a lot of requests for you to say something. For a certain period of time anyway, a hung up line sounds just like an active line from the calling side. However, the real problem is that you jumped the gun. While in the old days of widespread step by step switching it was possible to "snag" a call since the calls were totally under calling party control, all other forms of switching will drop off the call (after called party hangup) after a timeout period ranging from 20 seconds to a minute, with 30 seconds being very typical. If you had simply hung up your phone for 30 seconds or so and left it down, the call would almost certainly have cleared. But if you kept picking it up, you kept resetting the timer... These timeouts have been found to be very necessary, because of occasional line glitches, people who accidently lean on their hookswitches, and because some people change phones by hanging up one and running to the other when they've received a call. While there are still a few areas where a local step by step TO step by step call could be "calling party hung," they are few and far between, at least anywhere except in rural areas in the U.S. And for the call to be hung this way, the caller and callee would have to be extremely local to each other. The bottom line: To clear an incoming call, hang up and STAY hung up for a minute. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 09:50-EST From: sde@Mitre-Bedford To: goutal%parrot.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA Subject: Re: Breaking a phone connection, how to do it Some, perhaps all, U.S. phone systems have a particular audio frequency interpreted as "disconnect immediately!" This, last time I whistled it, was something like 2500 Hz. (I haven't tried in a few years.) If that is not it, I am pretty sure it was 2xyz Hz, probably 2x00 Hz. In any case, I matched the tone by a slow, whistled sweep. Of course, an (electronic) audio oscillator would give a better readout for repeatability, unless you are very musical. So now you know. David sde@mitre-bedford ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 09:36-PST To: shasta!goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Reply-to: imagen!geof@shasta Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #84 From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa I recall that the old step-by-step exchanges had the property that the termination of a call was soley the responsibility of the initiator (using MIT's dormphone, it was a common hack to tie up someone's phone by calling them from a sub-sub-basement where nobody would notice the phone off the hook for days on end). This is off the point, because you definitely weren't using a step-by-step exchange. Most probably it was ESS. I believe the current phone systems time out the connection after a few seconds. My experience has been that the timeout is about 5-10 seconds. Maybe the time out in your area is somewhat greater? - Geof ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 22 Dec 1984 21:36:45-PST From: goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: paper vs. CD books A friend of mine poses a couple of questions: a) It's just possible that encyclopedia companies and other producers of encyclopedic publications would see a market for CD versions of their wares. They may in fact charge *more* for the CD version, as some in this discussion have already said, but still, it might be a workable market. However, one of the major threads I see in this discussion is whether the CD will make the paper book obsolete. To do this, it seems to me (and my friend) that the paper-to-CD revolution must affect not only the encylopedic-publication market, but the market of relatively small publications -- what we normally refer to when we say "books". Sci-fi, computer texts, cookbooks, poetry, biographies, all the junk that we buy from bookstores. The question is, how can they market *these* kinds of books in CD format effectively? What's the point of publishing a 200-page novel in a format that can store a 1000 times that (? -- I'm a little fuzzy on the actual scale here), and requires a fancy gizmo to read it? How can such a thing compete with the plain ol' book? I'd be more inclined to believe that some new technology for cutting the set-up, marketing, and printing costs by a factor of 10 or a 100 would be more important for a good while yet. (See the Ernest Callenbach Ecotopia novels for discussion of same.) b) The second question is like unto it: Even supposing you can get the entire Brittanica -- sans pix -- on one disk, and even supposing Brittanica decides to publish it that way (see above), and even supposing you are willing to pay the price for it, who would want such a thing? (Yes, yes, I know, who cares what the populace of a culture wants, they have to take what the culture gives them. Separate discussion. (Very *important* discussion.)) The picture here is one of taking the Brittanica to the beach. Or some have suggested the compleat works of so-and-so. Who cares? Even the world's greatest speedreader isn't going to be able to chow down the entire works of somebody who's entire works require a CD to fit them on one volume. And how many people would *want* to read the entire encyclopedia at the beach? (i.e. how big is that market?) It'd be great if as you bought individual works, you could incorporate them on your private disk (or two or three). I could see that being a big thing. But not if the industry does with CD's what the music industry did in going to cassette or, more lately, to CD's themselves: they just went ahead and stored one volume of the traditional medium -- the grooved plastic LP disk -- per cassette or CD, even tho a cassette can easily store two records' worth of music and a CD much more. Cassettes were still marketed fairly cheaply, almost competitive with records, so the increment in convenience worked out about right. And with the music CD's, well, I suppose the fidelity and reliability may support the price, although it still seems like a crock to me. But when it comes to text, what are they going to do? Still charge $50 per disk but only put only one work on it? I might see it for a complete-works-of-Larry-Niven just for the reliability (paperback don't hack more than a few readings these days), but for individual volumes, I'd still prefer paying $3.00 for something I can read with just the equipment I was born with. So, I don't think CD's will revolutionize the reading habits of the world in quite the way the printing press did. The amazing thing about the printing press is that it revolutionized the way books were *made*, but didn't require any change in how they were *read*. (well, much, anyway -- edge-bound books were already common, and while printing paved the way for standardized typefaces, it was more or less a continuum.) I think CD's are more likely to *capitalize* on changes in reading habits, which changes are already underway, perhaps brought on by TV, or even cheap paperbacks. -- Kenn Sun 23-Dec-1984 00:36 EST ------------------------------ Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 09:46:03-PST From: Joseph I. Pallas Subject: Re: MusicWorks queries: Backup? FORTH?? To: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Now this disturbs me a great deal. I was all set to go out and buy this program, because it looked so nifty at all the pre-release demos. Now I find out (I guess it's no surprise) that it's copy-protected. This makes me considerably less willing to pay more than $40 dollars for anything, no matter how good. It also puts me in a dilemma: even if someone can tell me how to back up this program if I buy it, I would like to send a loud and clear message to the vendor that I don't buy programs that I can't back up. If I just buy the program and back it up, the vendor never gets that message. If I obtain a copy illegally, the vendor doesn't get the message either, and I'm a crook as well. The catch is that I think it's a good program, easily worth half its selling price. Does anyone have any suggestions? joe ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************


From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA) Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #86 Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Date: 1984-12-30 23:04:31 PST From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 31 Dec 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: Query - Computer Credit Databases, Response to Query - Microwave Oven Radiation, Computers and People - "Idea Processors" and AI (2 msgs) & Paper vs CD Books (3 msgs), Telephones - "Snagging" Phone Lines (2 msgs), Information - Magazine: Whole Earth Review, Computers and the Law - Re: To Break or not to Break (Programs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pur-ee!ef.malcolm@Berkeley (Malcolm Slaney) Date: 29 Dec 1984 1356-EST (Saturday) Subject: Computer Credit Databases Does anybody have a list of the big computerized credit reporting companies? I just recently got a copy of my credit history from the TRW office in Chicago and found it interesting. I'd like to see what the other companies think of me. The TRW credit report was a real mess. A lot of symbols and cryptic abbreviations all over the page and fine print to explain what it meant. I found it took a bit of effort to make sense of it all, I wonder what the average Joe Blow (who can't figure out a 1040 form) does with it all. Cheers. Malcolm malcolm@purdue pur-ee!malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 20:03:21 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: microwave oven radiation The issue of microwave radiation, in general, is a "hot" topic (no pun intended) these days. First of all, microwave radiation is considered non-ionizing, unlike X-rays, for example. The U.S. has standards for microwave radiation from both older and newer microwave ovens. I'm not going to quote numbers here, only state that there is a standard and that a certain amount of leakage is permitted under the standard. Now, there has been considerably controversy recently in that some Eastern block microwave standards (at least in theory, though there are obvious violations) are set (as I recall) about an order of magnitude less than the U.S. standard. This was poo-pooed for a long time, but lately, some new studies have started to indicate all sorts of physical problems with people who work near microwave equipment for long periods (including telco personnel and others who are theoretically well within the U.S. exposure standards for that type of equipment). There has also been evidence of problems among power company workers exposed to high power, low frequency fields for periods of time. For a long time, it was assumed that all physical effects from microwave exposure were the results of "simple" heating. But now this assumption has been called into doubt in a number of studies. The microwave issue, by the way, is of enough concern that the the last I heard, the U.S. government was considering scrapping the current standards completely and setting new (lower) ones, across the board. The moral? Perhaps you don't want to stand with your head too near the oven while you watch the microwaves cook your food. As it turns out, the eyes are among the most sensitive part of the body when it comes to absorbed microwaves. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 20:40:13-EST From: Wayne McGuire To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@UCB-VAX.ARPA I agree with Henry Spencer that many claims from the AI community are overblown, and that we need to maintain a healthy stance of scepticism about the Next Big Revolutionary Breakthroughs that are forecast every week. However: (1) I don't think the present generation of outliners, natural language interfaces, and free-form databases, which are some of the basic building blocks of idea processors, are, as you insist, a "fad." Products like Thinktank and Intellect are not vaporware: they have firmly established themselves in the marketplace, and are not going to disappear. They are a permanent and welcome fixture in the world of microcomputer software. (2) Mitch Kapor's remarks about AI are not, as you put it, a lot of "marketing hype." As I understand it, a company has been spun off from Lotus which is doing serious research in natural language processing. That company will probably develop a product somewhat like Intellect or Clout which will become an essential element in future integrated software from Lotus. (3) A pencil and paper is fine, but I much prefer a Model 100 as a portable device for recording and shaping notes and ideas. A Model 100 with significantly greater memory, built-in idea processing software, and a connecter to an optical disk storage device would, I suspect, wean many people away from paper and pencils for good. (4) Building a powerful idea processor is very much a function of available memory. Framework, for instance, would be a much more effective product if the quality of its word processor and database management system could be raised to the level of ZyWrite II Plus and MDBS III. To acquire that kind of power would require an extra megabyte or two of memory. (5) The privacy issue in regard to optical disks is a red herring. The federal government already has easy access to much of the sensitive information which would be stored on a personal disk. A biodisk might give individuals an opportunity to know as much about themselves as the government does. -- Wayne McGuire ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 18:12-PST To: shasta!POURNE@MIT-MC Subject: TV and the 5th generation From: imagen!les@su-shasta.arpa In response to your 20 Dec. comments on "Personal Assistants", I can confirm that the TV story is apocryphal. I bought the Heathkit television set for the Stanford AI Lab and it was completely assembled within a few days after arrival, by gnomes not robots. Aside from its use for monitoring "Mary Hartman! Mary Hartman!" it served as a display for computer-synthesized color images. A creative student (Hans Morovec) shortly built a remote control ray gun that worked rather well. As I recall, that was a few years before remote control became available on commercial TV sets. As for the digs at the AI community by you and others, please do not paint everyone with the same brush. In any research field, the lunatic fringe is much more likely to catch headlines and certain government grants than those who speak rationally. The Great Machine Translation fiasco of the '60s was brought about mainly by the CIA's slavering desire to leap ahead in an area where no one knew how to walk yet. An even greater fiasco was the series of "Command and Control" systems assembled by the Air Force and others in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. They wanted computers to run the military establishment even though they hadn't mastered chess yet. The reason that these largely useless projects kept going was that the people involved were having a good time (and making good money) and the Congress never seemed to understand what was going on. As for AI and 5th generation computers, I know of very few people in the AI community who believe in any of that nonsense. Nevertheless, some will use it to pry larger grants out of the government or to sell high-priced seminars to the gullible public. What keeps happening, it seems, is that people take a few partially- understood facts and principles then extrapolate a few light years away and declare that it must be possible to do this new thing. As long as such activities are rewarded, they will continue to proliferate. Why settle for a trip to the beach when you can head toward Andromeda? Les Earnest ------------------------------ Date: 25 December 1984 02:14-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: longevity of paper To: ihnp4!utzoo!henry @ UCB-VAX Alas, the GLUE in optical laser disks is not only not eternal, but not even very long lived; some of the disks have already self destructed. True, they are working on that; but they ain't archive quality yet, or so I am told. I had thought they were, too... ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 84 14:18:41 PST (Thursday) From: Hoffman.es@XEROX.ARPA Subject: The Model Product From a review of "Understanding New Media: Trends and Issues in Electronic Distribution of Information" edited by Benjamin M. Compaine (Ballinger Publ. Co., $30): "...As Compaine and several other authors in this volume point out, the 'model home information and entertainment product...provides a broad range of information and entertainment, provides built in storage, is easily portable, integrates graphics and text, allows user self-pacing and random access to any portion of the database within five seconds, allows for branching, provides hard copy and is completely updated every twenty-four hours, yet comes at a low price to the consumer -- 25 cents per connect hour or less.' "The description currently filts only that marvel of technology, the traditional newspaper...." --Rodney Hoffman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Dec 84 0:02:17 EST From: The Home Office of Subject: Re: Paper vs CD Books It seems that the discussion is too narrow. The issue may not at all be whether Britannica will come out on CDs and how much it will cost. New technology offers the opportunities for more specialized "encyclopedias" at affordable prices than the printing press can deliver. Consider that the Library of Congress is reported to be putting much (all?) of its printed collection on laser disks accessible down to the page (?) via computer. Given this, it's not much of a leap of faith to imagine the creation of a "custom" collection on, say, the history of steelmaking or an encyclopedia of soccer the world over. The compilation of such specialty compendia is, with present methods, prohibitively costly, but with the information retrievable via computer becomes feasible indeed. Re the original discussion: if the Britannica can be produced on CDs and sold for a fraction of the printed version and if the demand for such a product can be demonstrated, rest assured the product will be produced. The name of the game is to sell products in volume at a product--not to protect existing products. Brint ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Dec 1984 13:22 EST From: ELAN%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #84: corporate nasties How long did you leave the phone hung up before picking up the receiver and trying to dial? I heard that the circuitry sometimes takes a few seconds before it disconnects you. If you kept snatching the receiver up every two seconds to see if you were still connected to the tape, it probably thought you never hung up. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 20:03:21 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: phone call clearing The tone that a writer mentioned for "clearing" phone lines is the old SF tone used almost exclusively on long distance circuits for trunk control. It was also used extensively by phone phreaks, and is now detected by automatic phone phreak detecting equipment in many areas. It also won't work even on an increasing percentage of long distance any more, since the changeover of the toll network to CCIS has replaced many tone control circuits with dedicated call address data paths. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Subject: Magazine of note Date: Tue, 18 Dec 84 18:33:42 EST From: Larry Hunter CoEvolution Quarterly and The Whole Earth Software Review have combined to form the Whole Earth Review. WER's premire issue is titled *All Panaceas Become Poison: Computers as Poison*. Articles include pieces on homework, back offices, privacy and cultural changes induced by computers. Generally worth the steep cover price ($3) they charge because they don't run ads. I admit I'm a bit biased -- they ran an article of mine (an extension of "Should Your Florist Know Your Income" which appeared on HumanNets v.7 #29) but I think it's worth reading. Larry ------------------------------ Date: 30 December 1984 05:03-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: MusicWorks queries: Backup? FORTH?? To: PALLAS @ SU-SCORE Cc: info-mac @ SUMEX-AIM I would love some suggestions as to what to do abut the dilemma you pose. You've stated it well. JEP Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 09:46:03-PST From: Joseph I. Pallas To: HUMAN-NETS, info-mac at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Re: MusicWorks queries: Backup? FORTH?? Now this disturbs me a great deal. I was all set to go out and buy this program, because it looked so nifty at all the pre-release demos. Now I find out (I guess it's no surprise) that it's copy-protected. This makes me considerably less willing to pay more than $40 dollars for anything, no matter how good. It also puts me in a dilemma: even if someone can tell me how to back up this program if I buy it, I would like to send a loud and clear message to the vendor that I don't buy programs that I can't back up. If I just buy the program and back it up, the vendor never gets that message. If I obtain a copy illegally, the vendor doesn't get the message either, and I'm a crook as well. The catch is that I think it's a good program, easily worth half its selling price. Does anyone have any suggestions? joe ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************