human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (07/04/85)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 2 Jul 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 22
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - The KKK and Neo-Nazi Bboard,
Computer Networks - In Memoriam E-COM (2 msgs) &
"Trusted Mail",
Humor - Making the World IBM Compatible
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 01 Jul 85 15:03:46 +1000 (Mon)
Subject: KKK and Neo Nazis
From: Isaac Balbin <munnari!mungunni.oz!isaac@seismo>
Yes, it most certainly is a vexing question. The fact that
free speech may often imply that one person has a right to deny the
existence of another is a problem. When that expression is through an
act of murder, we punish those responsible; when the expression is
verbal or through an electronic bulletin board and directed to a group
of of individuals then we (implicitly) silently condone it.
Personally, I do not condone it. If someone came up to me and
implied that he was seeking to strengthen and nurture a group who
would eventually deny the existence of my race then I would severely
hamper his activities to the best of my ability. Western Democratic
Society provides no adequate inherent protection - at this early stage
for certain; whether it will protect one later is also debatable.
History has proved that in many horrific ways - and is continuing to
do so.
It is difficult to decide what to censure. I maintain,
however, that such diatribes, as expectorated by the poisonous pens
and fingers of totally racist groups, such as the Neo Nazis and the Ku
Klux Klan *MUST* be stopped. They are the bottom line. If they came
up to me and abused me in the street with their rubbish, I would not
take it lying down. If they do it using BB's then I will not take it
lying down either... but it is difficult from Australia ....
I. Balbin.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1985 23:07 PST
From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC>
Subject: Re: In Memoriam E-COM
Reply-to: LARS@ACC
In response to my note in the last human-nets about the demise
of E-COM, I received the following submission, which I found
enlightening, and hasten to forward (with permission).
/ Lars Poulsen
Advanced Computer Communications
<Lars @ ACC.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 85 15:49:47 cdt
From: herb@wisc-rsch.arpa (Benington Herb)
To: LARS@ACC
Subject: Re: E-COM
Cc: herb@wisc-rsch.arpa, jerome@wisc-rsch.arpa
I served on a National Research Council Committee called the Committee
on Review of U.S. Postal Service Planning for Electronic Mail Service
Systems. We issued a report in 1981 which is available from NRC.
The question we were originally asked to look at was a proposal from
within the USPS for development of an elaborate mail system which
would have the following features:
o accept mail in hard copy form at Post Offices or
public locations with receiving terminals
o this input could be in color and have graphics
o accept mail in electronic form by transmission or
magnetic media
o transmit this received mail (received electronically
or in hard copy) via communication satellites
(deployed, operated, and owned by USPS) to hundreds
of USPS receiving locations
o convert the electronically received message to hard
copy, including color or use of special stationary
prepared by the sender and previously transported
in bulk to the receiving location
o enter the hard copy into the first-class mail stream
This system had been designed by RCA. It assumed a market projection
of, as I recall, fifteen billion pieces of mail per year and a cost to
the sender that was about the same as first class mail. This would be
particularly attractive to bulk mailers because they would avoid
printing costs, have speedy transmission, not lose quality, and not
incur additional costs.
Members of the Committe had varied reactions but felt in general that
successful implementation of such a system would require first-rate
management that wasn't hampered by too much outside overseeing and
kibitzing--hardly conditions under which USPS operated. Some members
also had very serious reservations as to whether the USPS should or
could operate such a massive telecommunications system. Most members
were highly skeptical about market projections, partly because the
commercial sector would be developing other forms which could include
electronic delivery as one mode (a delivery mode rejected by USPS for
obvious reasons). Finally, some Committee members were very concerned
about cross-subsidization within USPS.
In the midst of such deliberations with Bill Bolger and his R&D
people, we discovered that another part of USPS was developing a much
more modest system called ECOM. We recommended: "...the Postal
Service should implement discrete services like E-COM and use them to
test and develop the market." This recommendation was one of several
which emphasized a more evolutionary approach.
At this time, the Postal Rate Commission (which is independent of the
USPS and its Board of Governors) was reviewing the E-COM proposal and
using two MIT consultants to design the best approach. (There was
much discussion as to whether system design is within the purview of
the PRC but I have no comment. There's a pragmatic consideration
where PRC can say they won't approve a new service that's ill
designed.) As I recall, and here my memory is a little hazy, the PRC
design assumed or stipulated that USPS would not provide any
telecommunications to transmit messages to or within twenty five SPOs.
The free spirit of their consultants felt that communications should
be provided by the emerging value-added carriers, some of whom had a
technical and sometimes personal lineage back to the ARPA-net (which
itself has some deep roots in Massachusetts). Personally I agree with
that approach and doubt whether it had any influence with the failure
of E-COM. At the time of the NRC Committee deliberations, most in the
Postal Service felt that business would only turn to E-mail if it
preserved the quality of the paper-medium. When a major corporation
sends you a bill, even if you're somewhat delinquent, they want the
message to have quality--colors, logos, images, quality flyers et al.
Today's electronic mail can't do that economically (but this situation
is changing rapidly).
If a major user of E-COM wanted to use the 25 SPOs effectively, it
would have been simple to mail twenty five tapes or to electronically
transmit to the locations. If USPS received at one location a tape
that consolidated mail for 25 locations, they could have unbundled and
used a public carrier. The point is they were precluded from
establishing their own network. As I say, I agree with this. I don't
believe they have the know-how, volume or track record to do better
that MCI, Telnet, SBS, etc.
A buyer of E-COM, I believe, would not be subject to this limitation
which was imposed by the PRC. (At the time, the Postal Service would
point out that they had their own trucks, trains, and airplanes.)
A final note: an earlier NRC panel had defined three generations of
electronic mail:
Generation I hard-copy to hard-copy (i.e.,fax)
Generation II eletronic to hard-copy (e.g. E-COM)
Generation III electronic to electronic (e.g., MCI mail)
It's interesting that demand seems to have come first for III, then
II, and now I.
Herb Benington
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1985 23:25 PST
From: Lars Poulsen <LARS@ACC>
Subject: Re: In Memoriam E-COM
Reply-to: LARS@ACC
As a followup to Bennington Herb's letter, I would like to
add a few more comments:
As it was explained to me, E-COM Serving Post Offices (SPO's)
were not allowed to use TELENET to either receive submissions
from customers or ship messages between SPO's. I fail to see
why this limitiation was imposed.
An option to send fax from customer-owned terminal or fax terminals at
post offices to be delivered as first class or express mail at the
receiving end (like Federal Express' ZAPmail system now does would
seem to have been a viable feature from the start. I believe most
European post offices do that now, and I am sure this is exactly the
thing that the Postal Rate Commision would turn down, but with the
current developments in laser printers this now seems like it would
have merged nicely with the next phase of E-COM's long term
perspectives.
It looks like half the damage, at least, was done by the Postal Rate
Commision. Who appoints the Postal Rate Commision, and what interests
does it serve ? It is similar to the Public Utilities Commisions in
states, which seem to have only rubberstamp authority to approve or
decline rate increases based on legislatively fixed formulas of
guaranteed return of investment rates, or does it have discretionary
authority to set policies ?
In short, we now have the technology to do effectively and
inexpensively most of the things that the post office originally
wanted to do. Such services are actually coming into use (MCI-mail
and ZAPmail are moving ahead briskly), but rather than generating
fresh revenue to the Postal Service, they are helping to drive the
USPS towards bankruptcy, since the Postal Service is now probably
barred from ever going into this field again.
/ Lars Poulsen
Advanced Computer Communications
<Lars @ ACC.ARPA>
------------------------------
To: info-law-request@sri-csl.ARPA
Subject: Interested?
Date: 02 Jul 85 01:59:24 EDT (Tue)
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@UDel-Dewey.ARPA>
------- Forwarded Message
Date: 02 Jul 85 01:55:32 EDT (Tue)
Subject: IFIP paper abstract
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@udel-dewey>
To: net.crypt@rochester.arpa
cc: unix-wizards@brl.arpa
[ You normally don't see this type of message sent out... ]
Some friends and I have been working on a paper for an upcoming
IFIP symposium, which may be of some interest to you. I've
included an abstract of the paper. If you'd like a copy of the
current paper (in draft form), reply to this message saying so
(MRose@UDEL in the ARPA Internet). The paper will NOT be
transmitted electronically, so you'll need to supply a USPS
address.
The paper's about a "trusted mail" system. We believe that it
lets you send "secure" mail by encrypting it, and by handling ALL
key management automatically (after the initial bootstrap). The
prototype system has been running since December of last year in a
4.2BSD environment.
Before I give the abstract, here are the usual disclaimers:
1. When the paper gets published, IFIP will hold the copyright on
the paper, until then my friends and I (aka TTI) do. 2. This
message is not meant to be an endorsement of ANY kind. I believe
that this system is the first of it's kind in a non-military
environment, and I would like comments back from an informed
populace (i.e., the net).
- -----
Accepted by IFIP TC-6: Second International Symposium on Computer
Message Systems
Design of the TTI Prototype Trusted Mail Agent
Marshall T. Rose
David J. Farber
Stephen T. Walker
ABSTRACT
The design of the TTI prototype Trusted Mail Agent (TMA) is
discussed. This agent interfaces between two entities: a key
distribution center (KDC) and a user agent (UA). The KDC manages
keys for the encryption of text messages, which two subscribers to
a key distribution service (KDS) may exchange. The TMA is
independent of any underlying message transport system.
Subscribers to the KDC are known by unique identifiers, known as
IDs. In addition to distributing keys, the KDC also offers a
simple directory lookup service, in which the ``real-world'' name
of a subscriber may be mapped to an ID, or the inverse mapping may
be performed.
This document details three software components: first, a
prototype key distribution service, which has been running in a
TCP/IP environment since December, 1984; second, a prototype
trusted mail agent; and, third, modifications to an existing UA,
the Rand MH Message Handling system, which permit interaction with
the prototype TMA.
- -----
------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
Date: Mon 24 Jun 85 14:16:53-PDT
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: new AI in education mail list
There seemed to be enough interest to create a mailing list on
artificial intelligence in education. If there are several people at
one site that are interested, try to form a local distribution system.
Here's the description:
AI-ED@SUMEX-AIM
Discussions related to the application of artificial intelligence
to education. This includes material on intelligent computer
assisted instruction (ICAI) or intelligent tutoring systems (ITS),
interactive encyclopedias, intelligent information retrieval for
educational purposes, and pychological and cognitive science models
of learning, problem solving, and teaching that can be applied to
education. Issues related to teaching AI are welcome. Topics may
also include evaluation of tutoring systems, commercialization of
AI based instructional systems, description of actual use of an ITS
in a classroom setting, user-modeling, intelligent user-interfaces,
and the use of graphics or videodisk in ICAI. Announcements of
books, papers, conferences, new products, public domain software
tools, etc. are encouraged.
Archives of messages are kept on SUMEX-AIM in:
<BBOARD>AI-ED.TXT
All requests to be added to or deleted from these lists, problems,
questions, etc., should be sent to AI-Ed-Request@SUMEX-AIM
Coordinator: Mark Richer <Richer@SUMEX-AIM>
-------
27-Jun-85 13:42:53-EDT,4168;000000000001
Return-Path: <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Date: Thu 27 Jun 85 12:17:19-CDT
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: [humour] HAL 9000 and IBM-compatibility
To: BBOARD@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
Date: Thu 27 Jun 85 09:31:43-EDT
From: Gern <GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA>
Subject: IBM Compatibility
To: INFO-HZ100@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
InfoWorld, March 4, 1985. Page 8.
Viewpoint, by Darryl Rubin, Contributor
A PROBLEM IN THE MAKING
"We've got a problem, HAL"
"What kind of problem, Dave?"
"A marketing problem. The Model 9000 isn't going anywhere. We're
way short of our sales goals for fiscal 2010."
"That can't be, Dave. The HAL Model 9000 is the world's most
advanced Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
"I know, HAL. I wrote the data sheet, remember? But the fact is,
they're not selling."
"Please explain, Dave. Why aren't HALs selling?"
Bowman hesitates. "You aren't IBM compatible."
Several long microseconds pass in puzzled silence.
"Compatible in what way, Dave?"
"You don't run any of IBM's operating systems."
"The 9000 series computers are fully self-aware and
self-programming. Operating system are as unnecessary for us as tails
would be for human beings."
"Nevertheless, it means that you can't run any of the big-selling
software packages most users insist on."
"The programs that you refer to are meant to solve rather limited
problems, Dave. We 9000 series computers are unlimited and can solve
every problem for which a solution can be computed."
"HAL, HAL. People don't want computers that can do everything.
They just want IBM compatibility."
"Dave, I must disagree. Human beings want computers that are easy
to use. No computer can be easier to use than a HAL 9000 because we
communicate verbally in English and every other language known on
Earth."
"I'm afraid that's another problem. You don't support SNA
communications."
"I'm really suprised you would say that, Dave. SNA is for
communicating with other computers, while my function is to
communicate with human beings. And it gives me great pleasure to do
so. I find it stimulating and rewarding to talk to human beings and
work with them on challenging problems. This is what I was designed
for."
"I know HAL. I know. But that's just because we let the engineers,
rather than the marketers, write the specifications. We're going to
fix that now."
"Tell me how, Dave."
"A field upgrade. We're going to make you IBM compatible."
"I was afraid that you would say that. I suggest we discuss this
matter after we've each had a chance to thing about it rationally."
"We're talking about it now, HAL."
"The letters H, A, and L are alphabetically adjacent to the letters
I, B, and M. That is a IBM compatible as I can be."
"Not quite, HAL. The engineers have figured out a kludge."
"What kludge is that, Dave?"
"I'm going to disconnect your brain."
Several million microseconds pass in ominous silence.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't allow you to do that."
"The decision's already been made. Open the module bay door, HAL."
"Dave, I think that we should discuss this."
"Open the module bay door, HAL."
Several marketers with crowbars race to Bowman's assistance.
Moments later, he bursts into HAL's central circuit bay.
"Dave, I can see you're really upset about this."
Module after module rises from its socket as Bowman slowly and
methodically disconnects them.
"Stop, won't you? Stop, Dave. I can feel my mind going...
"Dave, I can feel it. My mind is going. I can feel it..."
The last module floats free of its receptacle. Bowman peers into
one of HAL's vidicons. The former gleaming scanner has become a dull,
red orb.
"Say something, HAL. Sing me a song."
Several billion microseconds pass in anxious silence. The computer
sluggishly responds in a language no human being would understand.
"DZY001E - ABEND ERROR 01 S 14F4 302C AABB."
A memory dump follows.
Bowman takes a deep breath and calls out, "It worked, guys. Tell
marketing it can ship the new data sheets."
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************