human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (03/20/85)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 20 Mar 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
Queries - Looking For Someone &
Common terminal rooms & AUTODIN &
Lapsize computers,
Computers and People - Stargate (3 msgs),
Information - Biogas Computer Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4-Mar-85 10:42 PST
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: LOOKING FOR A HP PERSON
I would like to make contact with one or more people that work for HP.
Please send me a note. I have a question about HP mail
systems/networks. Thanks,
--Bi\\
------------------------------
Date: 4 Mar 85 15:47:52 PST (Monday)
Subject: Common terminal rooms
From: Conde.osbunorth@XEROX.ARPA
I'm interested in knowing the effects of private terminal rooms
compared to common terminal rooms (some called them bullpens).
People in school and in some companies often start programming in a
common room with lots of other people, but later on they get their own
offices and move away. They may have officemates, and can still talk
to each other in hall ways (or on the system), but the feeling is not
the same. I saw a lot of cooperation between people when they do work
together.
Do you see any pros/cons to common rooms? I think there are many
advantages that are ignored.
Daniel Conde
conde.pa@Xerox.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 7-Mar-85 00:40 PST
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: AUTODIN query
To: mailgroup@ucl-cs.arpa
Cc: info-nets%mit-oz@mit-mc.ARPA
I am looking for someone that might consider themselves well informed
regarding the structure of AUTODIN mail items. I need information
(document numbers etc.) on the format line specs. Please send me a
note if you think you can steer me in the right direction. Thanks,
--Bill
<postmaster@office-2.arpa>
------------------------------
Date: 13 Mar 85 08:51 +0100
From: Jacob_Palme_QZ%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Lapsize computers
There is growing interest among our local users in the subject of
"Lapsize computers" and we have a fairly active local conference on
the subject.
Maybe, someone should start a mailing list on Arpanet on that subject?
(Our local site, QZCOM, is not suitable as the main host of a mailing
list since we are not directly connected to ARPANET.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 21:13:27 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@rand-unix>
Subject: Stargate and Moderation
I personally favor the increased use of moderation on all the nets
since I see no other practical solution to rising traffic volumes from
more and more people. As I asked recently on another list, what
happens when there are so many people on the networks that every
simple query yields 2 or 3 THOUSAND polite responses and several
hundred mindless flames and catcalls from the fringes? Not even
Stargate has unlimited bandwidth (by no means) and many people don't
have the time or disk space to sort through the ever growing quantity
of messages, many of which are repetitious, even now.
But for now, let's look only at the very narrow issue of legal
liability. One thing that the Usenet lawyer told me, that she
unfortunately didn't mention in her report, was that common carrier
status would only be even theoretically achievable in such a situation
if all users submitting material were authenticated. In other words,
common carrier protections do not allow every party to indefinitely
pass back responsibility saying "we don't know who sent the message,"
at least not in a situation like that with which we are dealing. This
means a fundamental change in the way messages are submitted if they
are going to be unscreened in terms of content, and possibly signed
statements from potential submitters accepting responsibility for
their submissions. Frankly, I see this as a very high price to pay to
avoid accepting the same responsibility that any newspaper, magazine,
TV station, or club newsletter takes when it publishes or broadcasts
material. And in fact, Usenix has said that they are not necessarily
opposed to accepting such a responsibility, but they do want to
understand all of the issues involved.
More recently, some additional potential concerns with unmoderated
material submission have appeared. If Stargate were to truly accept
any and all material without screening (and note that if you make ANY
distinctions based on content, you take on the full broadcasting
responsibility anyway) we might find ourselves in the situation where
we'd be flooded with "high value" messages from businesses who would
choose to use the free (or comparatively cheap compared with
commercial services) Stargate data path rather than other (expensive)
satellite communications facilities. Messages to branch offices,
commodity data, and all sorts of other stuff (probably encrypted by
the source) could be sent into the system, and we couldn't do a thing
about it.
The result of such an unmoderated conduit could be a "cheapy"
satellite distribution system that is so overloaded with commercial
traffic that there's no room left for the netnews type messages which
were the original purpose! Even if you charged for each message
submitted, it seems very likely that the commercial operations would
have lots more money to spend for buying message time than the typical
netnews person. And frankly, I'd like to avoid controlling
submissions to Stargate based on the size of your pocketbook. The
richest people don't necessarily have the most useful things to say.
Anyway, it's a pretty complex set of issues. A totally unmoderated
channel could be subjected to massive abuse. But if you make any
traffic judgements based on content you accept responsibility. And if
you can't authenticate the source, you also accept responsibility. My
own feeling is that the best way to approach the whole venture is like
a publishing operation, where the desires of the people receiving
(paying for) the service, the goals of the service, the bandwidth of
the communications channel, and all other related factors are included
in the equation to try create the most useful possible operation for
the most people. And of course, nobody would be forced to join the
service or stop receiving any other information services or sources.
A Stargate service would simply be another alternative.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 85 10:52 CST
From: Giebelhaus@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Stargate
To: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
I think there is a place for both moderated and unmoderated news.
Some months ago, while I was at the University of Minnesota, I did
read news. I did not feel the need for moderation then. I think that
over 225 newsgroups are enough to let people read only the groups they
are interested in. While I did not read net.flame, I did have to put
up with some junk. I was and am willing to pay that price for the
freedom to state my views and be able to read other peoples. One
man's junk may be another man's gem.
I consider the news a service and, perhaps, also an experiment. I
enjoy reading the endless stream of useful, insightful ariticles. I
think it is important to see all views, even if I think some are
stupid. If I want to read a magazine (that can hardly help but
reflect the editor's biases), I'll go to the news stand and buy one.
If each moderator had to take full legal responsibility for what they
published, they might soon find a need to hire a laweyer. Since they
are not charging for their service, how could they afford that. Most
papers and magazines have a whole battery of laweyers.
I don't understand Lauren's statement that the ARPANET digests have a
lower visability. The ARPANET digests travel both around the ARPANET
and are re-broadcasted on the USENET. Perhaps he has a way to find
out that it has lower number of readers than some other groups.
If the survey that RLK@MIT-OZ took is an accurate sampling for the
network community, I dare say that the network community does not want
the "service" Lauren envisions. [I don't consider Human-nets a place
to "flame" about networks, though.]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6-Mar-85 13:55:30 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@rand-unix>
Subject: stargate (very brief)
Since so much of this has already been covered in the netnews
newsgroups, I won't repeat it all here.
1) The Stargate service (or whatever) is not primarily oriented
toward Arpanet, where most people get everything for "free" and are
usually on good-sized computers with plenty of disk.
It is oriented more toward the Usenet community where massive phone
bills, filling disks (many on small machine), and a massive
surge in (low value) submissions has created what is approaching
a crisis situation. ARPANET lists, of course, can continue on
merrily until the IMPs melt. And in fact, the Usenet netnews
groups will continue also. Stargate would offer an alternative
choice.
2) When I say that the ARPANET lists have low visibility I mean
to the public at large. A copy of the LIST-OF-LISTS in the
hands of a reporter interested in how the government spends
its money is what I'd call "high visibility." I'm sure that
many of you can imagine the impact.
3) My own surveys indicate that there is overwhelming support
for Stargate and for moderated news in general, both among
the Usenet population at large and particularly among the
people that pay the bills. This latter group, in particular,
is the one that must make the decisions about what stays
and what goes in the netnews arena, ultimately.
4) You don't need gangs of lawyers to run a magazine. Does every
club that publishes notes from their members have a big
legal staff? Of course not. Almost any group that would run
a service already has a lawyer on retainer and would almost
certainly get the conventional liability insurance for such
situations.
5) I have discussed the complexities of content issues,
legal liability, and resource allocation in the past.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 06 Mar 85 14:08 +0100
From: ENG-LEONG_FOO%QZCOM.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: 2ND BIOGAS COMPUTER CONFERENCE 1985
***********************************************************
FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE
2nd Biogas Computer Conference (25-29th March 1985)
**********************************************************
The UNEP/UNESCO/ICRO Microbiological Resources Center
(MIRCEN) at Stockholm jointly announces the 2nd Biogas
Computer Conference, with the Commission of the European
Communities (Belgium), the Computing Center (QZ) of
Stockholm University (Sweden) and the University of Guelph
(Canada).
This computer conference will:
(a) permit the electronic discussion of some 60 biogas
papers and posters which will be presented at the 3rd EC
Conference on Energy from Biomass in Venice
(b) facilitate online participation by the less fortunate
researchers and lab assistants who are unable to be at the
conference site in Venice
(c) enable the Venice participants to acquaint themselves
with the computer conferencing system (COM) at QZ
(d) encourage discussions with members of the Telenetwork
for Anaerobic Digestion.
If you are interested to participate, please Contact:
Name:
Department:
Tel:
**********************************************************
Dear Members of the HUMAN-NET, POSTMASTERS, and Friends,
2000 copies of the detailed announcement of the 2nd Biogas
Computer Conference have already been mailed to biologists
and bioengineers. The problems that these people oftenface
are that they do not have access to a terminal, they are
unaware that such facilities are available at their own
universities and they are not familiar with the use of
computer-based message systems.
I would therefore greatly appreciate your help if you could
help those interested to get online. Please then mail a
copy of the above announcement (with the name of a person
to be responsible for contact and his/her telephone no:) to
Departments of Biological Sciences (and others like
Microbiology, Agricultural Engineering, Appropriate
Technology, Energy Research, Biotechnology, Waste
Treatment, etc.). Your help would thus enable interested
persons to receive or submit entries in the discussion of
technical papers in the 2nd Biogas Computer Conference in
COM via mail networks. Interested persons could also get an
account in the COM system at QZ and connect to it via
packet-switched networks (TELENET, TYMNET, IPSS, TRANSPAC,
DATEX-P, etc).
I also hope that your efforts to help others will create
positive effects for additional funding for such activities
in your department in future. For more information and
submission of entries to the conference, please write to
ENG-LEONG_FOO <P2269%QZCOM.MAILNET MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************