human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (11/20/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
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 <kwood%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
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 <GZ @ MIT-MC>
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 <CC.Wilkes@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
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 <Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA>
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 <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
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 <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
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
************************