human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/30/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 30 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Response to Query - Number of Internet Users,
Computers and Health - VDT Radiation,
Computer Networks - Cancelling pending mail (3 msgs),
Computers and People - Electronic Democracy (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 29 Oct 84 17:59:28-EST
From: Greg Skinner <Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Estimate on size of Internet users
To: msggroup@BRL.ARPA
Cc: info-nets%MIT-OZ@MIT-XX.ARPA
I don't have the original article, but I wanted to comment on a couple
of things.
First off, you weren't too far off in your estimates, Bandy, but
there's a couple of things you overlooked.
First of all, the VAX farm (the machines on the ninth floor of tech
square) are not on the Chaosnet. They are on a 10 megabit Ethernet
connected via a gateway to the rest of the ARPAnet, so they are part
of the Internet. In fact, these machines are on net 18. Check the
map between room ne43-503 and ne43-504 (*sigh* -- my old office).
Secondly, a number of the machines on the Chaosnet are either lisp
machines or terminal concentrators. I have a list of a few known
Chaosnet machines which have actual users on them somewhere so I can
get the details, but probably there are 50 machines less than your
estimate. If the Athena machines are on the Chaosnet (at the time I
was still at MIT there were subnets allocated for them but I don't
know if the actual machines were connected, let alone up) that will
bump the number back up. Otherwise, add them on as hanging off MIT's
network (pick any one you like, as all are addressable from each other
one way or another). I just looked at the latest version of the NIC
tables and they are listed as being on net 18.
Did you include CMU's local net/campus net? That will bump the number
up. It's possible though that they are on the Internet already though
(net 128).
I don't know if the message has gotten out here yet, but someone
mentioned that IBM's internal VNET should be considered part of the
Internet also.
Who knows what things go on on the other side of the water? (I'm
referring to whatever nets lie beyond london-gateway). Also, what
goes on behind coins-gateway?
This is really a question for info-nets, so they're getting it. If
someone has the original they should send it there also.
Have fun gang,
--gregbo
Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo (UUCP)
------------------------------
Date: Fri 26 Oct 84 16:50:05-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Data Considered Harmful
Cc: WorkS@RUTGERS.ARPA
I really >>hate<< to stir up the VDT health issue again, but I had a
thought about it that hasn't been covered in the discussions I've
seen.
Early research concentrated on x-rays; later studies have been
covering nonionizing radiation (and also negative ion density, etc.).
I have not heard, however, of any studies about VDTs and motion
sickness.
There have been reports on TV about NASA's motion sickness studies
indicating that the queasiness is due to a discrepancy between motion
estimates from the visual field and from the inner ear. You can get
motion sickness from watching (intently) a picture of waves against a
heaving horizon even though you are stationary.
I have occasionally become queasy when intently editing a long file of
addresses. I surmise that the intermittent, but nearly continuous,
upward scrolling has the same effect on my visual sense as the picture
of a heaving horizon would.
Is it possible, then, that headaches, nausea, or even miscarriages,
are caused in some people by the constant scrolling of data? This
would tend to explain why the reports of health problems are often
from just a few data entry pools -- they may be the ones with this
type of editing or scanning task. It might also explain why studies
with mice have been negative: you can't get them to watch the screen
intently.
It would be interesting to know whether anyone has studied this
effect.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 24-Oct-1984 0819
From: covert%castor.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (John Covert)
Subject: Cancelling pending mail
I agree that a mail developer should not implement functionality which
goes to extreme lengths to cancel mail (such as reaching out into the
network to stop delivery in progress).
However, just as I can take a letter which hasn't been picked up by
the mailman back out of my own mailbox, a message which has not gone
past a system-defined point, for various reasons:
The system is overloaded and hasn't picked up the mail.
The system cannot reach the first delivery point.
or similar reasons, should be cancellable.
The sender may have contacted the recipient by other means, and the
message may no longer be relevant. E-mail could also conceivable cost
significantly more to deliver than postal mail, further justifying
cancellation if the message has not passed the system-defined point.
Where that system-defined point is will differ from system to system.
The market can decide which system performs the needs of the sender
the bast.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 84 23:55:42 edt
From: Mark Weiser <mark@tove>
Subject: canceling electronic mail
Let's see, the argument against being able to cancel electronic mail
went like this: you can't cancel snailmail, so why should Email be any
different?
So screen editors for email shouldn't be allowed either, because
the post office doesn't have them, and subject lines shouldn't
be allowed, and delivery should be slow because that is how
the post office does it...
It seems to me that the only problems with canceling electronic mail
are technical. Why one should want a policy against canceling
something which no one has even read yet is beyond me. (If it has
been read, then obviously no cancellation is possible, so I presume we
are only dealing with canceling articles as yet unseen by anyone but
the author.)
------------------------------
Date: 25 Oct 84 0801 PDT
From: Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>
Subject: cancelling network messages
Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 01:43:22-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: cancelling electronic mail
Should users of an email system be allowed to cancel pending
electronic mail messages that they sent?
My opinion: It should be impossible to expunge-cancel mail you've
already sent. That protects you from somebody killing you and then
using your account to expunge everything you've sent recently
including your suspicions that somebody in particular is threatening
to kill you. Also it's rather upsetting to see you have new mail then
be unable to read it because it's been expunged between the time you
were notified and the time you tried to read it. But it should be
possible to attach amendments to anything you've sent out, like to
correct typos you noticed just as the screen was starting to clear
AFTER you gave the command to send the message that was on your screen
(in your edit window), or to correct some stupid mistake you made
which was noticed by the first reader and you want to advise all
remaining readers before they stub their minds on the same blunder, or
to mark as moot a trivial question that somebody has already answered.
The recipients can still read and answer the message if they want, and
they can see both the original and corrected versions if they want (as
well as each amendment by itself, or a SRCCOM (source-compare) between
original and corrected, etc.), but they won't needlessly answer an
already answered question or point out an already-noted typo, and on
the other hand they won't avoid answering a question or avoid pointing
out a typo because they mistakenly think tens of others must have
already done it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 84 01:24:02 PDT
From: David Booth <booth@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Re: "mob rule", assigning tax
Re: "Mob rule" and emotionalism
Several people have suggested that "true democracy" may not work:
people's emotionalism would lead to mob rule.
First, "mob rule" is rule by a vocal and *active* minority. It is not
rule by the majority of the *population*, though the mob may well form
the majority of those *participating* at the moment. With a proxy
system, everyone could in effect be participating *all the time*
(sometimes personally, mostly by proxy).
Second, people's emotionalism may indeed be a problem in a proxy
system -- causing us to act too quickly -- but proxies would be no
more susceptible to this than elected representatives currently are.
Of course, in our emotionalism, we may choose to by-pass our proxies,
but how could a *true majority* *both* exercise its will *and* be
protected from its *own* mistakes? (Note this is not the same as
protecting minorities from the majority.)
Re: "How about assigning part or all of our individual tax
dollars directly to the proxy for assignment by him to worthy
projects?"
If we each controlled our individual tax dollars, the rich would have
more power than the poor. It would be a government by the rich, for
the rich.
Re: "If people could vote by proxy, then I suspect someone
like Jerry Falwell or Ralph Nader could become a political
titan."
Or Richard Nixon. We have the same problem with elected
representatives.
Re: "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."
This is not a problem of "complete democracy" -- it is a problem of
referendums being voted once, "all or nothing", at election time.
Under a proxy system, operating all year long, modifications could
more easily be passed.
Re: "There is a major problem with having the legislature of
the country decided by those who get proxies to represent
their viewpoint. One small group of people . . . could
generate mail at such volumes as to prevent any useful
messages from being sent. The NAZIs used similar methods to
come to power in Germany before WW2."
A hierarchical, or tiered discussion system (outlined in a previous
message) could be used to prevent this problem. The "small group"
could voice their opinions among their immediate coalitions, but if
the opinions were unpopular the coalitions would not vote in favor of
them. Hence, they would be filtered out before reaching the national
level.
-- David Booth
{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth
booth@ucla-locus.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 84 19:14:20 -0200
From: eyal@wisdom (Eyal mozes)
Subject: Electronic Democracy
I'm afraid I can't see the advantages of the suggestion. If you
believe in limited government, then congressmen, judges, and the
president are just employees you hire for a specific job - that of
protecting you from criminals and foreign armies. What's wrong with
letting representatives make the decisions in this area?
Of course, the government today is NOT limited to this (the discussion
of Homeworking provides an example). The concern, then, should be how
to keep the government as limited as possible. In the long run, this
can only be accomplished by a radical change in the philosophy of most
intellectuals; meanwhile, what we need is a sound judicial system.
The constitution of the United States, flawed as it is, is the best
system yet devised for this purpose (I'm sure anyone who, like myself,
lives in another country - in my case, Israel - but lived for a long
period in the United States, can see the difference). Among the
safeguards it provides, there is the fact that major decisions require
a long, complex process to be accepted - which makes it harder for
demagogues to quickly increase the government's power, or injure some
unpopular minority, by an appeal to emotions without allowing time for
people to think the matter over, or for opposition to organize.
I don't see how Electronic Democracy can have this. Also, It would be
hard to guard the separation of powers in such a system. To me, all
this seems like a prescription for mob rule and a tyranny of the
majority.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 25 Oct 84 18:12:11 CDT (Thu)
Subject: Problems of 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....
The most incisive explanation I heard of why many people were pleased
with the Grenada invasion was that Reagan had actually done something
significant without first taking a poll to find out what his opinion
should be! I think it unwise to assume that people would necessarily
be happy with a pure electronic democracy. It leaves little room for
leadership, something which many people value.
More significant is Bill Laubenheimer's point: in a fast-moving
crisis, real leadership is essential. You do not fly a plane by
committee, still less by discussion group.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************