human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/12/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
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 <mcgrew@rutgers>
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 <US.JFA%CU20B@COLUMBIA>
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 <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
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 <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
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 <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
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 <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
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 <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
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 <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
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
************************