human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/10/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 9 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 57
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - Chess in Human-nets?,
Queries - Telematics Technology &
The Size of the Internet &
Student/Faculty Electronic Mail,
Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (5 msgs),
Computers and People - NYT Article on Flaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09 Oct 84 16:00:00 EDT
Subject: Do we want to see Chess any more?
From: Charles <mcgrew@rutgers>
I have received several comments from readers wondered on the
inclusion of the "Delphi Experiment" Chess game in Human-Nets. I must
admit that since it is published elsewhere (on the chess list, at
least) I can't see a real good reason for including it any more.
While it is a game of humans vs. a machine, the real thrust of the
messages seems to be on chess, rather than on human-computer
interaction. If no one objects, I will no longer publish the Delphi
moves in Human-nets.
Charles
------------------------------
Date: 05 Oct 84 14:18:36 PDT (Fri)
Subject: Telematics Technology.
From: Reginald/Reggie Renard Hutcherson <hutch@sri-spam>
I recently became a recipient of the human-nets mail and noticed the
introduction summary mentioned Al Poskanzer (i sent him this message ,
but he hasn't responded) was interested in what is called "Telematics
Technology" (i.e, the fusion of computer and telecommuncation
technology). I have become interested in determining how I could best
pursue the fusion of my computer science background (B.A in cs from
u.c.berkeley) with that of telecommuncation. If at all possible,
could you illuminate some of the areas that telematics would focus on,
or literature on the subject, moreover, any graduate programs that
offer a telecommunication program.
Thanks in advance for you time and benevolence.
-- hutch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 14:28 EDT
From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Size of the Internet
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.)
Ted
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 10:12:50-EDT
From: Janet Asteroff <US.JFA%CU20B@COLUMBIA>
Subject: Electronic Mail Query
I am looking for examples of faculty and students who use electronic
mail to communicate about course work, e.g., homework collection,
explanations, deadlines, course bibliographies, as well as for sharing
general information, which could also include such areas as doctoral
advisement.
If anyone is using electronic mail for these purposes, I would
appreciate hearing from you.
thanks
Janet Asteroff
(US.JFA%cu20b@columbia-20.arpa)
------------------------------
Date: 5 October 1984 09:29 GMT
From: jmccombie @ dca-eur
Subject: homework and unions
Hmmm... From the discussion so far about homework and unions, it seems
that people are missing (what is to me) an essential point: unions,
their rhetoric aside, are NOT in the business of keeping workers
happy, making the work conditions safer, etc. (though they originally
started out that way). Unions today are in the business of making
money for unions. Home workers, since they are not unionized (and
likely never will be -- it's much easier to strong-arm a worker
entering a factory than to strong-arm a person in his/her home) cost
the unions money by taking away "union jobs."
Unions SHOULD be fighting for more home work, since it is usually more
enjoyable for the worker (at least as we know home work now). But
unions WON'T, because it's not in their financial interests. Heavy
sigh.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 84 08:22:17 pdt
From: unisoft!pertec!bytebug@Berkeley
Subject: Re: V7 #55: Programming at Home
One thing that I've found is that working outside of the normal
8-5 environment is more productive. Most of this is because of
all the interruptions that come up in during the typical 8-5
day. Your boss might come out and see how work on the latest
bug is going, or you might get called away to a meeting to
decide which features need to be added or dropped, or you might
have chatty co-workers who stop by and ignore the "keep out"
sign on your door, knowing that it doesn't mean *them*. I've
found that I often accomplish more working 3-4 hours at 2am or
on the weekend, than I do working a full 8-5 day!
Since I am currently single, I also have no interruptions at
home, and often make up for the lack of progress I make during
the day by logging in from home. I can control the environment
so that I feel most comfortable, and break away to do something
else when I feel like I need break.
Here, my company would benefit from my working at home by
my being more productive. On the other hand, they would see
it as being inconvenient for themselves, because they would have
to schedule meetings to correspond with the times that I come in
to the office and how could they check in with me to see how
things were doing. Electronic Mail you say? A nice idea, but
I'm about the only one on-line at this time. Someday...
roger long
pertec computer corp
{ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug
------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 1984 1130 PDT
From: Alvin Wong <RAOUL@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
Subject: Toiling at home - Other considerations
There are other variations of people "working at home". What about
the small independent farmers (a dying breed, to be sure)? The
economy of this country started with farming. What happens to people
who "work at home" growing livestock? This not only includes cows,
chickens and goats but the more exotic animals like chinchillas (for
fur). These enterprises now serve mostly as auxiliary income if they
exist at all. A "no work at home" law could be used very deviously.
Al Wong
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 1984 12:21:43-PDT
From: smith%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Working at home
As someone who works at home as well as in other peoples' offices, I
need to reply to Minow's message. Some of the points may be valid for
EMPLOYEES of companies coerced into working at home, but I certainly
disapprove of restrictions on 'independent contractors'.
There are several disadvantages to working at home -- the work
environment may not be as safe as in an office or factory (poor
lighting and seating arrangements, for example).
True, it is up to the worker to fashion his/her own comfortable
environment if working at home. I would be surprised if there were
many homes that violate OSHA workplace safety standards. If any
violations exist, they're probably in lighting, which most people know
how to fix. Don't forget that the IRS will give you a deduction for
the equipment you dedicate to your home workplace.
Social status -- your peers don't see the value of your efforts.
This is true of many jobs that take place on employers' premises as
well. If you're running a machine that knits ski caps you probably
won't identify the caps as 'your efforts' anyway. But you certainly
will if you're knitting them at home.
Sense of community -- you don't see the relevance of your work in
a greater context.
Again, you'll feel that way in a factory if you spend all day
machining widgets that get mounted in the middle of an engine block.
You might see the car, but you can't tell if your part is really there
or not.
Also, you lose the socializing aspects of
work: especially the "old-boy" network that many feel is important
for advancement.
This only applies to the kinds of jobs that can't be done at home
anyway. "Junior executives" and "management trainees" clearly can't
do their work at home. They have to be at the office watching what
'real' managers do.
Use and development of one's resources -- at-home jobs are likely
to be repetitive dead-end work, such as data-entry (or knitting).
I don't think it's fair to lump data-entry with knitting. I don't
knit (my wife does) but I've certainly done my share of data-entry.
In fact, I don't know anyone who does data-entry as a hobby, while I
know many people who knit. Yes, there are lots of boring,
unfulfilling jobs that can be done by piecework at home and some of
them may involve knitting. But creative handwork can also be a very
fulfilling thing to do at home.
Working at home will make it more difficult for you to locate a
more challanging job.
Again, it depends on where you work. Most places I worked strongly
discouraged any discussion of working for other companies. Many
bosses discourage talk of changing jobs even within the same
department or same company ('too long to retrain,' ad nauseum). I
found it easiest to find new jobs through my own 'old boy' network
made up of friends I made while learning my trade. Also, it's
probably harder for your boss to know if you're job hunting if you do
it at home.
But, as the comments implied, the toughest part of working at home
is that you miss the social effects of sharing your experiences with
your co-workers. Gee, maybe if everyone meets at the guildsmans' hall
(read 'union hall') once a week for a social evening.....
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 00:02:44-PDT
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: re: unions and home work
I'm amazed at the strong anti-union sentiment expressed by the
majority of the recent contributors to this list. I think the unions
are just a bit slow (just like virtually every bulky institution in
the US) when it comes to understanding the ways that computers and
communications are going to revolutionize society.
I can imagine very strong distributed unions forming around a variety
of issues as more workers work at home and have access to electronic
mail. If there are inexpensive public networks, then employees will
be able to organize more effectively than ever before. Unions (and
other organizations such as environmental groups, gun lobbies, and
consumer groups) will probably become more democratic and less
centralized. Home work used to be a form of divide-and-conquer that
prevented effective organization. Worldnet will change all that.
If there aren't inexpensive public networks, I suspect that all of us
already connected to worldnet will get organized ourselves!
--Tom
------------------------------
Date: 9 Oct 84 11:53:24 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Jef Poskanzer <Poskanzer.PA@XEROX.ARPA>
Subject: The New York Times on Flaming.
To: SocialIssues^.PA@XEROX.ARPA
Reply-to: SocialIssues^.PA@XEROX.ARPA
By Erik Eckholm
New York Times
Computer buffs call it "flaming." Now scientists are documenting
and trying to explaim the surprising prevalence of rudeness,
profanity, exultation and other emotional outbursts by people when
they carry on discussions via computer.
Observing both experimental groups and actual working
environments, scientists at Carnegie-Mellon University are comparing
decision-making through face-to-face discussions with those conducted
electronically. In the experiments, in addition to calling each other
more names and generally showing more emotion than they might face to
face, 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.
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.
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."
Studies of electronic mail in several Fortune 500 corporations
have confirmed the tendency for people to use more informal and
expressive language on the computer than when communicating in person,
by telephone or by memo.
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.
Unusually expressive language has been one of the most striking
characteristics of computer discussions studied in many different
contexts. "It's amazing," said Kiesler. "We've seen messages sent
out by managers - messages that will be seen by thousands of people -
that use language normally heard in locker rooms."
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************