human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/05/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 4 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 55
Today's Topics:
Query - Biofeedback Instrument Link,
Information - MIT Communications Forum Update
Computers and the Law - Unions/Working at Home (7 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3-Oct-84 23:53 PDT
From: William Daul / Augmentation Systems Div. / McDnD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: PC <--> Biofeedback Instrument Link (info wanted)
To: ARPANET-BBOARDS@MIT-MC.ARPA
To: INFO-IBMPC@USC-ISIB.ARPA, INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
To: INFO-MICRO@BRL-VGR.ARPA, WorkS@RUTGERS.ARPA
A friend has asked me to see if I can uncover some information for
him. So...here goes...
He wants to connect an EEG biofeedback instrument to a personal
computer (IBM or APPLE). He hasn't decided on which.
1. What are the necessary componets of such a system (hard disk,
disk controller, etc)?
2. He wants to get a spectrum analysis (FFT) of the recordings,
both real time and compressed. Does anyone know of existing
software he could use?
Emre Konuk
MRI
555 Middlefield Rd.
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Tel: 415-321 3055 -- wk
415-856 0872 -- hm
I suspect he would like to know if anyone knows of existing groups
doing similar work. If you have information, you can send it to me
"electronically" and I will pass it on to him.
Thanks, --Bi//(WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 07:54 EDT
From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: MIT Communications Forum
To: Telecom@USC-ECLC.ARPA
The seminar by David Clark, "The MIT Communications Problem" has been
postponed to October 25 (originally October 11). Same time, same
place.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 23:01:56-PDT
From: Rich Zellich <ZELLICH@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: [minow] telecommuting may not be so good after all
As one who participates in a Army work-at-home experiment, I must say
that I have considerably better light and seating in my
personally-designed home office than I do in my office-building
office.
Since I am on the ARPA/Mil Net, I also seem to have contact (and more
personal, at that, for the most part) with a lot larger community than
I ever did at the office. For the most part, my co-workers and
immediate supervisor have a lot better idea of what I'm doing, and the
worth of my work, than most of the people in our organization have
about their co-workers and subordinates.
What I, and the other WaH-experiment people, am doing is about the
farthest thing in the world from being dull or repetitive.
Granted, I'm in sort of an idealized situation, but then that's
probably the situation ANY home-worker in our industry will be in for
quite some time to come.
Rich Zellich
USAMC ALMSA
St. Louis, MO
------------------------------
Date: 3 October 1984 02:56-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: telecommuting may not be so good after all
To: minow%rex.DEC @ DECWRL
You state the case for the "I know what is good for you much
better than you do" theory well.
John Adams had the view that "each person is the best
judge of his own interest" ; one does wonder, what has happened
to freedom? Must I go work in an office?
------------------------------
Date: 3-Oct-84 00:13 PDT
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems Div. - McDnD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
Subject: Re: telecommuting may not be so good after all
To: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Martin Minow had good points regarding what one may lose working at
home. But there are many people that would gladly give up those
aspects. I work at home 2 days a week. I feel that I get the best of
both worlds. I have not had any problems getting any equipment
(within reason) I need for home. My biggest concern is that others
may take advantage of this flexibility and wreck it for the rest of
us. I would like to hear about others experiences of working at
home...what did/do you do...how is management done...general comments.
--Bi//
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 1984 0652-PDT
From: Rem@IMSSS
Subject: Programming via telecommunicating
The claim was made that at-home jobs are likely to be data-entry or
other non-interesting jobs. Using that argument to stop computer
programmers from doing some of their work at home is nonsense. If the
unions really want to make work interesting they should point out
computer programming as one of the rare exceptions to "most work, at
home or at office, is boring", and encourage more people to do
computer programming instead of boring things like answering
telephones in an office or soldering parts in a PC board in a factory
or putting parts on automobiles in a factory or running a cash
register in a store etc.
The point was made that at home you lose social life. I agree, except
that social life with co-workers is often discouraged anyway,
especially romantic relationships, so maybe it's just as well to have
to get social relationships away from the workplace where they don't
distract from work and don't violate company rules against co-worker
romance. Besides, in my case, there aren't any eligible women where I
work and if I want to relate to men-only I can always play Go or send
electronic mail etc. which are men-dominated, so looking for social or
romantic affairs at my workplace wouldn't be of essential value
anyway, merely more of what I have already elsewhere.
The "old boy" network may be more efficient on the net than in person,
making that argument against at-home telecommunicating invalid, but
I'm not sure so won't argue that point at this time.
In summary, unions should be encouraging at-home computer programing
and other tasks, to make work more interesting and fruitful, to ease
the load on child-care facilities and reduce the number of children
who come home from school to empty houses until their parents get home
from work, and eventually to eliminate the need for unions so the
union leaders can get on to more productive and interesting work
themselves. An at-home person has more time to think "do I really like
this job" when not under direct supervision of somebody yelling "work
faster, stop daydreaming and get back to work", so I doubt at-home
sweatshops are likely when individuals work directly on terminals.
Only at-home groups where one person supervises others needs to be
watched lest the supervisor push the other employee(s) too much. But
I'd worry about small offices with one boss pushing one secretary just
as much.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 10:07:50-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Computer Homework
To: Poli-Sci@RUTGERS.ARPA
Re: Women are EXPECTED to make clothing for men ...
The 60 Minutes piece made the point that the homework law was passed
(about 30 years ago) to correct specific abuses. At the time, men's
clothing was commonly made in factories using heavy machinery.
Women's clothing was, I presume, more detailed, individual, and
delicate; it was commonly made by hand either in factories or at home.
Times have changed and the law is now absurd, but I don't expect the
law to change until some larger issue such as computer homework forces
a complete restructuring.
(Factory sweatshops also exist; there are separate laws covering them,
but enforcement is lax. Milton Friedman apparently supports such
shops as an entry for immigrants and the poor into the mainstream of
the American economy. The same can be said for homework. We
certainly should not shut down the workshops unless we provide
alternative channels for these people.)
Computer homework and factory work can be just as abused as any other
kind of work. Not every terminal is going to have mailer capability
or storage of personal files. Terminals can be made to count
keystrokes and are thus ideal overseers. Some legislation may indeed
be necessary; let's just make sure it's sensible legislation.
Don't you wish your congressman had a terminal?
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 84 1311 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Gail E. Kaiser <Gail.Kaiser@CMU-CS-A.ARPA> (C410GK60)
Subject: homework
This is in response to Minow's comments on working at home.
I had the impression that, in general, the "Vermont knitters" are
women with small children who want to stay at home with their
children. These people don't care about getting into the old-boys
network (which they're excluded from anyway) or socializing with their
fellow workers. They want paid work and they want to do it at home.
Since they have found a company that is willing to support this, I
think the unions and the government should stay out of it.
I'm sure there are lots of people, male and female, who want to work
at home because they have children or elderly dependents there, or
just because they feel like it. In many of these cases, the choice is
between working at home or not working at all. I believe in the
"right to work" and I'd support a national right-to-work law that
would hopefully get rid of all this union garbage.
-Gail Kaiser (gk60@cmu-cs-a.arpa)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 10:10:05 PDT
From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: re: telecommuting may not be so good after all
decvax!minow pointed out a number of things that people who work at
home have lost by not working in an office or a factory. We really
should assume that the people involved knew what they were doing when
they made the choice. In all of the recent cases that have come to
light (either in sympathetic articles or in the few complaints to "the
authorities") the people involved WANTED to work at home. None of
them could have been considered to have been forced to give up these
things that WE think are important. What the unions want to do is to
prevent a person from making the choice of working at home when he or
she thinks something about that situation (being with the kids, no
commute, flexible hours, etc.) is better that some job they could get
away from home.
Chris
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************