human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/03/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 54
Today's Topics:
Response to Query - E-mail for telephone messages? (2 msgs),
Computers and People - Re: Lifeless Screen?,
Computers and the Law - Unions muscling in? (6 msgs),
Computer Security - Use of Excessive Force,
Chess - Computer Chess Tournament
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 04:58:05-EDT
From: Michael Rubin <RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone
Subject: messages?
To: furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA
The receptionists here in the Columbia CS Dept. often distribute phone
messages using vanilla MM on TOPS-20. Message recipients don't
especially care about formatting, and the -20 is used for most
departmental word processing and memos anyhow, so the secretaries know
about MM and Emacs.
The load is light because the front desk doesn't answer individual
office phones when people are out. The department chairman has his
own secretary and probably gets his messages on paper (he's a
mathematician, not a hacker). Paper messages for other people aren't
too practical because the front office is far away from most
everything else, and people don't pass by it often.
The ordinary mail program should be fine for all but the really
busiest receptionists (the kind who spend 120% of their time answering
the phone -- they must do it with pipelined architecture!) as long as
it's always up on their terminal (or easy to invoke). A proper set of
aliases and a good MM.INIT (or .mailrc) might help. This assumes the
receptionist is reasonably familiar with the operating system.... But
if you want something specialized for phone messages, it's easy to
write your own mail program on Unix. It might use keywords or
terminal function keys to distinguish the fields of the message, then
arrange them in a standard order before feeding everything to
sendmail.
--Mike Rubin <Rubin@Columbia-20>
------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 02:01:21-PDT
From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone
Subject: messages?
To: RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA
I guess the problem here is that the receptionist fields phone calls
and also fronts for the academic advisors and so has a bunch of
students coming in at the same time. I tend to favor the keyword or
function key approach to using vanilla MM because it allows one the
flexibility to enter parts of the message in random order (including
the intended recipient). Lots of places seem to be using vanilla MM,
though.
--Rick
------------------------------
Date: 2 October 1984 06:15-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Luddite Theory
To: US.JFA @ CU20B
well, what is the effect of the flat lifeless printed page?
Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 16:49:19-EDT
From: Janet Asteroff <US.JFA%CU20B at COLUMBIA>
To: HUMAN-NETS
Re: Luddite Theory
From the "No Comment" department:
"What is the effect of the flat, two-dimensional, visual, and
externally supplied image, and of the lifeless though florid
colors of the viewing screen, on the development of the young
child's own inner capacity to bring to birth living, mobile,
creative images of his own? Indeed, what effect does viewing the
computer screen have on the healthy development of the growing
but unformed mind, brain, and body of the child?"
-- Douglas Sloan
Teachers College Record
Summer, 1984
------------------------------
Date: 2 October 1984 06:11-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use
To: Ellis @ YALE
Cc: ZALESKI @ RUTGERS
for intelligent people, labor union policy is to labor as bird
shot is to birds.
They do not know how to organize the electronic cottage;
therefore, it must be banned.
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 84 12:49:10 EDT
From: John R Ellis <Ellis at YALE.ARPA>
To: HUMAN-NETS, Mike <ZALESKI at RUTGERS.ARPA>
Re: Government on the move: Home computer use
The claim is that these moves against home piece-work are part
of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down on the computer
business in which many people work at home.
According to the most recent issue of National Review, the AFL-CIO
considers "telecommuting" the same as "home work" in traditional
manufacturing and wants to ban it.
------------------------------
Date: 2 October 1984 06:14-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Governement on the move: Home computer use
To: taber%kirk.DEC @ DECWRL
obviously people who want to do productive work without
government permission must be stopped. First forid them; then
try court orders; then fine them; and if they do not pay fines,
then do jail or shoot them. Workiing without permission indeed!
------------------------------
Date: 2 October 1984 06:39-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use
To: ZALESKI @ RUTGERS
Cc: Carter @ RUTGERS, Poli-Sci @ RUTGERS
it is already illegal under federal law to make ladies garments
for sale if you work in your own home. ilgwu doesn't need to
get a law; they only need to (1) keep the one they have and (2)
get marshals to jail the women who use their home kniting
machines to make ski caps, underwear, etc, if intended for
women. If intende for men it's legal; women are EXPECTED to
make clothing for men, apparently. ILGWU strikes again. Sing,
sing the praises.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 06:52:13-PDT
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 40 hour weeks
Where in the computer industry do 40-hour-weeks exist? Certainly
not in Silicon Valley, where the norm is 50-60 hours.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 84 9:44:25 PDT
From: hibbert.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: reply to PStJTT on Unions
To: taber%kirk.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber)
One aspect of unions that you neglected to mention is that they are no
longer voluntary organizations. The government (NLRB) has done much
to reinforce the power (economic and political) that unions wield.
The problem isn't so much that unions aren't useful in the current
economy as that they are using their power to exploit some of the
people who are forced to pay dues to them in order to hold whatever
job they've chosen.
The extent to which the government is interfereing in the situation is
illustrated to some extent by the effect the Reagan administration has
had on the situation. Now that he has gotten his hooks into the NLRB,
and some rulings have started going against the unions, they have
started saying that maybe the NLRB has outlived its usefulness.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 11:18:43-PDT
From: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: telecommuting may not be so good after all
A recent collection of messages on Human Nets and the Unix USENET
presented the case for telecommuting and against the ban against
working at home (the Vermont knitters) proposed by the trade
union movement.
The issues are somewhat more complex than the "they just want to
regulate us out of existance" messages I have been seeing. 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).
More importantly, when you work alone at home, you may lose some
important aspects of work:
Social status -- your peers don't see the value of your efforts.
Sense of community -- you don't see the relevance of your work in
a greater context. Also, you lose the socializing aspects of
work: especially the "old-boy" network that many feel is important
for advancement.
Use and development of one's resources -- at-home jobs are likely
to be repetitive dead-end work, such as data-entry (or knitting).
Working at home will make it more difficult for you to locate a
more challanging job.
While it is certainly true that turning labor into a collection of
cottage industries will erode union control and power, it would be
unwise to ignore other aspects of the situation.
Martin Minow
decvax!minow @ berkeley.arpa
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 2 Oct 1984 12:23:25-PDT
From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber)
To: hn%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Subject: Use of excessive force
I was just reading in EE Times about a product that is supposed to
stop software piracy by damaging the disk of people who use a pirated
s/w product. The interesting part of the article is:
"When detected, Prolok-plus warns the user to remove the
illegally duplicated diskette. If the user continues to try
to use the program, then Prolok-plus performs the retributive
act of using a so-called programming "worm" to randomly
destroy data until the system is shut down. This sort of data
loss is particularly catastrophic for hard-disk users who
store most of their information on one large disk."
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the pricipal of "use of
excessive force" applies here. This is the same law that says a shop
owner is in the wrong if he shoots someone who steals a candy bar.
Given that you can't know who is using the pirated copy (a kid runs it
on his parent's bookkeeping computer, for example) and you can't know
what data you're destroying (lab results, data used to control a
dangerous machine, etc) I don't think you can be justified in randomly
destroying things.
I give the idea an "A" for effort, but an "F" for common sense. I
have great sympathy for anyone trying to stop pirates. (I make my
living as a software engineer.) But I can't say I'll feel sorry for
this outfit if they lose their shirts in court.
>>>==>PStJTT
------------------------------
Date: Tue Oct 2 12:24:29 1984
From: mclure@sri-prism
To: ailist@sri-ai, sf-lovers@rutgers, chess@sri-unix
Subject: reminder of upcoming computer chess tournament in San
Subject: Francisco
This is a reminder that this coming Sunday (Oct 7) will herald the
beginning of the battle of the titans at the San Francisco Hilton
"continental parlors" room at 1pm.
Cray Blitz the reigning world champion program will attempt to
squash the vengeful Belle. Nuchess, a perennial "top-finishing
contender" and descendent of Chess 4.5, wants a piece of the action
and would be very happy to see the Belle/Cray Blitz battle cause both
to go up in a puff of greasy, black smoke, leaving Nuchess as the top
dog for the entire year.
It promises to be as interesting as it is every year. You don't
have to be a computer-freak or chess-fanatic to enjoy the event.
Come on by for a rip-roaring time.
Stuart
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************