human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/02/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 1 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 53
Today's Topics:
Query - E-mail to distribute telephone messages?,
Computers and the Law - Unions muscling in? (2 msgs),
Computers and People - Say What?,
Chess - Move 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 22:56:42-PDT
From: Richard Furuta <Furuta@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
Subject: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone
Subject: messages?
To: Tops-20@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Unix-Wizards@BRL.ARPA
Is anyone out there using electronic mail to distribute telephone
messages? The system we use now is to write the message on a little
green piece of paper which is subsequently filed for the recipient.
We are interested in switching to an electronic mail based system.
However, it's unfair to ask the already busy person answering
telephone calls to switch to a system for message taking that will
increase the workload. It seems to us that using a vanilla mail
interface will increase that workload particularly since the
information that comes in on the message often doesn't arrive in a
linear form (e.g., the telephone number may be given before the name
of the caller and each might precede the name of the intended
recipient). What I hope is that someone has already solved the
problem and can point me to a piece of software (preferably running on
Tops-20 or on Berkeley Unix) to aid in this process. In any case, I'd
be interested to hear from anyone whose organization is using
electronic mail for the telephone messages with details of how it is
done and how well it is working.
Since the amount of information on Human-Nets and Unix-Wizards
overwhelmed me long ago, I'd appreciate it if responses could be
mailed directly to me.
--Rick
Furuta@Washington (Arpanet, CSnet)
ihnp4!uw-beaver!furuta (Usenet)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 84 12:49:10 EDT
From: John R Ellis <Ellis@YALE.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Government on the move: Home computer use
To: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
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: Monday, 1 Oct 1984 06:46:49-PDT
From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber)
Subject: Re: Governement on the move: Home computer use
I think the case you are talking about deals with people in Vermont
who are knitting ski caps at home for various large retailers. The
union has been pressuring the feds for many years now to put a stop to
it. So far, the feds have been smart enough to stay out of it, but
with an election coming up the knitters are at a great disadvantage
because they are a small number of individuals in a single state, and
the unions are organized across the nation. Obviously, a union can
spend more money, send more letters to more congressmen, and sway more
votes than a few folks working independently out of their homes in
Vermont.
Politians are not usually nasty people, but they make their living by
winning a popularity contest every few years decided by large groups
of single-issue voters. If these individuals send letters to their
respective congressfolks saying, "Stop the Vermont knitters or I won't
vote for you" then there can be little question that the pols would
rather put some faceless people in another state out of work, than be
out of work themselvs. (Especialy given that their replacement will
probably pass the law anyway.)
Skillful statesmen get through issues like this by keeping legislation
from getting out of committee and by distracting unions and other
special interest groups with other, hopefully more generally
beneficial, legislation that they want more. But time is against the
knitters. Sooner or later the unions will make it more of a priority
to stop independent workers. The polititians will be faced with the
choice of doing something they know is wrong, and getting thrown out
of office (where they might do some good later) while the wrong gets
done anyway. It's a classic problem in philosophy. Probably they'll
pass some sort of compensation bill for the knitters (drawn out of
social security, no doubt) and close them down.
The only way to stop the unions is with a larger, more organized
force. There are no signs that such a force is likely to form.
National Right To Work laws never get enough support to make it to the
floor. The majority of individuals support the concept, but they are
not motiviated to make the effort of a special interest group.
This screed should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of unions.
Unions have helped form our present society. You wouldn't like your
life quite so much if it weren't for the gains that unions bought: the
40-hour week, paid vacation, company-paid medical insurance, the list
goes on to include virtually every benefit we take for granted in
high-techdom. The unions have also screwed up the economy, made poor
quality a hallmark in American manufacturing and have earned the image
of "thugs." I think unionism is like communism... a good theory, but
difficult to translate into practice.
As to unions in the computer trade, they really aren't a good fit. A
union is at its best when it is protecting workers from an
exploitative management. At the present, it is the skilled workers
who are exploiting the companies. We don't need unions yet. When it
is no longer a seller's market in the computer biz, then organization
might be a better idea. Remember, most people who sit on one
company's board of directors, also sit on others. It's a very small
world at the top; everyone knows everyone. They have de facto
organization. It's still not uncommon to hear of price-fixing and
non-competitive agreements made between large companies at "secret"
meetings. That's really all unions are about. Wage-fixing at the
bottom of the pyramid.
>>>==>PStJTT
------------------------------
Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 16:49:19-EDT
From: Janet Asteroff <US.JFA%CU20B@COLUMBIA>
Subject: 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: Sun Sep 30 16:02:03 1984
From: mclure@sri-prism
To: ailist@sri-ai, human-nets@rutgers
Subject: Delphi 15: cruncher nudges bishop
The Vote Tally
--------------
The winner is: 14 ... Ne8
There were 16 votes. We had a wide mixture. The group seemed to have
difficulty forming a plan. Many different plans were suggested.
The Machine Moves
-----------------
Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est
8 ply h3 6 hrs, 4 mins 2.18x10^ +4% of a pawn
(P-KR3)
Humans Move # Votes
BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK ** 14 ... Ne8 4
** BP ** -- BB BP BP BP 14 ... Rc8 3
BP ** -- BP -- ** -- ** 14 ... Nh5 3
** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- 14 ... Nd7 2
-- ** -- ** WP ** BB ** 14 ... Qd7 2
** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP 14 ... Nxe4 1
WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP ** 14 ... Qb6 1
WR -- ** -- WR -- WK --
Prestige 8-ply
The machine's evaluation turned from negative to slightly positive.
Apparently it likes this position somewhat but still considers the
position even.
The Game So Far
---------------
1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB)
2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2)
3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O)
4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) Ne8 (N-K1)
5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3)
6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3)
7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4)
8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP)
9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5)
10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q5)
Commentary
----------
BLEE.ES@XEROX
14 ... Ne8 as
14 ... Nh5?; 15. h3 B:f3 (if 15 ... Bd7?; 16. N:e5
and white wins a pawn) 16. Q:f3 Nf6 (now we've lost
the bishop pair, a tempo and the knight still blockades
the f pawn and the white queen is active...)
(if 16 ... g6?; 16. Bh6 Ng7; 17. g4 and black can't support f5
because the light square bishop is gone) while
14 ... Nd7?; 15. h3 Bh5; 16. g4 Bg6; and black has trouble
supporting f5. I expect play to proceed:
15. h3 Bd7
16. g4 g6
17. Bh6 Ng7
18. Qd3 f5 (at last!)
19. g:f5 g:f5
JPERRY@SRI-KL
In keeping with the obvious strategic plan of f5, I
vote for 14...N-K1. N-Q2 looks plausible but I would
rather reserve that square for another piece.
SMILE@UT-SALLY
14 ... Nh5.
Paves the way for f5. Other possibility is Qd7 first. Either
way I believe f5 is the key (as it often is!).
REM@MIT-MC
I'm not much for attacking correctly, so let's prepare
to double rooks: 14. ... Q-Q2 (Qd7) (It also helps a
K-side attack if somebody else can work out the details.)
VANGELDER@SU-SCORE
14. ... Nxe4 (vote)
In spite of what the master says, White can indefinitely
prevent f5 by h3, Bd7, g4. Will the computer find this after
Ne8 by Black? Stronger over the board is 14 ... Nxe4. If 15.
Nxe4 f5 16. N/4g5 f4 and Black regains the piece with
advantage. The majority will probably not select this move,
which may be just as well, as attack-by-committee could
present some real problems. Nevertheless, the computer
presumably saw and examined several ply on this line and
it would be interesting to see what it thinks White's
best defense is. An alternate line for White is 15.
Nxe4 f5 16. N/4d2 e4 17. h3 Bh5 18. Bd4 Bg4!? 19.
Nxe4 fxe4 20. Qxe4 Bxf3 21. gxf3 Rf4.
There are many variations, but most are not decisive in
8 ply, so the computer's evaluation function would be
put to the acid test.
ACHEN.PA@XEROX
13 ... Nh5 (keep up the pressure)
this might provoke 14 g3 Bd7, either 15 Nd2 or h4 to
start a counter attack. the black is hoping to exchange
the remaining knight with queen's bishop 16 ... Nf4
then maybe attempt to encircle the white with Qb6
attacking the weakside behind the pawns. (note: if 13
... Nh5 can't 14 ... f5 for the obvious reason)
Solicitation
------------
Your move, please?
Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or
Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************