Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (09/01/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 1 Sep 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 56
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Computers on TV &
Who Reads Human-Nets &
Teaching about Computers (2 msgs) &
The Worth of Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 83 17:32 EDT (Tuesday)
From: Denber.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: new shows for the Fall season
"it is nice that computer programmers are considered to be
role models"
Uh huh - did you read the plot of the first episode? The Hardy Boys
break into (oh no!) some government or business computers and go
snooping around and generally wreaking digital mayhem looking for
evidence. When questioned about whether or not they should be
glorifying breaking the law, the producers of the show replied that
they hadn't thought of it that way or something, but they would tone
it down in future shows. I'm not hopeful on this one.
- Michel
------------------------------
Date: 31 August 1983 21:59 edt
From: Pool.Datanet at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Survey suggestion
A survey need not be difficult or costly. One puts a few questions
about reading habits of HN users into an issue of HN and asks people
to reply, e.g. how often they read, how much time, how much time do
they spend on other types of media. However, I agree it is not a good
idea. Since replies are voluntary there would have to be a lot of
interest by the receivers of the request. Judging by the lack of
comments, I don't think that interest is there.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Aug 1983 17:10:40 EDT (Wednesday)
From: Marshall Abrams <abrams at mitre>
Subject: College-level courseware publishing
I have learned that Addison-Wesley is setting up a new
courseware/software operation and are looking for microcomputer
software packages at the college level. I think the idea is for a
student to be able to go to the bookstore and buy a disk and
instruction manual for a specific course.
Further details on request.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 83 13:57:00 EDT
From: Eric Albert <ealbert@BBN-UNIX>
Subject: So-called "losers"
This message contains my responses to Keith Lynch's responses to my
responses to his original message entitled "losers".
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 83 10:33:15 EDT
From: Eric Albert <ealbert@BBN-UNIX>
The distinction between fixed and floating point is
very non-intuitive. I never encountered the concept,
despite numerous math courses, until I started using
computers, and I remember thinking it an arbitrary
distinction. Furthermore, it IS "an artifact of the
language" -- some computer languages don't
distinguish. Users find these languages much easier
to understand.
Date: 30 Aug 83 03:25 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
I think it is a perfectly natural distinction. Floating point
(aka real) numbers [...] Integers [...] Complex numbers [...]
These are all different TYPES of numbers, and they are used
for different things and different rules apply to them. [...]
Perhaps you are forgetting that integers are a subset of the reals,
NOT a different type of number. This, in fact, is precisely what I
was getting at (and is the subject of the -1 to the floating 3 comment
below): FIXEDs are NOT a subset of FLOATs. This is completely counter
to the understanding that users have developed from standard math
courses.
[Keith:]
... Not one that I know of has ever been able
to understand why -1 to the integer 3 is -1
but -1 to the floating 3 is undefined.) ...
[Eric:]
I'm not surprised users don't understand this; I find
it downright weird! Again, many languages will do the
automatic conversion to FIXED here (perhaps warning
you if they have to round).
[Keith:]
I find I prefer strong typing. Obviously a language can be
designed to replace a real number with an integer in any
context where the real number makes no sense. Is this the
right thing to do? Perhaps it should be an option. I would
leave the option turned off. ...
As mentioned above, replacing a real number with an integer is
redundant: integers ARE real numbers. Only in computers is this
arbitrary distinction maintained, and users (rightly) find it
confusing and irritating.
... I still maintain that if a user tries to raise the integer
-1 to the floating 3, he almost certainly isn't thinking
clearly as there is no conceivable reason for wanting to
perform this undefined operation [...]
This is circular reasoning! What it translates to is "The user is
doing something that doesn't make sense since they want to perform an
undefined operation which is undefined because some compiler writer
thought that it didn't make sense." I say that the operation DOES
make sense, that it is the standard interpretation from mathematics,
and that languages and systems designed for computer-naive users
should act as much as possible like their analogues from the real
world. You are welcome to "leave the option turned off", but I think
that reflects your immersion in computers more than anything else.
[Eric:]
Keith, with his inability to see beyond "that's the
way computers work and that's all there is to it" is
the one who displays lack of depth.
[Keith:]
Where do I say anything that can be interpreted as that?
Your "perfectly natural distinctions" which in fact violate standard
math definitions, plus your entire initial message (which castigated
users for not understanding concepts which I have argued are
non-intuitive) give ample support for my claim.
There are many important issues, such as how SHOULD numbers
work in a system, how should characters work, what is the best
metaphor for a file system, etc. I have at least tried to
make SOME effort at these decisions. Have you? Or do you
just sit back and complain that the machine is not
Doing-What-You-Mean and those stupid computer jocks should fix
it right or get out of the business?
Actually, I am one of those stupid computer jocks, and I believe that
if the machine is not Doing-What-The-User-Means then I should fix it
right or get out of the business. Really, Keith, computers were
initially meant for the benefit of the users, NOT the computer jocks!
Yes, we can have it convert from integer to floating to byte
to character whenever it guesses that that must be what you
wanted, or we could just outlaw integers altogether (as most
Basics do). Kindly do not criticize me for trying to resolve
these issues and for explaining them to other users, including
novice users.
But you DON'T try to resolve these issues; you blame the users for not
being bright enough to understand them. This is not "explaining" by
any definition.
[Eric:]
This lack of respect [for users] is, of course,
totally unfounded: it is based on the fact that the
user doesn't understand computer science (which is
important to Keith), even though the user may
understand business, or chemistry, or some other field
(which is not important to Keith) expertly. Solipsism
at its most pronounced!
[Keith:]
Why don't you get a dictionary. That has nothing to do with
Solipsism even if it were true.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1983) defines
"solipsism" as "a theory holding that the self can know nothing but
its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing."
The word is commonly used metaphorically to mean the condition of a
person who is so locked into their own little world that they cannot
even begin to understand that others might see things differently
(just as "paranoid" is frequently used metaphorically to describe
people who think that the world is dangerous, even though these people
may not be clinically "paranoid"). I thought this described you
fairly well. In any case, why did you ignore the statements in my
above paragraph and confine your comments to my vocabulary?
[Eric:]
I feel sorry for the people with whom he works, who
may now believe that there is something wrong with
THEM.
[Keith:]
I think my 'success rate' is a lot higher than yours.
Come, come! This stooping to ad hominem arguments is the last refuge
of the incompetent debator. My comments were the summing up of a long
set of carefully argued statements based on your initial message. You
know nothing about my so-called "success rate"; your comment smacks of
the child yelling "Nyah, nyah -- I'm better than you are!"
Furthermore, even if I'm a complete failure in this regard, this
doesn't relieve you from the obligation to answer my ARGUMENTS rather
than comment on my personality.
-- Eric Albert (ealbert @ BBN-UNIX)
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Aug 83 11:22:16-PDT
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Medical care &c
Mark,
Your comment that you are "extremely uncomfortable with money as a
means of rationing" sort of reminds me of the comment attributed to
Winston Churchill when asked about the merits of democracy as a
political system. He is alleged to have said something like, "It's
the worst there is -- except all the others are even worse."
This probably doesn't belong on Human-Nets anyway, and a long
discussion of the economics of health care certainly doesn't, but
given that the amount of health care sold in this country is limited
by price rather than supply (contrast with gasoline in 1979), I don't
see why rich people shouldn't be allowed to buy as much of it as they
want. Poor people will have to be content with as much of it as they
(i.e. the gummint) can afford, which will be decided politically. I
doubt very strongly that money will be the sole allocation mechanism.
- Richard
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************