Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (08/27/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 26 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 52
Today's Topics:
Computer Security - Tampering with Sloan-Kettering VAX,
Computers and People - Teaching about Computers &
The Impact of Computers on our Culture &
The Worth of Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Aug 1983 1333-MDT
From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Tampering with Sloan-Kettering VAX
If the intruder came in by Telenet, the CALL REQUEST packet would
show the calling Telenet address. This would probably be a port
on the Telenet public PAD, presumably the Milwaukee one. The right
system could trace the number that was dialed in to this port and
report it to some appropriate authority pretty quickly.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1983 14:07-PDT
From: Greg Davidson <sdcsvax!davidson>
Subject: Why blame users for losing software?
I found Keith Lynch's message about ``losers'' quite disturbing, and
would like to respond point by point:
1. Users who send you mail with embedded control characters.
If your mail reading program does not filter control characters into
something harmless & printable, then it is the worst reading program
I've ever heard of. Its more than just an annoyance, though: Havn't
you heard of the famous security hole where you send the operator a
message with embedded codes to reprogram his terminal's function keys
to execute your trojan horse program?
If your users' mail editing program allows them to insert invisible
control characters, and does not make it clear that some keys REALLY
backspace, but others ONLY APPEAR TO backspace, then they have been
given truly lousy software.
2. Encouraging users to edit their messages.
Gee, on our system (4BSD VAX UNIX), all three of the mail systems
(Berkeley's mail, UCSD's snd/msg & EMACS rmail) allow users to edit
any message without prearrangement. Of the two popular ones, snd
invokes your favorite editor automatically (if you defined your
favorite editor) and rmail is integrated into the powerful EMACS
editor.
On Bell UNIX systems, I'm always irritated by the standard mail system
which traps me in a state from which I can't correct a typo without
abandoning the text I've so far put in. My solution is always to port
over some better software.
3. Vaxes useable, Apples & IBMs terrible.
I can't see that the hardware makes all that much difference. One can
certainly run UNIX on the VAX, on the Apple (its available on a 68K
plugin board) and on IBM's Series I, PC or any IBM 370 lookalike. The
rankest novices can run LOGO on the Apple or IBM PC.
As far as the VAX, lots of users run COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC and use VMS
or even UNIX in a completely superstitious cookbook fashion. I don't
see that the fact that its a VAX is much of a help. User interfaces
are primarily software creations.
4. Seriously mixed up users
Many users have been seriously mixed up by earlier computer
experience. Most of what they know is wrong, and they're filled with
superstitions which do not transfer to new systems. I will grant you
that these are the real problem users. Nevertheless, these users are
not unable to learn, and calling them losers and treating them as such
only makes the problem worse.
Both inexperienced and confused users need two things: (1) easy to
use, easy to learn software, and (2) clear, simple tutorial
documentation. There is a severe scarcity of both of these
commodities. What is the solution? (1) Write such software, and (2)
write such documentation.
With a carefully designed initial keymap, I've found that EMACS is
teachable in 15 minutes. With appropriate documentation, users could
grow into the more advance features, and fuller keymaps, though I
havn't written such documentation yet.
With a preface I wrote to the Vi document, a subset of that crufty
editor is teachable in 20 minutes. Users who are able to read the Vi
Tutorial can grow into the rest of the commands.
The UCSD Pascal Screen Editor is teachable in 10 minutes. With all of
its faults, it is the best editor for novices I've ever encountered,
and the ACE version is extensible for experts.
I would love to hear about other easy to learn, but powerful and
extensible editors, especially for UNIX.
BASIC is a very hard language through which to learn decent
programming skills. Pascal, with its superficially arbitrary syntax
and semantics, requires great dedication to learn, and I've noticed
that infrequent programmers quickly forget it. Some dialects of LISP,
such as LOGO, do not have this problem, and moreover have (so I hear)
fairly good tutorial texts. I've had good luck teaching Franz Lisp,
although I had to extend it a bit to make this possible.
What other programming systems are good for beginners?
Well, I've gone on long enough. Let me sum up by saying that the best
way to maintain a steady supply of ``losers'' is to blame the users
for poor software and poor documentation.
-Greg
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 83 13:33 PDT
From: Schroeder@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Re: Impact of the computer on our culture
Date: Mon 8 Aug 83 15:55:52-PDT
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
Subject: Impact of the computer on our culture
I think that these two viewpoints are valid but miss the
importance and direction of the contribution of the computer
(assuming that the computer is one of the implied subjects of
these comments). The computer is not simply another machine:
it will change our cultures as profoundly as the invention of
phonetic writing and the printing press. This is because it
provides a radical change/improvement in the capabilities of
public, cultural memory.
. . .
* There will be little speed advantage to the "big" machine
* There will be little, if any, cost advantage to the "big"
machine. The cost of a computer with useable,
respectable performance and disk space is approaching
commodity levels.
I agree with the basic premise that one basic aspect of the computer
is memory and it therefore provides another quantum leap in the
storage of and (potentially the) dissemination of information for our
societies. But another basic aspect of the computer certainly has to
be its arithmetic capability.
In many applications, the usefulness of a computer does go up with
its speed and size more than with their numbers. At the Magnetic
Fusion Energy Computer Center (LLL-MFE is a node on MFEnet) and many
other large scientific computer centers, we do numerical modeling of
physical systems. These models can be as complex and slow as you want
and always are as complex-slow as tolerable. Many simulation programs
now work in two dimensions. When the machines get a bit bigger and a
lot faster we'll do three dimensional simulations and/or add more
aspects to the model and/or reduce the time step and/or do more
parameter studies. Reality is infinitely complex.
This chart, prepared by various people at MFECC one or two years
ago, describes the relative speed and costs of various computers :
1
Computer PDP-11 VAX DEC-10 CDC-7600 CRAY-1 CLASS VII
Cost $20K $220K $480K $4.5M $11M $10M
Bytes of
Memory 128K 4M 1.1M 3.7M 16M 256M
Multiplies
per sec 200K 1M 2M 10M 20M(scalar) 50M(s)
80M(vector) 250M(v)
Typical
Commercial
Cost per
Hour $140 $200 $250 $1050 $2500 $2270
Cost of
One
Billion
Multiplies $190 $55 $35 $29 $35(s) $13(s)
$9(v) $3(v)
Notes :
1. All Class VII figures are estimates.
CLASS VII computers should be available within a year or two.
These figures are somewhat out of date and rough (the cost of a VAX
in particular seems to be too high) but the conclusion is correct.
Large scientific computers can do long sequences of arithmetic
calculations cheaper. Supercomputer technology as well as PC
technology will progress. The CRAY-1 is 7 year old technology.
The advantages that you point out for the smaller computers are
certainly valid. In MFEnet's environment, the smaller, more common
computers also have the advantages of lots of free or cheap software,
more interactivity (being designed for timesharing more than number
crunching) and experimental data can be analysed without overloading a
limited bandwidth network. But all these advantages do not foretell
the end of centralized computing. A hybrid system consisting of small
interactive computers (PCs, VAXes etc) and large number crunchers,
connected in thru a reasonable network would seem to be the ideal.
Even if Cessnas were commodity items, there would still be a market
for 747s. In computer technology, when Cessnas can match the speed of
747s we'll build Starships.
-- Wayne Schroeder
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 26 August 1983, 11:17-EDT
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX>
Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy
Date: Wed 24 Aug 83 14:54:58-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Life will get even worse if AI succeeds in automating true
creativity. What point would there be in learning to paint,
write, etc., if your home computer could knock out more
artistic creations than you could ever hope to master?
Why shouldn't your home computer feel the same way? After all,
he will be competing with the likes of Bach, Michelangelo, or
Rembrandt; the best the human race has had to offer over the
last 1000 years, and they'll be expected to do it in a few minutes.
The answer, of course, is that art is ACT of expression. Just because
I don't have the genius of Johan Sebastian Bach doesn't mean I'll just
give up my own composition and just play his. I personally doubt that
we will ever design intelligent machines that have the desire to
express artistic ideas (as opposed to embodying artistic ideas in
programs and setting them in motion). But if we do, the human
experience is likely to be very different from the machine experience.
Can you doubt this will be reflected in their poetry?
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************