Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (08/26/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 25 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 51
Today's Topics:
Responces to Queries - Who reads Human-nets &
On-line Tech Reports &
Typesetting Mathematics,
Computers and People - Personal Information Systems &
Re: Teaching About Computers &
The Worth of Technology (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 23 Aug 83 11:12:30-PDT
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: On-line survey
Although it's possible that the Moderator knows things I don't know,
my guess is that a survey of the type I suggested (of who reads
Human-Nets) would be difficult and/or costly. At this site, and many
others I suspect, Human-Nets is delivered to a BBoard where anyone can
read it without anyone else knowing (except for system wizards,
maybe). But if the list of sites (rather than individuals) receiving
Human-Nets is available and will fit on one screenfull, I wouldn't
mind seeing it.
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 24 Aug 1983 08:54-PDT
Subject: Re: On-line tech reports?
From: guyton@rand-unix
The issue of electronic distribution of Rand reports has
recently come up and we've decided to start experimenting
with it to see what the problems are. I'm interested in
contacting other people who are interested in this topic
(and moving it off human-nets). If enough people are
interested I'd be willing to maintain a small mailing
list.
My own interests on this topic include:
o) Software for catalog perusal & document ordering
o) Possible legal issues of electronic reproduction
o) Multi-media document representation
o) Availability to non-arpanet computer users
A query:
Does anyone on the Arpanet (other than the NIC) routinely
provide electronic document distribution?
-- Jim Guyton
Guyton@Rand-Unix
...!decvax!randvax!guyton
------------------------------
Date: Wed 24 Aug 83 15:15:43-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Typesetting mathematics
Sorry, I have no hard data. I have used EQN quite a bit, though,
and I have some experience with TeX. I would say that EQN is very
easy to use unless you have very fancy formats. The TBL table
processor that comes with it is also exceedingly easy to use. TeX
offers better defaults and finer control for many things, but you
need to have at least one wizard around to deal with the complexity
of raw TeX.
The kicker, however, is that EQN must be run with troff. This was
a fine formatting system for its day, but it is a royal pain to use.
You have to be a wizard to format a document in raw troff. Naive
users can get by with the MS macro package for simple documents (and
the MAN macro package for UNIX man pages) or with the Berkeley ME
macro package. With either set of macros, however, there are many
things that you just cannot do without wizardry.
Raw TeX is almost as difficult to use well, but if you add a good
macro package it becomes far superior to troff. My experience here
is with Leslie Lamport's LaTeX package (and SLiTeX for making slides);
it is reasonably good and getting better. TeX with a macro package
is almost as easy to use as SCRIBE, although not yet adapted to as
many different output devices. It gives you default formatting and
fine control that are superior to anything else I've seen. I claim
that the resulting ease of document formatting far outweighs any
slight differences in ease of math formula setup.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 24-Aug-83 23:30 PDT
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Re: Textnet
Randy Trigg mentioned his "Textnet" thesis project (V6 #41) combining
hypertext and NLS/Augment structures. He makes a strong statement
about distributed Textnet on worldnet:
There can be no mad dictator in such an information network.
[The Gaia adventure (V6 #38) attempts to provide a global
modeling playground for evaluating statements such as that.]
I have spent most spare minutes for the last ten years designing a
distributed hyper-service using NLS and Augment as a development tool.
We can simulate, via electronic mail, the beginnings of an on-line
market called the "Publish adventure". The Xanadu project's
Hypertext, because of its devotion to static text, is a degenerate
case of the Publish adventure. If you might be interested in
collaborating on the design of the protocol, let me know.
-- kirk
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 83 10:04:12 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Hoffman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: On teaching about computers
Keith Lynch (in V6 #49) flames about "losers", that is, about micro
BASIC users who can't understand data types, compiling, etc. I
sympathize with him just a little -- it is time-consuming at best and
frequently aggravating to have to return to fundamentals for each
person. But, I have two comments.
As he mentions, it is a matter of teaching. It sounds to me like he
isn't interested in truly teaching these people about the problems
they are having. That's OK as long as it's recognized by both
parties, and the novice is given referrals to those with the patience
to teach, while the busy and impatient wizard is sheltered from the
masses. As a part-time teacher of just those "losers", I can testify
that, with patience, they can indeed learn all those wizardy concepts.
However, on another level altogether, the novice's intuitions are
frequently quite correct! We, the builders of future computer systems
must pay close attention to their complaints. This is precisely the
motive behind user-friendliness, and all those other marketing
buzzwords. Discovering a concept that is difficult for the
uninitiated usually is a major spur to progress: researchers mull it
over, teachers and students struggle with it, new ways of thinking
about it are born, and finally better ways of working with it,
generalizing it, simplifying it are developed.
--Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 1983 1050-PDT
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #48
From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB>
Re: Doug's (DRH.TYM@OFFICE-2) comments,
"The influence of technology to our well being"
Remember the effect on the collective consciousness, an entity in
itself, which is evolving at perhaps a faster rate than the entities
which are our individual persons. Perhaps the effect on the person is
minimum, if any, but the effect on the entity (humanity) made up of
our individual persons is profound.
It is difficult to discuss the notion of a person in the context of
your rather abstract definition ("...cannot be described. It is the
indescribable essence of the individual which exists apart from that
individual's nature. Thus, any aspect of a human being that can be
described is part of nature, not person."), therefore, I will assume
you mean the individual consciousness. That is to say the
consciousness itself, not what it has experienced, nor what it knows
or feels.
The collective consciousness of all humanity (call it "ALL") can and
does change in form as a result of relatively major changes in society
and the attitudes of individuals. While the individual person may not
be mechanically changed, "ALL" undergoes major structural changes.
The person of "ALL" is indeed structurally changed. It is faster,
more accurate, and considerably different as a result of computers,
medical advancements, transportation, etc.
Our veins and arteries still carry blood the same was as they did a
century ago, but we are carried far more efficiently than people of
the earlier time. Our individual minds process data more or less in
the same way, at the same speed as 100 years ago; the higher level
processes may have changed (i.e. thinking in terms of new technology,
etc), but the basic operation is the same. The manner in which "ALL"
processes information, however, is radically changed. Our own
artificial resistance to physical disease provided by medicine has
perhaps wiped out many once-common ailments. Sociological problems
(diseases of "ALL") are common, however. We are no less, in fact
perhaps more, a creature at war with itself, than 100 or 200 or 1000
years ago.
The point of all this is that the implications of our new technology
may not have fundamentally changed the person, individually, but that
doesn't really matter. The radical fundamental changes in "ALL" are
what must be dealt with.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 23 Aug 83 11:18:44-PDT
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Technological changes
This is a partial response to the contributors who have asserted that
technology has not changed the "fundamental essence of a person" or
whatever. Modulo the obvious fact that there are many ways to define
this essence, I would like to know whether anyone thinks that
technology should have been able to change it, and what things may be
able to change it if technology can't. Should the answer be "another
1,000,000 years of evolution", perhaps people should stop getting down
on technology for being unable to do the impossible. Otherwise, can
someone recommend technological advances which we should try to
achieve in order to change this "essence"?
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: 23 August 1983 20:25 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The influence of technology to our well being
The solution to increased life expectancy is to permit the elderly to
work instead of forcing them to totally retire. If the elderly do
useful work, it'll be the same as if they were young people working.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 24 Aug 83 14:54:58-PDT
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy
I agree completely with Bruce Hamilton's comments on population
and purpose. Too bad I don't have any answers.
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? (This
has always been the problem of the wealthy classes: they can
buy better quality than they could ever learn to make.) We
will all be reduced to spectators and dilettantes.
Creation of such artificial creative intelligence may be the
last great purpose of mankind. People just don't realize the
danger ...
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************