Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (08/24/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 23 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 49
Today's Topics:
Queries -- Public Reaction to WarGames &
On-line tech reports &
Mathematic Typesetting,
Computers and People - Calling Channel & Bboards (2 msgs) &
The Worth of Technology &
A Flame on Micros, Keyboards, and Users
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 03:27 edt
From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Query -- Public Reaction to WarGames
It is with some trepidation that I send this, but here goes. Does
anyone know of any public opinion polls that were done in the wake of
the movie WarGames? Some of you may know that back in about 1978 the
Lou Harris organization, under the direction of Prof. Alan Westin of
Columbia did an opinion poll that discovered that 54% of the sample
felt computers were a threat to their privacy and that 63% of them
felt that their security was so poor that future use of computers
should be curtailed. (The study has many more details, such as
breaking the poll down between the hoi polloi and those who knew
something about computers and those who were executives (which may or
may not have known about computers.)
Anyway, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who knows
POSITIVELY of any such opinion polls conducted in the wake of WarGames
to see whether the public felt more or less (presumably) comfortably
about computer security as a consequence of it.
Please reply to me directly. I do NOT, repeat, do NOT want comments
of any sort about the movie itself, merely whether anyone knows and
can report on any valid study of public opinion about computer
security. I also do NOT want anything about arms control, the
liklihood of accidental nuclear war (unless it involves a failure of
computer security).
Thanks all
#Ted Lee
p.s. -- this is also being sent to some addressees that won't show up
in the header fields; privacy and security, you know.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 83 19:21:34 PDT (Friday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: On-line tech reports?
I raised this issue on Human-nets nearly two years ago and didn't seem
to get more than a big yawn for a response.
Here's an example of what I had to go through recently: I saw an
interesting-looking CMU tech report (Newell, "Intellectual Issues in
the History of AI") listed in SIGART News. It looked like I could
order it from CMU. No ARPANET address was listed, so I wrote -- I
even gave them my ARPANET address. They sent me back a form letter
via US Snail referring me to NTIS. So then I phoned NTIS. I talked
to an answering machine and left my US Snail address and the order
number of the tech report. They sent me back a postcard giving the
price, something like $7. I sent them back their order form,
including my credit card#. A week or so later I got back a moderately
legible document, probably reproduced from microfiche, that looks
suspiciously like a Bravo document that's probably on line somewhere,
if I only knew where. I'm not picking on CMU -- this is a general
problem.
There's GOT to be a better way. How about: (1) Have a standard
directory at each major ARPA host, containing at least a catalog with
abstracts of all recent tech reports, and info on how to order, and
hopefully full text of at least the most recent and/or popular ones,
available for FTP, perhaps at off-peak hours only. (2) Hook NTIS into
ARPANET, so that folks could browse their catalogs and submit orders
electronically.
RUTGERS used to have an electronic mailing list to which they
periodically sent updated tech report catalogs, but that's about the
only activity of this sort that I've seen.
We've got this terrific electronic highway. Let's make it useful for
more than mailing around collections of flames, like this one!
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 1983 16:17:01-EDT
From: Joseph I Pallas <joe@cvl>
Reply-to: joe@cvl
Subject: Typesetting mathematics
I don't know if anyone's raised this before.... In Knuth's
introduction to TEX, he compares three systems for typesetting
mathematics--one used by typesetters, EQN (Bell Labs), and TEX. Both
EQN and TEX claim to be easy to learn. What I'd like to know is
whether anyone has some data (not speculation) on how easy it is for
(a) secretaries with little or no math background, (b) computer
science types, and (c) mathematicians with little or no computer
experience, to use these two systems. Does either one have a
particular advantage in either learning time or normal usage error
rate (i.e., error rate after learning curve has reached plateau)?
The reason for this inquiry is fairly simple. We've recently started
using EQN quite a bit, with secretaries doing some input, and authors
doing some. The verbosity of EQN is one problem. The overall
inability of TROFF to produce output as well-arranged as that of TEX
is another concern. Any real evidence to support a decision either to
stay with EQN or switch to TEX would be appreciated.
Joe Pallas
joe@cvl.arpa
joe@cvl.uucp {rlgvax!cvl!joe}
joe.cvl@umcp-cs.csnet
------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 04:12 edt
From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: calling channel & bboards
There is an NBS standard or whatever concerning electronic mailsystems
that defines a "circulate-to" field -- the msg is supposed to be sent
seriatum to each addressee; presumaly one who answers passes on to the
successors both the query and his answer, thus eliminating multiple
answers (unless the later recipients really want to say something)
------------------------------
Date: 21 August 1983 20:29 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Finding your way in the InterNet / design of "calling
Subject: channel"
I'm not caught up on my mail-reading, so this may duplicate somebody
else's idea, but here it is anyway:
Let's set it up this way. First a bunch of people submit questions.
They are examined (computer or human-with-editor or truly-hybrid
system) for keywords, which are attached to them. (Or submitters can
be required to supply keywords initially; probably a good idea to
eliminate the need for software development or labor at this point in
the process.) These keyword&query items are accumulated until the
keywords themselves are enough to warrant a digest. Just the
accumulated keywords are sent out. Readers of the digest who see
keywords in subjects where they have expertise then send back the
keywords and are sent the corresponding questions. They then send in
the answers, which are distributed to the person who asked them. Since
original submissions, requests for full questions, and answers, all
pass through the same point, it's easy to collect statistics on who
actually answers questions and which questions remain unanswered etc.
Three pseudo-in-mailboxes need to exist: (1) for submitting original
questions, (2) for requesting full text of questions, (3) for
answering questions. (A fourth, the -REQUEST, is also useful.) One
out-distribution-list needs to exist, for distributing the latest list
of keywords at regular intervals and for occasionally distributing
statistics and from-the-moderator info.
A refinement would allow answerers to have a standing order for all
questions with certain keywords or combinations. If a question fits
somebody's standing order, it goes there immediately upon submission.
If a question doesn't fit any standing order, or the person with the
standing order doesn't answer the question, then the keywords are sent
out with the next batch as in the first design.
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 83 21:06:45 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Techno-philosophy
As long as we're flaming... I'll keep it (relatively) short and sweet.
I see two major problems threatening civilization as we know it. Both
are indirect effects of higher technology.
(1) POPULATION. When are the media going to stop ranting and raving
about "poverty", "hunger", "injustice", etc., and focus on the real
problem: why are all those crazy peasants having all these kids that
neither they nor their environment have the means to support? Will
the media ever dare to suggest that every statement the Pope makes
against birth control is at least as dangerous and immoral as all the
infanticides we read about in China?
(2) PURPOSE. With a sense of purpose, man can endure the most
unspeakable horrors. (Witness the survivors of the Gulag and the
Concentration Camps.) Without that sense of purpose, even the
greatest wealth and the adulation of millions can only lead to
self-destruction. (Witness Elvis, Janis, ...) In the bad old days,
Survival was enough of a challenge that relatively few people needed
the challenge of a higher purpose. But in this brave new world of
"safety nets" below and "golden parachutes" above, the only challenges
some people can find are to either trip out or to put their brains (or
somebody else's) to the wall with a .44.
We live in a culture which constantly bombards us with morally
contradictory messages. And the public schools are scared to death to
help students develop the tools (philosophy and morality) to sort out
those messages, because they don't think people trust the schools to
separate <philosophy and morality> from <ideology and religion>.
WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH HUMAN-NETS: Sure, most of us 140+ IQ R&D
Netlanders can find satisfaction in intellectual or artistic pursuits,
even if the robots take over. But what about Joe Average, who used to
take pride in assembling that car or whatever. He probably doesn't
give a **** about all the great information and flaming discourse
available on WorldNet. Do we really want to define some sort of
anarchic, bread-and-circuses hedonism to pacify the masses, with all
its attendant violence, ugliness, and degradation? HOW CAN WE HELP
JOE AVERAGE DEFINE A PURPOSE -- other than with some sort of
religio-political brainwashing?
Ayn Rand's "life of the mind" is great, but like most idealistic
systems, she assumes a model of human that only describes a small
minority. I'm still looking for a system that is rooted in <REASON
and love>, not "faith", but doesn't assume that the human race is
composed entirely of rational, enterpreneurial, geniuses.
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 02:00 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Losers
Date: 17 Aug 1983 0308-PDT
From: Eric P. Scott <EPS at JPL-VAX>
To: Info-VAX at SRI-CSL
Most of the time the losers will simply screw themselves up,
but when they send me MAIL with BACK SPACEs in it, *I* get
pissed.
What is REALLY obnoxious is when someone uses the left arrow key on
a VT100 instead of a delete.
Most users don't seem to look at their outgoing mail. I think the
mail documentation should be changed to emphasize that the normal way
to use mail is (or should be) to edit a file and then mail the file,
rather than to just type the message in at the keyboard. I am so
tired of messages where glaring typos in one line are apologized for
in the next, or which stop in the middle and have an apology in a
second message. (I.e. "SORRY HAD TO GET OUT OF MAIL TO ANSWER A
SEND").
One of my tasks is to sell management on the concept that the vax is
useful. I often have to deal with people who have no computer
background or, much worse, an APPLE ][ background or an IBM
background. The APPLE people are upset that the arrow keys don't "do
the right thing" and have a hard time understanding such concepts as
the need to link (or even to compile) programs and the need for an
editor or for the TYPE command. APPLE people (actually I guess I mean
mostly microcomputer BASIC people) seem to have a very hard time
learning ANYTHING. They particularly seem to have mental blocks when
it comes to the notion of data types (they have a very hard time
understanding the difference between integers and floating point
numbers, or they insist that this is just an artifact of the language
being used. 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.)
or has fully understood that an equal sign has two totally different
meanings in a line of BASIC depending on context.
IBM people have their own special problems. I once spent several
hours trying to implement fixed column sequential line numbers in
Gosling's Emacs because an IBM type wanted to be able to edit the
numbers and then use the VMS SORT command on the resulting file to get
the manually renumbered lines back into order. It seemed like a
strange requirement, but...
It finally turned out that he wanted this so that he could MOVE A
LINE AROUND IN THE FILE. I nearly gave up computers that day.
...and of course these people then decide that the vax is not
usable. Sigh. Maybe I'm just not a very good teacher. But it is
hard to teach someone when the mistakes they make are just so bizarre
you never could possibly have made errors like that (but you never
TOLD me not to put ketchup in my ear!). I guess it comes from
different people having radically different mental models of what is
going on in the machine. Better education (preferably early) is the
only cure. GET THOSE &(@&#%^ APPLES OUT OF THE CLASSROOM NOW!!!
One solution is to patch the terminal driver to convert BACK
SPACE to DELETE except in PASSALL.
How is this done?
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************