Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (03/29/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 29 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Queries - Novel Computer Applications & Where to Order Documents & Resource Requirements, Response to Queries - Typeahead buffers, Technology - EFT (4 msgs), Computers and the Law - Computer Crime (3 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 March 1983 02:48 EST From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> Subject: novel non-network computer applications I'd like to discuss some computer applications that don't necessarily have anything to do with networks, thus probably aren't appropriate for HUMAN-NETS. Some of these might be: - Entertainment center that keeps track of what you like and what you don't like or are tired of, and thus plays for you random selections mostly of things you like plus a few new things you haven't reviewed yet. These might be music or TV-movies, thus the system would sort of be the "optimal disk jockey" or the "optimal TV station" as far as the individual consumer is concerned. - Nutrition&diet system that keeps track of what you have eaten and knows what you like and dislike and what you have in stock, even knows prices of things you might need to buy. When you're hungry it suggests things that you need to balance today's nutrition, from things you like an have in stock if possible. It prints shopping lists for things you're running short on that are likely to be eaten if only they could be put into stock, so when you go to the store you don't even have to spend time making a shopping list. My question is, what would be the best forum for this kind of discusion? ------------------------------ Date: 20 March 1983 00:48 mst From: Schauble.HDSA at M.PCO.LISD.HIS Subject: Where to order documents Reply-to: Schauble%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS Can someone please supply with the addresses from which I can order NBS, ISO, ANSI, and CCITT standards documents. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ Date: 23 March 1983 21:35 EST From: Benjamin Kuipers <BEN @ MIT-ML> Subject: What does it take to write a paper? Does anyone know any formal research on: (1) How much computing resources, on average, does it take for a person to write a paper using a text editor? I'm actually interested in whether anyone has studied a university population, presumably looking separately at undergraduates, graduates, and faculty. If I were doing the study, I would measure output in printed, double-spaced pages, and resources used primarily as connect-hours. I would also assume the answers would be very different depending on whether people were using screen editors versus line editors. But I'm interested in any statistics you know of. (2) How does this compare with non-computer writing? Do people spend more or less time producing a paper when they use a text editor? Is the quality noticeably different? (My own guess is that they would spend MORE time, do MORE drafts, and that quality would thus be considerably higher.) Are there statistics? Thanks. Ben Kuipers ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 83 18:52:44 PST (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Typeahead buffers In systems such as Xerox's Star, Smalltalk, Interlisp, and Mesa Development Environment, where you can select and stuff into a TTY-emulation or other window a huge selection of characters using only a couple of mouseclicks and keystrokes, the amount of typeahead that you can use at a remote computer is effectively unlimited. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 26 Mar 1983 0438-EST From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX> Subject: Bleeding-heard Libertarian objection to EFT. I'd like to call your attention to a potential problem with your scheme. It may be a little more complex than you picture under some circumstances. If someone (big brother) has access to the banks records (i.e. has the keys both banks use for encrypting their record of your account AND the account of the Mustang Ranch), and an audit trail is left (as I believe is standard accounting practice?) matching every input of money with every output of money, then your money can be traced from your bank's reply, debiting your account, being credited to some unknown account at the other bank. Looking at the other bank's records, you find that credit, and find out what happens to it in the reverse process. Note that none of this has to do with being able to see the contents of the check. It does depend on several things which may suggest how to avoid it: 1) It depends on an identity being associated with an account. (Thus, a numbered account would solve the problem). 2) It depends on bankers recording balanced pairs of credits and debits. They probably need this to protect against fraud. 3) It depends on big brother having access to both banks records. The current state of affairs often requires access to only one bank, so this is an improvement. 4) All actors handling money between the ends have audit trails accessible to the particular bogeyman you're trying to avoid. (This means a laundering operation might do a good business if they can keep their records secure, and are careful to randomize the times of their transactions. But dealing with such an outfit could be suspicious itself). 5) Audit trails are retained long enough to be used against you. (If they were destroyed after being used for electronic audits every hour, you'd be pretty safe. Maybe this might be possible someday.) Hopefully, the records have a finite lifespan, so a college-days fling couldn't be brought up during your presidential campaign. 6) Computers and networks are available to obtain and wade through the amount of information available. (No help here!) I think limiting access to audit trails, and NOT GIVING SIMULTANEOUS ACCESS TO ACCOUNT IDENTITIES is the most tractable approach. This would protect against IRS snooping, I think, but probably not the NSA. But that's better than we have now. ------------------------------ Date: 26 March 1983 19:26 EST From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> Subject: EFT Re: banging on a malfunctionning ATM... The frustration level would be less if there were a means for the poor mistreated customer to file an official protest of the bad machine on the spot, which protest would be given to prospective new customers until such time as the company (bank) resolved the situation to the satisfaction of the customer or a mediator. One simple way would be to supply OUT OF ORDER stickers so the customer could leave a message "this damn &%$'"@&$ machine wouldn't let me withdraw $20 to take my girl to dinner so she jilted me for a guy who uses a different bank whose machines are more reliable" or whatever. Perhaps if customers could communicate their gripes to each other and to new potential customers, to at least protect others from the fate they suffered, and also to punish the bank for its poor service, they could vent their anger that way instead of by damaging the machine? By the way, a couple years ago there was a news story to the effect that somebody who broke hir foot kicking a faulty vending machine at hir place of work was granted workman's (oops, workperson's) compensation since the injury was in the normal course of activities related to work (lunch break is in the contract). Unfortunately this doesn't apply to ATMs because they aren't at ones place of work etc. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1983 12:10:02-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: re real cost of credit card purchases The New England Science Fiction Association started accepting credit cards a few years ago for payments associated with our annual science fiction convention. (The bulk of these payments are for purchase of artwork but we also take cards for registration and publications sales.) Our present bank takes 2.75% off the top (don't know whether that's before or after state sales tax) for Visa and Mastercard charges. When we had a check verification service they charged 2.89% and cheated (e.g. they wiggled out of most of the bad checks the supposedly were covering); this figure may be higher than for operations with a higher/smoother throughput of checks but the charge %age is typical. Note that this applies only to the revolving, interest-bearing debit cards; Amex wanted more, wanted a steadier throughput, and (worst of all) wanted us to eat the float (i.e., 6-8 weeks between invoicing and payment) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1983 1308-MST From: Walt <Haas@UTAH-20> Subject: Re: a case for EFT ?!! - The cost of the merchandise should be listed separately from the overhead caused by the form of payment? (just like tax) - Any savings or additional costs due to the form of payment should be passed on to the buyer. I vote in favor. ------------------------------ Date: 26 March 1983 09:04 EST From: Zigurd R. Mednieks <ZRM @ MIT-MC> Subject: I like the part about intangible information storage So if I resurrected one of those storage tube memories for registers and used a write-once optical mass storage device, or better yet, used ONLY the optical disk memory, I would have a "computer" that stores information in tangible form. If I sold non-software for my non-computer in Texas, would I need pay tax? Sounds like they're legislating the value of pi again. The edge between intangible and tangible is the most intangible and unmeasurable thing about computer systems. An optical disk could be read like a book by someone used to reading front panel lights, or disassembling in his head. I believe there is an emulsion you can apply to magnetic media to "develop" a visible manifestation of the magnetic fields storing the information on it. If I burn a stack of documents typed in OCR-A before they reach the reader, have I committed a computer crime? Actually, the typeface need not matter at all. If a server at a secure site spazzes and scribbles all over the disk instead of just refusing me access, have I committed a crime for TRYING to access that site? What if was trying to break in? What if I wasn't? Who could tell what my attitude really had been had I done such a thing and been arrested? Yow! Is it 1984 yet? Cheers, Zig ------------------------------ Date: Sat 26 Mar 83 14:54:43-PST From: Edjik <NCP.EGK@SU-GSB-HOW at SU-SCORE> Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #11 Hmm, the definition of a computer system in the texas bill 193 seems awful vague. the way its stated my hp-25 calculator would be considered a computer system. Hmm, i can't wait till some student in some texas college picks up someones calculator to do some math problem and then finds himself arrested for using a computer system against the operators wishes. sigh. -- Edjik ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1983 0958-PST Subject: Re: Silly legal definitions in texas From: Ian H. Merritt <MERRITT@USC-ISIB> Perhaps somebody should take a copy of the digests on this subject, strip off any indication of their source, and leave only first names or nicknames. Then forward the result to the media with a partial explanation, and to the texas authorities responsible for this as well. A little input from people who have some knowledge of the subject they are trying to define wouldn't hurt. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************