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
************************