Pleasant@Rutgers (10/22/82)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 24 Oct 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 99
Today's Topics:
Queries - Tex Formatting,
Computers and People - Work Hazards & Computer Names (2 msgs) &
Cable TV and the First Amendment (4 msgs),
Technology - Tomorrow's Children,
Artificial Intelligence - Computer Architecture
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1982 18:20:05 EST (Monday)
From: Mike Meyer <mwm at OKC-UNIX>
Subject: Tex formatting
I am in the midst of putting together a micro-based text formatter
derived from Knuth's TEX. Knuth says much about his algorithms for
spacing words out on a line, but I can't seem to find much on
putting spacing into a formula, other than that what the user types
for spacing is ignored.
Does someone out there have information on how to typeset equations
to make them look nice? Or a pointer to such information? Or a
pointer to someone who has this information (like Knuth's net
address)? If so, I would appreciate hearing from you/getting a copy
of it...
thanx,
mike
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 1982 12:09:49-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: green screen scam
I too get very unpleasant color abreactions after working for even a
short time (1-2 hours) with the more aggressively green screens; I
find this Z19 preferable to the micro I typeset on (anonymous cased
by A-M) even though the micro has letters almost twice as big. The
problem with any non-white color is that since it works by
phosphorescing it can't be muted (note that "eye-ease green" paper
(for instance), is a very pale green (the corresponding ink for use
on white paper is a very dark, non-vivid green)).
------------------------------
Date: 14 October 1982 20:25-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Net Addresses
There would be a legal problem with some company giving Arpanet
addresses, since it's illegal to use the net to conduct business,
but those on TYMNET with mailboxes or those on CSNET or USENET might
be able to do that.
------------------------------
Date: Thu Oct 14 1982 15:19:42 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-UNIX>
Subject: business replies via networks & L.A. Telecommuting
Regarding the issue of why businesses don't encourage replies via
network mail... I suspect the primary problem is that few
generalized network services exist that would make such a procedure
really feasible.
For example, even assuming a business is on a commercial network
already, most of the mail services are aimed at INTRA, not INTER,
-company communications. In many cases, the fact that your mail
system is totally isolated from others on the net is a major selling
point of the system -- gotta have security, and the "hide your head
under the ground" technique is certainly an obvious one to many
businesses. Another issue is that there are a multitude of networks
popping up, with few production gateways between them (as far as
commercial users are concerned.) This will change with time, but
the sort of environment we are used to on the Arpanet is a far cry
from the comparatively restricted environments of most currently
existing commercial networks.
Additionally, there are almost certainly companies who would not
consider electronic mail an "appropriate" medium for business
queries, for their own antiquated reasons. These are usually the
same businesses where sending a TWX or TELEX message often results
in no response at all -- they just don't know how to handle a query
that comes in via such channels. If they *do* respond, they usually
immediately request your phone number so that they can *really* talk
to you.
One would expect these sorts of problems to fade as the years go by
and the network technologies become more standardized...I hope.
It goes without saying, of course, that within our own environment
here on Arpanet, such use of the net by vendors would be considered
illegal use of a DoD computer network.
-----
In response to the query regarding the proposals to encourage
telecommuting here in L.A. ... It was asked if there would be
favorable rates for high speed digital lines and such. Without
going into details, my only possible answer must be: "Surely you
jest!"
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 14 October 1982 15:35-EDT (Thursday)
From: Bob <Carter at RUTGERS>
Subject: Cable TV and the First Amendment
Date: Wednesday, 13 October 1982 22:31-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
To: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-MC
Re: Cable TV and the First Amendment
The Constitution (bill of rights mostly) prevents Congress from
making laws that interfere with various freedoms, and the 14th
amendment extends most of those protections so that states can't
make such laws either. But I think local (city/town) governments
are free to limit freedom in any damn way they want. But I'm no
sure. Maybe this question should be sent to POLI-SCI and when
they come up with a consensus they should report back qua
committee to here?
Send the question to Poli-Sci if you must. It is so trivial that
there is no ready citation for it. If private activity substantially
resembles that of local government, that too is governed by the
14th, for that reason. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 90 L.Ed. 265
(l945).
_Bob
------------------------------
Date: 14 Oct 82 19:00:00 EDT (Thu)
From: Andrew Scott Beals <andrew.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #93
There is no difference between the electronic and the traditional
media under the first amendment. Localities should have no right
whatsoever to censor cable-tv broadcasts or any other non-public
media. Have these same localities places restrictions on magazines
that one may subscribe to?
-andy
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 82 23:02:51 EDT (Fri)
From: Andrew Scott Beals <andrew.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: home censoring of television
The Sharper Image (in their latest catalog) is advertising a device
that will lock out a certain channel continuously, or during a
certain time period (unlockable, of course, by a combination). This
should shut up the people who say they can't control their own tvs.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982 12:42-EDT
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC>
Subject: First Amendment and Cable
For a review of cable regulation see TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM by
Ithiel Pool (Pool@mit-Multics) scheduled for publication this spring
by Harvard University Press. see also Besen, S.M. and Crandall,
R.W., "The Deregulation of Cable Television," LAW AND CONTEMPORARY
PROBLEMS Vol 77 (l980).
The key decisions are U.S. vs Southwestern Cable Corp (392 US 157,
1968); FCC Report and Order on Cable Television 36 FCC 2d 143, 1972;
and Midwest Video vs FCC , U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 21 Feb
1978.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Oct 1982 (Saturday) 1456-EDT
From: DREIFU at Wharton-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: TOMORROW'S CHILDREN
TOMORROW'S CHILDREN
Henry N. Dreifus October, 1982
Technology seems to progress and evolve faster than humans. As
humans, we require at least one generation to pass to accept any
major technological revolution as evidenced by our track record with
such items as the Telephone, Automobile and Electricity. One can
claim the advent of the computer is such a similar revolution.
Just as we take the telephone and television more or less as
accepted and natural components of our technology, the coming
generation is being taught to accept the computer. To them the
computer screen, keyboard and storage medium are as natural to them
as the telephone is to us at their age.
One should also note that they too accept the telephone.
At a recent lecture the following numbers were mentioned: 65% of
all high schools teach computer science. At least 50% have computer
equipment of some sort. Moreover the growth rate is on the order of
10 to 15% per year. At the elementary level (Kindergarten through
sixth grade) approximately 20% of all schools have some computer
based education. This coupled with the fact that there are
approximately 3.7 million personal computers out in this marketplace
makes some very profound comment on the "naturalization" process
taking place.
It is important to understand this effect, note its passing as it is
but one objective measure of our civilization. I wonder what's next.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Oct 1982 1406-PDT
From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #96
Concerning the NON-VON project at Columbia, David Shaw, formerly of
the Stanford A. I. Lab, is using the development of some
non-VonNeuman hardware designs to make an interesting class of
database access operations no longer require times that are
exponential with the size of the db. He wouldn't call his project
AI, but rather an approach to "breaking the VonNeuman bottleneck"
as it applies to a number of well-understood but poorly solved
problems in computing.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************