mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (05/24/84)
A month or so ago, we in Europe suddenly got a number of articles from net.politics. Several of these articles provoked replies from us (especially here in Sweden as just then several articles refered to Sweden). I suspect (and hope) that these replies provoked further articles to which maybe some of you in the USA expected some reaction from us. However we never got any more from net.politics! I am sure that we have a lot to learn from the political systems of the many countries around the world and many of us would like to discuss aspects of world politics which effect us all. I propose that we start "net.world-politics" and of course also propose that this group be forwarded to and from Europe. If net.world-politics gets off the ground I suggest that eunet.politics should be abolished.
goran@erix.UUCP (Goran B}ge) (05/25/84)
I agree with Mike. I have seen several references to the net as
a kind of media experiment, and I guess most of us enjoy being
part of this experiment. My feeling is that one important aspect
of a net of this kind is that it can bring people in different
parts of the world closer together by letting them exchange opinions
on more or less important subjects. If this is so, discussions on topics
like world politics is *very* important. It would be most unfortunate
if the net degrades to a channel only for technical issues, recreation
and pure crap (note that I am not saying that we should cut all
the crap out, some of it is pretty amusing).
If the group net.politics is considered not to be the proper forum
for world oriented political discussions (why is it otherwise not
distributed world-wide), let us create a new group for this purpose.
Goeran Baage @ L M Ericsson
Stockholm
Sweden
goran@erix.UUCP or
...{philabs,decvax}!mcvax!enea!erix!goranhans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (05/25/84)
[]
No, NO! Let's start REDUCING the number of groups instead.
First, let's ban multiple postings, install software that removes
all groups after the first mentioned.
Then, let's restrict news usage to technically meaningful groups,
THIS IS EXPENSIVE!
--
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Hans Albertsson,
TeleLOGIC AB
Box 1001,
S-14901 Nynashamn,
SWEDENrobert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (05/25/84)
I agree with both Mike and G|ran, however I am not sure if creating a new
group, e.g. net.world-politics, if the best thing. What might happen is that
people feel that this discussion might not be interesting for a world-wide
distribution and limit it to a more local group. Instead make sure that
net.politics is distributed world-wide and turn it into a forum for
discussions on world politics. If there is need for a group on local US
politics let them then create usnet.politics.
Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm
UUCP: {decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!robertalb@alice.UUCP (05/26/84)
Why can't we just use net.politics?
koksvik@kvvax4.UUCP (Rolf M. Koksvik) (05/28/84)
>First, let's ban multiple postings, install software >that removes all groups after the first mentioned. >Then, let's restrict news usage to technically >meaningful groups, THIS IS EXPENSIVE! I wholeheartedly agree. Let us use the net as a professional tool only. I see no way we can justify spending our employers money on discussions about video, religion, politics, jokes, cars, tv, soaps, music and other endless, senseless discussions about what other unnecessary groups to establish. Rolf M. Koksvik ({decvax,philabs}!mcvax!kvport!kvvax4!koksvik) A/S Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk, Kongsberg
teus@haring.UUCP (05/29/84)
Well I'm fully in favour of starting net.world-politics. As well perhaps starting something like net.world-wizards. If we agree on it, we can make it work just after the Salt Lake city conference and make sure that we get it in Europe as well. BUT ONLY if there is some data coming out of Europe as well. Minimizing the amount of data on the net is quite impossible: - democrazy (spelled ok this time) does not work (we cannot agree for which groups are to be spread here). In Salt Lake city there will be lots of announcements to the UNIX network. Yes domaining is coming now. There will be more compacting as for the US as well the costs are growing out of bound now. So the costs will go down. (With one site we have now a splendid working X25 link. So the backbone sites will go to X25 also in a short time). -- Teus Hagen teus@mcvax.UUCP (CWI, Amsterdam)
mitzi@erix.UUCP (Mitzi Morris) (05/30/84)
[] I think net.world-politics is an okay idea, but that a much better idea is GETTING NET.POLITICS TO EUROPE! This whole discussion about killing newsgroups is getting very stupid. The majority of articles I have seen have been against any cuts, and in favor of MORE newsgroups. These articles have been met with a few vague rebuttals talking about "high costs" and unnamed sites who have requested reductions. WHERES THE BEEF??? Give me facts, figures, and the ways in which you derived them. Who says democracy doesn't work Tues, have you tried it? I think that getting net.politics is preferable to starting net.world-politics for the following reasons: 1) It is very hard to define what is of domestic interest and what is of world interest. I think that the American presidential race is of world interest, and I want to hear what people in the US are doing and saying about it. But would this be posted to net.world-politics? Probably not. 2) The larger the readership a newsgroup has the more active it is likely to be. Would everybody who already subscribes to net.politics also subscribe to net.world-politics? 3) In the past few weeks there has been some interest stateside in having more international discussions in net.politics, a topic was offered, and there were plenty of responses from Europe. This is what I call evidence that Europe's participation in net.politics is welcome and will be active. More news is good news, Mitzi Morris mitzi@erix.UUCP
rf@wu1.UUCP (05/30/84)
Please found net.world-politics. From the asbestos mailbox of: Randolph Fritz UUCPnet: decvax!philabs!wu1!rf
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (05/31/84)
[]
To some extent my earlier posting was a joke, or ironic at least.
Only Per@erix, who has met me, realized that. Sorry for not being clear
enough.
The only serious thing in it might be the ban on multiple posting,
I'd like, locally , to be able to have only a single copy accepted of a
multiply posted article.
Other groups would just have a link, not a copy, and a user who has already
seen an article shouldn't have to "n" past it. Also, news we've already seen
needn't pass our way a second time. My concern in this matter is disk space
vs my desire to keep interesting articles around for long enough to come to
calm and sensible decisions regarding their use or disposal.
With prices what they are, this is really not so expensive, and provided you
take an open attitude towards your employer, he oughtn't be overly concerned
about the actual cost.
This USENET has cost us roughly USD 200 / month so far, my latest bill says,
and on top of that there's the time lost per employee.
The latter is ( unless your totally undisciplined ) part recoverable, as far
as it concerns getting useful information in ( such as bug fixes necessary
), and the rest, while not recoverable in the strictest sense, is on par
with time lost on coffee breaks, heated debates on pseudo-subjects and such
refreshing things.
Sorry for going on and on.....
--
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Hans Albertsson,
TeleLOGIC AB
Box 1001,
S-14901 Nynashamn,
SWEDENrobert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (06/03/84)
> I wholeheartedly agree. Let us use the net as a professional > tool only. > > I see no way we can justify spending our employers money on > discussions about video, religion, politics, jokes, cars, tv, > soaps, music and other endless, senseless discussions about what > other unnecessary groups to establish. I hope you are joking? If not, do you carry your argument to its logical conclusion? What I mean is, if you feel we can't justify spending some time and very little money on reading news I hope you also have cut out ALL coffee breaks during working hours, talking to your co-workers on subjects not neccessary for the job, going to the toilet, etc. You may feel that this is going to far, but where is the difference? All the mentioned activities, plus many more we take for granted, cost our employers money without giving any direct returns. So I ask again, why the distinction? Or perhaps you do none of these things during office hours? Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm. P.S. Where is net.flames or eunet.flames so I can really get going?
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (06/03/84)
Is it just my memory, or is it true that multiply posted articles are passed around the net as a single copy, and once in place in a machine are linked to by the various names in different news groups? If this is so, the cost of posting to multiple groups is very small, both in transmission time and disk utilization (though there is some wear and tear on the reader's part, which I have assumed is the overriding reason for pleading for restraint in multiple postings). Can Mark or someone settle this point? -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (06/05/84)
>The only serious thing in it might be the ban on multiple posting... >Other groups would just have a link, not a copy.... Have a close look at the news spooldirectories. You'll note there's only one real copy of a multiple-group article. The others are links. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam ...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!piet
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (06/09/84)
[]
About the question of whether multiply posted articles caused links or
copies,
I did check the /u0/SPOOL/news/...... for link counts, and
found NO instances of link counts over 1, but...
I did not remember that I had recently, ( while installing a new
version of news ) moved the entire tree from a small disk on to an
RA81... and of course I SHOULD have used tar or something, but of
COURSE I used cp -r.
Red faced, I stand corrected. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
--
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Hans Albertsson,
TeleLOGIC AB
Box 1001,
S-14901 Nynashamn,
SWEDENkoksvik@kvvax4.UUCP (Rolf M. Koksvik) (06/12/84)
>I think that the American presidential race is of world >interest, and I want to hear what people in the US are >doing and saying about it. So why don't you subscribe to Newsweek or Washington Post or something? >Compared to what employers can pay for other senseless >activities and projects the cost of a connection to >Usenet is neglible. And the time involved in reading >news is probably not greater than that involved in >internal company bureaucracy, much of which is >unneccessary. Sounds like company morale leaves a little to be desired. I doubt if you are paid to discuss politics in working hours, be it on USENET or in drawn out coffee breaks. >If you get a bad conscience then either read your news at >home or don't read it at all. I will make my own >decisions on that issue! And don't go running to mummy when your company decides to shut you off from the net. Rolf M. Koksvik ({decvax,philabs}!mcvax!kvport!kvvax4!koksvik) A/S Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk, Kongsberg
koksvik@kvvax4.UUCP (Rolf M. Koksvik) (06/12/84)
>I hope you are joking? I certainly am not! >If not, do you carry your argument to its logical >conclusion? Yes I do! >What I mean is, if you feel we can't justify spending >some time A relative term to be sure. Reading only a fraction of all the bullshit on the net takes too much time. >and very little money on reading news I doubt you would do it if YOU had to pay for it? >I hope you also have cut out ALL coffee breaks during >working hours, I drink my coffee at the terminal, thank you. >talking to your co-workers on subjects not neccessary for >the job, Only in the lunch break. >going to the toilet, etc. Aaaah, caught me out. It seems I am human after all. >You may feel that this is going to far, but where is the >difference? No difference. You could be sacked in either case. >All the mentioned activities, plus many more we take for >granted, You shouldn't take things for granted, you have your employment conditions! >cost our employers money without giving any direct >returns. EXACTLY. >So I ask again, why the distinction? Really!! >Or perhaps you do none of these things during office >hours? Right first time! >P.S. Where is net.flames or eunet.flames so I can really >get going? If you feel you have to call me names, you can always mail me. I am pretty tough skinned. Rolf M. Koksvik ({decvax,philabs}!mcvax!kvport!kvvax4!koksvik) A/S Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk, Kongsberg
koksvik@kvvax4.UUCP (06/15/84)
============================================================================== >A good way to have a break is to read the news, both >technical and otherwise. I agree. What I think is wrong is to spend large amounts of time arguing bullshit back and forth on the net. I have never argued against the net as such. I think it is a valuable TOOL, and a very useful source of information. But many of you out there treat it as a TOY. I doubt if any of you would consider playing cards in working hours. Or how would your employer react if you read the newspapers for two hours every day? The analogy is pretty damn close, you are just refusing to face it. >Many of us do a lot of work (for which we don't get paid >extra) from terminals at home and this more than >compensates for the work lost by reading and posting to >the net. If that is the case, then why don't you work in your working hours and post to the net in your spare time? >Employers who start imposing idiotic restrictions on what >is not allowed in working hours usually lose their most >qualified staff and develop a hostile attitude to their >company that cost them far more than they gain. I agree. The psychology of computer programming is complex. But who is to define what is idiotic? You define it in one way, and your employer probably in another. The trick is to find the compromise to make you both happy. >If Koksvik thinks that reading and posting news is such a >waste of his company's time, why did he post his >article? I don't think that at all. If I did, I wouldn't be subscribing, would I? Posting takes hardly any time at all, and is not very expensive either. But writing and reading bullshit takes a lot of time, and is expensive, and it is not something we are paid to do. That's why I carry on this discussion in my own time. >Of course we have about the same conditions as in most >other companies, and that includes a right to use the >computers outside of work for personal, non-commercial >use. Let me point out that I was talking about things going on in working hours. What you do in your spare time is naturally your own business. >But we should *not* limit groups because Koksvik thinks >he is the conscience of our companies! I don't claim to be God or you to be the devil, but I am entitled to my own opinions, just like you are entitled to yours. In football it is a golden rule to go for the ball, not the player. That rule could also be applied to discussions on the net. Rolf M. Koksvik ({decvax,philabs}!mcvax!kvport!kvvax4!koksvik) A/S Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk, Kongsberg
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (06/19/84)
> >A good way to have a break is to read the news, both > >technical and otherwise. >I agree. What I think is wrong is to spend large amounts of time >arguing bullshit back and forth on the net. If I were just to read the technical information then it would hardly be a break, would it? > >Many of us do a lot of work (for which we don't get paid > >extra) from terminals at home and this more than > >compensates for the work lost by reading and posting to > >the net. >If that is the case, then why don't you work in your working hours >and post to the net in your spare time? I don't know what you are employed to do, but my main job is to think. Also to write code based on those thoughts, but mainly to think. As yet I have found no way to restrict my job-related thoughts ONLY to working hours and all others to the rest of the day. If you have then then maybe you should tell us how. >I don't claim to be God or you to be the devil, but I am entitled >to my own opinions, just like you are entitled to yours. >In football it is a golden rule to go for the ball, not the player. >That rule could also be applied to discussions on the net. But in many cases it is more effective to go for the player! :-) Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm
leif@erix.UUCP (06/20/84)
I don't see what Koksvik or anyone else has to do with what we do
in or out of work. Of course we have about the same conditions as
in most other companies, and that includes a right to use the
computers outside of work for personal, non-commercial use.
It is not for him or the net administrators to decide what groups
are morally right for us to read and when.
In a perfect net the groups should be propagated after
demand. A user subscribes to a number of groups, his site
subscribes to the requested groups from a backbone and so on.
Now, I am aware of the limited resources of our backbone sites
and that we have to limit the distribution more than we would
want. That's why we had the poll in eunet. If that poll said
that we should favor technical groups to groups like this one,
then that's what we should do. But we should *not* limit
groups because Koksvik thinks he is the conscience of our
companies! It's up to the administrator on each node to limit
or not limit the number of groups available.
Now that I've finished this, I can punch in again...
Leif Samuelsson
LM ERICSSON Tel. Co.
S-126 25 STOCKHOLM
SWEDEN
..{decvax, philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!leifrobert@erix.UUCP (06/22/84)
> >P.S. Where is net.flames or eunet.flames so I can really > >get going? > If you feel you have to call me names, you can always mail me. I am > pretty tough skinned. > > Rolf M. Koksvik ({decvax,philabs}!mcvax!kvport!kvvax4!koksvik) > A/S Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk, Kongsberg Mail you directly!? And miss out getting an audience? Never! Seriously though, if everyone at your job is like you, then I'm glad I don't work there. It must be a pretty dull place. :-) On the constructive side I don't feel that it is possible to work effectively for as many hours as your statements imply. After a while you become unconcentrated. Reading news/drinking your coffee provides a neccessary break. > >You may feel that this is going to far, but where is the > >difference? > No difference. You could be sacked in either case. If my employers were to sack me for taking a coffee break or chatting with my co-workers I seriously doubt if I would mind. I probably would have left earlier anyway. The atmosphere would be intolerable. Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson P.S. What do you do if someone comes in and starts chatting with you? :-)
mike@erix.UUCP (06/27/84)
Rolf Kosvik seems to think that while at work we should work 100% of the time. This is certainly worth of high praise. I wish I could work like that. However I can't and I'm sure that most of us can't either. A short break to let the brain rest is essential from time to time to ensure that we can get on with high speed hacking afterwards. A good way to have a break is to read the news, both technical and otherwise. Many of us do a lot of work (for which we don't get paid extra) from terminals at home and this more than compensates for the work lost by reading and posting to the net. As long as we do the work we are paid to do, our employers have nothing to lose. Employers who start imposing idiotic restrictions on what is not allowed in working hours usually lose their most qualified staff and develop a hostile attitude to their company that cost them far more than they gain. If Kosvik thinks that reading and posting news is such a waste of his company's time, why did he post his article? :-) Mike Williams
hans@log-hb.UUCP (Hans Albertsson) (06/30/84)
Rolf probably has earplugs as well.
So people chatting would present no problem...
--
{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!enea!log-hb!hans
Hans Albertsson,
TeleLOGIC AB
Box 1001,
S-14901 Nynashamn,
SWEDEN