taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/27/86)
however, so if ANY of you have ANY problems with this mail, PLEASE mail me the entire message that you receive, including headers. If you receive 'n' copies, please mail them all to me. Final prologue note - we're getting too deeply enmeshed in the current discussion about word processing, so let's try to broaden it a bit... -- Dave] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:13:35 pdt From: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu (Matthew P. Wiener) Subject: Writing books and Computers > For another example, with > the introduction of word processors and home computers, everyone and their > brother thinks they can write a book now. [Dave Taylor] Similarly, Donald E Knuth warns potential authors from abusing their newly discovered typesetting abilities: The importance of this step cannot be overemphasized. There is a danger that authors--who are now able to typeset their own books with TeX--will attempt to do their own designs, without professional help. Book design is an art that requires considerable creativity, skill, experience, and taste; it is one the most important services that a publisher traditionally provides to an author. _The TeXbook_ (pp 412-3) Of course, by this logic, most people would stop driving cars, raising children, posting to the net, etc. etc. We can only hope ... ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: June 2, 1986 at 4:30 pm, PST From: An Anonymous Poster... Subject: Re: Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems The ultimate example of net misunderstanding I know of which if you include I DO NOT WANT ATTRIBUTED TO ME was the time I completely seduced someone (whom I had never met in real life) via e-mail completely by accident. I thought I was being oh so humorous, and this someone uh.. did not quite see the *humor* uh.. oh uh this isn't net.singles? Uh, never mind. -- the happy netter -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 04:06:11 EDT From: David Vinayak Wallace <GUMBY%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Subject: Comments on Writing and Coding... Date: Thu, 29 May 86 23:19 EDT From: Holleran at DOCKMASTER.ARPA In writing, I think the analogy is quite similar. Poor writing is an indication of poor communication skills. It may not be bad if the message intended by the author is understood by the recipient. Not bad but inefficient. There are many ways in which communication can be presented or accomplished. Very seldom is only one way correct. Unfortunately for this analogy the media (text writing and coding) are not quite the same. With a program there are deterministic (at least on most machines!) results with which the programmer may determine if he has or has not written his program correctly. There may also be some spur to improve coding performance because poorly-written code will be (by definition) slow and/or hard to maintain. However a memo or letter may be misinterpreted, to the point where each party in a conversation may have a different idea of what was intended. There is no "correct" interpretation; the best one may hope for is to minimise ambiguity. This is why so many technical documents are "stogy" -- they have to be unambiguous. Returning to the topic which started this off, it seems to me that while word processing may not itself lead to a better or worse class of writing, this medium (mail) is causing some decline. Many people seem willing to write things which they would never say "in public" (i.e. in person). I'm not sure why; perhaps they feel that there isn't really anyone at the other end? david ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 08:55:26 pdt From: ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm@hplabs.ARPA (Marc Mengel) Subject: Re: Writing and Coding A recent article said that we should label code we have been calling "bad" as "inefficient", but I think that that is missing the mark. A person CAN write incredibly efficient code (in terms of the number of cycles it takes to get the job done, etc.) that has many drawbacks other than its efficiency. The code can be poorly documented and poorly organized, making it difficult to update and repair when the (inevitable) bug reports come in; this also presents a lot of difficulty when people want to add features to a software product later. This "bad" coding is what I thought was being discussed -- code that is clearly an attempt to "get it out the door" with no forethought about having to come back to it later, or about having other people update or read the code. ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!opus!ki4pv!tanner@hplabs.ARPA Subject: Re: #24 (not bad, just inefficient) Date: Wed Jun 4 11:45:48 1986 ) Holleran@DOCKMASTER writes to defend code as merely inefficient, ) but not "bad" if it accomplishes a set task. I must disagree strongly. There are times when such code, even if it accomplishes the stated goal, is more than inefficent: it is bad. One such time is when the guy who wrote the code goes off to work for some publisher in Cherry Hill, and I am left to maintain it. It might have worked; though by now that is rather much in doubt. The fact is that if I can't read or maintain it, it's bad. tanner andrews, systems compudata south, deland ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday June 4, 1986 at 2;30 pm From: Dave Taylor <taylor@hplabs> Subject: Some interesting legal information... [this is torn out of the newsgroup `net.legal'] [Dick King of the Kestrel Institute posted the original note;] Subject: Loss of psychic ability I heard, briefly over the radio, that some large amount of money was awarded to a woman who claimed that her psychic powers were destroyed as a direct result of a hospital visit that included a "CAT scan". Does anyone have any information on this? I would especially be interested in information that would mitigate my sense of horror! -dick [then Bruce T. Lowerre at Hewlett Packard Labs said] > I heard, briefly over the radio, that some large amount of money was > awarded to a woman who claimed that her psychic powers were destroyed > as a direct result of a hospital visit that included a "CAT scan". > > Does anyone have any information on this? I would especially be > interested in information that would mitigate my sense of horror! The following story is reprinted (without permission) in its entirety from the 29 March 1986 _San Francisco Chronicle_. ------------------------------------------------------------ PSYCHIC WINS DAMAGE AWARD FOR CAT SCAN Philadelphia A woman who sued her hospital and doctor on allegations that their treatment destroyed her psychic powers has been awarded more than $1 million in damages, bu a "shocked" hospital attorney said yesterday that he will appeal the verdict. Judith Richardson Haimes, 42, of Clearwater, Fla., contended that as a result of a CAT scan, she suffered severe headaches when she tried to concentrate to use her psychic powers. Her attorney, Joel Lieberman, said Haimes had earned her living as a psychic and had been able to read people's auras and help police solve crimes. A jury deliberated about 45 minutes Thursday before awarding Haimes $600,000, plus $418,000 in delay damages. She was undergoing diagnosis for brain tumors at Temple University Hospital in 1976. "If the verdict is allowed to stand, it's an outrage and an example of why the American tort system has to be changed," said Richard Galli, an attorney for Temple University Hospital, where the CAT scan was performed. After the jury heard Haimes' case, Court of Common Pleas Judge Leon Katz ordered the jury to disregard Haimes' allegations about her lost psychic powers and to consider only her testimony about the negative allergic reaction she suffered from a dye injected during the CAT scan. Galli said the jury either did not listen to the judge's instructions, did not understand them or disregarded them in reaching its verdict. "I was shocked," Galli said. "There's no basis for it." United Press [then Dawn Stockbrige Hall of Mirror Systems added;] An article from the San Francisco Chronicle was posted in net.med, and I saw the same information in an article in the Boston Globe. Evidently, a woman who was being treated for brain tumors had a CAT scan. She claimed that she began suffering headaches after the CAT scan, and that she lost her psychic powers. The jury awarded her $1 million. Needless to say, that decision is being appealed. Although on one level this is very funny, I have to wonder at a system that can produce this type of inane decision. It is no surprise that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dawn Stockbridge Hall {cca, datacube, ihnp4, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}... Mirror Systems, Inc. ...mirror!prism!dawn [next Dave Haynie of CBM added;] > An article from the San Francisco Chronicle was posted in > net.med, and I saw the same information in an article in the > Boston Globe. Evidently, a woman who was being treated for > brain tumors had a CAT scan. She claimed that she began > suffering headaches after the CAT scan, and that she lost > her psychic powers. The jury awarded her $1 million. Needless > to say, that decision is being appealed. > > Although on one level this is very funny, I have to wonder at > a system that can produce this type of inane decision. It is > no surprise that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof! I really wonder about that one. My first question to her would be that if she really had pyschic powers, why didn't they warn her not to take a CAT scan in the first place. -- Dave Haynie {inhp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh [then Sunny Kirsten at Nebula Consultants responded;] Having psychic powers is no guarantee that you will think of the right question to ask be answered with them, e.g., "If I go for a CAT scan, will I lose my psychic abilities?" Further, there are many flavors of psychic abilities, only one of which, and the most uncertain of which, is looking at possible futures. Because each and every human has free will, and all the free wills interact in the construction of consensual (world) reality, there is very little certainty about the future. Psychic perception of future possibilities is just that... something which may warn you of possible futures you may wish to try to avoid by the exercise of free will, but there is nothing determinate about the future. Because of this, most use of psychic powers deals with the present and the past, not the future. If you're looking to invalidate psychic abilities, look to any psychic predictions of the future without keeping in mind that they were only statements of probabilities which could be totally invalidated by the use of free will. If you're looking to find validity in psychic powers, look to how they are used to perceive the present and past, and to heal the past. -- Sunny Kirsten [finally Art Kamlet at AT&T Bell Laboratories ended the discussion with;] >Having psychic powers is no guarantee that you will think of the right >question to ask be answered with them, e.g., "If I go for a CAT scan, >will I lose my psychic abilities?" Further, there are many flavors of >psychic abilities, only one of which, and the most uncertain of which, The judge in the case charged the jury to disregard all testimony concerning loss of psychic abilities, but to consider any other possible injury and pain. So, while this case received lots of publicity, if the jury followed the instructions, they did not award anything for loss of psychic abilities. The defendant did testify that, in addition to loss of psychic abilities, she also had injuries and pain & suffering. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {cbosgd | ihnp4}!cbrma!ask [interesting, isn't it...another example of the power and ominousness of technological systems] ------------------------------ From: Dave Berry <seismo!mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@hplabs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 16:52:20 gmt Subject: Some comments on recent C&S Digests I'd like to comment on a couple of points that have been raised in the computers & society mailing list recently. First is Dave's suggestion that good writers will be recognised out of the large numbers inspired to write by cheap technology, which he likens to the selection of the "best" designs for automobiles. I think this is flakey on two counts: 1. It implies some sort of objective assessment of both writing and technology. Few people would agree with the former (as an example, I hear that Robert Heinlein is quite popular, but I think he can't write for toffee). The latter is almost universally accepted, but there is a growing amount of evidence that technology chosen for development is chosen by political and social criteria just as much as its technological "worth". 2. Dave likens the rash of bad writers now to a similar rash after the printing press was developed. But now there are far more good writers, largely due to the availability caused by the printing press. I would like to think that the introduction of WP & cheap printing will increase the number of good writers, not just throw more chaff in the way! To follow up point 1 briefly, I have even seen a suggestion that steam cars are more efficient than petrol cars, and, had the same amount of development been put into their design, would have been a better choice! This seems somewhat difficult to credit! An example of more relevance to this newsgroup is the selection of numerical control over record/playback as means of automating factories. A key factor in the choice of nc, despite its greater expense and the large amount of development it required, was the effect it had on diminishing the power of the workforce. The second point I want to comment on was the reaction to CPSR. I occasionally meet people who ask me why our group, Edinburgh CSR, only concerns itself with "Star Wars". This is an adverse effect of our success in that area - everyone assumes that its all we're concerned with! In fact we've also had campaigns on the use of computers in education and on a proposal for a vendors association to provide quality control (of a sort) for AI products. We've discussed the effects of new technology on employment with a local economist, the position of women in new technology industries, the use of cheap labour in SE Asia by blue-chip firms, and other topics. Obviously I can't speak for CPSR or for other people's encounters with either of our groups, but it's a shame if people are put off because we've only managed to generate sufficient publicity in one area of interest! I'm not trying to claim space in this newsgroup for us. I just thought you might be interested in a view from the inside (the inside of what, I wonder?) Dave Berry, Secretary Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility group, seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db ------------------------------ From: Dave Berry <seismo!mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@hplabs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 16:52:20 gmt I'd like to comment on a couple of points that have been raised in the computers & society mailing list recently. First is Dave's suggestion that good writers will be recognised out of the large numbers inspired to write by cheap technology, which he likens to the selection of the "best" designs for automobiles. I think this is flakey on two counts: 1. It implies some sort of objective assessment of both writing and technology. Few people would agree with the former (as an example, I hear that Robert Heinlein is quite popular, but I think he can't write for toffee). The latter is almost universally accepted, but there is a growing amount of evidence that technology chosen for development is chosen by political and social criteria just as much as its technological "worth". 2. Dave likens the rash of bad writers now to a similar rash after the printing press was developed. But now there are far more good writers, largely due to the availability caused by the printing press. I would like to think that the introduction of WP & cheap printing will increase the number of good writers, not just throw more chaff in the way! To follow up point 1 briefly, I have even seen a suggestion that steam cars are more efficient than petrol cars, and, had the same amount of development been put into their design, would have been a better choice! This seems somewhat difficult to credit! An example of more relevance to this newsgroup is the selection of numerical control over record/playback as means of automating factories. A key factor in the choice of nc, despite its greater expense and the large amount of development it required, was the effect it had on diminishing the power of the workforce. The second point I want to comment on was the reaction to CPSR. I occasionally meet people who ask me why our group, Edinburgh CSR, only concerns itself with "Star Wars". This is an adverse effect of our success in that area - everyone assumes that its all we're concerned with! In fact we've also had campaigns on the use of computers in education and on a proposal for a vendors association to provide quality control (of a sort) for AI products. We've discussed the effects of new technology on employment with a local economist, the position of women in new technology industries, the use of cheap labour in SE Asia by blue-chip firms, and other topics. Obviously I can't speak for CPSR or for other people's encounters with either of our groups, but it's a shame if people are put off because we've only managed to generate sufficient publicity in one area of interest! I'm not trying to claim space in this newsgroup for us. I just thought you might be interested in a view from the inside (the inside of what, I wonder?) Dave Berry, Secretary Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility group, seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db [Sounds reasonable! I'm not against CSR, quite the contrary, I'm just leery about avoiding political debate. By all means, Dave, submit articles of interest - we can let the group decide if they're appropriate...(same goes to any other CSR/CPSR member -- Dave] ----------------------------------- To have your thoughts included in this digest, or to join the mailing list, please send electronic mail to Dave Taylor at any of the following addresses: comp-soc@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!comp-soc This digest is published approximately bi-monthly and does not necessarily express the views of HP nor anyone else other than the individual authors of the messages. *********************************** End of Computers and Society Digest ***********************************
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (07/01/86)
--------
Computers and Society Digest, Number 25
Friday, June 6th 1986
Today's Topics:
Writing books and Computers
Re: Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems
Comments on Writing and Coding (3 msgs)
Some Interesting Legal Information
Comments on recent C&S Digests
[This is the last mailing-list-only issue of C&S Digest!!! The tools are
in place, the newgroup command has been issued, and by the time I'm back
from Usenix (if you're going to be there, look for me - I'll be staying
at the Hilton) we'll be able to have a net group of our own!! The new
group will be "mod.comp-soc".
Furthermore, it seems that the mailer problems aren't quite fixed yet.
We can't track it any further at our end, however, so if ANY of you
have ANY problems with this mail, PLEASE mail me the entire message
that you receive, including headers. If you receive 'n' copies, please
mail them all to me.
Final prologue note - we're getting too deeply enmeshed in the current
discussion about word processing, so let's try to broaden it a bit...
-- Dave]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 03:13:35 pdt
From: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu (Matthew P. Wiener)
Subject: Writing books and Computers
> For another example, with
> the introduction of word processors and home computers, everyone and their
> brother thinks they can write a book now. [Dave Taylor]
Similarly, Donald E Knuth warns potential authors from abusing
their newly discovered typesetting abilities:
The importance of this step cannot be overemphasized.
There is a danger that authors--who are now able to
typeset their own books with TeX--will attempt to do
their own designs, without professional help. Book
design is an art that requires considerable creativity,
skill, experience, and taste; it is one the most
important services that a publisher traditionally
provides to an author.
_The TeXbook_
(pp 412-3)
Of course, by this logic, most people would stop driving cars,
raising children, posting to the net, etc. etc.
We can only hope ...
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: June 2, 1986 at 4:30 pm, PST
From: An Anonymous Poster...
Subject: Re: Psychological Impact of Electronic Communications Systems
The ultimate example of net misunderstanding I know of which if you include
I DO NOT WANT ATTRIBUTED TO ME was the time I completely seduced someone
(whom I had never met in real life) via e-mail completely by accident. I
thought I was being oh so humorous, and this someone uh.. did not quite see
the *humor* uh.. oh uh this isn't net.singles? Uh, never mind.
-- the happy netter --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 04:06:11 EDT
From: David Vinayak Wallace <GUMBY%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Comments on Writing and Coding...
Date: Thu, 29 May 86 23:19 EDT
From: Holleran at DOCKMASTER.ARPA
In writing, I think the analogy is quite similar. Poor writing is an
indication of poor communication skills. It may not be bad if the
message intended by the author is understood by the recipient. Not
bad but inefficient. There are many ways in which communication can
be presented or accomplished. Very seldom is only one way correct.
Unfortunately for this analogy the media (text writing and coding) are
not quite the same. With a program there are deterministic (at least
on most machines!) results with which the programmer may determine if
he has or has not written his program correctly. There may also be
some spur to improve coding performance because poorly-written code
will be (by definition) slow and/or hard to maintain.
However a memo or letter may be misinterpreted, to the point where
each party in a conversation may have a different idea of what was
intended. There is no "correct" interpretation; the best one may hope
for is to minimise ambiguity. This is why so many technical documents
are "stogy" -- they have to be unambiguous.
Returning to the topic which started this off, it seems to me that
while word processing may not itself lead to a better or worse class
of writing, this medium (mail) is causing some decline. Many people
seem willing to write things which they would never say "in public"
(i.e. in person). I'm not sure why; perhaps they feel that there
isn't really anyone at the other end?
david
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 08:55:26 pdt
From: ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm@hplabs.ARPA (Marc Mengel)
Subject: Re: Writing and Coding
A recent article said that we should label code we have been calling
"bad" as "inefficient", but I think that that is missing the mark.
A person CAN write incredibly efficient code (in terms of the number
of cycles it takes to get the job done, etc.) that has many drawbacks
other than its efficiency. The code can be poorly documented and
poorly organized, making it difficult to update and repair when the
(inevitable) bug reports come in; this also presents a lot of difficulty
when people want to add features to a software product later.
This "bad" coding is what I thought was being discussed -- code that
is clearly an attempt to "get it out the door" with no forethought
about having to come back to it later, or about having other people
update or read the code.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!opus!ki4pv!tanner@hplabs.ARPA
Subject: Re: #24 (not bad, just inefficient)
Date: Wed Jun 4 11:45:48 1986
) Holleran@DOCKMASTER writes to defend code as merely inefficient,
) but not "bad" if it accomplishes a set task.
I must disagree strongly. There are times when such code, even if it
accomplishes the stated goal, is more than inefficent: it is bad.
One such time is when the guy who wrote the code goes off to work
for some publisher in Cherry Hill, and I am left to maintain it. It
might have worked; though by now that is rather much in doubt. The
fact is that if I can't read or maintain it, it's bad.
tanner andrews, systems
compudata south, deland
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday June 4, 1986 at 2;30 pm
From: Dave Taylor <taylor@hplabs>
Subject: Some interesting legal information...
[this is torn out of the newsgroup `net.legal']
[Dick King of the Kestrel Institute posted the original note;]
Subject: Loss of psychic ability
I heard, briefly over the radio, that some large amount of money was
awarded to a woman who claimed that her psychic powers were destroyed
as a direct result of a hospital visit that included a "CAT scan".
Does anyone have any information on this? I would especially be
interested in information that would mitigate my sense of horror!
-dick
[then Bruce T. Lowerre at Hewlett Packard Labs said]
> I heard, briefly over the radio, that some large amount of money was
> awarded to a woman who claimed that her psychic powers were destroyed
> as a direct result of a hospital visit that included a "CAT scan".
>
> Does anyone have any information on this? I would especially be
> interested in information that would mitigate my sense of horror!
The following story is reprinted (without permission) in its
entirety from the 29 March 1986 _San Francisco Chronicle_.
------------------------------------------------------------
PSYCHIC WINS DAMAGE AWARD FOR CAT SCAN
Philadelphia
A woman who sued her hospital and doctor on allegations that their
treatment destroyed her psychic powers has been awarded more than
$1 million in damages, bu a "shocked" hospital attorney said yesterday
that he will appeal the verdict.
Judith Richardson Haimes, 42, of Clearwater, Fla., contended that
as a result of a CAT scan, she suffered severe headaches when she
tried to concentrate to use her psychic powers. Her attorney, Joel
Lieberman, said Haimes had earned her living as a psychic and had
been able to read people's auras and help police solve crimes.
A jury deliberated about 45 minutes Thursday before awarding Haimes
$600,000, plus $418,000 in delay damages. She was undergoing diagnosis
for brain tumors at Temple University Hospital in 1976.
"If the verdict is allowed to stand, it's an outrage and an example of
why the American tort system has to be changed," said Richard Galli,
an attorney for Temple University Hospital, where the CAT scan was
performed.
After the jury heard Haimes' case, Court of Common Pleas Judge Leon
Katz ordered the jury to disregard Haimes' allegations about her lost
psychic powers and to consider only her testimony about the negative
allergic reaction she suffered from a dye injected during the CAT scan.
Galli said the jury either did not listen to the judge's instructions,
did not understand them or disregarded them in reaching its verdict.
"I was shocked," Galli said. "There's no basis for it."
United Press
[then Dawn Stockbrige Hall of Mirror Systems added;]
An article from the San Francisco Chronicle was posted in
net.med, and I saw the same information in an article in the
Boston Globe. Evidently, a woman who was being treated for
brain tumors had a CAT scan. She claimed that she began
suffering headaches after the CAT scan, and that she lost
her psychic powers. The jury awarded her $1 million. Needless
to say, that decision is being appealed.
Although on one level this is very funny, I have to wonder at
a system that can produce this type of inane decision. It is
no surprise that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Stockbridge Hall {cca, datacube, ihnp4, inmet, mit-eddie, wjh12}...
Mirror Systems, Inc. ...mirror!prism!dawn
[next Dave Haynie of CBM added;]
> An article from the San Francisco Chronicle was posted in
> net.med, and I saw the same information in an article in the
> Boston Globe. Evidently, a woman who was being treated for
> brain tumors had a CAT scan. She claimed that she began
> suffering headaches after the CAT scan, and that she lost
> her psychic powers. The jury awarded her $1 million. Needless
> to say, that decision is being appealed.
>
> Although on one level this is very funny, I have to wonder at
> a system that can produce this type of inane decision. It is
> no surprise that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof!
I really wonder about that one. My first question to her would be that
if she really had pyschic powers, why didn't they warn her not to take a
CAT scan in the first place.
--
Dave Haynie {inhp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh
[then Sunny Kirsten at Nebula Consultants responded;]
Having psychic powers is no guarantee that you will think of the right
question to ask be answered with them, e.g., "If I go for a CAT scan,
will I lose my psychic abilities?" Further, there are many flavors of
psychic abilities, only one of which, and the most uncertain of which,
is looking at possible futures. Because each and every human has free
will, and all the free wills interact in the construction of consensual
(world) reality, there is very little certainty about the future.
Psychic perception of future possibilities is just that... something
which may warn you of possible futures you may wish to try to avoid by
the exercise of free will, but there is nothing determinate about the
future. Because of this, most use of psychic powers deals with the
present and the past, not the future. If you're looking to invalidate
psychic abilities, look to any psychic predictions of the future without
keeping in mind that they were only statements of probabilities which
could be totally invalidated by the use of free will. If you're looking
to find validity in psychic powers, look to how they are used to perceive
the present and past, and to heal the past.
--
Sunny Kirsten
[finally Art Kamlet at AT&T Bell Laboratories ended the discussion with;]
>Having psychic powers is no guarantee that you will think of the right
>question to ask be answered with them, e.g., "If I go for a CAT scan,
>will I lose my psychic abilities?" Further, there are many flavors of
>psychic abilities, only one of which, and the most uncertain of which,
The judge in the case charged the jury to disregard all testimony
concerning loss of psychic abilities, but to consider any other
possible injury and pain.
So, while this case received lots of publicity, if the jury
followed the instructions, they did not award anything for
loss of psychic abilities. The defendant did testify that, in
addition to loss of psychic abilities, she also had injuries
and pain & suffering.
--
Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {cbosgd | ihnp4}!cbrma!ask
[interesting, isn't it...another example of the power and ominousness
of technological systems]
------------------------------
From: Dave Berry <seismo!mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@hplabs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 16:52:20 gmt
Subject: Some comments on recent C&S Digests
I'd like to comment on a couple of points that have been raised in the
computers & society mailing list recently.
First is Dave's suggestion that good writers will be recognised out
of the large numbers inspired to write by cheap technology, which he likens
to the selection of the "best" designs for automobiles. I think this is
flakey on two counts:
1. It implies some sort of objective assessment of both writing and
technology. Few people would agree with the former (as an example,
I hear that Robert Heinlein is quite popular, but I think he can't
write for toffee). The latter is almost universally accepted, but
there is a growing amount of evidence that technology chosen for
development is chosen by political and social criteria just as much
as its technological "worth".
2. Dave likens the rash of bad writers now to a similar rash after
the printing press was developed. But now there are far more good
writers, largely due to the availability caused by the printing
press. I would like to think that the introduction of WP & cheap
printing will increase the number of good writers, not just throw
more chaff in the way!
To follow up point 1 briefly, I have even seen a suggestion that
steam cars are more efficient than petrol cars, and, had the same amount
of development been put into their design, would have been a better choice!
This seems somewhat difficult to credit!
An example of more relevance to this newsgroup is the selection
of numerical control over record/playback as means of automating factories.
A key factor in the choice of nc, despite its greater expense and the large
amount of development it required, was the effect it had on diminishing the
power of the workforce.
The second point I want to comment on was the reaction to CPSR.
I occasionally meet people who ask me why our group, Edinburgh CSR, only
concerns itself with "Star Wars". This is an adverse effect of our
success in that area - everyone assumes that its all we're concerned with!
In fact we've also had campaigns on the use of computers in education and on
a proposal for a vendors association to provide quality control (of a sort)
for AI products. We've discussed the effects of new technology on employment
with a local economist, the position of women in new technology industries,
the use of cheap labour in SE Asia by blue-chip firms, and other topics.
Obviously I can't speak for CPSR or for other people's encounters
with either of our groups, but it's a shame if people are put off because
we've only managed to generate sufficient publicity in one area of interest!
I'm not trying to claim space in this newsgroup for us. I just thought
you might be interested in a view from the inside (the inside of what, I
wonder?)
Dave Berry, Secretary Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility group,
seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
------------------------------
From: Dave Berry <seismo!mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@hplabs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 16:52:20 gmt
I'd like to comment on a couple of points that have been raised in the
computers & society mailing list recently.
First is Dave's suggestion that good writers will be recognised out
of the large numbers inspired to write by cheap technology, which he likens
to the selection of the "best" designs for automobiles. I think this is
flakey on two counts:
1. It implies some sort of objective assessment of both writing and
technology. Few people would agree with the former (as an example,
I hear that Robert Heinlein is quite popular, but I think he can't
write for toffee). The latter is almost universally accepted, but
there is a growing amount of evidence that technology chosen for
development is chosen by political and social criteria just as much
as its technological "worth".
2. Dave likens the rash of bad writers now to a similar rash after
the printing press was developed. But now there are far more good
writers, largely due to the availability caused by the printing
press. I would like to think that the introduction of WP & cheap
printing will increase the number of good writers, not just throw
more chaff in the way!
To follow up point 1 briefly, I have even seen a suggestion that
steam cars are more efficient than petrol cars, and, had the same amount
of development been put into their design, would have been a better choice!
This seems somewhat difficult to credit!
An example of more relevance to this newsgroup is the selection
of numerical control over record/playback as means of automating factories.
A key factor in the choice of nc, despite its greater expense and the large
amount of development it required, was the effect it had on diminishing the
power of the workforce.
The second point I want to comment on was the reaction to CPSR.
I occasionally meet people who ask me why our group, Edinburgh CSR, only
concerns itself with "Star Wars". This is an adverse effect of our
success in that area - everyone assumes that its all we're concerned with!
In fact we've also had campaigns on the use of computers in education and on
a proposal for a vendors association to provide quality control (of a sort)
for AI products. We've discussed the effects of new technology on employment
with a local economist, the position of women in new technology industries,
the use of cheap labour in SE Asia by blue-chip firms, and other topics.
Obviously I can't speak for CPSR or for other people's encounters
with either of our groups, but it's a shame if people are put off because
we've only managed to generate sufficient publicity in one area of interest!
I'm not trying to claim space in this newsgroup for us. I just thought
you might be interested in a view from the inside (the inside of what, I
wonder?)
Dave Berry, Secretary Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility group,
seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db
[Sounds reasonable! I'm not against CSR, quite the contrary, I'm just leery
about avoiding political debate. By all means, Dave, submit articles of
interest - we can let the group decide if they're appropriate...(same goes
to any other CSR/CPSR member -- Dave]
-----------------------------------
To have your thoughts included in this digest, or to join the mailing
list, please send electronic mail to Dave Taylor at any of the following
addresses:
comp-soc@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!comp-soc
This digest is published approximately bi-monthly and does not necessarily
express the views of HP nor anyone else other than the individual authors
of the messages.
***********************************
End of Computers and Society Digest
***********************************