taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (06/25/86)
--------
Computers and Society Digest, Number 21
Monday, May 12th 1986
Topics of discussion in this issue...
Effects of computers on writing...
Accounting for Varying Response to Catastrophes (2 msgs)
A discussion group for technology for the handicapped
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Sesnovich at Data General
Date: Fri, 2 May 86 20:13:18 edt
Subject: Effects of computers on writing...
[from Risks Digest, Volume 2, Issue 48]
ARE WORD-PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL HELPING TO PROLIFERATE BAD WRITING?
Before word processors and electronic mail existed, important letters or
documents were usually handwritten and hand-corrected, often in several
drafts, before being typed and mailed. The typing of the letter represented
a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out
communication. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could
necessitate re-typing the entire letter or document.
There is a hidden risk in the new media, in that they have enabled us to
bypass the correction and finalizing phases of letter writing, often
resulting in quick and efficient dissemination of poorly planned, sloppy and
confusing prose.
In technical communications, where complex and potentially important ideas are
exchanged, clearness of expression is obligatory. I could cite, nevertheless,
many examples (some from recent RISKS, which I will not include to avoid
unfairly embarrassing the authors) where bad writing has rendered sentences
unintelligible and thoughts and ideas obscure.
We tend to be very quick to correct each other on points of technical accuracy,
but very slow to correct, or even recognize, inaccuracy of expression in our
own or others' writing.
While I do not advocate abandoning the ASCII keyboard for quill and parchment,
I do encourage readers of RISKS to take the time to proof and revise any of
their writing meant to convey important technical information.
Re-read your work, and have others examine it for clarity, absence of jargon,
and general comprehensibility before you send or submit it to anyone. Remember
that word processors and email facilities are only tools, and that the burden
of effective communication still rests upon those who use them.
[This is true for any form of electronic communications!! It was a constant
point of horror when I was tutoring a writing class in college how AWFUL
my classmates were at writing -- even letters to friends -- and the worst that
I ever received were electronically generated. A hearty Hear! Hear! from
the moderator of THIS group!! -- Dave]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 May 1986 00:17 EDT
From: James H. Coombs <JAZBO%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Accounting for Varying Response to Catastrophes
"Human interest" is the explanation given in *The Big Carnival* for the
fact that people are more interested in catastrophes involving a few
people than in those involving multitudes. Some of the focus of the
Challenger discussion has been on technology, but a lot of it has been
on Christa and people's response to her death. Notice also that the
others have been ignored in comparison to Christa. I'm not sure how to
spell her last name, but I have no idea who the others were. This would
seem to bear out the theory that people are interested in the trials of
individuals. In this case, we turn it into an individual tragedy by
focusing on one person and ignoring the others, which is not too hard to
do when you have one flashy civilian among just a few professionals.
I suppose that we could also explain this by the fact that this is an
American catastrophe and not a Mexican one.
One more possibility. Technology and technological catastrophes are
under human control; earthquakes and natural catastrophes are random or
under divine control, which to humans often appears to be either random
or perverse (Job). Consequently, I think we can expect people to be
much more interested in technological catastrophes than in natural
catastrophes. Except where there is technological or human error
aggravating a natural capacity, I think the response is "let's clean up
and go on." Technological catastrophes provide considerable opportunity
for extended analysis.
So where are the computers in all of this? I don't recall hearing any
relief expressed over the vulnerability of human technology with its
displacing artificial intelligence. I admit to being fairly isolated
from popular media, so perhaps someone else has evidence of the role of
computers in response to catastrophes. If not, I conclude provisionally
that computers play no special role in the varying responses to
catastrophes; they are just another part of our technology. The varying
responses may be explained more suitably by 1) human interest, 2)
nationalism, and 3) perceived degree of human responsibility.
--Jim
JAZBO@BROWNVM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 09:43:54 pdt
From: Scott McGregor <hplabs!hpccc!mcgregor>
Subject: Another comment on catastrophes
I think that people have always been more able to relate to small
tragedies (such as 7 deaths in the Space Shuttle accident) rather
than large tragedies (such as the Mexico City Earthquake). This
was true even before instant TV. You can look at the number of
deaths in various wars, vs. the assinations of polical figures, from
Socrates to Kennedy. I think the reason is that in a small time,
whether by TV, newspaper, or word of mouth, you can tell the story of
the death of a few people, plus their autobiographies, what their
friends and family said/felt. You can't do this for the complete
set of Mexico City earthquake victims, the holocaust victims, soldiers
who died in Viet Nam, etc. You can focus in on some individuals,
and that tends to bring strong sympathy for those particular
individuals; some of these feelings are transfered to the "unknown masses"
not focused on, but the strength of such feelings are greatly reduced.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 11:07:02 pdt
From: Dave Taylor <taylor@hplabsc>
Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
[From Usenet]
# Written 7:53 am May 8, 1986 by SY.FDC@cu20b.columbia.edu in net.unix
# In Real Life: Frank da Cruz
# Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
A mailing list has been set up at North Dakota State University for
discussing computer and other technology for people with any kind
of handicap, plus meetings, conferences, funding agencies, and so
forth. It is run by Bob Puyear, NU025213@NDSUVM1.BITNET (via Arpanet,
NU025213%NDSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU), who will add you to the
mailing list if you send him a request to do so. To send mail directly
to the list itself, replace NU025213 by L$HCAP in the addresses above.
# End of text
-----------------------------------
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:
taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor
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 (06/27/86)
esented
a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out
communication. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could
necessitate re-typing the entire letter or document.
There is a hidden risk in the new media, in that they have enabled us to
bypass the correction and finalizing phases of letter writing, often
resulting in quick and efficient dissemination of poorly planned, sloppy and
confusing prose.
In technical communications, where complex and potentially important ideas are
exchanged, clearness of expression is obligatory. I could cite, nevertheless,
many examples (some from recent RISKS, which I will not include to avoid
unfairly embarrassing the authors) where bad writing has rendered sentences
unintelligible and thoughts and ideas obscure.
We tend to be very quick to correct each other on points of technical accuracy,
but very slow to correct, or even recognize, inaccuracy of expression in our
own or others' writing.
While I do not advocate abandoning the ASCII keyboard for quill and parchment,
I do encourage readers of RISKS to take the time to proof and revise any of
their writing meant to convey important technical information.
Re-read your work, and have others examine it for clarity, absence of jargon,
and general comprehensibility before you send or submit it to anyone. Remember
that word processors and email facilities are only tools, and that the burden
of effective communication still rests upon those who use them.
[This is true for any form of electronic communications!! It was a constant
point of horror when I was tutoring a writing class in college how AWFUL
my classmates were at writing -- even letters to friends -- and the worst that
I ever received were electronically generated. A hearty Hear! Hear! from
the moderator of THIS group!! -- Dave]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 May 1986 00:17 EDT
From: James H. Coombs <JAZBO%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Accounting for Varying Response to Catastrophes
"Human interest" is the explanation given in *The Big Carnival* for the
fact that people are more interested in catastrophes involving a few
people than in those involving multitudes. Some of the focus of the
Challenger discussion has been on technology, but a lot of it has been
on Christa and people's response to her death. Notice also that the
others have been ignored in comparison to Christa. I'm not sure how to
spell her last name, but I have no idea who the others were. This would
seem to bear out the theory that people are interested in the trials of
individuals. In this case, we turn it into an individual tragedy by
focusing on one person and ignoring the others, which is not too hard to
do when you have one flashy civilian among just a few professionals.
I suppose that we could also explain this by the fact that this is an
American catastrophe and not a Mexican one.
One more possibility. Technology and technological catastrophes are
under human control; earthquakes and natural catastrophes are random or
under divine control, which to humans often appears to be either random
or perverse (Job). Consequently, I think we can expect people to be
much more interested in technological catastrophes than in natural
catastrophes. Except where there is technological or human error
aggravating a natural capacity, I think the response is "let's clean up
and go on." Technological catastrophes provide considerable opportunity
for extended analysis.
So where are the computers in all of this? I don't recall hearing any
relief expressed over the vulnerability of human technology with its
displacing artificial intelligence. I admit to being fairly isolated
from popular media, so perhaps someone else has evidence of the role of
computers in response to catastrophes. If not, I conclude provisionally
that computers play no special role in the varying responses to
catastrophes; they are just another part of our technology. The varying
responses may be explained more suitably by 1) human interest, 2)
nationalism, and 3) perceived degree of human responsibility.
--Jim
JAZBO@BROWNVM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 09:43:54 pdt
From: Scott McGregor <hplabs!hpccc!mcgregor>
Subject: Another comment on catastrophes
I think that people have always been more able to relate to small
tragedies (such as 7 deaths in the Space Shuttle accident) rather
than large tragedies (such as the Mexico City Earthquake). This
was true even before instant TV. You can look at the number of
deaths in various wars, vs. the assinations of polical figures, from
Socrates to Kennedy. I think the reason is that in a small time,
whether by TV, newspaper, or word of mouth, you can tell the story of
the death of a few people, plus their autobiographies, what their
friends and family said/felt. You can't do this for the complete
set of Mexico City earthquake victims, the holocaust victims, soldiers
who died in Viet Nam, etc. You can focus in on some individuals,
and that tends to bring strong sympathy for those particular
individuals; some of these feelings are transfered to the "unknown masses"
not focused on, but the strength of such feelings are greatly reduced.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 11:07:02 pdt
From: Dave Taylor <taylor@hplabsc>
Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
[From Usenet]
# Written 7:53 am May 8, 1986 by SY.FDC@cu20b.columbia.edu in net.unix
# In Real Life: Frank da Cruz
# Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
A mailing list has been set up at North Dakota State University for
discussing computer and other technology for people with any kind
of handicap, plus meetings, conferences, funding agencies, and so
forth. It is run by Bob Puyear, NU025213@NDSUVM1.BITNET (via Arpanet,
NU025213%NDSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU), who will add you to the
mailing list if you send him a request to do so. To send mail directly
to the list itself, replace NU025213 by L$HCAP in the addresses above.
# End of text
-----------------------------------
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:
taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor
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)
--------
[For all those people who've sent in mail saying that the articles in this
group posted on 6/27 and 6/29 were truncated...we know! In fact, we've
fixed the problem - turned out to be a quirk of 'inews' that it doesn't
like being used in an RFA environment...I'll be reposting all the stuff
that got eaten. Sorry about the volume of the group, but the 'n' key is
just getting more and more handy, right? -- Dave]
Computers and Society Digest, Number 21
Monday, May 12th 1986
Topics of discussion in this issue...
Effects of computers on writing...
Accounting for Varying Response to Catastrophes (2 msgs)
A discussion group for technology for the handicapped
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Sesnovich at Data General
Date: Fri, 2 May 86 20:13:18 edt
Subject: Effects of computers on writing...
[from Risks Digest, Volume 2, Issue 48]
ARE WORD-PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL HELPING TO PROLIFERATE BAD WRITING?
Before word processors and electronic mail existed, important letters or
documents were usually handwritten and hand-corrected, often in several
drafts, before being typed and mailed. The typing of the letter represented
a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out
communication. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could
necessitate re-typing the entire letter or document.
There is a hidden risk in the new media, in that they have enabled us to
bypass the correction and finalizing phases of letter writing, often
resulting in quick and efficient dissemination of poorly planned, sloppy and
confusing prose.
In technical communications, where complex and potentially important ideas are
exchanged, clearness of expression is obligatory. I could cite, nevertheless,
many examples (some from recent RISKS, which I will not include to avoid
unfairly embarrassing the authors) where bad writing has rendered sentences
unintelligible and thoughts and ideas obscure.
We tend to be very quick to correct each other on points of technical accuracy,
but very slow to correct, or even recognize, inaccuracy of expression in our
own or others' writing.
While I do not advocate abandoning the ASCII keyboard for quill and parchment,
I do encourage readers of RISKS to take the time to proof and revise any of
their writing meant to convey important technical information.
Re-read your work, and have others examine it for clarity, absence of jargon,
and general comprehensibility before you send or submit it to anyone. Remember
that word processors and email facilities are only tools, and that the burden
of effective communication still rests upon those who use them.
[This is true for any form of electronic communications!! It was a constant
point of horror when I was tutoring a writing class in college how AWFUL
my classmates were at writing -- even letters to friends -- and the worst that
I ever received were electronically generated. A hearty Hear! Hear! from
the moderator of THIS group!! -- Dave]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 May 1986 00:17 EDT
From: James H. Coombs <JAZBO%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Accounting for Varying Response to Catastrophes
"Human interest" is the explanation given in *The Big Carnival* for the
fact that people are more interested in catastrophes involving a few
people than in those involving multitudes. Some of the focus of the
Challenger discussion has been on technology, but a lot of it has been
on Christa and people's response to her death. Notice also that the
others have been ignored in comparison to Christa. I'm not sure how to
spell her last name, but I have no idea who the others were. This would
seem to bear out the theory that people are interested in the trials of
individuals. In this case, we turn it into an individual tragedy by
focusing on one person and ignoring the others, which is not too hard to
do when you have one flashy civilian among just a few professionals.
I suppose that we could also explain this by the fact that this is an
American catastrophe and not a Mexican one.
One more possibility. Technology and technological catastrophes are
under human control; earthquakes and natural catastrophes are random or
under divine control, which to humans often appears to be either random
or perverse (Job). Consequently, I think we can expect people to be
much more interested in technological catastrophes than in natural
catastrophes. Except where there is technological or human error
aggravating a natural capacity, I think the response is "let's clean up
and go on." Technological catastrophes provide considerable opportunity
for extended analysis.
So where are the computers in all of this? I don't recall hearing any
relief expressed over the vulnerability of human technology with its
displacing artificial intelligence. I admit to being fairly isolated
from popular media, so perhaps someone else has evidence of the role of
computers in response to catastrophes. If not, I conclude provisionally
that computers play no special role in the varying responses to
catastrophes; they are just another part of our technology. The varying
responses may be explained more suitably by 1) human interest, 2)
nationalism, and 3) perceived degree of human responsibility.
--Jim
JAZBO@BROWNVM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 09:43:54 pdt
From: Scott McGregor <hplabs!hpccc!mcgregor>
Subject: Another comment on catastrophes
I think that people have always been more able to relate to small
tragedies (such as 7 deaths in the Space Shuttle accident) rather
than large tragedies (such as the Mexico City Earthquake). This
was true even before instant TV. You can look at the number of
deaths in various wars, vs. the assinations of polical figures, from
Socrates to Kennedy. I think the reason is that in a small time,
whether by TV, newspaper, or word of mouth, you can tell the story of
the death of a few people, plus their autobiographies, what their
friends and family said/felt. You can't do this for the complete
set of Mexico City earthquake victims, the holocaust victims, soldiers
who died in Viet Nam, etc. You can focus in on some individuals,
and that tends to bring strong sympathy for those particular
individuals; some of these feelings are transfered to the "unknown masses"
not focused on, but the strength of such feelings are greatly reduced.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 11:07:02 pdt
From: Dave Taylor <taylor@hplabsc>
Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
[From Usenet]
# Written 7:53 am May 8, 1986 by SY.FDC@cu20b.columbia.edu in net.unix
# In Real Life: Frank da Cruz
# Subject: Discussion group for technology for the handicapped
A mailing list has been set up at North Dakota State University for
discussing computer and other technology for people with any kind
of handicap, plus meetings, conferences, funding agencies, and so
forth. It is run by Bob Puyear, NU025213@NDSUVM1.BITNET (via Arpanet,
NU025213%NDSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU), who will add you to the
mailing list if you send him a request to do so. To send mail directly
to the list itself, replace NU025213 by L$HCAP in the addresses above.
# End of text
-----------------------------------
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:
taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA} -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor
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
***********************************