taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/19/86)
Computers and Society Digest, Number 4
Monday, November 11th 1985
Topics of discussion in this issue...
EUREKA
Another response to "The Marketing of Computers"
Computers and the Law
Userid confusion
The Value of Information
A little bit of information ...
Overselling Computers, A Sad Story
[Editors note - my machine was blindly dropping mail for a while, so
I'm retransmitting this digest. Sorry for the time warp! -- Dave]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat 2 Nov 85 15:05:12-PST
From: Ken Laws <hplabs!Laws%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
Subject: EUREKA
One of the most interesting things about the EUREKA program is that
it is exceedingly popular with European business leaders [I am told]
even though no one knows what the program consists of. It is more
a rallying cry or an anti-U.S. slogan than a true program.
Does anyone on the net know what is being proposed or who is in charge?
Why is EUREKA needed in addition to ESPRIT? Is this the French/European
answer to SDI/Star Wars?
-- Ken Laws
-------
------------------------------
Date: 4 Nov 85 10:12 EST
From: hplabs!WAnderson.wbst%xerox.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
Subject: Another response to "The Marketing of Computers"
In the Friday, November 1st 1985 issue of the Computers and Society
Digest (Number 3) there appeared a response to an earlier comment on the
over- and under-selling of computers. I have some questions for the
contributors, Rich Kulawiec and Eugene Miya.
First, Rich claims that
"Many of the commercials and advertisements seem to be pushing the
point of view that *everyone* needs a computer...witness the plethora of
ads that attempt to convince parents that without his/her very own pc,
their child will be a failure in school...or the ads that try to
convince the average businessperson that they must have a computer in
order to keep up with their competition. Now, these ads aren't entirely
unreasonable ...."
My question to him is Do you believe that these claims are true, and if
so, what are the bases for this belief ?
My opinion is that computers are almost irrelevant in terms of
elementary school education. I have yet to see solid evidence that
computers enhance education, if by education we mean the development of
the skills of critical thinking. As for hype from commercial vendors,
it seems that as professionals we can only call 'em like we see 'em,
whether that be to our local school board, newspaper, PTA, church group.
Personally it pains me to see schools spend thousands on computers while
for a small fraction of that amount better and more frequent art
programs could be provided.
Second, Eugene tells of his experience with intergroup budget
discussions, and how his skill in calculation helped him to obtain the
money he wanted. He writes about the power his skill provided, and the
current plethora of calculators:
"The calculator was only a tool, but it was an extremely
powerful tool. Certainly, more "evil" forces could turn such power to
bad uses. While computers are being oversold, we must be careful not to
undersell them, too."
I have difficulties with statements that "[any specific technology] is
only a tool." Technology is NOT neutral, just waiting for good or evil
folks to do their thing with it. Sophisticated technological tools like
the computer systems available today are not separate from the social
environment in which they are created. All tools promote certain
behaviors and activities and discourage others. For example, television
promotes passive reception of images. Listening to a story, or reading,
promotes the active use of one's own imagination to produce images in
the mind. Television is not neutral in this sense. Using calculators
increases the speed at which complex (and simple) computations can be
carried out. In a sense it permits more and faster calculations, but at
the same time it discourages examination and understanding of the
details of the calculation. Is this a good thing?
A technology exists in a cultural context; it is a product of that
culture; it extends and changes that culture; it is not neutral with
respect to the culture in which it is developed. Because of this
non-neutrality, it is incumbent on the members of a particular society
to ask Why use a given tool? and What aspects of the environment will be
changed by the application of a given technology?
I would like to see discussion of these questions like these in this
Digest.
Bill Anderson
(WAnderson.WBST@Xerox)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 11:02:20 PST
From: ihnp4!ucbvax!ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU!harry (Harry I. Rubin)
Subject: Computers and the Law
I am noticing computers getting mixed up with the law more and more often,
and in more different ways. I am curious whether studying computers
and the law is considered a reasonable research area for computer scientists
anywhere? Are there any organized programs or research units at schools,
research labs, companies, or elsewhere? This could include computer
hardware, software, the act or process or business activity of programming,
ownership of or copyright or software or firmware, or anything else
of a legal nature involving computers. Are there lawyers who are making
a specialty of "computer-related law?" Please reply to the newsletter.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 08:45:39 mst
From: ihnp4!terak!doug (Doug Pardee)
Subject: Userid confusion
Dave,
In the latest Computers and Society Digest, somehow the sending
userid on my note was ...!terak!sohail instead of ...!terak!doug.
Sohail is the SA here, maybe the mailer got screwed up or something.
Would you be so kind as to check this message to make sure that
it is from ...!terak!doug, and perhaps put a note in the next
Digest correcting the boo-boo? Thanks a bunch.
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 15:51:52 MST
From: hpcnou!dat (Dave Taylor)
Subject: The Value of Information
With the recent problems that have been encountered in this group, and
the resultant discussion with various management types (enough said
about that!) I'm starting to wonder if our society is placing the
right emphasis on information...
There is a crucial problem with estimating the 'value' of
information that isn't being addressed.
Fifty years ago it was easy - the amount of information you
were subjected to was limited to junk mail at home, selected magazines,
junk mail at work, and professional journals and newsletters. This was
a quickly manageable problem and most people learned to "skim" printed
information to glean the significant information. If it were promising
enough, it would be put aside for a later, closer, read, otherwise
it was immediately discarded.
Computers and the "Information Age" have changed all that.
Now not only are all the above sources of information raining upon
us (and more frequently - since it's easier to generate mail now
(junkmail programs, software to typeset journals, etc) there is an
escalation of printed information available) but we now also have to
contend with a totally "alien" form of information - the computer.
It's not simply a new fortune each time you log in, either - there
is an AMAZING amount of information flowing about each night as we
sleep!
Just considering the USENET notes/news system, there is sig-
nificantly more information there than can be absorbed by any one person,
even if they were operating at a 24-hour-a-day rate. When you add the
numerous mail groups (USENET/ARPA/etc) and personal electronic mail
it is an almost unimaginable amount of information that is being thrust
upon each of us on a daily basis.
The problem I think is that with the electronic media, there is
no way to judge the VALUE of the information without actually having read
the particular item. With paper mail it's easy - there are tables of
contents in journals that have titles relevent to the topic of the articles,
and junk mail most always has giveaway envelopes ("YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON.."
and so on) - and you can immediately discard them if you are short of time.
The problem is that there is no analogous method for the electronic
information we are barraged with.
As the cost of communicating this information (that is growing
at a seemingly exponential rate) increases, the value of the information
is going to have to be evaluated because it isn't reasonable to expect
companies to subsidize junk mail and miscellaneous trash...
Which brings us to the real question here - how can we evaluate,
on an ad hoc basis, the information being sent about the system?
One solution is to write 'intelligent' software that does some
sort of filtering for us. Since there are so many sources for this
information, though, I don't think that it would work too well. Besides,
the most useful thoughts are sometimes in the most suprising places...
Another alternative is to somehow limit and/or police the
system so that only information that was useful to some sort of
governing body would be forwarded (the "mod.*" approach to news).
This is also fraught with danger - what happens is that the information
that survives the purge is simply an echo of the thoughts of the person
in control of the group...[there is also the question of the timing
of the information - information tends to be needed NOW and a scheme
of this sort is a human-speed buffer in the middle of the system...]
There are more problems with this approach too, but I'll continue with
the next.
A third method is to sort of 'blend' the previous two approaches,
and have system 'auditors' that would peruse the available information
and attach a "value" rating to each piece. The end user would then be
free to use these (perhaps software that only read mail with a "Taylor
rating" of 10 or greater, for example) but again, there is the problem
of the time delay and also of the 'totalitarianism'/censorship aspects.
The problem with these approaches are that there seems to be
a trade-off between the COST of the information and the FREEDOM of the
information network. Certainly the cost can be minimized by limiting
the system to, say, upper management, or people who are "screened" by
some governing board (like the FCC). Alternatively, the system can be
more of an anarchy with companies not allowed to NOT forward information
(ie no local editing/censorship of information) at the cost of a
phenomenal amount of information being passed about.
Seems like perhaps we've reached two issues:
1. The "rights" of information
versus
2. The "cost" of information.
I'll end my discussion here for now. Any thoughts?
-- Dave Taylor
The Computers and Society Moderator
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1985 1609-EST (Friday)
From: Marc Mengel <ihnp4!pur-ee!pucc-j!aaz>
Subject: A little bit of information ...
I think one of the major problems associated with databases
like the NCIC, (or the various "bad tenant", "bad check passers"
etc. databases) is that they don't keep *enough* information. The
tendency is to make a simple list, a list of names, and not have
any other information with it. This tendency to over-abstract
information is common when dealing with computers; mainly because
that is what makes it possible to deal with computers. Without the
abstraction, problems often become too complex to solve. Unfortunately,
when we begin dealing with people's lives and property and liberties,
we cannot afford to be so sparing of information.
On the other hand, people have a tendency to be too gullible.
Locking somebody up for eight days because their name is on a list
without double checking it and getting further information is
really quite inane, regardless of whether the list is stored in a
computer or not. The fact that computers make it easier to create,
use, and maintain lists that people abuse only aggrivates the problem.
So what can be done to keep people from acting on too little
information? The first choice is to provide more information.
This could involve having lots of archived information about people
you are keeping a database about, so that if it is required, the
information is readily available, although at not quite the speed
one might wish for. The second choice is to keep people from acting,
with such things as disclaimers, telling when the information was
last updated, and where one should go for more information before
taking any action. It seems to me that some compromise between these
two is probably best, and there are probably more solutions than
these... Any other ideas out there?
Marc Mengel
Uucp: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs }!pur-ee!pucc-j!aaz
{ decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax }!purdue!pucc-j!aaz
USnail: 910 N. 9th street
Lafayette IN 47904
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 23:21:49 est
From: ihnp4!decvax!wjr
Subject: Overselling Computers, A Sad Story
In #2, Dave Taylor writes:
> the average
>person sees a wierd conglomeration of omniscience and idiocy when they
>view the machine.
Which reminds me of a conversation I had with my neighbor. She was
fascinated to discover that both Bill and I were compunerds, and asked
us to turn her on. But while we were booting her, she suddenly
looked at us as if we had broken her new toy and said, as exactly as I
can quote her, "You mean they _aren't_ as smart as the robots in _Star
Wars_?"
Now this is an intelligent woman, sharp and well-informed about much
of the world she lives in. If she weren't, we wouldn't have been
friends. But she had been sold a completely fantastic idea of what
computers could do, and lost interest in them when she discovered that
a computer can be no more than a way of being stupid faster. She said,
and I think a fair percentage of the public would agree, "Call me when
they're smart enough to be useful."
I first looked at computers in 1970, and then ignored the field for
five years when my source handed me a small computer handbook. I
wanted to use computers to manage my writing, not to wallow in bits.
I am so lazy as a writer that I AM willing to invest in learning to
use Emacs, but I wasn't exactly tickled by TECO.
STella Calvert
Every man and every woman is a star.
Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits>
!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts
Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)
-----------------------------------
To have your item included in this digest, please mail it to any
of the addresses; ihnp4!hpfcla!d_taylor, {ucbvax} !hplabs!taylor or
taylor@HPLABS.CSNET. You can also simply respond to this mailing.
-----------------------------------
End of Computers and Society Digest
-----------------------------------