weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/23/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: Wow. I am impressed. I thought in the past year that I have seen it all. And done a goodly chunk of it. And now some ignorant dweeb from Illinois flames William Thurston. Of all the people in the world. Wow wow wow. I thought Tim Maroney set an unbeatable low with his endless articles on Heinlein. But you with your single article have Tim and his dogged re- fusal to comprehend the obvious outclassed by miles. I'm impressed. Anyway, on with the show. For sci.misc and talk.politics.misc readers who did not see the originals in net.math, William Thurston had a brief article concerning the stated subject line--"military funding in mathematics". I am directing all followups out of sci.math, for obvious reasons. In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> some dweeb from U Illinois says: >Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math >and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous >and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* >thread of evidence - if such exists. He did. He offered to e-mail anyone a copy of his forthcoming paper on the subject. Did you take him up on the offer? Uh, duhuh. (I have not seen Thurston's article, as I subscribe to the journal it is due to appear in.) This trend--the increased presence of the military in the funding of mathematics (and science, by the by)--is a good way to o drive good people away from the field who object to militarization in the first place What's our dweeb's response to that? Tough toodles, who needs them? It's a good thing the Nazis took that attitude, or THEY would have had an atomic bomb. o make mathematical/scientific funding subservient to random political winds If our next president cancels SDI, do a lot of researchers who switched fields for the bucks suddenly find themselves too late in a bloated field? Why should optics suddenly get flooded with funds, and particle physics have to beg? o introduce spurious and harmful efforts to classify university research The NSA has tried to do this. The SDI folks have suggested the same. o cut off funding/research for those with outspoken opinions This has in fact occurred a few times. The Oppenheimer case stands out particularly. A recent researcher at your own school, if I remember correctly, was threatened with non-access to the Cray there because he signed an anti-SDI pledge. That sort of bullying was SOP for Nazi Germany. But AMERICA? For crying out loud, whose side are you on? o reduce international contacts among scientists Or do you think "their" scientists deserve to be kept uninformed of new purely scientific discoveries? Watch out, because it can boomerang. o introduce uncertainty to the openness of conferences Several conferences have in the past years received last minute orders to keep some talks American/American-friend-only, even though the topics are in themselves unclassified. o increase the bureaucracy for researchers Does this need to be explained in detail, dweebie? I wouldn't be sur- prised, considering how difficult it is for you to see the obvious. It is bad enough dealing with OMB/NSF all on their own. In the end, if the trend continues, the military brass will be happy, shuffling their paperwork funding approvals, but the best minds of our generation will be elsewhere. Surely you heard about the genius at Livermore who designed the X-ray laser quit when he realized that his weapon was not really going to be useful defensively, but that it would make a great offensive weapon. Actually, he himself is keeping mum about his exact reasons, but he has not denied these assertions. So DoD will become bloated with second-rate epigones, and our defense will suffer for it. In the immortal words of the late Edward Morgan Blake, "and then Ozzy here is going to be the smartest man on the cinder." By the way, do you want to know why the Soviets are so scared of SDI? Because it's a great offensive weapon: ASAT & anti-CCCI, in less than a second. Total destruction ala James Bond "Diamonds are Forever" is not needed--just a touch and those delicate objects are useless. It obviously can't work as a defensive weapon, since if the Soviets do want to attack us, they first blow up several nuclear bomb satellites, whose resulting EMP would paralyze SDI instantly, and THEN they launch their ICBMs. With enough shovels, they can protect their silos from the EMP. And it's dirt cheap for them too. By the way, Illinois dweeb, I freelance for a certain DoD related agency now and then. I'm proud of the classified work done there. But if our country turns into another Soviet Union from the inside out, why bother defending it in the first place? Or is that too rhetorical for you. I personally do not object to SOME military funding for the sciences, or some scientific research done for the military. Indeed, it is very easy to point out examples where this has been extremely beneficial in the long run. What is so distressing is the extreme excess that is presently being thrown around, completely distorting all sense of perspective. I really should not have used any name-calling in the above, but I am still so completely astonished/annoyed at the new supreme low in net intelligence that you have set. Congratulations. If you read sci.math and don't know who William Thurston is, I suggest you unsubscribe and save yourself future embarrassment. Woof. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 If my answers sound confusing, I think they are confusing because the questions are confusing, and the situation is confusing and I'm not in a position to clarify it. -Ron Ziegler, former Disneyland employee
jtk@mordor.ARPA (Jordan Kare) (10/23/86)
I don't want to get into a general discussion on SDI/military funding, but as an associate of Peter Hagelstein (the "genius at Livermore"), I have some comments on Matthew Weiner's article flaming (I suspect justifiably) an earlier posting: In article <48@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >Why should optics suddenly get flooded with funds, and particle physics >have to beg? Rather obviously, because particle physics seems to have wandered so far from the "real world" that it is no longer of interest to anyone but its own practitioners (I've heard Luis Alvarez argue that modern particle theory verges on being metaphysics (or religion) not physics), whereas even very fundamental work in optics has more or less obvious prospects for utility. Massive funding for, say, missile tracking telescopes rather than fiber optics research, though, seems a more direct example. > >In the end, if the trend [to military funding of science and >associated security hassles] continues, the military brass will be happy, >shuffling their paperwork funding approvals, but the best minds of our >generation will be elsewhere. Being Lawyers :-( > >Surely you heard about the genius at >Livermore who designed the X-ray laser quit when he realized that his >weapon was not really going to be useful defensively, but that it >would make a great offensive weapon. This is an unwarranted assumption about his motives. It's also a very debatable assumption about X-ray lasers -- they may be useful defensively (in the narrow sense of being able to knock down ICBMs; whether this is desirable, and under what circumstances, is a larger question) or they may be useless offensively, though I doubt both of these will prove true. >Actually, he himself is keeping >mum about his exact reasons, but he has not denied these assertions. "Sir, do you still beat your wife?" Failure to deny assertions should not be taken to confirm them, ESPECIALLY in the case of a private individual who has specifically avoided publicity. Yours for rational discussion of SDI Jordin Kare jtk@s1-c.ARPA jtk@mordor.UUCP
dko@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (Dan O'Neill) (10/24/86)
------ Article from Weemba ----- In article <48@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >Wow. I am impressed. I thought in the past year that I have seen it all. >And done a goodly chunk of it. And now some ignorant dweeb from Illinois >flames William Thurston. Of all the people in the world. Wow wow wow. > > In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> some dweeb from U Illinois says: > Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math > and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous > and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* > thread of evidence - if such exists. > >He did. He offered to e-mail anyone a copy of his forthcoming paper >on the subject. Did you take him up on the offer? Uh, duhuh. ------ End of Weemba posting ------ I would hardly call the poster from Illinois ignorant. He precisely pointed out that the original article did not, in itself, justify the opinion presented. ----- Original article ---- From: wpt@princeton.UUCP (William Thurston) Subject: military funding in mathematics Organization: CS Department, Princeton University There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics * recently. Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend, * as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous * for society at large. A group of us is seeking ways to reverse this trend. I've written an article on the subject, which will probably appear in the January Notices of the AMS. There will also be a panel discussion (in which I am involved) at the joint meeting of the AMS-MAA in San Antonio. Resolutions will be put forward on the floor concerning SDI (star wars) and military in general. I would like to hear from people with information related to military funding. I will be happy to surface-mail a copy of my article to anyone who sends an address; if you are interested in distributing copies locally, I will e-mail the TeX source. ------ End of original article --- Yes, Mr. Thurston will send a copy of his paper to interested parties, but does the rest of the posting justify this opinion? The paper Mr. Thurston has written may contain the nessesary justifications, but his usenet posting most certainly does not. Don't read this as a yea or nay vote on the subject, I just don't see why Mr. Wiener (weemba@brahms) attempts to flay each and every poster with whom he disagrees. Post your opinions, I'll read them, but don't post articles meant to demean the person on the other end. This serves no useful purpose and simply detracts from the discussion at hand. -- Dan O'Neill uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!dko (619) 587-3112 arpa: "calmasd!dko"@ucsd.arpa "Say, isn't that one of those new two-way diodes?" - db
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/24/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <16229@mordor.ARPA> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes: >as an associate of Peter Hagelstein (the "genius at Livermore"), >I have some comments on Matthew Wiener's article flaming [...] >an earlier posting: >[criticisms omitted] I agree, my comments about PH were entirely inappropriate and inexcusable. I was echoing what I read in newspapers--I should know better than to do that so thoughtlessly. >>Why should optics suddenly get flooded with funds, and particle physics >>have to beg? > >Rather obviously, because particle physics seems to have wandered so >far from the "real world" that it is no longer of interest to anyone >but its own practitioners [...] Considering that the technological spin-off argument is often claimed as a "good" reason to support SDI, I should point out that there is a lot of successful technological spin-off from research in particle physics. If I have the time and there is interest, I will look up the fairly recent issue of the CERN Courier where they gave a good summary of the practical applications that have grown out of CERN's research. While it is true that particle physics itself is mostly of interest to its narrow group of practitioners--I say mostly since there are lots of outsiders who like to follow the successes--I'd say that many of their instruments and techniques are of much wider interest. When the time comes--God forbid--to build antimatter weaponry, stochastic cool- ing and its future refinements will suddenly become very interesting to DoD. Stochastic cooling, by the way, was what made the discovery of the W+,W-,Z0 possible, and was what Simon van der Meere was awarded the Nobel prize for in 1984. Ironically, in light of the anti-internationalization attitude DoD is trying to impose on pure research, the theoretical work that vdM based his work on was originally due to a Soviet physicist. vdM himself is Dutch. I do not think it very wise to make negative predictions about the fu- ture utility of pure research. Such has a dismal track record. >It's also a very debatable assumption about X-ray lasers [...] You are right about it being debatable. When trying to analyze the Soviet response to SDI, though, we must assume that they assume worst-case sce- narios. For them, the possibility that someone in the next ten years is going to find SOME offensive use must be very real. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/24/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: In article <2097@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> dko@calmasd.UUCP (Dan O'Neill) posts the same article three times--learn how to cross-post please!: >I would hardly call the poster from Illinois ignorant. He precisely >pointed out that the original article did not, in itself, justify the >opinion presented. Nonsense. The Illinois dweeb said he was *really irritated* by "outrageous and unsubstantiated claims". Asking that the *least* that could be done is that a thread of evidence be provided, with the remark "if such exists", is practically a direct insult to William Thurston's intelligence. > I just don't see why Mr. >Wiener (weemba@brahms) attempts to flay each and every poster with whom he >disagrees. Such is balderdash. I only flame the bigoted, the rude, and the liars. If you don't like it, unsubscribe. I am directing followups to talk.politics.misc, the only group where flaming is not out of the way. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
cramer@kontron.UUCP (10/25/86)
> Yours for rational discussion of SDI > > Jordin Kare jtk@s1-c.ARPA jtk@mordor.UUCP On USENET? Clayton E. Cramer
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/26/86)
> When the > time comes--God forbid--to build antimatter weaponry, stochastic cool- > ing and its future refinements will suddenly become very interesting > to DoD. Stochastic cooling, by the way, was what made the discovery > of the W+,W-,Z0 possible, and was what Simon van der Meere was awarded > the Nobel prize for in 1984. Actually, we're likely to be building antimatter rockets long before anyone gets interested in antimatter weapons. The USAF is *already* funding work on antimatter rockets for in-space propulsion. Antimatter weapons would be enormously expensive and present serious handling problems; antimatter rockets would compete in an area where conventional solutions are already enormously expensive, and the more benign environment simplifies the handling problems. If van der Meere's Nobel was for stochastic cooling, as opposed to the W+ etc., then clearly it should have been the Nobel Prize For Accelerator Engineering, not the Nobel Prize For Physics (ignoring the nonexistence of a Nobel Prize of the former type!). Accelerator engineering is an oddball case because it has virtually no applications right now except among the physicists. But it is very definitely a branch of engineering, not physics. This will become obvious as soon as other applications appear. > I do not think it very wise to make negative predictions about the fu- > ture utility of pure research. Such has a dismal track record. Personally, I agree, but the above is a very poor example. Accelerator engineering is not pure research. Practical applicability of modern particle physics -- as opposed to the specialized engineering disciplines driven and funded by particle-physics applications -- would seem minimal for the immediate future. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/27/86)
I fail to come in over the weekend and look what I miss! I have never
been called an "ignorant dweeb" before, so hats off to Weemba for this
intriguing and novel insult. Before replying to him, however, let me
set a few facts straight.
First, in no way did my earlier note attack Dr. Thurston's professional
or personal reputation. His credentials (which are impeccable) are not
at issue. What I criticize is his injection of politics into a technical
notesfiles. I believe Thurston could have made his posting in an unbiased
way, while still soliciting the comments he wants. Am I guilty of the same?
Yes, and for this I apologize. Should I have requested his paper? Perhaps,
but this does not detract from my criticism. Finally, if Dr. Thurston took
my criticism as an impingement of his professional credentials, I sincerely
apologize to him. This was *not* my intent.
Second, in email to me, Weemba accuses me of calling Thurston a "liar",
"in so many words." How Weemba can make such an accusation is beyond me.
By doubting the existence of evidence supporting Thurston's premise (that
military funding is unhealthy), I only meant to illustrate the sharp
*political* differences we have on the issue. Surely I can disagree with
someone's political position without calling him a liar. Evidently, Weemba
does not understand the difference. Perhaps someone, more eloquent than me,
can explain this to him. It may stave off further visceral attacks. Of
course, I should have been clearer in my original note, and so I am partly
to blame for Weemba's misunderstanding. If Dr. Thurston took similar
offense, I sincerely apologize to him. I do not like being called a liar,
and rarely call someone else one - especially a complete stranger. Unlike
Weemba, Thurston did not launch an ad hominem attack on me.
So what did I hope to accomplish with my posting? It should be obvious,
but since Weemba missed the point, I will explain. I thought Thurston's
note, and my reply, might spark an *intelligent* debate on the role of
military funding in mathematics. Clearly I expected too much from Weemba.
His colleague, Larsen, has been the only one to address the issue with any
kind of reason. Finally, Weemba has seen fit to put many words in my mouth.
I am quite capable of stating my own opinions, and don't need his help.
As I have already admitted, I was mistaken to place this debate in sci.math.
For this I am truly grateful to Weemba. He was most kind to point out the
error of my ways. The net voters were wise to elect him guardian of sci.math.
By the way, when is the next election? Surely none of us will challenge
Weemba - for his wisdom is far greater than ours. Perhaps we should crown
him King of the Net! But there I go again, getting carried away. In America
we don't have kings. In America we also allow freedom of expression - unless,
of course, Weemba deems it "ignorant." In this case the offender should kneel
before His High Holiness of Horseshit and beg forgiveness. Jeesh!
Since I am not an ardent reader of sci.math, I did not know who Weemba was. I
have since learned. In addition to being the self-appointed guardian of that
notesfile, he is also an arrogant and conceited ass without equal. In email
to me he twice speaks of a "fan club... who loves watching me [Weemba] make
dweebs piss in their pants." This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever
read on the net. Who in the hell does he think he is? Please pardon my harsh
language, but I do not take kindly to vicious personal attacks. I realize I
am myself guilty of personally attacking Weemba, but if anyone ever needed
chopping at the knees, this character is he. Of course, this is only *my*
opinion.
Weemba also assails Computer Science, accusing it of excessive dependence on
the military. This is simply not true. (Please note that I am not calling
him a liar. He is merely ignorant.) His attacks smack of an "Us (Math)
versus Them (CS)" mentality. What is his problem? Are we not all scientists,
albeit with different political beliefs? Perhaps this level of reasoning is
above him; I do not know.
Finally, a piece of free advice to Weemba: Next time you see an "ignorant
dweeb," please make sure you're not seeing your own reflection in the VDT.
- Steve ("the dweeb from Illinois") Ashby
Dept. of Computer Science
Univ. of Illnois
ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edugsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (10/30/86)
In article <73600001@uiucdcsp> ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >What I criticize is [Thurston's] injection of politics into a technical >notesfiles. I believe Thurston could have made his posting in an unbiased >way, while still soliciting the comments he wants. If computer scientists are welcome to post to sci.math, does it not seem reasonable that mathematicians should be welcome to post *brief* articles which are of interest to fellow mathematicians? There was, after all, no better place (certainly not talk.politics!) to put it. Political commentary and "What's New?" stuff is a regular feature of sci.physics. Why should it be banned on sci.math because it upsets the delicate conservative political sensibilities of a few non-mathematicians? Speaking personally, I was delighted to see Bill Thurston starting to post to sci.math. I think it would be very unfortunate if hostile attitudes expressed by non-mathematicians were to cause him to cease posting. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie
primer_b@husc4.harvard.edu (jeremy primer) (10/31/86)
In article <146@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >In article <73600001@uiucdcsp> ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >>What I criticize is [Thurston's] injection of politics into a technical >>notesfiles. I believe Thurston could have made his posting in an unbiased >>way, while still soliciting the comments he wants. > > If computer scientists are welcome to post to sci.math, does it not >seem reasonable that mathematicians should be welcome to post *brief* >articles which are of interest to fellow mathematicians? There was, after >all, no better place (certainly not talk.politics!) to put it. Political >commentary and "What's New?" stuff is a regular feature of sci.physics. >Why should it be banned on sci.math because it upsets the delicate conservative >political sensibilities of a few non-mathematicians? Speaking personally, I >was delighted to see Bill Thurston starting to post to sci.math. I think it >would be very unfortunate if hostile attitudes expressed by non-mathematicians >were to cause him to cease posting. > >ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Thank you Gene Ward Smith. You were perhaps too apologetic, because most serious and thinking people have no need for the facade of non-bias that passes for objectivity in most American discourse. Mr. Ashby's main goal here was to provide some conservative propa- ganda (in the form of pseudo-moralistic objections) to counter the liberal bias in Mr. Thurston's posting. I found Bill Thurston's posting far more substantive, because his main point was not that "we liberal mathematicians object to SDI," but that pure mathema- ticians had best not pass their purse-strings on to military bean-counters or ideologues. He wrote sincerely about some issues which involve him directly, no mere second-hand interpretation of events, and he put it in the one place where the largest number of other involved people would see it. If Mr. Ashby has any comparable REAL interest in computer science funding, or in the relationship between computer science and mathematics, I wish he would tell us all about it, and then perhaps we will take him more seriously. Here's what I mean, taking myself as guinea pig: I receive funding to do graduate work in mathematics and obtained it through a civilian peer review process. I have turned down a job offer requiring a minor security clearance to avoid the unnecessary restrictions it would entail. I have read papers by Professor Thurston concerning geometry, computer science, military funding. I look forward to being able to obtain a teaching job at a major university in about four years without being pressured to enrich my employer by applying for grants from military agencies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Primer primer@husc4.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics primer%husc4@harvard.ARPA 1 Oxford Street primer@harvsc4.BITNET Cambridge, MA 02138 ...!harvard!husc4!primer
ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/31/86)
As the week has progressed, I have had time to consider my recent "counter-attack" on Weemba. In retrospect, I must say I regret the posting. It was both rude and mean-spirited. Many of Weemba's most inflammatory remarks were made in email to me, and that is where I should have kept the argument. Instead, I chose to air the brouhaha on the net. In doing so I ridiculed myself far more than anything Weemba could have posted. I may also have offended some netters; if so, please accept my apology. Although I still believe Weemba was unfair in his attack of me, he deserves praise for refusing to knock the chip off my shoulder. The net is no place for personal vendettas, a fact he understands clearly, a fact I am just learning. In the future I hope my postings will be more thoughtful and carefully worded. I certainly do not apologize for my political beliefs, but tact and common sense needn't suffer for them. Apologetically yours, Steve Ashby Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Illinois