mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (06/26/91)
A while back, someone suggested that there was no need for local and/or
student chapters of EFF; interested people should just join CPSR. What
followed was a flame-war about the nature of CPSR. Not to light off
the old flame war again, but there's a news item in the latest "Unix
Today!" which bears on the issue:
"The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
have taken out an advertisement in the West Coast edition
of the New York Times protesting the use of computer
technology in the war with Iraq."
This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I
suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find
this sort of thing utterly cretinous.
Anyone who supports such Trendy Berkeley Left issues should by all
means join CPSR, but EFF should not get involved in it. EFF should not
limit itself to support from the Painfully Politically Correct; its
agenda is far broader and more important than that.
--
The powers not delegated to the United States by the | Mike Van Pelt
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are | Headland Technology/V7
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.| ..ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
U. S. Constitution, Amendment 10. (Bill of Rights) | mvp@hsv3.lsil.commcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/26/91)
In article <9269@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > > "The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > have taken out an advertisement in the West Coast edition > of the New York Times protesting the use of computer > technology in the war with Iraq." > >This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I >suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find >this sort of thing utterly cretinous. I agree, it's silly. Here's *why* it's silly: computer professionals do not have any special expertise at determining whether or not their country should go to war. They have exactly as much right to speak out as any other citizen; but the implicit claim of special expertise is what's ridiculous there (regardless of whether you think the war was justified). >Anyone who supports such Trendy Berkeley Left issues should by all >means join CPSR, but EFF should not get involved in it. EFF should not >limit itself to support from the Painfully Politically Correct; its >agenda is far broader and more important than that. Agreed. EFF has important work to do, on issues on which its members have special expertise. It should not get wrapped up in issues on which they do not have special expertise. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (06/26/91)
In article <9269@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: (regards forbidding use of computers in recent war) > This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I > suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find > this sort of thing utterly cretinous. Not really ... I view EFF and CPSR like two peas in a pod ... If you like the one, you'll love the other, and vice-verse. The Moderator Who Doesn't Give a Hoot.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun26.055354.358@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >as any other citizen; but the implicit claim of special expertise is >what's ridiculous there (regardless of whether you think the war was >justified). I've never seen any claim of special expertise. Is it any different than "Texas Police Officer Assoc. Supports Our Troops"? Or, better yet, anything said by Quayle? -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126 Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped) PowerGlove mailing list: glove-list-request@karazm.math.uh.edu
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun26.055853.26085@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Not really ... I view EFF and CPSR like two peas in a pod ... > >If you like the one, you'll love the other, and vice-verse. It would be a mistake, although not Pat's worst, to equate EFF's and CPSR's agendas. While there is overlap in the two organizations' interests, particularly in the civil liberties arena, their interests are not identical. We work together on the interests we share. Unlike Pat, who is probably a bit hazy on what the two organizations stand for, I have no trouble thinking of people who might favor one organization but not the other. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand mnemonic@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower (617) 864-1550 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) (06/27/91)
>In article <9269@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >> >> "The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility >> have taken out an advertisement in the West Coast edition >> of the New York Times protesting the use of computer >> technology in the war with Iraq." >> >>This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I >>suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find >>this sort of thing utterly cretinous. > So that people can see what it is that is being attacked here, I am posting the advertisement in question; it appeared in the June 18th edition. ----------- "WE'VE SEEN SMART BOMBS. LET'S SEE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. Some have called it a great triumph of American technology. During the armed conflict against Iraq, the U.S. government launched the most devastating assault on a country in the history of the world. An arsenal of laser guided, computer controlled weaponry laid waste to Iraq. A United Nations fact-finding mission described the effects of the bombing as "near apocalyptic." The U.N. team said, "most means of modern life support have been destroyed or rendered tenuous," including food supply, power generation, water purification, garbage disposal, sewage treatment and essentials. (New York Times, March 24, 1991) We are not proud that the fruit of our labor -- computer technology -- has been used for such deadly ends. We do not endorse the actions of Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government. We do, however, value the lives of the Iraqi people. We believe in the defense of our country and the protection of our national security, but our country's defense was not an issue in the Persian Gulf, and our nation's security must be measured by more than tanks and guns. Congressional and military sources estimate that at least 100,000 Iraqis died in the war. Their deaths did not improve the lives of 200 million Arabs living in the Middle East. Nor did their deaths benefit the millions of Americans who continue to face a declining standard of living and a collapsing infrastructure. We call for new priorities. We call for conflict to be resolved through negotiation rather than military force, for computer technology to advance public well-being rather than wage armed conflict, and for our technical skills to help solve the pressing problems of social justice and human survival. - Instead of building smarter weapons, we should be educating our children. - Instead of dropping bombs from the sky, we should be curing diseases on the ground. - Instead of destroying the infrastructure of countries overseas, we should be re-building communities at home. We have seen smart bombs. Now let's see human intelligence. ----------- You may still object to this statement, but please do so knowing what it says. --Samuel Bates Chair, CPSR-Madison
rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) (06/27/91)
In article <DPASSAGE.91Jun26131412@soda.berkeley.edu> dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) writes: >In article <1991Jun26.093140.9140@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: > In article <1991Jun26.055853.26085@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > > >Not really ... I view EFF and CPSR like two peas in a pod ... > > > >If you like the one, you'll love the other, and vice-verse. > > It would be a mistake, although not Pat's worst, to equate EFF's > and CPSR's agendas. While there is overlap in the two organizations' > interests, particularly in the civil liberties arena, their interests > are not identical. > > We work together on the interests we share. Unlike Pat, who is > probably a bit hazy on what the two organizations stand for, I > have no trouble thinking of people who might favor one organization > but not the other. > >Is there anyone out there familiar with both groups who might want to >talk about the differences and similiarities between them, for those >of us not familiar with one or the other? You know that guy you just quoted -- Mike Godwin? He's EFF's staff counsel. I'd say he is pretty familiar with EFF's and CPSR's agendas. But what do I know? -- Rita Marie Rouvalis rita@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation | A man walked up to me and said,"I'd like to 155 Second Street | change your mind by banging it with a rock, Cambridge, MA 02141 617-864-0665 | he said, "though I am not unkind." TMBGs
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.055354.358@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: In article <9269@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > > "The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > have taken out an advertisement in the West Coast edition > of the New York Times protesting the use of computer > technology in the war with Iraq." > >This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I >suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find >this sort of thing utterly cretinous. I agree, it's silly. Here's *why* it's silly: computer professionals do not have any special expertise at determining whether or not their country should go to war. They have exactly as much right to speak out as any other citizen; but the implicit claim of special expertise is what's ridiculous there (regardless of whether you think the war was justified). Here's why I think it's ridiculous: (Disclaimer: I'm working off of the excerpt in Mike Van Pelt's post, not the actual ad.) It assumes that computer technology is somehow "better" or "more worthy" than other technology, and thus should be protected from "unworthy" uses like war. I look at it this way: Computers are a tool. If you don't like what that tool is being used for, then attack the person using the tool for what they're doing, not for using that tool to do it. I don't think CPSR or any other group should tell people what they can or can't do with technology. If CPSR wanted to take a position on the gulf war, it should have been along the lines of "CPSR does not support the war for these political and economic reasons," not "CPSR opposes the war because they're using our favorite machines in it." -- David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.093140.9140@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: In article <1991Jun26.055853.26085@eecs.nwu.edu> ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Not really ... I view EFF and CPSR like two peas in a pod ... > >If you like the one, you'll love the other, and vice-verse. It would be a mistake, although not Pat's worst, to equate EFF's and CPSR's agendas. While there is overlap in the two organizations' interests, particularly in the civil liberties arena, their interests are not identical. We work together on the interests we share. Unlike Pat, who is probably a bit hazy on what the two organizations stand for, I have no trouble thinking of people who might favor one organization but not the other. Is there anyone out there familiar with both groups who might want to talk about the differences and similiarities between them, for those of us not familiar with one or the other? -- David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993
craig@b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.184003.22787@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: |> >In article <9269@hsv3.UUCP> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes: |> >> |> >> "The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility |> >> have taken out an advertisement in the West Coast edition |> >> of the New York Times protesting the use of computer |> >> technology in the war with Iraq." |> >> |> >>This does tend to support my off-the-cuff characterization of CPSR. I |> >>suspect a fair percentage of those who support what EFF is doing find |> >>this sort of thing utterly cretinous. [...] |> So that people can see what it is that is being attacked here, I am posting |> the advertisement in question; it appeared in the June 18th edition. |> |> ----------- |> |> "WE'VE SEEN SMART BOMBS. LET'S SEE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. |> [...] |> ----------- |> You may still object to this statement, but please do so knowing what it says. |> |> --Samuel Bates |> Chair, CPSR-Madison OK, thanks for clearing that up. We can all now see more clearly that this had no relation whatever to the EFF or its charter. So far the EFF is doing a good job of staying within its competence and away from partisan politics per se. -- ****************************************************** ** Craig Presson pressonc@ingr.com ** ******************************************************
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (06/27/91)
My first impression is an extreme lack of originality. From
my experience here at U of Mich, during the Gulf War, we had four
in-the-news Desert Storm groups.
Going historically:
Students Against US Intervention (SAUSI) : easily seen as
knee-jerk liberal response to foreign policy. Candelight Vigils, Noon
Rallys on the Diag, the whole 60's activism with a sugar-coating
that's really pervalent here.
Support Out Soldiers (SOS) : The Yellow-Ribboning Crowd.
Didn't officially sanction the war, focused on how the soldiers were
heros. SAUSI claimed they were supporting the soldiers too, by
wanting them out of there, and even held rallies "Supporting Our
Soldiers"
Students United for Desert Storm (STUDS) : People who thought
the Gulf war was a truely great thing.
Anti-Imperialist Action Caucus (AIAC) : Actually, they might
have had another name, but this is enough. So-called
marxist/lenninist/trotskyist folks who were kicked out of SAUSI for
generally disruptive behavior. Tried to broaden the Agenda of SAUSI
to be the m/l/t one, and if you didn't agree, you were racist, sexist,
and homophobic(tm). At least they had the decency not to do when the
same people did the same thing to ACT-UP, Ann Arbor, which called
_every_ anti-racist, anti-sexist, gay rights, etc. issue an AIDS issue.
When they were kicked out, they claimed to be the one true ACT-UP, and
even held meetings at the same time, in almost the same place.
Nice,eh?
Back to CPSR. They're not even close to EFF, in usefulness or
even authority. EFF seems to be trying to place itself as a group of
experts who can be seen as such and counter hacker-hysteria in
techno-illiterate courtrooms.
I'd rather not see CPSR get too big, just because it's not too
much of a stretch to see it get usurped by the PC types, managed to
get itself positioned against the EFF in issues like alleged
harassment, and that kinda stuff.
-rj
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranjan Bagchi - asleep...... | v,i,j,k,l,s,a[99];
bagchi@eecs.umich.edu | main() {
------------------------------- for(scanf("%d",&s);*a-s;v=a[j*=v]-a[i],k=i<s,j+=(v=j<s&&(!k&&!!printf(2+"\n\n%c"-(!l<<!j)," #Q"[l^v?(l^j)&1:2])&&++l||a[i]<s&&v&&v-i+j&&v+i-j))&&!(l%=s),v||(i==j?a[i+=k]=0:++a[i])>=s*k&&++a[--i]) ;
} /* Osovlanski and Nissenbaum */
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/27/91)
"the fruit of our technology" OK then, I see that the ad _did_ make a statement that computer professionals are specifically qualified or entitled to make. I stand corrected. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.205413.16154@eff.org> rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes: > >Not really ... I view EFF and CPSR like two peas in a pod ... > > > >If you like the one, you'll love the other, and vice-verse. > > It would be a mistake, although not Pat's worst, to equate EFF's > and CPSR's agendas. While there is overlap in the two organizations' > interests, particularly in the civil liberties arena, their interests > are not identical. > > We work together on the interests we share. Unlike Pat, who is > probably a bit hazy on what the two organizations stand for, I > have no trouble thinking of people who might favor one organization > but not the other. > >Is there anyone out there familiar with both groups who might want to >talk about the differences and similiarities between them, for those >of us not familiar with one or the other? You know that guy you just quoted -- Mike Godwin? He's EFF's staff counsel. I'd say he is pretty familiar with EFF's and CPSR's agendas. But what do I know? Well, then I suppose he wouldn't need an explanation. But I do. -- David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.184003.22787@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) posts the text of CPSR's ad in
the New York Times objecting to the Gulf War.
I'd like to withdraw my earlier flame of CPSR, as I was working
without the text of the ad. I assumed some things about it that I
shouldn't have. As it was written, I think it's a statement that I
could support. (Not that CPSR needs my approval, but you get the
idea.)
--
David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley
dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (06/27/91)
The arguments are perverse. The war was a flop. Computer were heavily implicated in this war, now characterized (to our general disadvantage) as the "Nintendo War." We are now seen as the purveyors of computer games which, despite their general inability to effect social change in foreign lands ruled by despots, are still quite useful in eliminating lives and livelihoods. CPSR is right on. Bob Jacobson --
ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric A Rasmussen) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.184003.22787@spool.cs.wisc.edu> samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: [quoting the CPSR article] After writing a long tirade on how their advertisement had very little to do with complaining about the actual use of computers in the Gulf War, I realized that that was not the actual point of the article. What the CPSR is really trying to say is that they as a group believe that the U.S. government should be spending less on the military and more on social and domestic programs. Why computer professionals should feel that they know more about this than the government or the rest of us is still beyond me, and I still feel that the article was not well written. Now let me get down to a few nitty-gritty points... >Congressional and military sources estimate that at least 100,000 Iraqis died >in the war. Their deaths did not improve the lives of 200 million Arabs >living in the Middle East. Nor did their deaths benefit the millions of >Americans who continue to face a declining standard of living and a collapsing >infrastructure. One must now ask oneself if they (the CPSR) believe that the death of 100,000 people is ok if it DOES benefit citizens of the United States by raising the standard of living and helping the collapsing infrastructure. Perhaps we should plunder the wealth of Saudia Arabia while our forces are still over there. >We call for new priorities. We call for ... our technical skills >to help solve the pressing problems of social justice and human survival. What modesty. If only the world worked like a computer program. +---------< Eric A. Rasmussen - Mr. Neat-O (tm) >---------+ +< Email Address >+ | A real engineer never reads the instructions first. | | ear@wpi.wpi.edu | | (They figure out how it works by playing with it.) | | ear%wpi@wpi.edu | +---------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+ ((( In Stereo Where Available )))
mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.021408.19626@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: [other stuff deleted] >CPSR is right on. Having now seen the actual ad (Thank you, Sam) I can say that it's not quite as cretinous as the "Unix Today!" news item made it seem, but it definitely looks like More of the Same From All The Usual People. The type of partisan politicing in this ad is not what EFF is about, and can only detract from EFF's very important goals. This is true whether you agree with the CPSR position or not. Once again, the point of all this is not the worth of the CPSR position (though my opinion on the subject is probably pretty clear :-), but that CPSR and EFF are different organizations with different goals. This probably wouldn't need saying, except that a while back, someone asked about local EFF chapters, was told there weren't any, and someone else suggested that he join the local CPSR chapter. -- Mike Van Pelt When guns are outlawed, Headland Technology/Video 7 only Carl Rowan will have guns. ...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.051845.30495@wpi.WPI.EDU> ear@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric A Rasmussen) writes: > >What the CPSR is really >trying to say is that they as a group believe that the U.S. government should >be spending less on the military and more on social and domestic programs. >Why computer professionals should feel that they know more about this than the >government or the rest of us is still beyond me, and I still feel that the >article was not well written. This is admittedly a matter of interpretation, since I was not involved in writing the original ad, but I would say that the intent was to say that the Gulf War was a bad use of computer technology, and that there are much better uses. As computer specialists, we _can_ make that claim with more knowledge than the general public. >>Congressional and military sources estimate that at least 100,000 Iraqis died >>in the war. Their deaths did not improve the lives of 200 million Arabs >>living in the Middle East. Nor did their deaths benefit the millions of >>Americans who continue to face a declining standard of living and a collapsing >>infrastructure. > >One must now ask oneself if they (the CPSR) believe that the death of 100,000 >people is ok if it DOES benefit citizens of the United States by raising the >standard of living and helping the collapsing infrastructure. The point is that these deaths, due in large part to computer technology, benefitted nobody. Again, other applications of the technology _can_ benefit people both in this country and in the Middle East. >>We call for new priorities. We call for ... our technical skills >>to help solve the pressing problems of social justice and human survival. > >What modesty. If only the world worked like a computer program. The key word here is "help"; the CPSR are not saying that they can solve these problems by themselves. They _are_ saying that computer technology and expertise have not generally been directed at these problems, and that it has the potential to _help_ find a solution. >+---------< Eric A. Rasmussen - Mr. Neat-O (tm) >---------+ +< Email Address >+ >| A real engineer never reads the instructions first. | | ear@wpi.wpi.edu | >| (They figure out how it works by playing with it.) | | ear%wpi@wpi.edu | >+---------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------+ --Samuel Bates CPSR-Madison
jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun28.142859.20500@spool.cs.wisc.edu> samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: > > The point is that these deaths, due in large part to computer > technology, benefitted nobody. Again, other applications of the > technology _can_ benefit people both in this country and in the Middle > East. > {...} > The key word here is "help"; the CPSR are not saying that they can > solve these problems by themselves. They _are_ saying that computer > technology and expertise have not generally been directed at these > problems, and that it has the potential to _help_ find a solution. "not generally directed"? Do you really believe that the majority of computer technology is being used by the military these days? I interpreted the CPSR ad as strictly a political statement, on a topic which has no relevance to computers. After all, do you really think that this war was caused by technology? I thought it was caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait... What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) took out an ad decrying the use of steel in the gulf war? Would you think that it wasn't political?
bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) (06/29/91)
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: > So that people can see what it is that is being attacked here, I am posting > the advertisement in question; it appeared in the June 18th edition. This really isn't the place for this thread, but since it hasn't moved anywhere else and CPSR doesn't have its own group, nudge nudge... Not many of us can say whether negotiation with Sadam Hussein would have been possible. It wasn't the route that we took. Just throwing out a possibility here, not saying it's what happened, is it possible that a less high-tech, less focused bombing effort would have cost more lives? Okay, I've got my Kevlar tuxedo on... What's your opinion? -- Bob Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com
samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) (06/29/91)
SB = Sam Bates JD = James Davies SB: The key word here is "help"; the CPSR are not saying that they can SB: solve these problems by themselves. They _are_ saying that computer SB: technology and expertise have not generally been directed at these SB: problems, and that it has the potential to _help_ find a solution. JD: "not generally directed"? Do you really believe that the majority of JD: computer technology is being used by the military these days? Maybe I did make this a bit strong. It's certainly the case that the vast majority of computer science _research_ is funded by the military (or at least it was three years ago, when we had a study group on the topic), but I guess that does not imply that the use of computer _technology_ is primarily military. JD: I interpreted the CPSR ad as strictly a political statement, on a topic which JD: has no relevance to computers. After all, do you really think that this JD: war was caused by technology? I thought it was caused by Iraq's invasion JD: of Kuwait... I disagree that the topic had no relevance to computers; I think the use of computers in war or indeed in any endeavor is a reasonable topic of discussion by a group of computer professionals. Whether it is read as a political statement depends on your point of view, as you so ably point out below... JD: What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) took out an ad decrying JD: the use of steel in the gulf war? Would you think that it wasn't political? This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. My first feeling is to say that steel has been used in war for a long time now, while this is the first significant use of computers in war. Hence the decision to use steel in war was made long ago, and is no longer subject to debate; the use of computers in war _is_ still subject to debate. So if by 'political' you mean 'attempting to influence policy,' then I guess you are right; the ad was political. But it is not political in the sense that it supports specific political actions; it merely outlines some goals that CPSR thinks are worth supporting. These goals can be pursued by people of any political persuasion. --Samuel Bates speaking for myself, not CPSR
rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/29/91)
jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes: > > "not generally directed"? Do you really believe that the majority of > computer technology is being used by the military these days? > > I interpreted the CPSR ad as strictly a political statement, on a topic which > has no relevance to computers. After all, do you really think that this > war was caused by technology? I thought it was caused by Iraq's invasion > of Kuwait... > > What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) took out an ad decryin > the use of steel in the gulf war? Would you think that it wasn't political? The majority of compouter technology is used by corporate and individual consumers. However, the majority of research and development in computer technology is not funded by the private sector, but by the Defense Department and the Department of Energy (whose primary function is to operate and research nuclear reactors for the DoD's use). The CPSR ad is a political statement, as would be a statement released by a group called Computer Professionals for Flamaing Carnage, telling how wonderful wars were and how glad they were that computers and chip technology could increase the destructive potential of old-fashioned weapons and make new ones possible. The wars in the Gulf and Panama were not caused by technology, they were merely assisted by technology. The purpose of technology *is* to assist human beings - that's what we design machines to do. But humans are also responsible for how they are used. I agree with CPSR's position that if a person is a paciist, it's not enough not to fight a war - they also should not be designing weapons. And regarding the steel:computers analogy, 1) Unlike computers, steel cannot be programmed to make decisions and take action based on those decisions. 2) Like steel, computers have no consciences. Rachel K. McGregor : Let the fire be your friend : Call the a/k/a Rogue Winter : And the sea rock you gently : Cellar at rogue@cellar.uucp : Let the moon light your way : 215/336-9503 {tredysvr,uunet}!cellar!rogue : 'Til the wind sets you free : BBS & Usenet
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun28.142859.20500@spool.cs.wisc.edu> samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes: > > The point is that these deaths, due in large part to computer > technology, benefitted nobody. Hey! Wait a minute! I expected a dozen rebuttals to this point, but haven't seen one. What the hell do you mean "these deaths...benefitted nobody?" The complaint that many of us have is that the CSPR claims to have some special kind of knowledge about whether the US should have been there in the first place. How does being a "Computer Professional" give you any special insight about whether we should have helped liberate Kuwait? Your entire argument is predicated on "these deaths...benefitted nobody", and you have no special qualifications to make that claim. >> What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) >> took out an ad decrying the use of steel in the gulf war? >> Would you think that it wasn't political? What he said! -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (06/30/91)
In article <JP0a51w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: > the Department of Energy (whose primary function is to > operate and research nuclear reactors for the DoD's use). <cough> -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
dpassage@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (David G. Paschich) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun29.160107.6264@spool.cs.wisc.edu> samuel@shemp.cs.wisc.edu (Samuel Bates) writes:
JD = James Davies
JD: What would you think if a steel industry group (SPSR?) took out an ad decrying
JD: the use of steel in the gulf war? Would you think that it wasn't political?
This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. My first
feeling is to say that steel has been used in war for a long time now, while
this is the first significant use of computers in war. Hence the decision to
use steel in war was made long ago, and is no longer subject to debate; the
use of computers in war _is_ still subject to debate. So if by 'political'
you mean 'attempting to influence policy,' then I guess you are right; the
ad was political. But it is not political in the sense that it supports
specific political actions; it merely outlines some goals that CPSR thinks
are worth supporting. These goals can be pursued by people of any political
persuasion.
It seems to me that debate should not center on whether or not to use
computers in war; it should center on whether or not to have the war.
The fact that a certain technology exists means that someone,
somewhere, is going to get desperate enough to use it so long as
certain countries maintain an oppressive relationship to other
countries.
It should be noted that the use of computers in weaponry doesn't
necessarily make war more horrific. For example, the (widely
propogandized, I admit) use of guided missile techology to stem the
oil slick in the gulf started by the Iraqi army.
--
David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley
dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993etj90@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Khaos) (06/30/91)
In <1991Jun30.065931.4452@rfengr.com> rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: >How does being a "Computer Professional" give you any >special insight about whether we should have helped liberate >Kuwait? Liberate ?? Liberate ????? Are you serious ? YOU mean restore freedom to the people, right ? Isn't the Kuwaiti government actually rather unDemocratic ? Didn't the US not push the point because after all they were getting oil again ? Am I missing something perhaps ? >What he said! Such articulateness !! -- Quote: "I am Khaos !" \007, licensed to beep.
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (07/01/91)
When the CPSR "deplores the use of computers in the Gulf War" I wonder
which of two positions they want to promote:
(1) That the war should not have been fought?
Are they experts on military strategy and international relations?
Are they pacifists? If so, do they come out and say so?
(2) That the war should have been fought, but without computers?
Seems to me it would have been much bloodier that way.
No flames, please.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------