Aucbvax.1481 fa.human-nets utzoo!duke!mhtsa!ucbvax!DERWAY@MIT-ML Mon Jun 1 20:36:00 1981 HUMAN-NETS Digest V3 #110 HUMAN-NETS AM Digest Tuesday, 2 Jun 1981 Volume 3 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: FYI - Improper Channels & Xerox Star, Computers and the Handicapped - CBS and Teletext, Communicating via Network - Human Communcation & Impacts on Language ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 May 1981 1939-EDT From: Jeff Shulman Subject: Improper Channels - a review The premise of this movie is this: Due to a misunderstanding, a couple's child gets taken away from them by the Department of Social Services. The couple want to get their child back. The misunderstanding happened because an over-zealous social worker illegally obtained computer records from the Social Service's computer. When the characters found out how it was done, they planned revenge. The revenge occurred in the last 15 minutes of the movie, and is a MUST SEE by all "net-type" computer people (since you are receiving this over the ARPANET, you are a 'net-type'). It was hilarious! I was pleased to see that the computer (a CDC) looked like a 'real' computer. The 'center' was an electronically secured room. In the room was a console (with printer), tape drives, disk drives, and the mainframe (not JUST tape drives or CRT's as usually portrayed.) However in the end, the computer (or the info on it) did wind up to be the fall guy (oh well). I recommend it (if even only for the last 15 minutes.) Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 1981 1313-EDT From: Sross at MIT-XX (Sandor Schoichet) Subject: Star Survey Results I have compiled and tabulated the responses to my survey on the Xerox Star, and added in some other material on the Star as well. See ps:star.mss on mit-xx. Thanks to all who contributed, further opinions and comments are welcome. Sandor Schoichet ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1981 08:33 PDT From: ChiNguyen.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V3 #106, Xerox Star Dear Brian, you fictitious story is somewhat misleading. This is something that would be real: ------------------- I had the "pleasure" of getting the Xerox pitch at NCC '81. Me: "Great! Here is my check for $61,300. Please deliver my 'Star' to. . " Them: "Please leave your name and address to the young lady over there. And please, don't call us we will call you !!" ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1981 19:37-EDT From: Brian P. Lloyd Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V3 #106, Xerox Star My "fictitious" converstion was not fictitious. Perhaps you had better train your booth people better. If I got the exact numbers wrong I appologize, but that is the only place where my recreation of the conversation might be in error. I was DELIBERATELY led to believe that the cost of a STAR was $16,300 and it wasn't until I pushed [hard] that I got the real numbers. Again, I suggest you ride better herd on your booth staff. Brian ------------------------------ Date: 06/01/81 05:05:39 From: SIRBU@MIT-MC Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V3 #109, CBS and Teletext. The people at ABC would certainly be pleased if they could have seen LJS's recent message. All this antipathy against CBS by the deaf community is just what they hoped for when they supported line 21 captioning. You see the people at ABC are opposed to Teletext. They know that teletext decoders are cheap (perhaps $200 not $1000 as ljs reports) and that the technology could be quickly implemented (indeed a CBS affiliate in Los Angeles is already broadcasting Teletext material as part of a market trial). But the people at ABC were afraid that Teletext would mean fewer viewers watching regular programming, and that would cut into their advertising revenue. How then could they slow the introduction of Teletext? The needs of the deaf for closed captioning provided the perfect alibi. Under pretext of helping the deaf, if they could convince them to buy decoders which could only receive closed captioning of the most limited sort, they could tie Teletext up for years in regulatory delay. Too bad if it meant that the deaf would pay more for their decoders than they would if decoders capitalized on the economies of scale of Teletext terminal production. And too bad if it meant the deaf would have to shell out another $200 if they wanted Teletext reception later. After all, who cares about the deaf when advertising revenue is at stake. And the sad thing is, it's working out just like they planned. ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1981 0209-EDT (Wednesday) From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A Subject: sociology and psychology of computer use Permit me to carry the doom-crying one step further. I am curious whether the increasingly easy access to computers by adolescents will have any effect, however small, on their social development. Keep in mind that the social skills necessary for interpersonal relationships are not taught; they are learned by experience. Adolescence is probably the most important time period for learning these skills. There are two directions for a cause-effect relationship. Either people lacking social skills (shy people, etc.) turn to other pasttimes, or people who do not devote enough time to human interactions have difficulty learning social skills. I do not whether either or both of these alternatives actually occur. I believe I am justified in asking whether computers will compete with human interactions as a way of spending time? Will they compete more effectively than other pasttimes? If so, and if we permit computers to become as ubiquitous as televisions, will computers have some effect (either positive or negative) on personal development of future generations? I am not trying to be anti-technology. In fact, my hunch is that the answer to the above questions is either no or only slightly. However, as an ethical computer scientist, I believe in asking these questions in advance. One aid in answering these questions is to get psychological profiles of people involved with computers (not necessarily demographic data). A direct psychological survey would be most precise. However, getting indirect data such as gender, marital status, membership in fraternities/sororities, etc. would also be useful, if properly interpreted. The only reason for picking on sexual preference (apart from the unfounded claims that have been made in these digests) is the slight correlation between sexual preference and other psychological factors. Anyone have other ideas for evaluating the psychology of using computers? I would certainly like to see some sound research efforts in this direction, although I don't for a minute believe that the economics of research would permit such efforts. ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1981 18:07:23-PDT From: sdcsvax!bob at Berkeley via Subject: Steven Zeve, the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of English Any discussion of language usage ought to be preceded by the excellent advice, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". (Steve - That's "grammar", not "grammer", and why invent words like "preciseness" and "understandability" when we already have "precision" and "clarity"???) If only "evolution" in language meant clearer ways of expressing difficult concepts! However, the magic words "linguistic evolution" are usually invoked to protect and defend muddy, redundant, pretentious and lazy non-style. Wouldn't you be disgusted with a programmer who whined "Well, the computer KNEW what I REALLY meant! It was just being old-fashioned and picky!" The reader is usually at a disadvantage, and often DOESN'T know what you mean. I believe that Steve made this point, in a roundabout way. (Something about context? Obviously self-definition.) Here are three rules I've found useful: (1) Don't kludge, rewrite! (2) Mean what you say, and say what you mean. (3) Edit!! That usually means condense, not elaborate. Strunk & White, in "The Elements of Style", say: Clarity, clarity, clarity. When you become hopelessly mired in a sentence, it is best to start fresh; do not try to fight your way through against the terrible odds of syntax. Usually what is wrong is that the construction has become too involved at some point; the sentence needs to be broken apart and replaced by two or more shorter sentences. Muddiness is not merely a disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer of life, of hope: death on the highway, caused by a badly worded road sign, heartbreak among lovers caused by a misplaced phrase in a well-intentioned letter, anguish of a traveler expecting to be met at a railroad station and not being met because of a slipshod telegram. Couldn't we all add to that: programs that aren't used, and systems that fail, because of obscure documentation. I recommend Strunk & White, and also Wilson Follett's "Modern American Usage". These are essential for anyone who writes, and cares whether they communicate. Bob & Mary Hofkin ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 1981 17:48:26 EDT (Friday) From: Dan Franklin Subject: language evolution Some comments on language evolution, in response to a recent letter on the subject: Of course languages evolve, and of course they become more useful as they do so. The introduction of new words and phrases, such as "smog", "rush hour", etc. obviously improves a language. A shift in meaning (the word "organized" once meant "drunk") can also be quite useful. But too often languages degenerate purely through sloppy usage and a desire to use a less-common word whose meaning the writer isn't really certain of, but which sounds good. The most obvious example is the use of the word "infer" to mean "imply". The two words mean different--in some sense opposite--things. To slur their meanings together removes a useful distinction from the language. Alas, Webster's Third International does just that (and commits other egregious sins--get an American Heritage dictionary instead!). Another distinction--this one a lost battle, I guess--is the difference between "verbal" and "oral". There was a time when "verbal" wasn't just a fancy synonym for "oral"; "verbal" referred to words in any form (thus, Human-nets and Sf-lovers are almost entirely verbal forms of communication). Now that no one knows that anymore, what word can I use instead when I want to talk about words apart from their oral or written forms? Then there's "flout" vs. "flaunt," and "jejune" (which once meant "insubstantial, dull, unsatisfying"--but because of its resemblance to "jeune" people started using it to mean mean "immature, childish" too). I could go on, but others have done it better. I guess I'm just getting old and cranky. I already have a hard time convincing some of my friends that "its" is sometimes spelled without an apostrophe (and not just when it refers to the Incompatible Time-sharing System)... Dan Franklin ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1981 14:49:00-PDT From: vax135!mh135a!rba at Berkeley via Subject: Influencing Language The existence of verbal conditioning (that people will imitate other people in the words they use) is well established by experimental psychologists and not too surprising. Beyond that, psychological research has focused on: (1) the issue of how aware people are of this imitation (do they imitate on purpose or as a result of subliminal processes); and,(2) whether imitation of anything more complex than word usage (e.g. grammatical structures) occurs. For a review of the literature see "Principles of Behavior Modification" by A. Bandura, pp. 568-577. Bob Allen ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1981 06:14:17-PDT From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley via Subject: Flaming/Gay vocabulary Greg, I hadn't noticed too much use of the word "flame" on the net except for a brief period just prior to your article. Some, yes, but not to excess. As for the drop-off afterwords -- well, you're probably right, it's probably homophobia. But usage is picking up again; maybe it's still curable. --Steve Bellovin University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1981 06:33:38-PDT From: decvax!duke!unc!bch at Berkeley via Subject: origins of flame It strikes me that you folks are making an etymological mountain out of a molehill. I seem to remember using the term "flaming as....le" in which the word "flaming" had precisely the same connotation as it does in hackerese in the late 1950's and very early 60's. Later, the usage seems to have been shortened to "flamer," hence the verb "to flame" as logical fallout. I don't believe the term came out of any particular subculture or at least was not adopted directly from any particular subculture before it was in the general slang heap. More interesting to me are words in hackerese which replace other made up words in general use (i.e. "frob" for "gizmo.", "foobar" (fubar) for "snafu", and so on.) I don't believe there is historical precedent for replacing linguistic artifacts with other linguistic artifacts, but then computer folk always did like re-inventing the wheel. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************ ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.