perm filename ABER[1,JMC] blob
sn#885694 filedate 1990-07-22 generic text, type T, neo UTF8
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA06487; Wed, 27 Jun 90 18:19:05 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jun 90 18:17:48 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA07064; Wed, 27 Jun 90 21:18:13 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA27963; Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:29 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA06919; Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:26 CDT
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:26 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9006280009.AA06919@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Starting nren-talk
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:26 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Starting nren-talk
Dear Sir or Madam:
I'm writing to invite your participation in The Houston Chronicle's
coverage of the Federal High-Performance Computing Act, which is now
being considered by the Senate.
Each person who is initially included on this mailing list has
spoken eloquently and/or passionately in regard to the issues raised
by our coverage of the social phenomenon loosely referred to as the
Internet. The audience includes an equal representation of our
supporters, detractors, and those who are neutral on the subject. You
are all considered to be luminaries by your peers.
Despite some public suggestions to the contrary, I don't have an
agenda. I have a story to cover that is of legitimate interest to our
readers. Your opinions are those that will be expressed in my
coverage, and it is only by participating in the process that your
views can receive fair exposure. Please note that electronic mail is
the only place where I can have an interchange of views or answer your
questions/complaints -- participating in the debate on Usenet would
qualify me as a public figure in the eyes of the law.
If you wish to add someone to this list, or have your name removed,
please send e-mail to nren-talk-request@chron.com. To post a message
to all recipients of this list, send mail to nren-talk@chron.com. This
is an electronic mailing list whose privacy is fully protected by
federal law. Unless you explicitly state otherwise in a given message
or for a given part of a message, however, I reserve the right to
reprint anything mailed to this list. I will not quote you against
your wishes. You may publicize the address nren-talk-request@chron.com
as you deem appropriate, although no one will be added to the list who
lacks credentials to properly address the issues.
The initial subscription list includes:
root@merit.edu NSFnet Administration
brad@looking.on.ca Brad Templeton
spaf@cs.purdue.edu Gene Spafford
chuq@apple.com Chuq Von Rospach
almes@rice.edu Guy Almes
steve@note.nsf.gov Steve Wolff
well!slf@apple.com Sharon Lynne Fisher
taylor@limbo.intuitive.com Dave Taylor
stanh@bcm.tmc.edu Stan Hanks
reid@wrl.dec.com Brian Reid
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP John G. De Armond
smb@ulysses.att.com Steven Bellovin
crs@convex.cl.msu.edu Charles Severance
jmc@sail.stanford.edu John McCarthy
allen@csvax.seas.smu.edu Allen Gwinn
allen@mail.com.smu.edu ""
dean@truevision.com Dean Riddlebarger
werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Werner Uhrig
bard@emx.utexas.edu Bill Bard
harris-bpd!dwg@quintro.UUCP David W. Glessner
brad@sugar.hackercorp.com Brad Morrison
edtjda@chron.com Joe Abernathy, Chronicle Reporter
edtcdm@chron.com Don Mason, Chronicle Special Projects Editor
sysnmc@chron.com Matt Cohen, Chronicle Technical Contact
The submissions will be archived and copies will be sent upon request.
In case you haven't had time to get into the details of the
High-Performance Computing Act, here's a bit of background. The bill
would spend $2 billion in federal funds over 5 years. The heart of the
plan is a very high performance National Research and Education
Network that would be based on the existing NSFnet and its peer
networks. Money would also go toward developing better supercomputers,
better software, and to increasing the number of students earning
doctorates in computer-related fields. The bill (actually two bills
reported out from two Senate subcommittees) went to the full Senate
this morning for consideration. A similar House bill awaits a vote by
the full Senate.
The issues we discuss here will ultimately be determined by you. To
date, however, my sources have shown the greatest interest in who
receives access to the NREN (scientists, businesses, or the public),
how to deal with the explosion in network growth, how to provide a
reasonable level of security, and how the network might eventually be
commercialized, with provisions for access fees along with payments to
contributors.
Welcome to nren-talk. Sometime toward the end of the day tomorrow,
I will send a list of questions that you may wish to consider. In the
meantime, feel free to express yourself.
Best Regards.
Joe Abernathy
The Houston Chronicle
(713) 220-7491
edtjda@chron.com
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA09510; Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:18:55 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 90 14:17:41 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA07040; Thu, 28 Jun 90 17:18:13 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA07339; Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:57:16 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA07417; Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:57:11 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA07326; Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:57:07 CDT
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA11011; Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:46:41 -0400
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA22891@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:46:48 -0500
Received: from localhost by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA23094@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:46:30 -0500
Message-Id: <9006281946.AA23094@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:26 -0500.
<9006280009.AA06919@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:46:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 27 Jun 90 19:09:26 -0500.
<9006280009.AA06919@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 14:46:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
Two comments come to mind:
1) Based on your paper's past performance of distortion and
sensationalism as regards network technology, the Internet and Usenet,
and your use of quotes out of context, what makes you think any of us
want to make any comments to you for your use?
2) You are using the Internet to provoke reaction, gain information,
and thereby further the goals of your news(sic) paper. This is in
violation of the rules that the Internet not be used to further a
commercial venture. When will we see the front page story on "Houston
Newspaper Violates Federal Rules on Network Use" subtitled "Reporter
Abuses Taxpayer-Financed Resources to Further Career"? If not your
newspaper, then perhaps another one would be interested in the
story....?
If you haven't gathered yet, I do not intend to provide you with any
commentary or information relating to the Internet, Usenet (they ARE
different), computing technology, or anything else. You have blown
any credibility you might have with me, and probably with many of the
rest you added to this "list".
Furthermore, I resent being added to a list to be used as an on-going
"research tool" for you to get your information. If your paper wants
my expertise on some on-going basis, you are welcome to contact me
about my consulting fee schedule.
Please remove me from your list.
--gene spafford
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA09723; Thu, 28 Jun 90 16:18:11 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jun 90 16:16:55 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA12659; Thu, 28 Jun 90 19:17:43 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00260; Thu, 28 Jun 90 18:13:38 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00294; Thu, 28 Jun 90 18:13:34 CDT
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 18:13:34 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9006282313.AA00294@magic322.chron.com>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 18:13:34 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Gene Spafford writes:
> When will we see the front page story (paper violates appropriateuse)
We disagree with that interpretation of events, Professor.
In accordance with your wishes, you have been removed from our mailing list.
Joe Abernathy
The Houston Chronicle
(713) 220-7491
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!watmath.waterloo.edu!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA11416; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:18:47 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 06:17:32 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA01168; Fri, 29 Jun 90 09:18:25 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04261; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:19 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00402; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:15 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04249; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:15 CDT
Received: from watmath.waterloo.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA28686; Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:21:18 -0400
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath.waterloo.edu with uucp
id <AA13761>; Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:21:02 EDT
Subject: Using the net for news investigation
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 0:00:02 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <uunet!looking.on.ca!brad@uunet.UU.NET>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Message-Id: <9006290400.aa13787@looking.on.ca>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!watmath.waterloo.edu!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: Using the net for news investigation
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 0:00:02 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <uunet!looking.on.ca!brad@uunet.UU.NET>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
[ This message is off the record and not for publication ]
Who is the "we" that disagrees with the interpretation of events.
What is there to interpret? Chronicle reporters are using the net, in
place of well known alternatives like the phone company, to correspond
with people regarding the story.
This is not the scientific research of an authorized net site (The
Chronicle is not on the internet) not is it traffic in support of that
work.
Now of course my message here might not qualify either, and neither does a
lot of stuff, but that doesn't answer the question. If other people are,
in your opinion, in violation, then so are you. Which wouldn't be trouble
if you weren't the pot saying, "oh what a black kettle usenet is."
You can't say, "ah, but I'm working to correct the incorrect use" for two
reasons. One, you have said you don't have an agenda here, and that would
be one, and two, there are other well known methods of investigative
reporting that you could pay for with your own money.
Joe, doesn't it tell you something when all the respected figures who
actually know what's going on say you got it wrong? If they all had
vested interests, I could understand suspecting them, but many don't.
Gene, I know, is pretty tired of USENET and has no great motive to go
to bat for it.
[don't forget -- this is off the record]
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!truevision.com!dean@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA11422; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:18:56 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 06:17:40 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA01206; Fri, 29 Jun 90 09:18:33 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04355; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:56 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00416; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:50 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04349; Fri, 29 Jun 90 06:06:50 CDT
Received: by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA17370; Fri, 29 Jun 90 01:33:53 -0400
Received: by truevision.com (5.51/smail2.2/06-30-87)
id AA20131; Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:34:51 EST
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:34:51 EST
From: uunet!truevision.com!dean@uunet.UU.NET (Dean Riddlebarger)
Message-Id: <9006290534.AA20131@truevision.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
Cc: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!truevision.com!dean@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:34:51 EST
From: uunet!truevision.com!dean@uunet.UU.NET (Dean Riddlebarger)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Starting nren-talk
Cc: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
I received the mailing-list startup message when I checked mail this
morning in my office. Okay, it seems that my two little notes to
Mr. Abernathy were received in spite of some mailer oddities at my
site. [I *will* ditch sendmail for smail, I *will* ditch sendmail
for smail, I *will* ditch.....:-)]
And it would appear that my assessments on the collective power of
the net [nets? Internet? Usenet? Begin to pull at lip and utter,
"Wubba, wubba, wubba..."], its role in the game we call "Freedom
of Speech", and the new debate which has flared more vigorously
than a midwestern thunderstorm have apparently been given credit
by some people down at the Chronicle. Whew! The way my end users
talk, you would think that on some days I'm lucky to pull my clothes
on correctly.....
Then, in the afternoon, a second message from Mr. Spafford hits my
inbox. And the mailing-list now has its first flame-war. I'm sorry
that Mr. Spafford has already decided to remove himself from this
forum; I find it distressing to see an attempt at communication cut
off so abruptly. I have seen excerpts of the Chronicle's work, and
I have seen many serious points from the net, and it seems to me
that both "sides" have raised some valid arguments. [Yup, the
fencepost is a great place to start from if you put a bit of
padding down first!] It seems to me that we are being offered a
chance to voice our opinions on something that could become
another significant piece of our collective electronic reality,
and that would be a franchise worth exercising. I also like the
notion of possibly contributing to another link between two media;
bits to newsprint and vice versa. [Okay, who wants to create a
twisted metaphor, like "Godzilla versus The Smog Monster"???]
Before I began mis-managing systems and lurking on the net, I lived
another life involving some different aspects of communication.
Political Science and competitive public speaking. And, through
all of this, I have always noticed one fundamental item about the
communication itself. No matter how we communicate, be it in
oral events or via intermachine newsgroups, we are *never* able to
achieve a level of one-hundred-percent understanding or
perfection. Or, to draw a cheap analogy, a signal to noise
ratio is *always* present. However, concurrent to this notion there
is a corollary effect. The more we try to communicate effectively,
the more we improve the signal to noice ratio and, hence, our
overall understanding. Effective communication can come from a
forum such as nren-talk, but only if we acknowledge that the
process will always involve a degree of imperfection. By the
same token, effective communication will never occur if we turn
down our chances to engage in discussion and only try to focus
on the errors or imperfections.
We of the net [now *that* sounds like it should be in some odd
SF novel...] can sometimes become very parochial about our sacred
bitstream. Machines, by their very nature, can always be made to
follow a strict set of rules, and deviant outcomes are merely
bugs to be traced and swatted away. But the people who fund a
large amount of our equipment, simply because a brief article
in an old document bids it be done, and the people who have
little or no contact with our daily world, are most assuredly
*not* like our machines. They are given to emotions and opinions
that may often grate into the very marrow of our code-perfect
ideals. But they are also the ultimate reason for our efforts
and labors, because we seek to make this net and these machines
work to provide a better life for all. If we cannot keep that in
mind, and cannot try to offer justification for our work, then
we have perhaps lost sight of our own charter and deserve to be
put to task for our doings.
Mr. Abernathy must walk a tightrope every day. His primary job
is to write about events or institutions that affect the people
who read his paper. Any institution that is targeted for
analysis would like to believe that, collectively, it is
beyond scrutiny. But since I haven't heard reports of
flaming letters spelling "Nirvana Reached" stretching across
the sky, I think we can conclude that such perfection is still
lacking. We accuse the Chronicle of raising some sensationalistic
points. Fine. A good many people tend to think only about
what's for dinner until they receive a mild slap. The press,
taking a leaf from the basic manual for two-person debate, must
often inject some shock-value into an analysis in order to
stimulate the overall process. If we cannot offer an effective
rebuttal and move towards another round, then we essentially
concede defeat.
How the net is controlled and structured, how we receive funding
to enlarge and enhance it, and how we convince more of corporate
and private America to participate are all very valid issues.
The Chronicle has brought some of these issues into the living
rooms of Houston residents. And now they would like some of us
to carry that communication a bit further. Will we see a new
article that extolls the Gospel According To The Net? I don't
know: How well can we present our platform? Will we see items
that we consider sensational and possibly distorted? A good
possibility: Let's go back and review what we know about the
inherent imperfections in communication, and remember that the
process is *always* incremental. Will it be interesting just
because of the communication itself? I think so, and I'll
stick around for a while to see how it all unfolds.
Well, it would appear that I have stretched my two pennies into
something closer in size to the National Debt. So I'll step back
for a while. I would love to see Mr. Spafford step back into the
fray; veteran net firepower usually carries with it a balanced
analysis. [Discussion of exceptions to alt.flame, please!]
Until the next round,
<:> Dean Riddlebarger "The bus came by <:>
<:> MIS Manager - Truevision, Inc. and I got on, <:>
<:> [317] 841-0332 That's when it <:>
<:> uucp: uunet!epicb!dean dean@truevision.com all began." <:>
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!ulysses.att.com!smb@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA12040; Fri, 29 Jun 90 11:31:04 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 11:29:31 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA24491; Fri, 29 Jun 90 14:18:15 -0400
From: ulysses.att.com!smb@uunet.uu.net
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA05209; Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:11:08 CDT
Received: from research.att.com by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA06396; Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:42:57 -0400
Message-Id: <9006291742.AA06396@uunet.uu.net>
Received: by inet; Fri Jun 29 13:42 EDT 1990
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Cc: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Subject: NREN talk
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:25:00 EDT
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!ulysses.att.com!smb@uunet.UU.NET>
From: ulysses.att.com!smb@uunet.uu.net
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Cc: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Subject: NREN talk
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:25:00 EDT
NOT FOR QUOTATION
My apologies for the disclaimer; while I rarely care if I'm quoted in
public, AT&T has rules on contact with the media, and until I can
figure out how to explain this one to them, I'm going to have to stay
mostly silent, except on purely factual matters.
Let me first introduce myself, however. I'm Steve Bellovin, currently
a researcher at AT&T Bell Laboratories. I work on networks, security,
and especially why the two don't get along. As I suspect most of you
know, I was one of the founders of USENET, way back in 1979.
Joe, I'm not at all clear on what it is you want from this mailing
list. Is this to be a roundtable discussion, similar to some of the
``hacker conferences'' that have been publicized of late? Are you just
seeking views of researchers on the benefits -- and problems -- of
NREN? If so, I suspect you're not going have much luck without a
moderator -- a participant who throw out leading questions, and
occasionally ask the group to drop a particular line of discussion
because it's gone on too long. And, with all due respect, I suspect
that that moderator should be someone other than yourself. (Speaking
of yourself -- could you try to limit your lines to 80 columns or
less? I had to reformat your last note before I could read it
properly. While I could reshape my mail window to give me a longer
line, that would leave me without sufficient space for things like this
reply.)
I noticed one curious construct in your note. You said that
participating in the debate on Usenet would qualify you ``as a public
figure in the eyes of the law''. What law is that? While I'm not a
lawyer, I'm reasonably well-versed in such things, and the only arena I
know of where being a public figure matters is in the area of libel
law. (For those who don't know the rules, for a public figure to sue
for libel he or she has to show actual malice (among other things). A
private citizen need demonstrate only reckless disregard for the
facts.) Surely you're not intimating that you're contemplating suing
anyone for the (admittedly nasty) things said about you? I'd doubt you
could win such a suit in any event; most of the comments I saw were
statements of opinion, and hence are by definition not libelous, or
were statements where the authors could claim that your own serious
errors of fact were sufficient grounds for them to draw certain
reasonable conclusions. (And of course, truth is an absolute defense
against claims of libel.)
I digress, and I apologize. Had you cited a desire to retain
journalistic objectivity, rather than ``the eyes of the law'', I'd have
remained silent on that subject. I do suggest that you solicit the
help of this list on correcting factual errors in future stories, even
to the point of showing them advance copies. Please note that I am not
speaking of censorship, simply of the opportunity to help you avoid
embarrassing mistakes.
And you did make one crucial mistake in your articles, as I'm sure you
know by now: you confused USENET with the Internet. And while that
would normally be a subtle distinction, here it is critical to a main
point of the article: that public funds are being spent to distribute
pornography.
Your first article itself seemed to be a mishmosh of two or three
articles. Certainly, there were several main themes, not very well
separated. First, of course, there's the issue of ``pornography''.
(My apologies for the quotation marks; as I noted in my netnews
posting, I'm a First Amendment absolutist, so the concept of
pornography more or less doesn't exist for me. Call it erotica, if you
will; that's a less value-laden term.) Second, there was the theme of
how the Internet functions as a valuable research tool. (Incidentally,
for those who are interested, the NY Times has covered that aspect
quite extensively over the last year or two, especially in some
articles by John Markoff. There was a fascinating article in this past
Tuesday's Science section on how recent mathematical discoveries were
tremendously affected by the existence of such networks.) Third, there
is the question of who pays for all of this connectivity, and why.
All of these are reasonable, legitimate questions. (Yes, even the
question of ``pornography'' is legimate, though different people could
arrive at different answers.) The article intermingled them, to its
disadvantage. (By the way, it might be useful, Joe, if you --
representing the Chronicle -- were to mail the text of the articles to
this mailing list. As the Chronicle owns the copyright, there is no
legal question. And even if the Chronicle has given exclusive
electronic rights to its stories to some information service, sending
copies to a small group whose opinions you've solicited would not
constitute publication, it would be internal research and business
purposes. At least, that would be the case with every copyright
transfer agreement I've ever seen, and I've seen a fair number of
them.) And it ignored other, equally important questions, such as
``what about the have-not schools?'' That's a major justification for
NREN -- to ensure equal access. What about the have-not nations?
There are few USENET or Internet links in Latin America, Africa,
Eastern Europe, or Asia outside of Israel, Japan, and South Korea.
(Yes, I know there are some.) What about technology transfer laws? I
have opinions on all of these questions, and many more, and I'm sure
the rest of us do.
I could go on, but I'll climb off my soapbox for now. And if I can,
I'll get permission to participate as an individual -- I certainly don't
speak for AT&T.
--Steve Bellovin
smb@ulysses.att.com
908-582-5886
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!chuq@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA12514; Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:59:27 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 13:58:11 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA05948; Fri, 29 Jun 90 16:48:25 -0400
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA05327; Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:38:33 CDT
Received: from apple.com by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA18936; Fri, 29 Jun 90 16:02:36 -0400
Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef)
id AA04000; Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:02:29 -0700
for nren-talk@chron.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:02:29 -0700
From: That's MR. Idiot to you <uunet!apple.com!chuq@uunet.UU.NET>
Message-Id: <9006292002.AA04000@apple.com>
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Subject: nrew-talk
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!chuq@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 13:02:29 -0700
From: That's MR. Idiot to you <uunet!apple.com!chuq@uunet.UU.NET>
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Subject: nrew-talk
[Not to be used for quotation purposes]
After consideration, I do believe I wish to be dropped from nren-talk.
I thought seriously about just kicking back and watching the show, but
Abernathy's response has made me decide I prefer silence to side-show. I
thought Spaf brought up some very interesting points. I thought Abernathy's
response both ignored those points and was incredibly snotty. This
situation, frankly, seems to underline this whole situation -- if you
say something that backs Abernathy up, that's great. If you disagree, you're
either ignored or your remarks are skewed.
But that's not why I'm dropping out. Once you understand how things are
spun, you can counterspin. No biggie, that's real life. There are two
reasons why I'm dropping out:
o I don't do networks. My time is valuable to me. I don't want to spend it
dealing with networks. I did that for a number of years, back in the Good
Old Days. Now I'm just a starving SF writer that's hanging around
computers until the books start selling, and it makes no sense to me
personally to spend my time dealing with network issues. I don't care,
I'll leave it to those that do care.
o What is the purpose of this group? Who benefits? I've been asking that
question since I was put on the list. Who benefits? I certainly don't.
This list is asking for my time. It won't return anything of value to me.
Does the net benefit? I don't see how. Helping to pass nren is probably
Good For The Net -- I don't know, not having really followed the situation
closely. On the other hand, the primary audience of the group, Mr.
Abernathy, hasn't shown himself to be exactly a supporter of the net to
date -- the group, at best, is likely to be a case of trying to convert
someone who's shown himself to be hostile to the network. Even at that, I
don't see that this group, even under the best of circumstances, does
anything for the network beyond circumstantial good karma. There's no
payoff here for the time the folks on the net put into it.
The only person I see that benefits is Abernathy. He gets to pick the
brains of the best and the brightest, then use those pieces that he feels
are useful to him. He gets an easy research base to work with. Now, if you
want to get your name in a newspaper or don't mind doing the grunt work
for Abernathy, great. I've got better things to do.
By the way, I still don't buy Abernathy's "public figure in the eye of the
law" stuff. I checked with a few of my friends who are in the CNPA
(California Newspaper Publisher's Association -- my father owned a newspaper
for about 40 years and was a board of director for a number of years [oh, if
someone wants to check that out, his last name and mine are different....])
and they think it's a great giggle. There is a point where keeping up a face
of objectivity turns into a shield from the situation.
So have fun. I've got to go rewrite Chapter 2 again.
chuq (net.god [ret], author and general cynic)
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!decwrl.dec.com!limbo!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA13069; Fri, 29 Jun 90 17:01:58 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 17:00:42 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19279; Fri, 29 Jun 90 19:48:14 -0400
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA05829; Fri, 29 Jun 90 18:39:01 CDT
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA09966; Fri, 29 Jun 90 19:25:54 -0400
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA11449; Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:42:43 -0700
Message-Id: <9006292242.AA11449@decwrl.dec.com>
Received: by limbo; Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:19:06 pdt
Subject: "Clearing House" for Unix/Usenet articles
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:18:56 PDT
From: Dave Taylor <uunet!limbo.intuitive.com!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Reply-To: Dave Taylor <uunet!limbo.intuitive.com!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Intuitive Systems, Mountain View, California +1 (415) 966-1151
X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.02]
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!decwrl.dec.com!limbo!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: "Clearing House" for Unix/Usenet articles
To: nren-talk@chron.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:18:56 PDT
From: Dave Taylor <uunet!limbo.intuitive.com!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Reply-To: Dave Taylor <uunet!limbo.intuitive.com!taylor@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Intuitive Systems, Mountain View, California +1 (415) 966-1151
X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.02]
I think Steve has a terrific idea in the midst of his long message:
> .. I do suggest that you solicit the help of this list on correcting
> factual errors in future stories, even to the point of showing them
> advance copies. Please note that I am not speaking of censorship,
> simply of the opportunity to help you avoid embarrassing mistakes.
That seems like a pretty solid idea in general and indeed I have long
contemplated the logistics of getting a group of 'experts' together
and offering such a service, for free, to journalists and others that
might write about Unix, Usenet, and networking and computing in general.
Speaking as a computer industry journalist, it *is* pretty difficult
some times to get the facts straight, especially when you talk to
four or five different people, each of whom purports to be an expert
on the subject, but each of whom offers a different (and often divergent)
view of the topic matter...
However, I feel comfortable saying that the list Joe has constructed
represents many of the top Usenet/Unix related authorities that are
easily and conveniently accessible via email. Further, we're all at
least sufficiently interested that we've interacted with Joe regarding
his original article, too.
Anyway, no major point to this note other than to add a strong endorsement
to the idea of a having a 'cabal' that can do quick fact checks on future
technical articles.
-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California
taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
1, edited,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA13666; Fri, 29 Jun 90 22:19:20 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jun 90 22:18:05 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA08106; Sat, 30 Jun 90 01:18:40 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA07484; Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:40:01 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00225; Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:39:57 CDT
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:39:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9006300439.AA00225@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: A few answers
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:39:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: A few answers
My thanks to all of you who have contributed so far. I intended to offer
something of value myself by now, but encountered unexpected demands on
my time.
Early next week, I will take the good advice I've received from a couple
of you and send electronic copies of the Chronicle's four net stories, along
with a copy of the NREN bill now pending in Washington. We also
intend to discuss the possibility of getting an outside moderator.
It isn't my intention or desire to ever write another negative word about
Usenet, NSFnet, buggy C compilers, or anything else. I don't mind
telling you at all that I have probably agonized over this far more than
have most of the networks' users.
Why are we here? The future direction of this technology is going to
be decided in large part over the course of this summer, and it is
this that I hope we can address. I want to report on it accurately and
fairly to my readers, and I thought that you might appreciate a chance
to have a direct impact on how I report and on any effects generated
by the coverage. I certainly don't deny that high-quality coverage
demands high-quality sources, but I do feel there are potential
rewards for the sources as well as the reporter.
Chuq, I'm particularly sorry you're going, and your message of
departure is a perfect example of why. I didn't realize my brevity
regarding Gene would look snotty -- I was being brief to keep <from>
being snotty,as I was kind of upset. Gene admits having made up his
mind about me before reading a word I wrote, so neither of us give the
other much credibility. I still hope that can change someday. (We'll
get your name off the list first thing Monday, Chuq, when Matt comes
back to work.) (A copy of this is being mailed to Gene, btw.)
Since it seems I do need to answer the questions Gene put forward, I
shall. First, the Houston Chronicle is paying for its own computers,
and for network access from UUNET, a non-profit organization in the
business of providing USENET access to leaf sites -- with the
permission of the NSFnet and its peer networks. Our messages at times
will certainly be transmitted over those networks, which are in the
business of providing transmission facilities for the purposes of
research and education. We feel that we qualify on both counts. You
can also get into a whole can of worms over issues of free speech, as
I'm sure you're all well aware. Finally, I consider this the most
respectful way to communicate with you, because this is how many of
you prefer to be approached.
Regarding my reluctance to participate in the public debate, there are
actually a number of reasons. First, I sincerely doubt that much more
would come of it than a flame fest to end all flame fests. Second, it
would immediately make me a part of the story I'm covering, and that
is the first thing a reporter has to try not to do. Finally, under
provisions of the recent electronic privacy act, and just by my
reading of it, doing so would appear to qualify me as a public figure
-- thereby subjecting my family to possible public scrutiny/attack.
I would like to clear up the Usenet/Internet thing. Steve Wolff and
Guy Almes spent quite a bit of time making sure I was straight on
that, along with a lot of other detail. My mistake was not in failing
to understand, but in failing to realize that I needed to explain it
fully. I do understand now! For those of you who didn't see the
follow-up stories, we did clarify it two days later.
I will answer individual points in more detail next week. In closing
for now, let me stress again that I'm not trying to do anything sneaky
in inviting your participation here. The story I'm putting together is
very straight- forward political coverage, and I thought you would
enjoy having a chance to educate the public and draw attention to your
views. I understand quite well how very valuable your time is, and
sincerely thank you for whatever time you care to spend here. Please
feel free to speak on the record, off the record, off the cuff, for
the company, for the heck of it. Just keep me straight about which is
which, when, and I'll fully respect your wishes.
One last thing: the New York Times appears to have someone feeding
them this list. I'm sure they realize they can't republish our
electronic mail, but I did want you to know they are out there.
Best Regards to All.
Joe Abernathy
The Houston Chronicle
(713) 220-7491
∨
1, answered,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14341; Sat, 30 Jun 90 05:18:09 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 05:16:55 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA10129; Sat, 30 Jun 90 08:17:56 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA09397; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:51 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00304; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:45 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA09390; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:45 CDT
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA10799; Sat, 30 Jun 90 01:29:44 -0400
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA26612@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:57 -0500
Received: from localhost by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:36 -0500
Message-Id: <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:41:34 -0500.
<9006300441.AA00241@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:41:34 -0500.
<9006300441.AA00241@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
You write:
>Chuq, I'm particularly sorry you're going, and your message of departure is
>a perfect example of why. I didn't realize my brevity regarding Gene would
>look snotty -- I was being brief to keep <from> being snotty,as I was kind
>of upset. Gene admits having made up his mind about me before reading a
>word I wrote, so neither of us give the other much credibility.
Once again, you have said something without verifying facts. I have
read complete copies of the first 3 of your published articles. I
admitted nothing about having made up my mind about you before reading
a word that you wrote. I made up my mind after having read many words
that you wrote, or that were at least published with your by-line.
I have yet to see anything to change my opinion.
--spaf
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14662; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:36 -0700
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA10937@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:16:03 -0500
Received: by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA02679@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Message-Id: <9006302115.AA02679@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Your mail to Spaf
X-Responding: Spaf's trusty mail software
Apparently-To: jmc@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Subject: Your mail to Spaf
X-Responding: Spaf's trusty mail software
Apparently-To: jmc@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
This is a recording.
Spaf is out of the office until July 9.
Your message to him entitled "Copied nren-talk post that mentions you. "
has been received, and you will get a response when he returns (and
catches up!). Try to be patient!
If you are writing to be placed on the mailing list for the SEDMS, you
will not get a confirmation. Questions about the SEDMS should be
referred to George Leach, the general chair, <reggie@pdn.paradyne.com>
If you really need to get in touch with Gene before the 9th, you can
contact Daloris Williamson, daw@cs.purdue.edu, 317-494-6010. She can
tell you how to contact him.
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14679; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:47:59 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 14:46:47 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA23963; Sat, 30 Jun 90 17:47:39 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA14611; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:16:02 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00358; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:15:58 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA14603; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:15:57 CDT
Received: from apple.com by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA12713; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:01:02 -0400
Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef)
id AA26190; Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:21:05 -0700
for
Received: by well.sf.ca.us (4.12/4.7)
id AA22511; Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
From: uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
Message-Id: <9006301400.AA22511@well.sf.ca.us>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: A few answers
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
From: uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: A few answers
Joe Abernathy writes:
>appear to qualify me as a public figure -- thereby subjecting my family to
>possible public scrutiny/attack.
Say what?
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14946; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:18:14 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 16:16:55 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA14377; Sat, 30 Jun 90 19:17:51 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA15128; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:41 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00387; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:37 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA15112; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:35 CDT
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA19926; Sat, 30 Jun 90 17:15:41 -0400
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14658; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
From: uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET (John McCarthy)
Message-Id: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Cc: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-Reply-To: Gene Spafford's message of Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
From: uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET (John McCarthy)
To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Cc: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-Reply-To: Gene Spafford's message of Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
Gentlemen:
I haven't read what Joe Abernathy has written. He seemed reasonable
on the telephone.
2. I consider having newspaper people in network communication with
the people they interview and write about to be a big win. I think it
will lead to more accurate reporting on the average. It surely won't
lead to an information utopia. There will still be misunderstandings,
there will still be irrationalities imposed by the fact that the
primary product consists of short news stories, there will still be
misleading articles resulting from ideological agendas on the part of
reporters or the newspapers themselves.
However, the net result will be an improvement, and it will ease the
transition to the eventual situation in which everyone will get his
news via terminals, and there will be a universal right of reply,
though certainly no guarantee that readers will always ask for
replies from people and institutions criticized in news stories.
3. I see there is an existing controversy between at least Gene
Spafford and Joe Abernathy. What the issues are I don't even know yet.
I am not at all inclined to take a position based on solidarity of
of computer people vs. newspaper people. I suspect that others are
in my position of lack of information. If anyone cares about my
opinion, he will have to start at the beginning to inform me.
4. I have, however, an initial position on the bill before Congress.
I was wondering how I might get it before the public, and Joe's
message looks like the opportunity I was waiting for. I would like
to learn more, but my initial position is that the bill is a bad
idea for the following reasons.
a. Although Congress has substantially increased the budget
for NSF and will probably increase it further, there has been an
actual reduction in the funds available to support unsolicited
proposals in computer science and other fields that are not
part of supercomputer centers, engineering research centers
and NSF staff controlled special research programs. I am losing
a valued senior research associate colleague because of this
when NSF would no longer support his salary even though our
proposal received excellent reviews. I am not capable of the
politics required to get NSF to start a special program in our
area. Apart from my own situation, I believe that the general
phenomenon of program manager controlled research is causing
serious damage to American research. At the National Academy of
Sciences meeting I heard similar complaints from chemists.
Maybe things will get better with the departure of Eric Bloch in
September.
b. My opinion has long been that special-purpose, special
user, special politics networks are a mistake - initiated by DARPA
around 1970. As regards electronic mail, I wrote a Viewpoint article
that appeared in the December CACM. I'll email a copy to anyone who
wants it. A symptom of what I complain about is the complaint about
Joe Abernathy using Internet on the grounds that newspaper reporting
isn't what Internet was set up to promote. The primary means of email
communication should not have any restriction on who may communicate
and for what purpose, just provided he pays his phone bill. In my
article I said that fax is already more widespread than email because
of the bureaucratic way email is organized, and that email should
switch to direct telephone communication.
c. The Bill is to set up one more special network for high
speed communication of scientific information. As a computer
scientist, I will express the opinion that this won't benefit computer
science. If Congress loves computer science, let them support
research in it according to peer reviewed research proposals. If
communication costs are in the budgets of these proposals, their
appropriateness can be evaluated along with other budget items. For
computer scientists, I suspect that there won't be very large
communication demands.
If anyone is to be benefitted by the Data Highway, I suspect it is
physicists, chemists and other people who solve big systems of partial
differential equations. If Congress loves them, let it give them
money and let them choose how to spend it.
There may indeed be a demand for a fiber optic network covering much
of the country for transmitting the results of computation. If so,
let the existing communication companies set them up as competitive
businesses. The physicists will then patronize them if it seems like
a good way to spend physics money. Maybe some computer science
projects will patronize such services also.
d. There is a natural tendency among people who have developed
a technology to want it used. However, there is no substitute for
ordinary commerce with salesmen and all that. It is wrong to ask the
Government to subsidize the use of a technology, although it is ok to
ask the Government to subsidize its development.
e. This is an entirely different issue from the general ``big
science'' issues like the genome project, the super-conducting super
collider, or the M.I.T.-Caltech proposal for a very expensive gravity
wave detector. Those are aimed at solving specific scientific
problems, while this is aimed at producing a facility - a private
utility.
The above is an initial opinion, and I might change it with more
information.
Joe, you can quote this if you are in a rush. However, I would
prefer to wait for reactions and try to formulate my eventual
opinion in a better way.
1,,
Return-Path: <looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Received: from watmath.waterloo.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA15485; Sat, 30 Jun 90 21:22:12 -0700
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath.waterloo.edu with uucp
id <AA28243>; Sun, 1 Jul 90 00:22:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 0:13:52 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>; from "John McCarthy" at Jun 30, 90 2:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Message-Id: <9007010413.aa12952@looking.on.ca>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 0:13:52 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>; from "John McCarthy" at Jun 30, 90 2:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
John, take it from me, this is the sort of "reporter" you don't want
to use to put forward your viewpoint. He has a lot of similarities to
the woman in Kitchener who got rec.humor.funny banned at the University
of Waterloo.
I have read his copy -- it was not journalism, it was a carefully
worded attempt to put USENET (called the Internet in the article) in a bad
light. It made the fundamental mistake that all opponents of free speech
make -- that tolerating the presence of certain speech implies support for
it.
Of course, I advise you to read his text and make your own judgements.
But phrases like "porno ring" show his intent, I fear.
Gene Spafford rebuked him with reason. It's not networkers vs. reporters.
Gene has made a lot of bucks building himself as a computer security expert
by talking to lots of reporters. This one's a bad apple.
That's why those of us who are writing to his list are NOT addressing the
issues he wants, but rather questionning him and his actions.
∨
1, answered,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA26032; Tue, 3 Jul 90 19:28:50 -0700
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA22415; Tue, 3 Jul 90 22:29:02 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA27683; Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:12 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00853; Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007040117.AA00853@magic322.chron.com>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Thanks
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Thanks
Professor McCarthy,
I just wanted to drop a quick note to acknowledge and thank you for your
contribution to the nren-talk mailing list. If you provide me with a physical
address, I will further see to it that you receive copies of my past and
future articles on the subject of high-performance computing.
Best Regards,
Joe Abernathy
(713) 220-7491
P.O. Box 4260
Houston, Texas 77210
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA04576; Thu, 5 Jul 90 18:59:15 -0700
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA28731@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 5 Jul 90 20:59:57 -0500
Received: from localhost by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA05834@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 5 Jul 90 20:59:24 -0500
Message-Id: <9007060159.AA05834@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Jul 90 17:07:48 -0700.
<9007060007.AA03895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 90 20:59:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Jul 90 17:07:48 -0700.
<9007060007.AA03895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 90 20:59:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Three I can mention, I believe:
John Markoff, NY Times
Judith Turner, Chron. of Higher Edu.
Eliot Marshall, Science Magazine
There are also reporters for the usual computer magazines &
"newspapers," plus at least 2 AP science reporters, and one guy who
does science for either Time or Newsweek (I forget which).
My experience with all of these people has been positive, and I
believe most of their coverage has been balanced and reasonable. I
believe that their connection with the network is of value to both
sides.
--spaf
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01422; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:04 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:00 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19984; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:26 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18271; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:53 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00725; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00725@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
By JOE ABERNATHY=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
The National Science Foundation has launched an investigation into the use
of the taxpayer-funded Internet computer network as a tool for distributing
pornography, a spokesman said Thursday.
The presence of the erotic articles and photo spreads ↑- and their potential
availability to young people via Internet links in high schools ↑- was disclosed
Sunday in the Houston Chronicle.
"We take such accusations seriously and regard the alleged use you described
of the federally supported portion of the Internet as totally inappropriate,''
said Alan Levitt, director of public affairs for the National Science
Foundation. "We expect the local administrators of systems connected to the
Internet to investigate and take appropriate action.
"We will be actively monitoring this process in order to determine what
action we should take.''
Inside the network, meanwhile, a serious discussion of free speech and
social responsibility was emerging Thursday from an acrimonious debate over the
Chronicle's coverage.
"While we believe we enjoy complete autonomy from the politics, values, and
reality of the world around us, it's always there, waiting to pop up and
scrutinize what's going on,'' wrote Dave Taylor, a noted computer journalist,
in a network message. "And frankly, since we are talking about money spent by
state or federally funded university computer centers, federally
funded military and research sites, and so on, I think it's good.''
"Censorship aside, a lot of taxpayers would be up in arms if they knew how
much it cost to keep, for example, rec.arts.movies going and in which budgets
that cost is hidden,'' wrote network user Isaac Rabinovitch.
"Please note that I am not flaming the people who use the net
or how they use it. I'm merely pointing out how the non-computing majority
would react if they really knew what was going on.''
Network users who apparently oppose a public discussion of the explicit
material responded by making plans to use the network as a worldwide personal
ads service. Contingency plans were laid for maintaining the adult material, if necessary, via private electronic mail.
Internet is an irreplaceable tool to the nation's scientific community, and
users stress that its positive side far outweighs the controversial side. It
is being used to radically speed development of new AIDS treatments, and it was
a crucial source of information during China's Tiananmen Square protest and
the cold fusion uproar.
Each day, it transmits the equivalent of tens of thousands of pages of information, on every possible subject of human interest.
"I think it's a good thing that the scientists and hackers have the same
sexual preferences of the rest of the world,'' said John Chalmers, a Houston
biologist who was initially concerned that the Chronicle had sensationalized
the story. "The fact that they like sex, too, ought to be comforting to a lot
of people. They're certainly no worse than the population at large.''
The sexually explicit material is made available in interactive newsgroups
that receive dozens or hundreds of contributions each day, taking the form of
both articles and photographs that can either be printed out or displayed on a
computer screen. In addition, the material is stored for posterity in
electronic libraries at institutions such as Purdue University and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
One issue being addressed in the debate is the fact that electronic libraries
such as these often violate copyrights, particularly where pornographic
photographs are concerned. Such photos are so popular that one university's
campus computer network recently went down at high noon from overuse after
the presence of its archive was publicized.
The University of Texas system and the University of California at Berkeley
are currently offering electronic versions of the Chronicle's copyrighted
Internet coverage. The articles were also transmitted electronically by MIT's
Project Athena, which is dedicated to the use of computers in education.
Bill Bard, UT's director of networking and an Internet luminary, refused to
discuss the issue. MIT did not return calls.
In Dallas, meanwhile, a company named InterNet Data Systems Inc. reported to The Associated Press that it had received several angry phone calls.
But InterNet Data Systems is not involved in the Internet computer network ↑- the company offers computer training and provides products and services for
local and wide area networks.
A $2 billion expansion of Internet and related technology is pending before
Congress.
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01428; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:13 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:10 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA20049; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:42 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18280; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:21:10 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00739; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00739@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-editorial
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-editorial
EDITORIAL PAGE ↑- EDITORIAL=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
=l
Computer porn=l
=l
History records that any means of transmitting or storing information
inevitably will transmit/store that which is not elevating, i.e., pornography.
A huge, expensive and public-funded computer network dedicated to research
and higher education is no more immune than any other medium, it is just more
modern.
And because computers with all their complexities and wonders still have a
magical and mystical element to them for most of the populace, it no doubt
comes as a shock to find that they are just another library or just another
form of the printed word. And just as subject to uses other than intended.
All of which is small comfort this week to Internet. Internet is the
aforementioned computer network which is now considering the ramifications and
implications of the revelation in a Chronicle story by Joe Abernathy that, in
addition to its renowned research and education function, it is also the
repository and transmitter of an impressive amount of pornography.
The potential problems are obvious. Internet's fairly well-kept "secret''
pops out just as the war rages about the also-federally-funded National
Endowment for the Arts giving grants which support artistic works considered
obscene. And just as Congress begins consideration of spending $2 billion to
expand Internet.
It may seem an oxymoron to use the word "secret'' to describe something that
is known to perhaps 10 million people, the number who use Internet. But the
description is not all that imprecise. An Internet user commented, "I'm
surprised it took this long'' for the matter to get out ↑- Internet is 20
years old. It appears to be one of those cases where "everybody''
knew about it except the public.
The public, and what it thinks of its money being used this way, is of"
course what the computer insiders fear. That almost surely accounts for the
relative secrecy about this more exotic use of the computer network.
We think more highly of the public than that. And we think the public is
entitled to know what is happening with its money. We don't think the public is going to approve of Internet's erotica, and will expect the network to, if you
will pardon the expression, clean up its act as best it can.
But we do not expect the public to blame the computer for dirty megabytes
any more than the public blames cameras for dirty pictures or printing presses for dirty books.=l
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01434; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:39 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:34 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19603; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:30:21 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18249; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:31 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00682; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100018.AA00682@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: NREN Background & Questions
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: NREN Background & Questions
Ladies and gentlemen;
As promised, I am sending copies of the three articles and one editorial
that the Houston Chronicle has published in regards to the network.
These stories are Copyrighted 1990 by the Houston Chronicle. All Rights
Reserved. Please do not redistribute them -- they are being provided
solely as a courtesy to the members of the private electronic mailing
list nren-talk@chron.com.
Please note that there may be minor dissimilarities between what appeared
in our paper and these stories. I'm not trying to engage in revisionist
history, these are just the latest versions I could find.
Although I'm not currently preparing an article regarding the issues
of free speech and social responsibility raised by wide-area networking,
I would still value any thoughts you care to share along these lines. Of
particular interest would be thoughts on long-term challenges, solutions
and objectives.
The Federal High-Performance Computing Act is on its way to you as well,
and it is this on which I would like to invite your comments. As you
will see, it attempts to provide a comprehensive strategy for maintaining
America's acknowledged edge in high-performance computing. Sen. Al Gore,
the primary sponsor, and D. Allan Bromley, one of the president's top
science advisors, say the heart of the bill is creation of an ultra
high-speed successor to Internet, to be called the National Research
and Education Network. In fact, the National Science Foundation and DARPA
provided initial funding for the first stage of this project a couple of
weeks ago. (Perhaps Steve Wolff could fill us in on this.)
After you've had a chance to look over the bill, perhaps you would care
to address these issues:
Do you think the bill is a good idea? Why or why not? Does it consider
everything it should consider?
The role of the National Science Foundation is to promote small-scale
research, and some people believe its involvement in the $2 billion
Computing Act could cause it to overlook that role. (You may wish to refer
to John McCarthy's recent message for a more informed view of this.) What
are your thoughts?
The president has promised to double the NSF's funding by 1993, but he
has not said in what areas the money will be invested. Should the NSF
fund the NREN, or should that be done, as Professor McCarthy suggested,
by the users of the network?
Experts say that decisions made now about the construction of America's
networking infrastructure will have a profound impact on its eventual
utility to a broader base of participants. How big a role should the
research community play in NREN? How big a role for commercial service
providers? Others?
Many people, including Steve Wolff, have said they would like to see
the government out of the computer networking business. The bill
mentions a study of how fees might be levied, and even author payments
provided for contributors, but still envisions a private network. One
lawmaker recently compared this to building an eight-lane superfreeway
with on ramps only for the privileged few. Who should get to use
NREN? When? At what level (e-mail, news, rlogin)? Who should pay?
Mitch Kapor, developer of Lotus 1-2-3, recently summed up what seems to
be a widely held viewpoint that the nation's network is already clogged
to the point of losing value. He said we should start over with a new
idea. What do you think are the answers to the real problems faced by
the network (including security, flames, undesirable users, sheer
volume, and anything else you care to address). When should these issues
be addressed, and by whom?
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
Joe Abernathy
The Houston Chronicle
(713) 220-7491
edtjda@chron.com
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01439; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:38:10 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:37:01 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19730; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:30:42 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18256; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:19 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00697; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00697@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-lead
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-lead
By JOE ABERNATHY
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle
Westbury High School student Jeff Noxon's homework was rudely
interrupted recently when he stumbled across the world's most sophisticated
pornography ring.
He investigated briefly for the novelty, then went on to other studies. But
the catalog of erotic art and literature grows daily, offering titles such
as Cindy's Torment and The Education of Rachel.
It's supported by taxes and brought into town by the brightest
lights of higher education.
Half an hour or half a world away from the personal computer in Jeff's
bedroom, an isolated, historically black university is propelled to the
cutting edge of high-energy physics by the world's most capable research
and communications tool. This institution is becoming a role model for
the brightest young black people, along with all the citizens of Texas.
Somewhere between the extremes, you will find a grand undertaking referred
to as the Internet. It's revolutionizing research and education at a giddy
pace, while raising fundamental issues of free speech and social responsibility
in the age of the global village.
The Chronicle actively monitored Internet for four months through various
access points. Material found on the network during that period included
hundreds of sexually explicit stories and pictures, heated discussions
about freedom of expression, and details of underground political
strategy ↑- in addition to the scientific exchange that is Internet's
stated purpose.
The material is accessible to any reasonably experienced computer
user with equipment common to most personal computers.
"When the entire country learns about alt.sex.bestiality, people are
going to make known their disapproval,'' Noxon predicted, referring to one
interactive news group published on the network. "There are a lot of
12-year-olds getting their heads filled with a lot of ideas they're probably
not ready for yet.''
Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist David Clark, one of
Internet's founding fathers, has described the network as "anarchic
democracy at its best.''
It is hailed by policymakers as the most significant technological
innovation since the telephone.
An example can be found about 60 miles from Houston -- a distance that was
once an unbridgable chasm in the scientific mainstream.
Prairie View A&M University is working on a crucial element of the
Superconducting Super Collider. All it took was one man's vision ↑- along
with Internet to bring it alive.
"Prairie View has a real role in the SSC in the future, simply because of
that network,'' said Dennis Judd, the human catalyst for Prairie View's
ascent. "Few people know how much we really use this.''
Using Internet, Prairie View researchers browse the library at the
Stanford Linear Collider in California. They interact with Fermilab in
Chicago; Beijing University; and the Houston Advanced Research Center
in The Woodlands.
Prairie View's new research partner is Rice University ↑- one of
seven Internet outreach collaborations matching historically black
universities with traditional rsearch giants.
The network arose from the shared desire of the research, military
and education communities to better communicate.
It works like this: The computers at a given institution are wired
together in a network, allowing individual users to share information
and expensive resources. Each such network in turn is connected via
phone lines, fiber optics or satellite to other networks, ultimately allow
ing the users at scattered locations to work together almost as if they
were in the same room.
Baylor College of Medicine offers an example. Researchers there are
working on an image management system that will let specialists in
Houston consult electronically with patients' hometown doctors, giving
them instant access to the scans and tests performed in Houston.
Medical students will soon be granted regular access to Internet ↑- once
they've received an education about Internet.
"We need to be sure that the students are cognizant of the respon
sibilities they have,'' said Stan Barber, director of networking. "We
don't want some of the problems students have caused in the past to
be caused by Baylor College of Medicine students.''
These problems ↑- created by other users as well as students ↑-
include hacking and the use of valuable computer facilities to circulate
pornography. In both cases, Internet emerges as a key battleground of
free speech and social responsibility.
People are encouraged to experiment,'' allowed Rice University's
Guy Almes, who has become a national figure as primary director of
Internet operations in Texas. There's no Gestapo watching over
this thing.''
Since there are virtually no rules, the catalog of information includes
voluminous pornography, along with advice on recreational drugs, satan
ism, paganism, and sex slaves.
Some users find such material offensive. "Someone is paying for the
computers that this filth is stored in. Someone is paying for the phone
time so that this trash can piggyback in with the useful communications,''
said Rick Miller, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
"Am I asking for censorship when I ask that my money not be spent to
bring this harmful material to my community?''
When Miller protested to university officials, his electronic mailbox was
barraged with pornography from other users objecting to what they viewed as
Miller's intrusion into their freedom of expression.
"There was over 1.27 megabytes of article dumps from alt.sex.bond
age,'' recalled Miller, whose private mail from the Chronicle also was
answered by a UWM consultant who
had intercepted the letter.
"It's an open network,'' said William Bard, director of Internet operations
for the University of Texas system. "That's one of the things that makes it
as useful as it is.''
It can link a researcher with a supercomputer nearly anywhere in
the world. This can reduce the time between research and publication
from years to days.
The fundamental questions of science can be addressed by the world's
best minds working in collaboration. Students may join the process, gain
ing unique experience and insight.
"I want this country to have the most capable network to support
higher education and research that we can possibly get,'' said Stephen
Wolff, who oversees Internet for the National Science Foundation, the
network's primary federal funding agency. "We already do. We have the
best in the world, and I aim to keep it that way and make it better.''
Congress and President Bush share Wolff's goal. Tenn. Sen. Albert
Gore's $2 billion Federal High-Performance Computing Act, due for
funding consideration this week, would make Internet the centerpiece
of the nation's drive for technological pre-eminence, using it as the
launching point for a more widely available successor to Internet, to be
called the National Research and Education Network.
"The administration supports the National Research and Education
Network, and, obviously ,does not think that pornography is an appropriate
incorporation into this network,'' said Alixe Glen, deputy White
House press secretary. No direct administration action is planned against the
pornography.
The bill seeks to multiply direct federal spending by a factor of 20, to
$400 million. Under the National Science Foundation's funding poli
cies, this will trigger several billion more in spending on the local level.
The bill would include another $1.5 billion for related endeavors.
The money would benefit a maze of Internet connections that has
grown up piecemeal in 35 nations over the past two decades. Up to 10
million people now have access to the network. Experts no longer know
the full extent of Internet, its value, or who is using it for what.
Texas has more than 60 distinct Internet sites, including Johnson
Space Center, businesses, and educational institutions. Each may
provide direct service to anyone associated with it, and may also
propagate the network further into the community.
Two of the nation's 13 regional Internet backbones are in Texas ↑-
the Texas Sesquicentennial Network maintained by Rice, and the Texas
Higher Education Network.
Recent legislation will provide the state's secondary schools with net
working ↑- likely with Internet.
The volume of network activity doubles every two months, while the
number of participating universities doubles every 13 months, Almes said.
"Part of the good and the bad of this is that people are going to be
using the network in ways I never hear about,'' he added.
Electronic mail is the great innovation of the network. E-mail works
just like U.S. Mail ↑- prepare the materials to send, type the address
of the recipient, post the package.
Since computers do the sending, however, it's possible to address a
single package to a mailing list of recipients with a shared interest in
the subject matter ↑- be it cold fusion or hot pornography.
When a mailing list becomes popular enough, it can become a public
newsgroup, readily available to everyone on the network.
Those reading and contributing to mailing lists and newsgroups range
from teen-agers to the world's leading scientists.
The popularity of individual newsgroups is not officially monitored, but one
unofficial survey conducted recently by Digital Equipment Corp. indicated that
alt.sex was the second most popular newsgroup, with an estimated audience of
100,000. (Rec.humor.funny ↑- a controversial humor digest ↑- was the most
popular.)
Some of the activity on Internet probably violates state and federal
obscenity laws, said Russel Turbeville, chief of the economic crimes-
consumer fraud division of the Harris County district attorney's office.
But as a practical matter, prosecution would be difficult or impossible.
"Where you start dealing with computer frauds especially, where you have
thousands, tens of thousands, maybe a million victims, how
do you deal with that in the indictment, and how do you prove things in
court?'' Turbeville said.
Clear Lake High School honors students will receive Internet access
beginning this summer. The school knows about the network's explicit
content, but hopes the honor system and the threat of a bad grade will
discourage students from exploring where they shouldn't. They signed a
form saying they would use the tool as intended.
UT's Bard noted that high school students doing research projects could
benefit from online electronic catalogs associated with many research and
education libraries.
"It would provide an indispensable and limitless source of information
that could be used to supplement or even replace that found in the school
libraries,'' said Noxon, a 17-year-old who will be a junior next year.
On the Internet, every controversial story or letter is followed by a
ringing debate ↑- often stimulating the interest of hundreds of people
who missed the original article. In the case of Cindy's Torment, a vi
cious tale of rape and torture, this resulted in its being reposted and
privately mailed to a wide audience.
Often, erotic stories are posted in installments. One recent series about
pedophilia and incest turned out to be chapters from a published
novel, and the publisher's lawyers wanted it to stop.
Publicly, it did, after all but three chapters were posted. The entire
book is now distributed privately via E-mail. The publisher has become a
victim of Internet's capacity to support hidden theft of services.
The most vivid example of this is digitized pictures. Thousands of X-
rated pictures are available ↑- most scanned in from men's magazines in
violation of copyright law.
The pornographic libraries on the network also include political com
mentary. For example, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms' campaign
against government funding of erotic art inspired the "Jesse Helms
Erotic Literature Contest.'' The object was to produce erotica that
might please the Republican senator ↑- keep it reasonably clean, mention
fidelity or the church without ridiculing them.
The contest originated at the University of Iowa. The collected en
tries are now available in the Internet libraries of Tulane University
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Questionable Legacy
MIT is the leading presence in Internet's cultural heritage.
The heart of this heritage may be found at MIT's
Media Lab, which has variously been called visionary, flaky, and the luna
tic fringe of MIT. They say they're inventing the future of publishing, but you won't find any journalists there. They don't like journalists.
Among the accomplishments the lab touts are an interactive video
disk of the Aspen, Colo., ski resort. It cost the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency $300,000, and earned for the Lab former Sen.
William Proxmire's Golden Fleece award dishonoring questionable use
of tax dollars. Another time, DARPA unwittingly funded development at
the Media Lab of an album cover for the eclectic rockers Talking Heads.
This is the intellectual atmosphere that gave electronic life to the
Church of the Subgenius, a Dallas cult ostensibly formed to ridicule
cults. Members, who can be legally ordained, worship a yuppie diety
called Bob.
The Media Lab's Subgenius Digest is an interactive church newsletter.
It provides the phone numbers of practicing Christians, along with tips
on how best to harass them. All in the name of Bob, of course.
Also at MIT, you will find the closely guarded, lesbian-oriented
Sappho mailing list. Sappho was an effective tool in the successful fight
to overturn Mills College's decision to admit males. It motivated the
troops, communicated strategy, and gave progress reports on the battle.
Last but not least is MIT's electronic library. It may be one of the
best research tools around, but at night it becomes one of the world's
most capable instruments of pornography.
"It comes back to free speech,'' said Howard Jares, Internet director
at the University of Houston. "The actual content is secondary. (Intel
lectual freedom) fosters the whole creative process, and that's the kind
of thing we're going to have to do to succeed as educators.''
Turbeville said Internet pornography raises constitutional issues:
"You have the right to speak your mind, but do you have the right to (in
effect) walk into somebody's home and say it? That's interesting.''
In general, according to various legal sources, computer use and
abuse represent developing areas of law, with few issues settled.
Beyond pornography and free speech, the technology raises broad
fears of vulnerability. Even as Internet is finding its way into all walks of
society, society is realizing the network wasn't designed to be secure.
In late May, federal and state agencies intensified a nationwide
sweep of computer hackers. Noting that more than 40 computer systems
and 23,000 data disks had already been seized in the last two years,
network experts launched a counterattack. A legal defense fund is now
being put in place.
The hackers reacted to the crackdown in predictable fashion ↑-
they're using the Internet to build support. They published a special
electronic edition of 2600, the hackers' magazine, detailing the govern
ment's two-year-old campaign.
T"here are civil rights and civil liberties issues here that have yet to
be addressed,'' wrote one.
"Every time there is a perceived crisis, law enforcement agencies and
legislators overreact, and usually due process and civil liberties suf
fer,'' said Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif., reacting to the crackdown.
The most famous hacking case is that of former Cornell University
student Robert Tappan Morris, 25. Last month he was placed on three
years' probation, fined $10,000 and ordered to perform 400 hours of
community service for unleashing a worm program that paralyzed
thousands of Internet-linked computers nationwide in 1988.
He was the first person convicted under the Federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act prohibiting interference with the performance of a
government computer.
At least one longtime user thinks answers can be found.
"I think (Internet) is a terrific social experiment from which
there's an enormous amount to learn, but I think it's time somebody
took the lessons and built something of more lasting value,'' said com
puter luminary Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus Technology.
He believes the medium must find a sense of social responsibility.
"Regional-based systems like the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic
Link) in San Francisco that draw a constituency and see themselves as
members of an electronic community ... are a much better basis for
beginning this sort of global electronic community,'' he said.
"I don't think it's the government's business to ban (controversial mate
rial), or to take any position on it. I don't know how to solve it without
causing all sorts of First Amendment problems. If there's a paying
market for alt.sex.bestiality, we should tolerate it.
I" just don't think the government ought to fund it.''
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01444; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:38:20 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:37:15 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19881; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:11 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18263; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:38 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00711; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00711@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow1
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow1
STORY 2
NEWSPAPER HOUSTON CHRONICLE
EDITION 2 STAR
PUBLICATION DATE 06/12/90
DAY TUE
SECTION A
PAGE 17
LENGTH 13 INCHES
HEADLINE Computer porn story fires debate
By JOE ABERNATHY=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
CREDIT Staff
KEYWORD-HIT.
Users of the worldwide Internet research link engaged in fiery
electronic debate Monday over a Chronicle report on the network's
pornographic content.
Dozens of messages were posted publicly on the network, and others
were electronically mailed to the Chronicle. Many criticized the report
as sensationalism, and some claimed it was inaccurate, while others
said the coverage was long overdue.
The Chronicle reported Sunday that hundreds of sexually explicit
stories and pictures circulated on the tax-supported network during a
four-month period in which the newspaper actively monitored Internet.
The story also noted that users praise Internet as an invaluable
research tool, and that its use in distribution of pornography and
political commentary raises timeless issues of free speech.
↑'↑'Any mass communications medium that is successful is a medium
that is going to have to deal at one point in its history with the
issues that you raised,'' said Rice University's Guy Almes, primary
directory of Internet operations in Texas. ↑'↑'We will have to address
it.'
A network site in Sugar Land responded to the article by
immediately removing the questionable material.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a major contributor to
Internet, planned to discuss the article at a meeting today. The
institution is noted for its electronic library of pornographic
pictures and articles. MIT officials refused to discuss their
participation in Internet with the Chronicle.
A major point of contention in computer debate about the story is
the name and scope of the network itself. Internet refers to the
national research and education computer network maintained by various
government agencies and research institutions. The controversial
newsgroups that are published on Internet travel to a wider audience,
and are called Usenet as a way of distinguishing the two. They share
most of the same transmission facilities.
There are several hundred Usenet newsgroups on a wide range of
topics, and any participating institution can choose which newsgroups
it carries. Many of the more controversial groups are isolated into an
↑'↑'alternate'' subgrouping with titles such as ↑'↑'alt.sex'' to alert
individual network sites of their potential for controversy.
Unofficial figures published by Digital Equipment Corp. indicate
that up to 90 percent of all Usenet and Internet sites choose to carry
at least some of the sexually explicit groups.
↑'↑'Is Alt really a separate network, or part of the same network
with slightly different administrative guidelines?'' asked Chuq Von
Rospach of Apple Computer in a message on the network. ↑'↑'I personally
think all the protestations that they're separate are going to fall on
deaf ears in the real world.'
One network luminary found the story
simplistic, although he admitted having read only excerpts that were
posted on the network.
↑'↑'There's a kind of narrow-minded view where someone will pick an
instance as an example of an entire class of things, and the instance
is extreme and inappropriate,'' said Gene Spafford of Purdue
University.
↑'↑'It excites some people who don't understand the context,'' he
said. ↑'↑'Where does information and entertainment and news leave off and
privacy begin?'
Almes said the article was accurate, although
network growth has slowed since he provided figures quoted in the
story. But he said the positive aspects of the Internet should be
stressed, particularly the fact that the network has become
indispensable to scientists.
Congress is tentatively scheduled to begin debate this week on a $2
billion expansion of Internet.
Said Apple's Rospach: ↑'↑'All I can say is that, in retrospect, I'm
really surprised it took this long'' for the contents of Usenet and the
20-year-old Internet to be revealed.
**END OF STORY REACHED**
4/
∨
1, answered,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA10526; Wed, 11 Jul 90 15:52:15 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jul 90 15:51:15 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA03560; Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:52:05 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00192; Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:06:01 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04012; Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007112205.AA04012@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Answers for John McCarthy
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Answers for John McCarthy
> When were the two articles you sent me published?
There should have been four, along with a fifth article that is the text
of Senate Bill 1976. If you or anyone else missed any, I would be happy
to resend them (we did have a hiccup in our mailer the other day).
The articles were all published the week of June 10.
> Is this all you have published on network matters, and is the
> pornography issue your main interest?
No, I've been writing about the technical and informational aspects of
the network matrix for some two years in technical magazines, primarily
in conjunction with my programming columns but also a couple of
stand-alone pieces.
Pornography is not -- has never been -- one of the things I'm much interested
in, although I defend its use in the lead of that story. To answer you
expressly, though, no, my current piece is straightforward politics with
what I think is a fairly sophisticated discussion of the real funding
concerns with which legislators are grappling. It uses some of the material
you provided, in fact, to show that the issue has two -- or three or four --
sides.
I would be happy to take questions from anyone else, and invite you all to
add your comments.
Joe Abernathy
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA22969; Fri, 13 Jul 90 20:24:06 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 90 20:22:53 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA15403; Thu, 12 Jul 90 17:38:57 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA06941; Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:15 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04429; Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007121948.AA04429@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Senate Bill 1976
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Senate Bill 1976
101ST CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 1976
To provide for continued United States leadership in high-performance computing.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 21 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 6), 1989
Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself, Mr. GORE, and Mr. McCLURE) introduced the follow-
ing bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
A BILL
To provide for continued United States leadership in high-
performance computing.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be referred to as the "Department of
4 Energy High-Performance Computing Act of 1989".
5 FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
6 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares the
7 following:
8 (1) In the last twenty years, computing technol-
9 ogy has transformed America's research laboratories,
! 2
1 factories, and offices, and become indispensable to our
2 way of life.
3 (2) Rapid advances in computing technology have
4 resulted in uses for computers unimaginable only five
5 or ten years ago. Many of these advances are a result
6 of research and development on supercomputers, ad-
7 vanced computer software, and other aspects of high-
8 performance computing technology.
9 (3) High-performance computing is a powerful
10 tool to increase productivity in industrial design and
11 manufacturing, scientific research, communications, and
12 information management.
13 (4) The United States currently leads the world in
14 the development and use of high-performance comput-
15 ing. However, that lead is increasingly being chal-
16 lenged, and American firms share of the multi- bil-
17 lion-dollar world market for both high-performance
18 computer systems and other computers is shrinking.
19 (5) In order to strengthen America's computer in-
20 dustry and to assist the entire manufacturing sector,
21 the Federal Government must provide leadership in the
22 development and application of high-performance com-
23 puter technology. Iii particular, the Federal Govern-
24 ment should create a National High-Performance Com-
25 puting Program to support the development of a high-
1976 IS
! 3
1 capacity, national research and education computer
2 network; facilitate the development of software for re-
3 search, education, and industrial applications; continue
4 to fund basic research; and provide for the training of
5 computer scientists and computational scientists.
6 (6) Several Federal agencies have ongoing high-
7 performance computing research and development pro-
8 grams Which can contribute to a National High-Per-
9 formance Computing Program. Such a program would
10 provide additional funding for these existing programs,
11 create ne-vv research and development programs, and
12 improve coordination between the various agency
13 programs.
14 (7) A September 1989 report by the Office of Sci-
15 ence and Technology Policy entitled "The Federal
16 High Performance Computing Program" outlining a
17 research and development plan provides a framework
18 for such a program.
19 (8) The Department of Energy, in order to fulfill
20 its mission to conduct energy research and direct the
21 Nation's nuclear weapons program, has established
22 several high-performance computing research and de-
23 velopment programs. High-energy physics, materials
24 sciences, fusion energy research, human genetics re-
25 search, oil and gas exploration, nuclear reactor design,
S 1976 IS
! 4
1 and nuclear weapons design all rely heavily on high-
2 performance computing.
3 (9) The Department of Energy has extensive
4 high-performance computing facilities and has played a
5 key role in developing software and applications for su-
6 percomputers. It has funded research in mathematical
7 and computational sciences, has developed new designs
8 for supercomputers, and has established advanced com-
9 puter networks for connecting supercomputers and
10 other computers throughout the country.
11 (10) By building upon existing Department of
12 Energy high-performance computing research and de-
13 velopment programs, the Department of Energy can
14 play a key role in a National High-Performance Com-
15 puting Program.
16 (b) PURPOSE.-It is the purpose of the Congress in this
17 Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to-
is (1) develop a long-range strategy for research,
19 development, and application of high-performance
20 computing;
21 (2) implement that strategy in conjunction with
22 other Federal agencies as part of a National High-
23 Performance Computing Program; and
S 1976 IS
! 1 (3) ensure the appropriate transfer of high-
2 performance computing technology to United States
3 industry.
4 (c) DEFINITIONS.-
5 (1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.
6 (2) "Department" means the Department of
7 Energy.
8 DEPARTMENT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PLAN
9 SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary is authorized to immediately
10 develop and implement long-range plan for high-performance
11 computing at the Department of Energy. The Secretary shall
12 develop the plan within one year after the date of enactment
13 of this Act. The plan shall cover the fiscal year the plan is
14 implemented and at least the next four years. The plan shall
15 thereafter be updated annually.
16 (b) The plan shall-
17 (1) summarize ongoing high-performance comput-
18 ing programs at the Department of Energy;
19 (2) detail the Department of Energy's contribution
20 to a National High-Performance Computing Program
21 to expand Federal support for research, development,
22 and application of high-performance computing technol-
23 ogy in order to-
24 (A) establish a high-capacity national re-
25 search and education computer network;
S 1976 IS
! 6
1 (B) develop data bases, services, and re-
2 search facilities which \,could be available for
3 access over such a national network;
4 (C) stimulate research on software tech-
5 nology;
6 (D) promote the more rapid development and
7 wider distribution of computer soft-%,,,are;
8 (E) accelerate the development of computer
9 systems; and
10 (F) invest in basis research and education.
11 (3) establish the goals and priorities for research,
12 development, and application of high-performance com-
13 puting at the Department of Energy for the time
14 period covered by the plan;
15 (4) describe the levels of funding for each aspect
16 of high-performance computing, including basic re-
17 search, hardware and software development, education,
18 acquisition and operating expenses for computers and
19 computer networks, and education;
20 (5) define the role of each of the Department of
21 Energy's national laboratories involved in research, de-
22 velopment, and application of high-performance com-
23 puting technology; and
24 (6) set a timetable for creation and implementa-
25 tion of technology transfer mechanisms to ensure that
S 1976 IS
! 7
1 the results of research funded under the plan are read-
2 ily available to United States industry.
3 THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK
4 SEC. 4. (a) As part of a National High-Performance
5 Computing Program, the Secretary shall, in cooperation with
6 the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secre-
7 tary of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Com-
8 merce, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
9 Space Administration, and other appropriate agencies, pro-
10 vide for the establishment of a national multi-gigabit-per-
11 second research and education computer network by 1996, to
12 be known as the National Research and Education Network
13 (NREN).
14 (b) The network shall-
15 (1) link government, industry, and the higher edu-
16 cation community;
17 (2) provide computer users at more than one thou-
18 sand universities, Federal laboratories, and industrial
19 laboratories with access to supercomputers, computer
20 data bases, and other research facilities;
21 (3) be developed in close cooperation with the
22 computer and telecommunications industry;
23 (4) be designed and developed with the advice of
24 potential users in government, industry, and the higher
25 education community;
S 1976 IS
! 8
1 (5) be established in a manner which fosters and
2 maintains competition in high speed data networking
3 within the telecommunications industry;
4 (6) have accounting mechanisms which allow
5 users or groups of users to be charged for their usage
6 of the network, where appropriate; and
7 (7) be phased out when commercial networks can
8 meet the networking needs of-American researchers.
9 (c) The Department of Energy shall-
10 (1) provide networking support for the energy
ii. research community;
12 (2) provide for interconnection of existing comput-
13 er networks run by the Department and other agen-
14 cies, where appropriate;
15 (3) participate, with other Federal agencies, in
16 the development and testing of advanced prototype
17 networks;
18 (4) conduct research and development of advanced
19 networking technology, particularly for supercom-
20 puters;
21 (5) develop technology to support computer-based
22 collaboration that allows researchers around the Nation
23 to share information and instrumentation using com-
24 puter networks; and
S 1976 IS
! 9
1 (6) take an active role in the interagency coordi-
2 mating committees established to develop the National
3 Research and Education Network.
4 (d) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
5 tary for the purposes of this title, $10,000,000 for fiscal year
6 1991, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $20,000,000 for
7 fiscal year 1993, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
8 $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
9 SOFTWARE
10 SEC. 5. (a) In accordance with the plan outlined in sec-
11 tion 3, the Secretary shall provide for research and develop-
12 ment of high-performance computer software for application
13 in high-energy physics, fusion energy research, engineering,
14 materials sciences, astrophysics, climate modeling, genetics,
15 and other fields. The Secretary shall also provide for the de-
16 velopment of improved software tools and components to fa-
17 cilitate the development of software for high-performance
18 computer systems.
19 (b) The Secretary shall define and provide advanced
20 software technology support to research groups collaborating
21 to address so-called Grand Challenge problems in science and
22 -engineering. A Grand Challenge is a fundamental problem in
23 science and engineering, with broad economic and scientific
24 impact, whose solution will require the application of the
25 high-performance computing resources.
S 1976 IS
! 10
1 (1) The Grand Challenges to be addressed include
2 by are not limited to-
3 (A) PREDICTION OF GLOBAL CHANGE.-The
4 goal is to understand the coupled atmosphere,
5 ocean, biosphere system in enough detail to be
6 able to make Ion -range predictions about its be-
g
7 havior and determine its response to man-caused
8 releases of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluoro-
9 carbons, and other gases.
10 (B) MATERIALS SCIENCES.-The goal is to
11 use high-performance computing technology to
12 improve our understanding of the atomic nature of
13 materials, enabling the design and production of
14 improved semiconductors, superconductors, ceram-
15 ics, and other materials.
16 (C) HUMAN GENOME.-The goal is to use
17 high-performance computing technology to ana-
18 lyze, store, and disseminate data on the molecular
19 structure of the DNA that expresses the tens of
20 thousands of genes carried by each human being.
21 Identification of these genes would lead to a
22 better understanding and possibly treatment of ge-
23 netic diseases, cancer, and other diseases.
24 (D) NUCLEAR FUSION.-The goal is to use
25 supercomputer models to understand the physics
S 1976 IS
! 1 of plasmas at the very high temperature required
2 for nuclear fusion.
3 (E) ENERGY EFFICIENCY.-The goal is to
4 use supercomputer models to better understand
5 combustion in order to design more efficient en-
6 gines and furnaces.
7 (F) ENHANCED OIL AND GAS RECOVERY.-
8 The goal is to use supercomputer models to locate
9 and better exploit oil and gas fields.
10 (2) The Secretary shall focus research on those
11 Grand Challenges that are of greatest importance to
12 the Nation, will benefit most from the application of
13 high-performance computing, and are most consistent
14 with the mission of the Department of Energy.
15 (3) The Secretary shall establish collaborative re-
16 search groups consisting of scientists and engineers
17 concerned with a particular Grand Challenge, software
18 and systems engineers, and algorithm designers, and
19 provide them with-
20 (A) computational and experimental facilities,
21 including supercomputers for numerical modeling;
22 (B) access to the National Research and
23 Educational Network and other computer net-
24 works, and;
S 1976 IS
! 12
1 (C) access to and technology for effectively
2 utilizing scientific data bases.
3 (d) The Secretary shall establish programs to develop
4 software tools and components to accelerate development of
5 software for computers, especially supercomputers. Such pro-
6 grams would fund research on fundamental algorithms,
7 models of computation, program analysis, and new program-
8 ming languages. Particular emphasis should be given to de-
9 velopment of programming languages, compilers, operating
10 systems, and software tools for parallel computer systems.
11 (e) The Secretary shall establish high-performance com-
12 puting research centers to accelerate the development and
13 application of new generations of high-performance comput-
14 ing technology by enabling researchers to explore applica-
15 tions of this new technology.
16 (1) Most of these centers would be located within
17 existing computer research organizations funded by the
18 Department of Energy;
19 (2) These centers could facilitate research on the
20 Grand Challenges and other applications;
21 (3) Both new and existing Department of Energy
22 supercomputers centers shall help provide the national
23 research community with access to supercomputers be-
24 cause researchers developing algorithms, software
1976 IS
! 13
1 tools, and operating systems require access to new
2 generation technology; and
3 (4) These centers shall provide access to a variety
4 of different high-performance computer systems with
5 different computer architectures.
6 (f) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
7 tary for research and development on scientific Grand Chal-
8 lenges, development of advanced software technology, and
9 creation of high-performance computing research centers, in
10 accordance with the purposes of this section, $30,000,000 for
11 fiscal year 1991, $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1992,
12 $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $75,000,000 for fiscal year
13 1994, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
14 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER SYSTEMS
15 SEC. 6. (a) In accordance with the plan required in sec-
16 tion 3, the Secretary shall provide for support of research and
17 development of high-performance computer systems. Funding
18 shall be provided for-
19 (1) research and development in the national lab-
20 oratories, universities, and industry on all aspects of
21 high-performance computer systems including proces-
22 sors, memory, mass storage devices, input/output de-
23 vices, and associated system software;
24 (2) increased research in-
25 (A) computer science,
26 (B) parallel computer architectures,
S 1976 IS
! 14
1 (C) optoelectronics, and
2 (D) mass storage technology; and
3 (3) development of tools for the rapid design, pro-
4 totyping, and integration of high-performance comput-
5 ing systems.
6 (b) In addition, the Department of Energy shall pur-
7 chase early market and production model computer systems
8 and subsystems for use both in high-performance Computing
9 research centers and for other research programs within the
10 Department. Such purchases will-
11 (1) stimulate hardware and software development
12 by reducing the research and development risk of
13 United States manufacturers developing high-perform-
14 ance computer systems;
15 (2) provide manufacturers with valuable tests of
16 their new systems.
17 (c) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
18 tary for research and development, procuring, and testing of
19 high-performance computer systems, $15,000,000 for fiscal
20 year 1991, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $35,000,000
21 for fiscal year 1993, $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
22 $55,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
23 BASIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
24 SEC. 7. (a) In order to address the long-term national
25 need for high-performance computing, the Secretary shall-
S 1976 IS
!1 (1) support basic research on computer technol-
2 ogy, including research on advanced semiconductor
3 computer chip designs, new materials for integrated
4 circuits, improved integrated circuit fabrication
5 techniques, photonics, and superconducting computer
6 components;
7 (2) support basic research on computing technolo-
8 gy, including basic research on algorithms, software
9 languages and tools, architectures, systems software,
10 networks distributed computing, and symbolic
11 processing;
12 (3) create technology transfer mechanisms to
13 ensure that the results of basic research are readily
14 available to United States industry;
15 (4) promote basic research in computer science,
16 computational science, electrical engineering, and ma-
17 terials sciences; and
18 (5) educate and train more researchers in comput-
19 er science and computational science by-
20 (A) making the national laboratories avail-
21 able to senior graduate students, postdoctoral fel-
22 lows, and faculty from the Nation's universities;
23 (B) expanding summer science programs for
24 high school students;
! 16
1 (C) providing computer facilities to universi-
2 ties throughout the country; and
3 (D) establishing more cooperative research
4 programs with the academic computational sci-
5 ence community.
6 (b) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
7 tary for the purposes of this section, $10,000,000 for fiscal
8 year 1991, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $20,000,000
9 for fiscal year 1993, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
10 $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
11 GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATION
12 SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary may cooperate with, solicit
13 help from, provide funds to, or enter into contracts with pri-
14 vate contractors, industry, government, universities, or any
15 other person or entity the Secretary deems necessary in car-
16 rying out the Provisions of this Act.
17 (b) The Secretary shall cooperate with other Federal
18 agencies in carrying out the provisions of this Act, particular-
19 ly the National Science Foundation, the Department of Com-
20 merce (particularly the National Institute of Standards and
21 Technology), the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
22 tration, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Science
23 and Technology Policy.
24 REPORT REQUIREMENT
25 SEC. 9. The Secretary shall within one year after the
2 6 date of enactment of this Act, report to the Congress regard-
s 1976 is
! 17
1 ing the implementation of this Act, and thereafter, provide
2 annual reports to the Congress.
0
S 1976 IS
∨∨
1, answered,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14341; Sat, 30 Jun 90 05:18:09 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 05:16:55 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA10129; Sat, 30 Jun 90 08:17:56 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA09397; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:51 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00304; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:45 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA09390; Sat, 30 Jun 90 06:07:45 CDT
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA10799; Sat, 30 Jun 90 01:29:44 -0400
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA26612@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:57 -0500
Received: from localhost by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:36 -0500
Message-Id: <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:41:34 -0500.
<9006300441.AA00241@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Cc: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:41:34 -0500.
<9006300441.AA00241@magic322.chron.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST
From: Gene Spafford <uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET>
You write:
>Chuq, I'm particularly sorry you're going, and your message of departure is
>a perfect example of why. I didn't realize my brevity regarding Gene would
>look snotty -- I was being brief to keep <from> being snotty,as I was kind
>of upset. Gene admits having made up his mind about me before reading a
>word I wrote, so neither of us give the other much credibility.
Once again, you have said something without verifying facts. I have
read complete copies of the first 3 of your published articles. I
admitted nothing about having made up my mind about you before reading
a word that you wrote. I made up my mind after having read many words
that you wrote, or that were at least published with your by-line.
I have yet to see anything to change my opinion.
--spaf
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14662; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:36 -0700
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA10937@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:16:03 -0500
Received: by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA02679@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Message-Id: <9006302115.AA02679@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Your mail to Spaf
X-Responding: Spaf's trusty mail software
Apparently-To: jmc@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:15:41 -0500
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Subject: Your mail to Spaf
X-Responding: Spaf's trusty mail software
Apparently-To: jmc@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
This is a recording.
Spaf is out of the office until July 9.
Your message to him entitled "Copied nren-talk post that mentions you. "
has been received, and you will get a response when he returns (and
catches up!). Try to be patient!
If you are writing to be placed on the mailing list for the SEDMS, you
will not get a confirmation. Questions about the SEDMS should be
referred to George Leach, the general chair, <reggie@pdn.paradyne.com>
If you really need to get in touch with Gene before the 9th, you can
contact Daloris Williamson, daw@cs.purdue.edu, 317-494-6010. She can
tell you how to contact him.
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14679; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:47:59 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 14:46:47 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA23963; Sat, 30 Jun 90 17:47:39 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA14611; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:16:02 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00358; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:15:58 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA14603; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:15:57 CDT
Received: from apple.com by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA12713; Sat, 30 Jun 90 15:01:02 -0400
Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef)
id AA26190; Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:21:05 -0700
for
Received: by well.sf.ca.us (4.12/4.7)
id AA22511; Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
From: uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
Message-Id: <9006301400.AA22511@well.sf.ca.us>
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: A few answers
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 07:00:12 pdt
From: uunet!apple.com!well!slf@uunet.UU.NET (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Re: A few answers
Joe Abernathy writes:
>appear to qualify me as a public figure -- thereby subjecting my family to
>possible public scrutiny/attack.
Say what?
∨
1,,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14946; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:18:14 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jun 90 16:16:55 PDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA14377; Sat, 30 Jun 90 19:17:51 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA15128; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:41 CDT
Received: from chron.com by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00387; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:37 CDT
Received: from uunet.UUCP by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA15112; Sat, 30 Jun 90 16:57:35 CDT
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA19926; Sat, 30 Jun 90 17:15:41 -0400
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA14658; Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
From: uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET (John McCarthy)
Message-Id: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Cc: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-Reply-To: Gene Spafford's message of Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 14:15:18 -0700
From: uunet!Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU!jmc@uunet.UU.NET (John McCarthy)
To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
Cc: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-Reply-To: Gene Spafford's message of Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
Gentlemen:
I haven't read what Joe Abernathy has written. He seemed reasonable
on the telephone.
2. I consider having newspaper people in network communication with
the people they interview and write about to be a big win. I think it
will lead to more accurate reporting on the average. It surely won't
lead to an information utopia. There will still be misunderstandings,
there will still be irrationalities imposed by the fact that the
primary product consists of short news stories, there will still be
misleading articles resulting from ideological agendas on the part of
reporters or the newspapers themselves.
However, the net result will be an improvement, and it will ease the
transition to the eventual situation in which everyone will get his
news via terminals, and there will be a universal right of reply,
though certainly no guarantee that readers will always ask for
replies from people and institutions criticized in news stories.
3. I see there is an existing controversy between at least Gene
Spafford and Joe Abernathy. What the issues are I don't even know yet.
I am not at all inclined to take a position based on solidarity of
of computer people vs. newspaper people. I suspect that others are
in my position of lack of information. If anyone cares about my
opinion, he will have to start at the beginning to inform me.
4. I have, however, an initial position on the bill before Congress.
I was wondering how I might get it before the public, and Joe's
message looks like the opportunity I was waiting for. I would like
to learn more, but my initial position is that the bill is a bad
idea for the following reasons.
a. Although Congress has substantially increased the budget
for NSF and will probably increase it further, there has been an
actual reduction in the funds available to support unsolicited
proposals in computer science and other fields that are not
part of supercomputer centers, engineering research centers
and NSF staff controlled special research programs. I am losing
a valued senior research associate colleague because of this
when NSF would no longer support his salary even though our
proposal received excellent reviews. I am not capable of the
politics required to get NSF to start a special program in our
area. Apart from my own situation, I believe that the general
phenomenon of program manager controlled research is causing
serious damage to American research. At the National Academy of
Sciences meeting I heard similar complaints from chemists.
Maybe things will get better with the departure of Eric Bloch in
September.
b. My opinion has long been that special-purpose, special
user, special politics networks are a mistake - initiated by DARPA
around 1970. As regards electronic mail, I wrote a Viewpoint article
that appeared in the December CACM. I'll email a copy to anyone who
wants it. A symptom of what I complain about is the complaint about
Joe Abernathy using Internet on the grounds that newspaper reporting
isn't what Internet was set up to promote. The primary means of email
communication should not have any restriction on who may communicate
and for what purpose, just provided he pays his phone bill. In my
article I said that fax is already more widespread than email because
of the bureaucratic way email is organized, and that email should
switch to direct telephone communication.
c. The Bill is to set up one more special network for high
speed communication of scientific information. As a computer
scientist, I will express the opinion that this won't benefit computer
science. If Congress loves computer science, let them support
research in it according to peer reviewed research proposals. If
communication costs are in the budgets of these proposals, their
appropriateness can be evaluated along with other budget items. For
computer scientists, I suspect that there won't be very large
communication demands.
If anyone is to be benefitted by the Data Highway, I suspect it is
physicists, chemists and other people who solve big systems of partial
differential equations. If Congress loves them, let it give them
money and let them choose how to spend it.
There may indeed be a demand for a fiber optic network covering much
of the country for transmitting the results of computation. If so,
let the existing communication companies set them up as competitive
businesses. The physicists will then patronize them if it seems like
a good way to spend physics money. Maybe some computer science
projects will patronize such services also.
d. There is a natural tendency among people who have developed
a technology to want it used. However, there is no substitute for
ordinary commerce with salesmen and all that. It is wrong to ask the
Government to subsidize the use of a technology, although it is ok to
ask the Government to subsidize its development.
e. This is an entirely different issue from the general ``big
science'' issues like the genome project, the super-conducting super
collider, or the M.I.T.-Caltech proposal for a very expensive gravity
wave detector. Those are aimed at solving specific scientific
problems, while this is aimed at producing a facility - a private
utility.
The above is an initial opinion, and I might change it with more
information.
Joe, you can quote this if you are in a rush. However, I would
prefer to wait for reactions and try to formulate my eventual
opinion in a better way.
1,,
Return-Path: <looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Received: from watmath.waterloo.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA15485; Sat, 30 Jun 90 21:22:12 -0700
Received: from looking.uucp by watmath.waterloo.edu with uucp
id <AA28243>; Sun, 1 Jul 90 00:22:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 0:13:52 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>; from "John McCarthy" at Jun 30, 90 2:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Message-Id: <9007010413.aa12952@looking.on.ca>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <looking!brad@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 0:13:52 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <brad@looking.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <9006302115.AA14658@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>; from "John McCarthy" at Jun 30, 90 2:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
John, take it from me, this is the sort of "reporter" you don't want
to use to put forward your viewpoint. He has a lot of similarities to
the woman in Kitchener who got rec.humor.funny banned at the University
of Waterloo.
I have read his copy -- it was not journalism, it was a carefully
worded attempt to put USENET (called the Internet in the article) in a bad
light. It made the fundamental mistake that all opponents of free speech
make -- that tolerating the presence of certain speech implies support for
it.
Of course, I advise you to read his text and make your own judgements.
But phrases like "porno ring" show his intent, I fear.
Gene Spafford rebuked him with reason. It's not networkers vs. reporters.
Gene has made a lot of bucks building himself as a computer security expert
by talking to lots of reporters. This one's a bad apple.
That's why those of us who are writing to his list are NOT addressing the
issues he wants, but rather questionning him and his actions.
∨
1, answered,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA26032; Tue, 3 Jul 90 19:28:50 -0700
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA22415; Tue, 3 Jul 90 22:29:02 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA27683; Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:12 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00853; Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007040117.AA00853@magic322.chron.com>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Thanks
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:17:09 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu
Subject: Thanks
Professor McCarthy,
I just wanted to drop a quick note to acknowledge and thank you for your
contribution to the nren-talk mailing list. If you provide me with a physical
address, I will further see to it that you receive copies of my past and
future articles on the subject of high-performance computing.
Best Regards,
Joe Abernathy
(713) 220-7491
P.O. Box 4260
Houston, Texas 77210
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA04576; Thu, 5 Jul 90 18:59:15 -0700
Received: from uther.cs.purdue.edu by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA28731@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 5 Jul 90 20:59:57 -0500
Received: from localhost by uther.cs.purdue.edu (5.61/PURDUE_CS-1.2)
id <AA05834@uther.cs.purdue.edu>; Thu, 5 Jul 90 20:59:24 -0500
Message-Id: <9007060159.AA05834@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Jul 90 17:07:48 -0700.
<9007060007.AA03895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 90 20:59:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
To: jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Jul 90 17:07:48 -0700.
<9007060007.AA03895@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 90 20:59:23 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Three I can mention, I believe:
John Markoff, NY Times
Judith Turner, Chron. of Higher Edu.
Eliot Marshall, Science Magazine
There are also reporters for the usual computer magazines &
"newspapers," plus at least 2 AP science reporters, and one guy who
does science for either Time or Newsweek (I forget which).
My experience with all of these people has been positive, and I
believe most of their coverage has been balanced and reasonable. I
believe that their connection with the network is of value to both
sides.
--spaf
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01422; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:04 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:00 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19984; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:26 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18271; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:53 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00725; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00725@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
By JOE ABERNATHY=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
The National Science Foundation has launched an investigation into the use
of the taxpayer-funded Internet computer network as a tool for distributing
pornography, a spokesman said Thursday.
The presence of the erotic articles and photo spreads ↑- and their potential
availability to young people via Internet links in high schools ↑- was disclosed
Sunday in the Houston Chronicle.
"We take such accusations seriously and regard the alleged use you described
of the federally supported portion of the Internet as totally inappropriate,''
said Alan Levitt, director of public affairs for the National Science
Foundation. "We expect the local administrators of systems connected to the
Internet to investigate and take appropriate action.
"We will be actively monitoring this process in order to determine what
action we should take.''
Inside the network, meanwhile, a serious discussion of free speech and
social responsibility was emerging Thursday from an acrimonious debate over the
Chronicle's coverage.
"While we believe we enjoy complete autonomy from the politics, values, and
reality of the world around us, it's always there, waiting to pop up and
scrutinize what's going on,'' wrote Dave Taylor, a noted computer journalist,
in a network message. "And frankly, since we are talking about money spent by
state or federally funded university computer centers, federally
funded military and research sites, and so on, I think it's good.''
"Censorship aside, a lot of taxpayers would be up in arms if they knew how
much it cost to keep, for example, rec.arts.movies going and in which budgets
that cost is hidden,'' wrote network user Isaac Rabinovitch.
"Please note that I am not flaming the people who use the net
or how they use it. I'm merely pointing out how the non-computing majority
would react if they really knew what was going on.''
Network users who apparently oppose a public discussion of the explicit
material responded by making plans to use the network as a worldwide personal
ads service. Contingency plans were laid for maintaining the adult material, if necessary, via private electronic mail.
Internet is an irreplaceable tool to the nation's scientific community, and
users stress that its positive side far outweighs the controversial side. It
is being used to radically speed development of new AIDS treatments, and it was
a crucial source of information during China's Tiananmen Square protest and
the cold fusion uproar.
Each day, it transmits the equivalent of tens of thousands of pages of information, on every possible subject of human interest.
"I think it's a good thing that the scientists and hackers have the same
sexual preferences of the rest of the world,'' said John Chalmers, a Houston
biologist who was initially concerned that the Chronicle had sensationalized
the story. "The fact that they like sex, too, ought to be comforting to a lot
of people. They're certainly no worse than the population at large.''
The sexually explicit material is made available in interactive newsgroups
that receive dozens or hundreds of contributions each day, taking the form of
both articles and photographs that can either be printed out or displayed on a
computer screen. In addition, the material is stored for posterity in
electronic libraries at institutions such as Purdue University and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
One issue being addressed in the debate is the fact that electronic libraries
such as these often violate copyrights, particularly where pornographic
photographs are concerned. Such photos are so popular that one university's
campus computer network recently went down at high noon from overuse after
the presence of its archive was publicized.
The University of Texas system and the University of California at Berkeley
are currently offering electronic versions of the Chronicle's copyrighted
Internet coverage. The articles were also transmitted electronically by MIT's
Project Athena, which is dedicated to the use of computers in education.
Bill Bard, UT's director of networking and an Internet luminary, refused to
discuss the issue. MIT did not return calls.
In Dallas, meanwhile, a company named InterNet Data Systems Inc. reported to The Associated Press that it had received several angry phone calls.
But InterNet Data Systems is not involved in the Internet computer network ↑- the company offers computer training and provides products and services for
local and wide area networks.
A $2 billion expansion of Internet and related technology is pending before
Congress.
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01428; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:13 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:10 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA20049; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:42 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18280; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:21:10 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00739; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00739@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-editorial
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:57 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-editorial
EDITORIAL PAGE ↑- EDITORIAL=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
=l
Computer porn=l
=l
History records that any means of transmitting or storing information
inevitably will transmit/store that which is not elevating, i.e., pornography.
A huge, expensive and public-funded computer network dedicated to research
and higher education is no more immune than any other medium, it is just more
modern.
And because computers with all their complexities and wonders still have a
magical and mystical element to them for most of the populace, it no doubt
comes as a shock to find that they are just another library or just another
form of the printed word. And just as subject to uses other than intended.
All of which is small comfort this week to Internet. Internet is the
aforementioned computer network which is now considering the ramifications and
implications of the revelation in a Chronicle story by Joe Abernathy that, in
addition to its renowned research and education function, it is also the
repository and transmitter of an impressive amount of pornography.
The potential problems are obvious. Internet's fairly well-kept "secret''
pops out just as the war rages about the also-federally-funded National
Endowment for the Arts giving grants which support artistic works considered
obscene. And just as Congress begins consideration of spending $2 billion to
expand Internet.
It may seem an oxymoron to use the word "secret'' to describe something that
is known to perhaps 10 million people, the number who use Internet. But the
description is not all that imprecise. An Internet user commented, "I'm
surprised it took this long'' for the matter to get out ↑- Internet is 20
years old. It appears to be one of those cases where "everybody''
knew about it except the public.
The public, and what it thinks of its money being used this way, is of"
course what the computer insiders fear. That almost surely accounts for the
relative secrecy about this more exotic use of the computer network.
We think more highly of the public than that. And we think the public is
entitled to know what is happening with its money. We don't think the public is going to approve of Internet's erotica, and will expect the network to, if you
will pardon the expression, clean up its act as best it can.
But we do not expect the public to blame the computer for dirty megabytes
any more than the public blames cameras for dirty pictures or printing presses for dirty books.=l
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01434; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:39 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:36:34 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19603; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:30:21 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18249; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:31 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00682; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100018.AA00682@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: NREN Background & Questions
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:18:15 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: NREN Background & Questions
Ladies and gentlemen;
As promised, I am sending copies of the three articles and one editorial
that the Houston Chronicle has published in regards to the network.
These stories are Copyrighted 1990 by the Houston Chronicle. All Rights
Reserved. Please do not redistribute them -- they are being provided
solely as a courtesy to the members of the private electronic mailing
list nren-talk@chron.com.
Please note that there may be minor dissimilarities between what appeared
in our paper and these stories. I'm not trying to engage in revisionist
history, these are just the latest versions I could find.
Although I'm not currently preparing an article regarding the issues
of free speech and social responsibility raised by wide-area networking,
I would still value any thoughts you care to share along these lines. Of
particular interest would be thoughts on long-term challenges, solutions
and objectives.
The Federal High-Performance Computing Act is on its way to you as well,
and it is this on which I would like to invite your comments. As you
will see, it attempts to provide a comprehensive strategy for maintaining
America's acknowledged edge in high-performance computing. Sen. Al Gore,
the primary sponsor, and D. Allan Bromley, one of the president's top
science advisors, say the heart of the bill is creation of an ultra
high-speed successor to Internet, to be called the National Research
and Education Network. In fact, the National Science Foundation and DARPA
provided initial funding for the first stage of this project a couple of
weeks ago. (Perhaps Steve Wolff could fill us in on this.)
After you've had a chance to look over the bill, perhaps you would care
to address these issues:
Do you think the bill is a good idea? Why or why not? Does it consider
everything it should consider?
The role of the National Science Foundation is to promote small-scale
research, and some people believe its involvement in the $2 billion
Computing Act could cause it to overlook that role. (You may wish to refer
to John McCarthy's recent message for a more informed view of this.) What
are your thoughts?
The president has promised to double the NSF's funding by 1993, but he
has not said in what areas the money will be invested. Should the NSF
fund the NREN, or should that be done, as Professor McCarthy suggested,
by the users of the network?
Experts say that decisions made now about the construction of America's
networking infrastructure will have a profound impact on its eventual
utility to a broader base of participants. How big a role should the
research community play in NREN? How big a role for commercial service
providers? Others?
Many people, including Steve Wolff, have said they would like to see
the government out of the computer networking business. The bill
mentions a study of how fees might be levied, and even author payments
provided for contributors, but still envisions a private network. One
lawmaker recently compared this to building an eight-lane superfreeway
with on ramps only for the privileged few. Who should get to use
NREN? When? At what level (e-mail, news, rlogin)? Who should pay?
Mitch Kapor, developer of Lotus 1-2-3, recently summed up what seems to
be a widely held viewpoint that the nation's network is already clogged
to the point of losing value. He said we should start over with a new
idea. What do you think are the answers to the real problems faced by
the network (including security, flames, undesirable users, sheer
volume, and anything else you care to address). When should these issues
be addressed, and by whom?
Thank you for your time and thoughts.
Joe Abernathy
The Houston Chronicle
(713) 220-7491
edtjda@chron.com
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01439; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:38:10 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:37:01 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19730; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:30:42 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18256; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:19 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00697; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00697@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-lead
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:05 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-lead
By JOE ABERNATHY
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle
Westbury High School student Jeff Noxon's homework was rudely
interrupted recently when he stumbled across the world's most sophisticated
pornography ring.
He investigated briefly for the novelty, then went on to other studies. But
the catalog of erotic art and literature grows daily, offering titles such
as Cindy's Torment and The Education of Rachel.
It's supported by taxes and brought into town by the brightest
lights of higher education.
Half an hour or half a world away from the personal computer in Jeff's
bedroom, an isolated, historically black university is propelled to the
cutting edge of high-energy physics by the world's most capable research
and communications tool. This institution is becoming a role model for
the brightest young black people, along with all the citizens of Texas.
Somewhere between the extremes, you will find a grand undertaking referred
to as the Internet. It's revolutionizing research and education at a giddy
pace, while raising fundamental issues of free speech and social responsibility
in the age of the global village.
The Chronicle actively monitored Internet for four months through various
access points. Material found on the network during that period included
hundreds of sexually explicit stories and pictures, heated discussions
about freedom of expression, and details of underground political
strategy ↑- in addition to the scientific exchange that is Internet's
stated purpose.
The material is accessible to any reasonably experienced computer
user with equipment common to most personal computers.
"When the entire country learns about alt.sex.bestiality, people are
going to make known their disapproval,'' Noxon predicted, referring to one
interactive news group published on the network. "There are a lot of
12-year-olds getting their heads filled with a lot of ideas they're probably
not ready for yet.''
Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist David Clark, one of
Internet's founding fathers, has described the network as "anarchic
democracy at its best.''
It is hailed by policymakers as the most significant technological
innovation since the telephone.
An example can be found about 60 miles from Houston -- a distance that was
once an unbridgable chasm in the scientific mainstream.
Prairie View A&M University is working on a crucial element of the
Superconducting Super Collider. All it took was one man's vision ↑- along
with Internet to bring it alive.
"Prairie View has a real role in the SSC in the future, simply because of
that network,'' said Dennis Judd, the human catalyst for Prairie View's
ascent. "Few people know how much we really use this.''
Using Internet, Prairie View researchers browse the library at the
Stanford Linear Collider in California. They interact with Fermilab in
Chicago; Beijing University; and the Houston Advanced Research Center
in The Woodlands.
Prairie View's new research partner is Rice University ↑- one of
seven Internet outreach collaborations matching historically black
universities with traditional rsearch giants.
The network arose from the shared desire of the research, military
and education communities to better communicate.
It works like this: The computers at a given institution are wired
together in a network, allowing individual users to share information
and expensive resources. Each such network in turn is connected via
phone lines, fiber optics or satellite to other networks, ultimately allow
ing the users at scattered locations to work together almost as if they
were in the same room.
Baylor College of Medicine offers an example. Researchers there are
working on an image management system that will let specialists in
Houston consult electronically with patients' hometown doctors, giving
them instant access to the scans and tests performed in Houston.
Medical students will soon be granted regular access to Internet ↑- once
they've received an education about Internet.
"We need to be sure that the students are cognizant of the respon
sibilities they have,'' said Stan Barber, director of networking. "We
don't want some of the problems students have caused in the past to
be caused by Baylor College of Medicine students.''
These problems ↑- created by other users as well as students ↑-
include hacking and the use of valuable computer facilities to circulate
pornography. In both cases, Internet emerges as a key battleground of
free speech and social responsibility.
People are encouraged to experiment,'' allowed Rice University's
Guy Almes, who has become a national figure as primary director of
Internet operations in Texas. There's no Gestapo watching over
this thing.''
Since there are virtually no rules, the catalog of information includes
voluminous pornography, along with advice on recreational drugs, satan
ism, paganism, and sex slaves.
Some users find such material offensive. "Someone is paying for the
computers that this filth is stored in. Someone is paying for the phone
time so that this trash can piggyback in with the useful communications,''
said Rick Miller, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
"Am I asking for censorship when I ask that my money not be spent to
bring this harmful material to my community?''
When Miller protested to university officials, his electronic mailbox was
barraged with pornography from other users objecting to what they viewed as
Miller's intrusion into their freedom of expression.
"There was over 1.27 megabytes of article dumps from alt.sex.bond
age,'' recalled Miller, whose private mail from the Chronicle also was
answered by a UWM consultant who
had intercepted the letter.
"It's an open network,'' said William Bard, director of Internet operations
for the University of Texas system. "That's one of the things that makes it
as useful as it is.''
It can link a researcher with a supercomputer nearly anywhere in
the world. This can reduce the time between research and publication
from years to days.
The fundamental questions of science can be addressed by the world's
best minds working in collaboration. Students may join the process, gain
ing unique experience and insight.
"I want this country to have the most capable network to support
higher education and research that we can possibly get,'' said Stephen
Wolff, who oversees Internet for the National Science Foundation, the
network's primary federal funding agency. "We already do. We have the
best in the world, and I aim to keep it that way and make it better.''
Congress and President Bush share Wolff's goal. Tenn. Sen. Albert
Gore's $2 billion Federal High-Performance Computing Act, due for
funding consideration this week, would make Internet the centerpiece
of the nation's drive for technological pre-eminence, using it as the
launching point for a more widely available successor to Internet, to be
called the National Research and Education Network.
"The administration supports the National Research and Education
Network, and, obviously ,does not think that pornography is an appropriate
incorporation into this network,'' said Alixe Glen, deputy White
House press secretary. No direct administration action is planned against the
pornography.
The bill seeks to multiply direct federal spending by a factor of 20, to
$400 million. Under the National Science Foundation's funding poli
cies, this will trigger several billion more in spending on the local level.
The bill would include another $1.5 billion for related endeavors.
The money would benefit a maze of Internet connections that has
grown up piecemeal in 35 nations over the past two decades. Up to 10
million people now have access to the network. Experts no longer know
the full extent of Internet, its value, or who is using it for what.
Texas has more than 60 distinct Internet sites, including Johnson
Space Center, businesses, and educational institutions. Each may
provide direct service to anyone associated with it, and may also
propagate the network further into the community.
Two of the nation's 13 regional Internet backbones are in Texas ↑-
the Texas Sesquicentennial Network maintained by Rice, and the Texas
Higher Education Network.
Recent legislation will provide the state's secondary schools with net
working ↑- likely with Internet.
The volume of network activity doubles every two months, while the
number of participating universities doubles every 13 months, Almes said.
"Part of the good and the bad of this is that people are going to be
using the network in ways I never hear about,'' he added.
Electronic mail is the great innovation of the network. E-mail works
just like U.S. Mail ↑- prepare the materials to send, type the address
of the recipient, post the package.
Since computers do the sending, however, it's possible to address a
single package to a mailing list of recipients with a shared interest in
the subject matter ↑- be it cold fusion or hot pornography.
When a mailing list becomes popular enough, it can become a public
newsgroup, readily available to everyone on the network.
Those reading and contributing to mailing lists and newsgroups range
from teen-agers to the world's leading scientists.
The popularity of individual newsgroups is not officially monitored, but one
unofficial survey conducted recently by Digital Equipment Corp. indicated that
alt.sex was the second most popular newsgroup, with an estimated audience of
100,000. (Rec.humor.funny ↑- a controversial humor digest ↑- was the most
popular.)
Some of the activity on Internet probably violates state and federal
obscenity laws, said Russel Turbeville, chief of the economic crimes-
consumer fraud division of the Harris County district attorney's office.
But as a practical matter, prosecution would be difficult or impossible.
"Where you start dealing with computer frauds especially, where you have
thousands, tens of thousands, maybe a million victims, how
do you deal with that in the indictment, and how do you prove things in
court?'' Turbeville said.
Clear Lake High School honors students will receive Internet access
beginning this summer. The school knows about the network's explicit
content, but hopes the honor system and the threat of a bad grade will
discourage students from exploring where they shouldn't. They signed a
form saying they would use the tool as intended.
UT's Bard noted that high school students doing research projects could
benefit from online electronic catalogs associated with many research and
education libraries.
"It would provide an indispensable and limitless source of information
that could be used to supplement or even replace that found in the school
libraries,'' said Noxon, a 17-year-old who will be a junior next year.
On the Internet, every controversial story or letter is followed by a
ringing debate ↑- often stimulating the interest of hundreds of people
who missed the original article. In the case of Cindy's Torment, a vi
cious tale of rape and torture, this resulted in its being reposted and
privately mailed to a wide audience.
Often, erotic stories are posted in installments. One recent series about
pedophilia and incest turned out to be chapters from a published
novel, and the publisher's lawyers wanted it to stop.
Publicly, it did, after all but three chapters were posted. The entire
book is now distributed privately via E-mail. The publisher has become a
victim of Internet's capacity to support hidden theft of services.
The most vivid example of this is digitized pictures. Thousands of X-
rated pictures are available ↑- most scanned in from men's magazines in
violation of copyright law.
The pornographic libraries on the network also include political com
mentary. For example, North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms' campaign
against government funding of erotic art inspired the "Jesse Helms
Erotic Literature Contest.'' The object was to produce erotica that
might please the Republican senator ↑- keep it reasonably clean, mention
fidelity or the church without ridiculing them.
The contest originated at the University of Iowa. The collected en
tries are now available in the Internet libraries of Tulane University
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Questionable Legacy
MIT is the leading presence in Internet's cultural heritage.
The heart of this heritage may be found at MIT's
Media Lab, which has variously been called visionary, flaky, and the luna
tic fringe of MIT. They say they're inventing the future of publishing, but you won't find any journalists there. They don't like journalists.
Among the accomplishments the lab touts are an interactive video
disk of the Aspen, Colo., ski resort. It cost the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency $300,000, and earned for the Lab former Sen.
William Proxmire's Golden Fleece award dishonoring questionable use
of tax dollars. Another time, DARPA unwittingly funded development at
the Media Lab of an album cover for the eclectic rockers Talking Heads.
This is the intellectual atmosphere that gave electronic life to the
Church of the Subgenius, a Dallas cult ostensibly formed to ridicule
cults. Members, who can be legally ordained, worship a yuppie diety
called Bob.
The Media Lab's Subgenius Digest is an interactive church newsletter.
It provides the phone numbers of practicing Christians, along with tips
on how best to harass them. All in the name of Bob, of course.
Also at MIT, you will find the closely guarded, lesbian-oriented
Sappho mailing list. Sappho was an effective tool in the successful fight
to overturn Mills College's decision to admit males. It motivated the
troops, communicated strategy, and gave progress reports on the battle.
Last but not least is MIT's electronic library. It may be one of the
best research tools around, but at night it becomes one of the world's
most capable instruments of pornography.
"It comes back to free speech,'' said Howard Jares, Internet director
at the University of Houston. "The actual content is secondary. (Intel
lectual freedom) fosters the whole creative process, and that's the kind
of thing we're going to have to do to succeed as educators.''
Turbeville said Internet pornography raises constitutional issues:
"You have the right to speak your mind, but do you have the right to (in
effect) walk into somebody's home and say it? That's interesting.''
In general, according to various legal sources, computer use and
abuse represent developing areas of law, with few issues settled.
Beyond pornography and free speech, the technology raises broad
fears of vulnerability. Even as Internet is finding its way into all walks of
society, society is realizing the network wasn't designed to be secure.
In late May, federal and state agencies intensified a nationwide
sweep of computer hackers. Noting that more than 40 computer systems
and 23,000 data disks had already been seized in the last two years,
network experts launched a counterattack. A legal defense fund is now
being put in place.
The hackers reacted to the crackdown in predictable fashion ↑-
they're using the Internet to build support. They published a special
electronic edition of 2600, the hackers' magazine, detailing the govern
ment's two-year-old campaign.
T"here are civil rights and civil liberties issues here that have yet to
be addressed,'' wrote one.
"Every time there is a perceived crisis, law enforcement agencies and
legislators overreact, and usually due process and civil liberties suf
fer,'' said Rep. Don Edwards, D-Calif., reacting to the crackdown.
The most famous hacking case is that of former Cornell University
student Robert Tappan Morris, 25. Last month he was placed on three
years' probation, fined $10,000 and ordered to perform 400 hours of
community service for unleashing a worm program that paralyzed
thousands of Internet-linked computers nationwide in 1988.
He was the first person convicted under the Federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act prohibiting interference with the performance of a
government computer.
At least one longtime user thinks answers can be found.
"I think (Internet) is a terrific social experiment from which
there's an enormous amount to learn, but I think it's time somebody
took the lessons and built something of more lasting value,'' said com
puter luminary Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus Technology.
He believes the medium must find a sense of social responsibility.
"Regional-based systems like the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic
Link) in San Francisco that draw a constituency and see themselves as
members of an electronic community ... are a much better basis for
beginning this sort of global electronic community,'' he said.
"I don't think it's the government's business to ban (controversial mate
rial), or to take any position on it. I don't know how to solve it without
causing all sorts of First Amendment problems. If there's a paying
market for alt.sex.bestiality, we should tolerate it.
I" just don't think the government ought to fund it.''
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA01444; Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:38:20 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 90 18:37:15 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA19881; Mon, 9 Jul 90 21:31:11 -0400
Received: from magic710. by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA18263; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:20:38 CDT
Received: by magic710. (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00711; Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007100019.AA00711@magic710.>
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow1
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic710.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:24 CDT
From: edtjda@magic710.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
Subject: Text of chron-follow1
STORY 2
NEWSPAPER HOUSTON CHRONICLE
EDITION 2 STAR
PUBLICATION DATE 06/12/90
DAY TUE
SECTION A
PAGE 17
LENGTH 13 INCHES
HEADLINE Computer porn story fires debate
By JOE ABERNATHY=l
Copyright 1990, Houston Chronicle=l
CREDIT Staff
KEYWORD-HIT.
Users of the worldwide Internet research link engaged in fiery
electronic debate Monday over a Chronicle report on the network's
pornographic content.
Dozens of messages were posted publicly on the network, and others
were electronically mailed to the Chronicle. Many criticized the report
as sensationalism, and some claimed it was inaccurate, while others
said the coverage was long overdue.
The Chronicle reported Sunday that hundreds of sexually explicit
stories and pictures circulated on the tax-supported network during a
four-month period in which the newspaper actively monitored Internet.
The story also noted that users praise Internet as an invaluable
research tool, and that its use in distribution of pornography and
political commentary raises timeless issues of free speech.
↑'↑'Any mass communications medium that is successful is a medium
that is going to have to deal at one point in its history with the
issues that you raised,'' said Rice University's Guy Almes, primary
directory of Internet operations in Texas. ↑'↑'We will have to address
it.'
A network site in Sugar Land responded to the article by
immediately removing the questionable material.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a major contributor to
Internet, planned to discuss the article at a meeting today. The
institution is noted for its electronic library of pornographic
pictures and articles. MIT officials refused to discuss their
participation in Internet with the Chronicle.
A major point of contention in computer debate about the story is
the name and scope of the network itself. Internet refers to the
national research and education computer network maintained by various
government agencies and research institutions. The controversial
newsgroups that are published on Internet travel to a wider audience,
and are called Usenet as a way of distinguishing the two. They share
most of the same transmission facilities.
There are several hundred Usenet newsgroups on a wide range of
topics, and any participating institution can choose which newsgroups
it carries. Many of the more controversial groups are isolated into an
↑'↑'alternate'' subgrouping with titles such as ↑'↑'alt.sex'' to alert
individual network sites of their potential for controversy.
Unofficial figures published by Digital Equipment Corp. indicate
that up to 90 percent of all Usenet and Internet sites choose to carry
at least some of the sexually explicit groups.
↑'↑'Is Alt really a separate network, or part of the same network
with slightly different administrative guidelines?'' asked Chuq Von
Rospach of Apple Computer in a message on the network. ↑'↑'I personally
think all the protestations that they're separate are going to fall on
deaf ears in the real world.'
One network luminary found the story
simplistic, although he admitted having read only excerpts that were
posted on the network.
↑'↑'There's a kind of narrow-minded view where someone will pick an
instance as an example of an entire class of things, and the instance
is extreme and inappropriate,'' said Gene Spafford of Purdue
University.
↑'↑'It excites some people who don't understand the context,'' he
said. ↑'↑'Where does information and entertainment and news leave off and
privacy begin?'
Almes said the article was accurate, although
network growth has slowed since he provided figures quoted in the
story. But he said the positive aspects of the Internet should be
stressed, particularly the fact that the network has become
indispensable to scientists.
Congress is tentatively scheduled to begin debate this week on a $2
billion expansion of Internet.
Said Apple's Rospach: ↑'↑'All I can say is that, in retrospect, I'm
really surprised it took this long'' for the contents of Usenet and the
20-year-old Internet to be revealed.
**END OF STORY REACHED**
4/
∨
1, answered,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA10526; Wed, 11 Jul 90 15:52:15 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jul 90 15:51:15 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA03560; Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:52:05 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA00192; Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:06:01 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04012; Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007112205.AA04012@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Answers for John McCarthy
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Answers for John McCarthy
> When were the two articles you sent me published?
There should have been four, along with a fifth article that is the text
of Senate Bill 1976. If you or anyone else missed any, I would be happy
to resend them (we did have a hiccup in our mailer the other day).
The articles were all published the week of June 10.
> Is this all you have published on network matters, and is the
> pornography issue your main interest?
No, I've been writing about the technical and informational aspects of
the network matrix for some two years in technical magazines, primarily
in conjunction with my programming columns but also a couple of
stand-alone pieces.
Pornography is not -- has never been -- one of the things I'm much interested
in, although I defend its use in the lead of that story. To answer you
expressly, though, no, my current piece is straightforward politics with
what I think is a fairly sophisticated discussion of the real funding
concerns with which legislators are grappling. It uses some of the material
you provided, in fact, to show that the issue has two -- or three or four --
sides.
I would be happy to take questions from anyone else, and invite you all to
add your comments.
Joe Abernathy
∨
1,, abernathy,
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA22969; Fri, 13 Jul 90 20:24:06 -0700
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 90 20:22:53 PDT
Received: from chron.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP
id AA15403; Thu, 12 Jul 90 17:38:57 -0400
Received: from magic322.chron.com by chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA06941; Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:15 CDT
Received: by magic322.chron.com (4.0/SMI-4.0)
id AA04429; Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
Message-Id: <9007121948.AA04429@magic322.chron.com>
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Senate Bill 1976
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:chron!magic322.chron.com!edtjda@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:48:12 CDT
From: edtjda@magic322.chron.com (Joe Abernathy)
To: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
Subject: Senate Bill 1976
101ST CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 1976
To provide for continued United States leadership in high-performance computing.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
NOVEMBER 21 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 6), 1989
Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself, Mr. GORE, and Mr. McCLURE) introduced the follow-
ing bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources
A BILL
To provide for continued United States leadership in high-
performance computing.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be referred to as the "Department of
4 Energy High-Performance Computing Act of 1989".
5 FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
6 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares the
7 following:
8 (1) In the last twenty years, computing technol-
9 ogy has transformed America's research laboratories,
! 2
1 factories, and offices, and become indispensable to our
2 way of life.
3 (2) Rapid advances in computing technology have
4 resulted in uses for computers unimaginable only five
5 or ten years ago. Many of these advances are a result
6 of research and development on supercomputers, ad-
7 vanced computer software, and other aspects of high-
8 performance computing technology.
9 (3) High-performance computing is a powerful
10 tool to increase productivity in industrial design and
11 manufacturing, scientific research, communications, and
12 information management.
13 (4) The United States currently leads the world in
14 the development and use of high-performance comput-
15 ing. However, that lead is increasingly being chal-
16 lenged, and American firms share of the multi- bil-
17 lion-dollar world market for both high-performance
18 computer systems and other computers is shrinking.
19 (5) In order to strengthen America's computer in-
20 dustry and to assist the entire manufacturing sector,
21 the Federal Government must provide leadership in the
22 development and application of high-performance com-
23 puter technology. Iii particular, the Federal Govern-
24 ment should create a National High-Performance Com-
25 puting Program to support the development of a high-
1976 IS
! 3
1 capacity, national research and education computer
2 network; facilitate the development of software for re-
3 search, education, and industrial applications; continue
4 to fund basic research; and provide for the training of
5 computer scientists and computational scientists.
6 (6) Several Federal agencies have ongoing high-
7 performance computing research and development pro-
8 grams Which can contribute to a National High-Per-
9 formance Computing Program. Such a program would
10 provide additional funding for these existing programs,
11 create ne-vv research and development programs, and
12 improve coordination between the various agency
13 programs.
14 (7) A September 1989 report by the Office of Sci-
15 ence and Technology Policy entitled "The Federal
16 High Performance Computing Program" outlining a
17 research and development plan provides a framework
18 for such a program.
19 (8) The Department of Energy, in order to fulfill
20 its mission to conduct energy research and direct the
21 Nation's nuclear weapons program, has established
22 several high-performance computing research and de-
23 velopment programs. High-energy physics, materials
24 sciences, fusion energy research, human genetics re-
25 search, oil and gas exploration, nuclear reactor design,
S 1976 IS
! 4
1 and nuclear weapons design all rely heavily on high-
2 performance computing.
3 (9) The Department of Energy has extensive
4 high-performance computing facilities and has played a
5 key role in developing software and applications for su-
6 percomputers. It has funded research in mathematical
7 and computational sciences, has developed new designs
8 for supercomputers, and has established advanced com-
9 puter networks for connecting supercomputers and
10 other computers throughout the country.
11 (10) By building upon existing Department of
12 Energy high-performance computing research and de-
13 velopment programs, the Department of Energy can
14 play a key role in a National High-Performance Com-
15 puting Program.
16 (b) PURPOSE.-It is the purpose of the Congress in this
17 Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to-
is (1) develop a long-range strategy for research,
19 development, and application of high-performance
20 computing;
21 (2) implement that strategy in conjunction with
22 other Federal agencies as part of a National High-
23 Performance Computing Program; and
S 1976 IS
! 1 (3) ensure the appropriate transfer of high-
2 performance computing technology to United States
3 industry.
4 (c) DEFINITIONS.-
5 (1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.
6 (2) "Department" means the Department of
7 Energy.
8 DEPARTMENT OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PLAN
9 SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary is authorized to immediately
10 develop and implement long-range plan for high-performance
11 computing at the Department of Energy. The Secretary shall
12 develop the plan within one year after the date of enactment
13 of this Act. The plan shall cover the fiscal year the plan is
14 implemented and at least the next four years. The plan shall
15 thereafter be updated annually.
16 (b) The plan shall-
17 (1) summarize ongoing high-performance comput-
18 ing programs at the Department of Energy;
19 (2) detail the Department of Energy's contribution
20 to a National High-Performance Computing Program
21 to expand Federal support for research, development,
22 and application of high-performance computing technol-
23 ogy in order to-
24 (A) establish a high-capacity national re-
25 search and education computer network;
S 1976 IS
! 6
1 (B) develop data bases, services, and re-
2 search facilities which \,could be available for
3 access over such a national network;
4 (C) stimulate research on software tech-
5 nology;
6 (D) promote the more rapid development and
7 wider distribution of computer soft-%,,,are;
8 (E) accelerate the development of computer
9 systems; and
10 (F) invest in basis research and education.
11 (3) establish the goals and priorities for research,
12 development, and application of high-performance com-
13 puting at the Department of Energy for the time
14 period covered by the plan;
15 (4) describe the levels of funding for each aspect
16 of high-performance computing, including basic re-
17 search, hardware and software development, education,
18 acquisition and operating expenses for computers and
19 computer networks, and education;
20 (5) define the role of each of the Department of
21 Energy's national laboratories involved in research, de-
22 velopment, and application of high-performance com-
23 puting technology; and
24 (6) set a timetable for creation and implementa-
25 tion of technology transfer mechanisms to ensure that
S 1976 IS
! 7
1 the results of research funded under the plan are read-
2 ily available to United States industry.
3 THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK
4 SEC. 4. (a) As part of a National High-Performance
5 Computing Program, the Secretary shall, in cooperation with
6 the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secre-
7 tary of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Com-
8 merce, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
9 Space Administration, and other appropriate agencies, pro-
10 vide for the establishment of a national multi-gigabit-per-
11 second research and education computer network by 1996, to
12 be known as the National Research and Education Network
13 (NREN).
14 (b) The network shall-
15 (1) link government, industry, and the higher edu-
16 cation community;
17 (2) provide computer users at more than one thou-
18 sand universities, Federal laboratories, and industrial
19 laboratories with access to supercomputers, computer
20 data bases, and other research facilities;
21 (3) be developed in close cooperation with the
22 computer and telecommunications industry;
23 (4) be designed and developed with the advice of
24 potential users in government, industry, and the higher
25 education community;
S 1976 IS
! 8
1 (5) be established in a manner which fosters and
2 maintains competition in high speed data networking
3 within the telecommunications industry;
4 (6) have accounting mechanisms which allow
5 users or groups of users to be charged for their usage
6 of the network, where appropriate; and
7 (7) be phased out when commercial networks can
8 meet the networking needs of-American researchers.
9 (c) The Department of Energy shall-
10 (1) provide networking support for the energy
ii. research community;
12 (2) provide for interconnection of existing comput-
13 er networks run by the Department and other agen-
14 cies, where appropriate;
15 (3) participate, with other Federal agencies, in
16 the development and testing of advanced prototype
17 networks;
18 (4) conduct research and development of advanced
19 networking technology, particularly for supercom-
20 puters;
21 (5) develop technology to support computer-based
22 collaboration that allows researchers around the Nation
23 to share information and instrumentation using com-
24 puter networks; and
S 1976 IS
! 9
1 (6) take an active role in the interagency coordi-
2 mating committees established to develop the National
3 Research and Education Network.
4 (d) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
5 tary for the purposes of this title, $10,000,000 for fiscal year
6 1991, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $20,000,000 for
7 fiscal year 1993, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
8 $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
9 SOFTWARE
10 SEC. 5. (a) In accordance with the plan outlined in sec-
11 tion 3, the Secretary shall provide for research and develop-
12 ment of high-performance computer software for application
13 in high-energy physics, fusion energy research, engineering,
14 materials sciences, astrophysics, climate modeling, genetics,
15 and other fields. The Secretary shall also provide for the de-
16 velopment of improved software tools and components to fa-
17 cilitate the development of software for high-performance
18 computer systems.
19 (b) The Secretary shall define and provide advanced
20 software technology support to research groups collaborating
21 to address so-called Grand Challenge problems in science and
22 -engineering. A Grand Challenge is a fundamental problem in
23 science and engineering, with broad economic and scientific
24 impact, whose solution will require the application of the
25 high-performance computing resources.
S 1976 IS
! 10
1 (1) The Grand Challenges to be addressed include
2 by are not limited to-
3 (A) PREDICTION OF GLOBAL CHANGE.-The
4 goal is to understand the coupled atmosphere,
5 ocean, biosphere system in enough detail to be
6 able to make Ion -range predictions about its be-
g
7 havior and determine its response to man-caused
8 releases of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluoro-
9 carbons, and other gases.
10 (B) MATERIALS SCIENCES.-The goal is to
11 use high-performance computing technology to
12 improve our understanding of the atomic nature of
13 materials, enabling the design and production of
14 improved semiconductors, superconductors, ceram-
15 ics, and other materials.
16 (C) HUMAN GENOME.-The goal is to use
17 high-performance computing technology to ana-
18 lyze, store, and disseminate data on the molecular
19 structure of the DNA that expresses the tens of
20 thousands of genes carried by each human being.
21 Identification of these genes would lead to a
22 better understanding and possibly treatment of ge-
23 netic diseases, cancer, and other diseases.
24 (D) NUCLEAR FUSION.-The goal is to use
25 supercomputer models to understand the physics
S 1976 IS
! 1 of plasmas at the very high temperature required
2 for nuclear fusion.
3 (E) ENERGY EFFICIENCY.-The goal is to
4 use supercomputer models to better understand
5 combustion in order to design more efficient en-
6 gines and furnaces.
7 (F) ENHANCED OIL AND GAS RECOVERY.-
8 The goal is to use supercomputer models to locate
9 and better exploit oil and gas fields.
10 (2) The Secretary shall focus research on those
11 Grand Challenges that are of greatest importance to
12 the Nation, will benefit most from the application of
13 high-performance computing, and are most consistent
14 with the mission of the Department of Energy.
15 (3) The Secretary shall establish collaborative re-
16 search groups consisting of scientists and engineers
17 concerned with a particular Grand Challenge, software
18 and systems engineers, and algorithm designers, and
19 provide them with-
20 (A) computational and experimental facilities,
21 including supercomputers for numerical modeling;
22 (B) access to the National Research and
23 Educational Network and other computer net-
24 works, and;
S 1976 IS
! 12
1 (C) access to and technology for effectively
2 utilizing scientific data bases.
3 (d) The Secretary shall establish programs to develop
4 software tools and components to accelerate development of
5 software for computers, especially supercomputers. Such pro-
6 grams would fund research on fundamental algorithms,
7 models of computation, program analysis, and new program-
8 ming languages. Particular emphasis should be given to de-
9 velopment of programming languages, compilers, operating
10 systems, and software tools for parallel computer systems.
11 (e) The Secretary shall establish high-performance com-
12 puting research centers to accelerate the development and
13 application of new generations of high-performance comput-
14 ing technology by enabling researchers to explore applica-
15 tions of this new technology.
16 (1) Most of these centers would be located within
17 existing computer research organizations funded by the
18 Department of Energy;
19 (2) These centers could facilitate research on the
20 Grand Challenges and other applications;
21 (3) Both new and existing Department of Energy
22 supercomputers centers shall help provide the national
23 research community with access to supercomputers be-
24 cause researchers developing algorithms, software
1976 IS
! 13
1 tools, and operating systems require access to new
2 generation technology; and
3 (4) These centers shall provide access to a variety
4 of different high-performance computer systems with
5 different computer architectures.
6 (f) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
7 tary for research and development on scientific Grand Chal-
8 lenges, development of advanced software technology, and
9 creation of high-performance computing research centers, in
10 accordance with the purposes of this section, $30,000,000 for
11 fiscal year 1991, $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1992,
12 $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $75,000,000 for fiscal year
13 1994, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
14 HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTER SYSTEMS
15 SEC. 6. (a) In accordance with the plan required in sec-
16 tion 3, the Secretary shall provide for support of research and
17 development of high-performance computer systems. Funding
18 shall be provided for-
19 (1) research and development in the national lab-
20 oratories, universities, and industry on all aspects of
21 high-performance computer systems including proces-
22 sors, memory, mass storage devices, input/output de-
23 vices, and associated system software;
24 (2) increased research in-
25 (A) computer science,
26 (B) parallel computer architectures,
S 1976 IS
! 14
1 (C) optoelectronics, and
2 (D) mass storage technology; and
3 (3) development of tools for the rapid design, pro-
4 totyping, and integration of high-performance comput-
5 ing systems.
6 (b) In addition, the Department of Energy shall pur-
7 chase early market and production model computer systems
8 and subsystems for use both in high-performance Computing
9 research centers and for other research programs within the
10 Department. Such purchases will-
11 (1) stimulate hardware and software development
12 by reducing the research and development risk of
13 United States manufacturers developing high-perform-
14 ance computer systems;
15 (2) provide manufacturers with valuable tests of
16 their new systems.
17 (c) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
18 tary for research and development, procuring, and testing of
19 high-performance computer systems, $15,000,000 for fiscal
20 year 1991, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $35,000,000
21 for fiscal year 1993, $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
22 $55,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
23 BASIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
24 SEC. 7. (a) In order to address the long-term national
25 need for high-performance computing, the Secretary shall-
S 1976 IS
!1 (1) support basic research on computer technol-
2 ogy, including research on advanced semiconductor
3 computer chip designs, new materials for integrated
4 circuits, improved integrated circuit fabrication
5 techniques, photonics, and superconducting computer
6 components;
7 (2) support basic research on computing technolo-
8 gy, including basic research on algorithms, software
9 languages and tools, architectures, systems software,
10 networks distributed computing, and symbolic
11 processing;
12 (3) create technology transfer mechanisms to
13 ensure that the results of basic research are readily
14 available to United States industry;
15 (4) promote basic research in computer science,
16 computational science, electrical engineering, and ma-
17 terials sciences; and
18 (5) educate and train more researchers in comput-
19 er science and computational science by-
20 (A) making the national laboratories avail-
21 able to senior graduate students, postdoctoral fel-
22 lows, and faculty from the Nation's universities;
23 (B) expanding summer science programs for
24 high school students;
! 16
1 (C) providing computer facilities to universi-
2 ties throughout the country; and
3 (D) establishing more cooperative research
4 programs with the academic computational sci-
5 ence community.
6 (b) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secre-
7 tary for the purposes of this section, $10,000,000 for fiscal
8 year 1991, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1992, $20,000,000
9 for fiscal year 1993, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and
10 $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
11 GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATION
12 SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary may cooperate with, solicit
13 help from, provide funds to, or enter into contracts with pri-
14 vate contractors, industry, government, universities, or any
15 other person or entity the Secretary deems necessary in car-
16 rying out the Provisions of this Act.
17 (b) The Secretary shall cooperate with other Federal
18 agencies in carrying out the provisions of this Act, particular-
19 ly the National Science Foundation, the Department of Com-
20 merce (particularly the National Institute of Standards and
21 Technology), the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
22 tration, the Department of Defense, and the Office of Science
23 and Technology Policy.
24 REPORT REQUIREMENT
25 SEC. 9. The Secretary shall within one year after the
2 6 date of enactment of this Act, report to the Congress regard-
s 1976 is
! 17
1 ing the implementation of this Act, and thereafter, provide
2 annual reports to the Congress.
0
S 1976 IS
∨From jmc Sat Jun 30 14:15:16 1990
To: uunet!cs.purdue.edu!spaf@uunet.UU.NET
CC: edtjda@magic322.chron.com, nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-reply-to: Gene Spafford's message of Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:29:32 EST <9006300529.AA02168@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
Gentlemen:
I haven't read what Joe Abernathy has written. He seemed reasonable
on the telephone.
2. I consider having newspaper people in network communication with
the people they interview and write about to be a big win. I think it
will lead to more accurate reporting on the average. It surely won't
lead to an information utopia. There will still be misunderstandings,
there will still be irrationalities imposed by the fact that the
primary product consists of short news stories, there will still be
misleading articles resulting from ideological agendas on the part of
reporters or the newspapers themselves.
However, the net result will be an improvement, and it will ease the
transition to the eventual situation in which everyone will get his
news via terminals, and there will be a universal right of reply,
though certainly no guarantee that readers will always ask for
replies from people and institutions criticized in news stories.
3. I see there is an existing controversy between at least Gene
Spafford and Joe Abernathy. What the issues are I don't even know yet.
I am not at all inclined to take a position based on solidarity of
of computer people vs. newspaper people. I suspect that others are
in my position of lack of information. If anyone cares about my
opinion, he will have to start at the beginning to inform me.
4. I have, however, an initial position on the bill before Congress.
I was wondering how I might get it before the public, and Joe's
message looks like the opportunity I was waiting for. I would like
to learn more, but my initial position is that the bill is a bad
idea for the following reasons.
a. Although Congress has substantially increased the budget
for NSF and will probably increase it further, there has been an
actual reduction in the funds available to support unsolicited
proposals in computer science and other fields that are not
part of supercomputer centers, engineering research centers
and NSF staff controlled special research programs. I am losing
a valued senior research associate colleague because of this
when NSF would no longer support his salary even though our
proposal received excellent reviews. I am not capable of the
politics required to get NSF to start a special program in our
area. Apart from my own situation, I believe that the general
phenomenon of program manager controlled research is causing
serious damage to American research. At the National Academy of
Sciences meeting I heard similar complaints from chemists.
Maybe things will get better with the departure of Eric Bloch in
September.
b. My opinion has long been that special-purpose, special
user, special politics networks are a mistake - initiated by DARPA
around 1970. As regards electronic mail, I wrote a Viewpoint article
that appeared in the December CACM. I'll email a copy to anyone who
wants it. A symptom of what I complain about is the complaint about
Joe Abernathy using Internet on the grounds that newspaper reporting
isn't what Internet was set up to promote. The primary means of email
communication should not have any restriction on who may communicate
and for what purpose, just provided he pays his phone bill. In my
article I said that fax is already more widespread than email because
of the bureaucratic way email is organized, and that email should
switch to direct telephone communication.
c. The Bill is to set up one more special network for high
speed communication of scientific information. As a computer
scientist, I will express the opinion that this won't benefit computer
science. If Congress loves computer science, let them support
research in it according to peer reviewed research proposals. If
communication costs are in the budgets of these proposals, their
appropriateness can be evaluated along with other budget items. For
computer scientists, I suspect that there won't be very large
communication demands.
If anyone is to be benefitted by the Data Highway, I suspect it is
physicists, chemists and other people who solve big systems of partial
differential equations. If Congress loves them, let it give them
money and let them choose how to spend it.
There may indeed be a demand for a fiber optic network covering much
of the country for transmitting the results of computation. If so,
let the existing communication companies set them up as competitive
businesses. The physicists will then patronize them if it seems like
a good way to spend physics money. Maybe some computer science
projects will patronize such services also.
d. There is a natural tendency among people who have developed
a technology to want it used. However, there is no substitute for
ordinary commerce with salesmen and all that. It is wrong to ask the
Government to subsidize the use of a technology, although it is ok to
ask the Government to subsidize its development.
e. This is an entirely different issue from the general ``big
science'' issues like the genome project, the super-conducting super
collider, or the M.I.T.-Caltech proposal for a very expensive gravity
wave detector. Those are aimed at solving specific scientific
problems, while this is aimed at producing a facility - a private
utility.
The above is an initial opinion, and I might change it with more
information.
Joe, you can quote this if you are in a rush. However, I would
prefer to wait for reactions and try to formulate my eventual
opinion in a better way.
From jmc Sat Jun 30 16:41:44 1990
To: nren-talk@magic.chron.com
Subject: reporters and columnists as public figures
I would bet that a reporter is automatically a public
figure, i.e. that the higher standard for libel would
apply to criticizing a reporter. So far as I know,
no reporter or columnist has sued for libel, at least
successfully, although they are frequently accused of
being in someone's pay. I cite the following old
British item:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist
The conscientious journalist,
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there is no reason to.
I would further bet that reporters' ability to avoid
being part of the story will go away with the wider
channel afforded by electronic communication. When
a reader can ask his computer whether the target of
journalistic criticism has filed a reply, one can be
certain that many such replies will criticize the
reporter or columnist. The present opportunities for
such counter-criticism are limited by the fact that
newspapers and magazines usually excise direct criticism
of their writers from letters to the editor. Moreover,
there is a certain amount of mutual courtesy between
newspapers of opposite persuasions in the U.S. in
avoiding criticism of each others' writers.
I was the beneficiary of one exception by the New York
Times Magazine. They printed a letter accusing their
correspondent Sidney Schanberg of contributing to the
Cambodian holocaust he so eloquently reported later by
his previous action of bribing a Cambodian lieutenant
to return early from a gunboat mission so that Schanberg
could file his story early. Schanberg mentioned having
bribed the lieutenant in a story about the holocaust
without any hint that he might have done something wrong.
I left out of my letter my thought that if the Cambodian
lieutenant had shot Schanberg for attempting to bribe him
instead of accepting his bribe, a possible burst of
Cambodian nationalism might have made his fellow Cambodian
officers fight well enough to prevent the Khmer Rouge victory.
I was certain putting that in would make sure the New
York Times wouldn't print my letter.
For the time being we'll have to accept the fact that
newspapers can avoid having their own people be part of
a story.
So let's return to the discussion of the NREN proposal.
Why isn't it a bad idea?
From jmc Thu Jul 5 17:07:46 1990
To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu
In-reply-to: Gene Spafford's message of Thu, 05 Jul 90 18:36:30 EST <9007052336.AA05777@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Copied nren-talk post that mentions you.
Since you aren't the only one who denounced Abernathy to me directly,
I plan to wait for copies of his articles before deciding whether
to take further part. If it's not confidential, what other reporters
use the net, and has the communication had a good effect on what they
write?
From jmc Mon Jul 9 19:02:00 1990
To: edtjda@magic710.chron.com
CC: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
In-reply-to: Joe Abernathy's message of Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT <9007100019.AA00725@magic710.>
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
When were the two items you sent me published?
From jmc Mon Jul 9 19:04:16 1990
To: edtjda@magic710.chron.com
CC: nren-talk@magic710.chron.com
In-reply-to: Joe Abernathy's message of Mon, 9 Jul 90 19:19:39 CDT <9007100019.AA00725@magic710.>
Subject: Text of chron-follow2
Second question: Is is this all you have published on network matters,
and is the pornography issue your main interest?
From jmc Wed Jul 11 20:00:01 1990
To: edtjda@magic322.chron.com
CC: nren-talk@magic322.chron.com
In-reply-to: Joe Abernathy's message of Wed, 11 Jul 90 17:05:59 CDT <9007112205.AA04012@magic322.chron.com>
Subject: Answers for John McCarthy
I received the four articles but not the copy of Senate Bill 1976. I'd
be grateful for it.