perm filename OUTGO.MSG[1,JMC]19 blob
sn#841801 filedate 1987-06-21 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00377 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00036 00002
C00037 00003 ∂10-Apr-87 1259 JMC re: David McAllester
C00038 00004 ∂10-Apr-87 1300 JMC re: Pam Widrin, Alliant
C00039 00005 ∂10-Apr-87 1333 JMC Programming and math
C00041 00006 ∂10-Apr-87 1338 JMC a question abbut queues
C00042 00007 ∂10-Apr-87 1352 JMC Stanford phones
C00043 00008 ∂10-Apr-87 1356 JMC re: booby trapped nuclear weapons?
C00044 00009 ∂10-Apr-87 1401 JMC re: Earth's rotation
C00045 00010 ∂10-Apr-87 1421 JMC
C00046 00011 ∂11-Apr-87 0939 JMC re: Programming and math
C00047 00012 ∂11-Apr-87 1005 JMC re: [Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Hopcroft Report]
C00050 00013 ∂11-Apr-87 1053 JMC Okner
C00051 00014 ∂11-Apr-87 1058 JMC re: vis comm
C00052 00015 ∂11-Apr-87 1104 JMC re: vis comm
C00054 00016 ∂11-Apr-87 1110 JMC re: vis comm
C00055 00017 ∂11-Apr-87 1123 JMC re: vis comm
C00056 00018 ∂11-Apr-87 1212 JMC dartmo.tex
C00057 00019 ∂11-Apr-87 1231 JMC re: do you mind?
C00058 00020 ∂11-Apr-87 1234 JMC reges@score
C00059 00021 ∂11-Apr-87 1236 JMC Igor Rivin course on algebraic computation.
C00060 00022 ∂11-Apr-87 1245 JMC re: Invitation to Qualitative Physics Workshop
C00061 00023 ∂11-Apr-87 1250 JMC re: booby trapped nuclear weapons?
C00062 00024 ∂11-Apr-87 1653 JMC Marines
C00064 00025 ∂11-Apr-87 2241 JMC re: Marines
C00065 00026 ∂12-Apr-87 0919 JMC
C00066 00027 ∂12-Apr-87 1056 JMC Jussi will call
C00067 00028 ∂12-Apr-87 1057 JMC (→20472 16-Apr-87)
C00068 00029 ∂15-Apr-87 2143 JMC
C00069 00030 ∂15-Apr-87 2143 JMC
C00070 00031 ∂16-Apr-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00071 00032 ∂16-Apr-87 1513 JMC re: jmc talk
C00072 00033 ∂16-Apr-87 1845 JMC re: Lisp Pointers
C00073 00034 ∂16-Apr-87 2125 JMC The necessity defense
C00083 00035 ∂16-Apr-87 2135 JMC rationality in cancer risk estimation
C00091 00036 ∂17-Apr-87 1101 JMC
C00092 00037 ∂17-Apr-87 1102 JMC
C00093 00038 ∂17-Apr-87 1357 JMC
C00094 00039 ∂17-Apr-87 1410 JMC re: Necessity Defence
C00096 00040 ∂17-Apr-87 1412 JMC March 13 message
C00097 00041 ∂17-Apr-87 1523 JMC short bio - rush
C00098 00042 ∂17-Apr-87 1709 JMC re: The History of Vietnam, a question.
C00099 00043 ∂17-Apr-87 1811 JMC re: Banquet Speech at the AI and Law conference
C00100 00044 ∂18-Apr-87 1253 JMC re: ALERT! Antifreeze in diet drinks!
C00101 00045 ∂18-Apr-87 1653 JMC
C00102 00046 ∂18-Apr-87 2310 JMC re: antifreeze(?) in soft drinks
C00103 00047 ∂18-Apr-87 2314 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
C00104 00048 ∂18-Apr-87 2344 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
C00105 00049 ∂19-Apr-87 0000 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
C00106 00050 ∂19-Apr-87 0005 JMC These two are all from Uttar Pradesh in last two weeks
C00111 00051 ∂19-Apr-87 1115 JMC re: These two are all from Uttar Pradesh in last two weeks
C00112 00052 ∂19-Apr-87 1356 JMC Schlipf proposal review
C00113 00053 ∂19-Apr-87 1523 JMC
C00114 00054 ∂19-Apr-87 2140 JMC Rao
C00115 00055 ∂21-Apr-87 1348 JMC Paul Haley
C00116 00056 ∂21-Apr-87 1358 JMC
C00117 00057 ∂21-Apr-87 1417 JMC suggestion for M.E. student design competition
C00118 00058 ∂21-Apr-87 1418 JMC EDR
C00119 00059 ∂21-Apr-87 1428 JMC Please send CBCL
C00120 00060 ∂21-Apr-87 1500 JMC your proposal for a conference
C00122 00061 ∂21-Apr-87 1511 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
C00123 00062 ∂21-Apr-87 1538 JMC biography
C00124 00063 ∂21-Apr-87 1630 JMC re: Hoover Media Fellow Tom Bethell
C00125 00064 ∂21-Apr-87 2059 JMC re: cs326
C00126 00065 ∂22-Apr-87 0122 JMC re: Linnas' deportation
C00128 00066 ∂22-Apr-87 1218 JMC
C00129 00067 ∂22-Apr-87 1236 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
C00130 00068 ∂22-Apr-87 1357 JMC
C00131 00069 ∂22-Apr-87 1409 JMC re: leaving early?
C00132 00070 ∂22-Apr-87 1655 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
C00133 00071 ∂22-Apr-87 2155 JMC re: SOSA
C00136 00072 ∂22-Apr-87 2309 JMC re: ANC/SOSA
C00137 00073 ∂22-Apr-87 2319 JMC soviet courts & re: JMC, re: w.wroth, re Linnas
C00141 00074 ∂23-Apr-87 0246 JMC
C00142 00075 ∂23-Apr-87 1202 JMC re: PhD admittee, Sherry Listgarten
C00143 00076 ∂23-Apr-87 1833 JMC re: Halstead
C00144 00077 ∂23-Apr-87 1850 JMC re: Liam Peyton on vet pref
C00146 00078 ∂23-Apr-87 2002 JMC re: No motorcycles
C00147 00079 ∂23-Apr-87 2005 JMC your talk
C00148 00080 ∂23-Apr-87 2034 JMC re: No motorcycles
C00149 00081 ∂23-Apr-87 2058 JMC sosa
C00152 00082 ∂23-Apr-87 2311 JMC U. Texas year of programming
C00153 00083 ∂24-Apr-87 0742 JMC re: No motorcycles
C00154 00084 ∂24-Apr-87 0818 JMC departure of Reagan Library
C00156 00085 ∂24-Apr-87 0836 JMC re: my proposal
C00158 00086 ∂24-Apr-87 2111 JMC Stallman
C00159 00087 ∂24-Apr-87 2252 JMC assorted drivel
C00166 00088 ∂24-Apr-87 2320 JMC re: lunch?
C00167 00089 ∂24-Apr-87 2320 JMC lunch?
C00169 00090 ∂25-Apr-87 1645 JMC
C00170 00091 ∂25-Apr-87 1646 JMC
C00171 00092 ∂25-Apr-87 1807 JMC re: Jussi Salary
C00172 00093 ∂25-Apr-87 1935 JMC re: "combat" service
C00175 00094 ∂26-Apr-87 0102 JMC re: Secular quote of the day
C00176 00095 ∂26-Apr-87 1053 JMC re: workshop at MIT 25-27th June
C00178 00096 ∂26-Apr-87 1400 JMC re: "combat" service
C00179 00097 ∂26-Apr-87 1448 JMC swimming in the sea
C00189 00098 ∂26-Apr-87 1926 JMC re: question about Reagn library
C00190 00099 ∂26-Apr-87 2125 JMC re: comment?
C00191 00100 ∂27-Apr-87 0119 JMC re: JPL visit
C00193 00101 ∂27-Apr-87 1226 JMC
C00194 00102 ∂27-Apr-87 1357 JMC reply to message
C00195 00103 ∂27-Apr-87 1408 JMC
C00196 00104 ∂27-Apr-87 1443 JMC mcderm[s87,jmc] Comments on McDermott's opus on AI
C00198 00105 ∂27-Apr-87 2105 JMC reply to message
C00199 00106 ∂27-Apr-87 2107 JMC re: thermostats
C00200 00107 ∂28-Apr-87 1436 JMC re: thermostats
C00201 00108 ∂28-Apr-87 1443 JMC re: picture taking
C00202 00109 ∂28-Apr-87 1452 JMC
C00203 00110 ∂28-Apr-87 1745 JMC re: thermostats
C00204 00111 ∂28-Apr-87 2244 JMC
C00205 00112 ∂29-Apr-87 0411 JMC women's choices
C00208 00113 ∂29-Apr-87 1402 JMC re: Women's career aspirations
C00209 00114 ∂29-Apr-87 2100 JMC re: next Thursday
C00210 00115 ∂30-Apr-87 0919 JMC reply to message
C00211 00116 ∂30-Apr-87 0923 JMC reply to message
C00215 00117 ∂30-Apr-87 0931 JMC Re: expert on women's gymnastic
C00217 00118 ∂30-Apr-87 0932 JMC Re: expert on women's gymnastic
C00219 00119 ∂30-Apr-87 0934 JMC re: expert on women's gymnastic
C00221 00120 ∂30-Apr-87 0934 JMC picture
C00222 00121 ∂30-Apr-87 1344 JMC
C00223 00122 ∂30-Apr-87 1508 JMC re: industrial lectureship
C00224 00123 ∂30-Apr-87 1547 JMC aids
C00232 00124 ∂30-Apr-87 1557 JMC Reply to telex from France
C00233 00125 ∂30-Apr-87 1603 JMC re: Personal Advice
C00234 00126 ∂30-Apr-87 1610 JMC re: Personal Advice
C00236 00127 ∂01-May-87 0006 JMC re: DEC CPU Update
C00237 00128 ∂01-May-87 0014 JMC re: The spreading of TB caused by AIDS
C00239 00129 ∂01-May-87 1756 JMC re: Korean Computer Science
C00240 00130 ∂01-May-87 1804 JMC re: AIDS , TB, and Stanford
C00242 00131 ∂01-May-87 2242 JMC
C00243 00132 ∂02-May-87 1110 JMC
C00244 00133 ∂02-May-87 1115 JMC re: Roger Schank
C00246 00134 ∂02-May-87 1340 JMC
C00247 00135 ∂02-May-87 1821 JMC French visa
C00248 00136 ∂03-May-87 0205 JMC art for artists' sake
C00274 00137 ∂03-May-87 1129 JMC (→20516 6-May-87)
C00275 00138 ∂03-May-87 1135 JMC (→20520 8-May-87)
C00276 00139 ∂05-May-87 1448 JMC
C00277 00140 ∂06-May-87 1342 JMC Pucci
C00278 00141 ∂06-May-87 1346 JMC Pucci
C00279 00142 ∂08-May-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00280 00143 ∂08-May-87 2046 JMC re: suppes
C00281 00144 ∂08-May-87 2050 JMC I'm sorry I have to decline the November meeting. It's clear to
C00282 00145 ∂08-May-87 2053 JMC re: Scientific and Engineering Advisory Board for SDI
C00283 00146 ∂08-May-87 2133 JMC parking tickets
C00284 00147 ∂08-May-87 2135 JMC parking
C00285 00148 ∂09-May-87 1355 JMC french reservations
C00286 00149 ∂09-May-87 1419 JMC
C00287 00150 ∂09-May-87 1440 JMC
C00288 00151 ∂09-May-87 1602 JMC
C00289 00152 ∂09-May-87 1633 JMC
C00290 00153 ∂09-May-87 1638 JMC buslet
C00291 00154 ∂09-May-87 1647 JMC re: buslet
C00292 00155 ∂09-May-87 1724 JMC
C00293 00156 ∂09-May-87 2144 JMC re: Meeting
C00294 00157 ∂10-May-87 0834 JMC wallst.2
C00295 00158 ∂10-May-87 0908 JMC lunch
C00296 00159 ∂10-May-87 1050 JMC
C00297 00160 ∂10-May-87 1222 JMC re: old parking tickets:SIGNATURE collection time CANCELLED.
C00299 00161 ∂10-May-87 1223 JMC parking tickets
C00300 00162 ∂10-May-87 1634 JMC re: my talk about you and Feigenbaum
C00301 00163 ∂10-May-87 2053 JMC re:old parking tickets, improvement?
C00302 00164 ∂11-May-87 0726 JMC status of proposal
C00303 00165 ∂11-May-87 0950 JMC re: LUNCH
C00304 00166 ∂11-May-87 1035 JMC free KCL
C00305 00167 ∂11-May-87 1524 JMC Keith Clark
C00306 00168 ∂11-May-87 1809 JMC France
C00307 00169 ∂11-May-87 1823 JMC pledge
C00308 00170 ∂12-May-87 0910 JMC re: Lexicon Workshop Proposal for AAAI funding
C00309 00171 ∂12-May-87 1003 JMC re: Keith Clark
C00310 00172 ∂12-May-87 1306 JMC Vladimir
C00313 00173 ∂12-May-87 1306 JMC Vladimir
C00315 00174 ∂12-May-87 1308 JMC re: Vladimir
C00316 00175 ∂12-May-87 1429 JMC re: list of workshops that I know of
C00317 00176 ∂12-May-87 1435 JMC Workshop approvals
C00318 00177 ∂12-May-87 1437 JMC re: Uncertainty in AI workshop
C00319 00178 ∂12-May-87 1443 JMC re: Workshop proposal
C00323 00179 ∂12-May-87 1448 JMC reply to message
C00324 00180 ∂12-May-87 1450 JMC re: proposal for AAAI funding
C00325 00181 ∂12-May-87 1451 JMC re: visa
C00326 00182 ∂12-May-87 1515 JMC membership directory
C00327 00183 ∂12-May-87 1702 JMC
C00328 00184 ∂12-May-87 1756 JMC re: Windmills on 580 (or is it 205?)
C00332 00185 ∂13-May-87 1042 JMC belated reply
C00335 00186 ∂13-May-87 1054 JMC
C00336 00187 ∂13-May-87 1101 JMC Accuracy in Academia
C00340 00188 ∂13-May-87 1252 JMC re: Parking Facts/Trivia
C00341 00189 ∂13-May-87 1409 JMC
C00342 00190 ∂13-May-87 1421 JMC
C00343 00191 ∂13-May-87 1433 JMC re: Jacks Seminar Room Scheduling
C00344 00192 ∂13-May-87 1442 JMC re: next meeting
C00345 00193 ∂13-May-87 1525 JMC bibliography to Prof. Paris
C00346 00194 ∂13-May-87 1528 JMC
C00348 00195 ∂13-May-87 1702 JMC re: A prospective student,
C00349 00196 ∂13-May-87 2336 JMC your paper
C00355 00197 ∂14-May-87 1003 JMC re: AAAI Housing
C00356 00198 ∂14-May-87 1050 JMC re: the title of the book
C00357 00199 ∂14-May-87 1113 JMC re: photographer
C00358 00200 ∂14-May-87 1826 JMC windmills
C00361 00201 ∂14-May-87 2214 JMC Fascism
C00364 00202 ∂14-May-87 2255 JMC Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
C00366 00203 ∂15-May-87 0959 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
C00368 00204 ∂15-May-87 1134 JMC
C00369 00205 ∂15-May-87 1211 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
C00371 00206 ∂15-May-87 1225 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
C00374 00207 ∂15-May-87 1342 JMC causality
C00376 00208 ∂15-May-87 1413 JMC phone conversation
C00377 00209 ∂15-May-87 1557 JMC
C00378 00210 ∂15-May-87 1638 JMC re: MS Program Committee Meeting
C00379 00211 ∂15-May-87 1647 JMC re: Alternative Political Party
C00380 00212 ∂15-May-87 1651 JMC thanks and comment
C00381 00213 ∂16-May-87 1003 JMC re: "But if you kick him ..."
C00384 00214 ∂17-May-87 1307 JMC re: Goetz should be convicted
C00385 00215 ∂17-May-87 1312 JMC re: Goetz should be convicted
C00386 00216 ∂18-May-87 1004 JMC re: Bad guys practice karate more
C00387 00217 ∂18-May-87 1511 JMC successor to Amarel
C00388 00218 ∂18-May-87 1656 JMC re: [Jon Barwise <BARWISE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>: Memo to Charles Junkerman]
C00389 00219 ∂18-May-87 2246 JMC re: meeting
C00390 00220 ∂19-May-87 1351 JMC test
C00391 00221 ∂19-May-87 1505 JMC re: Invitation to Qualitative Physics Workshop
C00392 00222 ∂19-May-87 1822 JMC (→20546 30-May-87)
C00393 00223 ∂19-May-87 1950 JMC re: latex draft of foundations contribution
C00394 00224 ∂20-May-87 0121 JMC re: Reagan etc. - Time cover presents a larger context
C00396 00225 ∂29-May-87 2258 JMC re: Advising
C00397 00226 ∂29-May-87 2305 JMC re: causality paper
C00398 00227 ∂29-May-87 2306 JMC re: Pony bike locker removal
C00399 00228 ∂29-May-87 2308 JMC re: Lunch
C00400 00229 ∂29-May-87 2312 JMC re: Charles Moore
C00401 00230 ∂29-May-87 2316 JMC re: Today
C00402 00231 ∂29-May-87 2320 JMC re: Gang of 4 usage
C00403 00232 ∂30-May-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
C00404 00233 ∂30-May-87 1310 JMC re: JJW
C00405 00234 ∂30-May-87 1407 JMC re: re: Lunch
C00406 00235 ∂30-May-87 1608 JMC paper
C00407 00236 ∂30-May-87 1637 JMC letter and brochure
C00408 00237 ∂30-May-87 1734 JMC
C00409 00238 ∂31-May-87 0026 JMC re: Hewitt's Paper
C00410 00239 ∂31-May-87 1046 JMC
C00411 00240 ∂31-May-87 1047 JMC
C00412 00241 ∂31-May-87 1058 JMC arbitrary characters in Lisp
C00413 00242 ∂31-May-87 1803 JMC reply to message
C00414 00243 ∂31-May-87 2342 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
C00416 00244 ∂31-May-87 2346 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
C00417 00245 ∂01-Jun-87 0041 JMC
C00418 00246 ∂01-Jun-87 0918 JMC re: Reminder of Vote Needed
C00419 00247 ∂01-Jun-87 0921 JMC deadline
C00420 00248 ∂01-Jun-87 1233 JMC Perhaps it's you, if you want to do it.
C00422 00249 ∂01-Jun-87 1442 JMC re: paper on non-monotonic logic
C00423 00250 ∂01-Jun-87 2105 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
C00426 00251 ∂02-Jun-87 1018 JMC re: Yosemite: how are snow conditions these days ?
C00427 00252 ∂02-Jun-87 1103 JMC re: Boland amendment, etc.
C00433 00253 ∂02-Jun-87 1355 JMC
C00434 00254 ∂02-Jun-87 1714 JMC re: follow-up conversation
C00435 00255 ∂02-Jun-87 2126 JMC re: NSF proposal
C00436 00256 ∂02-Jun-87 2354 JMC re: Boland amendment, etc.
C00442 00257 ∂03-Jun-87 1457 JMC re: Causality
C00443 00258 ∂03-Jun-87 1518 JMC
C00444 00259 ∂03-Jun-87 1529 JMC cs326
C00445 00260 ∂03-Jun-87 1653 JMC request for repeat
C00447 00261 ∂03-Jun-87 1707 JMC summer job
C00448 00262 ∂03-Jun-87 2137 JMC re: meeting
C00449 00263 ∂04-Jun-87 1109 JMC re: summer job
C00450 00264 ∂04-Jun-87 1203 JMC re: liability statement
C00451 00265 ∂04-Jun-87 1206 JMC
C00452 00266 ∂04-Jun-87 1848 JMC re: Political primaries
C00454 00267 ∂04-Jun-87 2140 JMC re: Advice
C00455 00268 ∂05-Jun-87 0026 JMC Soviet politics
C00457 00269 ∂05-Jun-87 1016 JMC assymetry between U.S. and Soviet Union
C00461 00270 ∂05-Jun-87 1126 JMC Please pass on a request
C00462 00271 ∂06-Jun-87 1014 JMC re: Causality
C00467 00272 ∂06-Jun-87 1308 JMC
C00468 00273 ∂06-Jun-87 1350 JMC free speech issue?
C00470 00274 ∂06-Jun-87 1431 JMC re: "hypothetical" question
C00471 00275 ∂06-Jun-87 1513 JMC re: Poorly disguised, JMC
C00472 00276 ∂06-Jun-87 2119 JMC re: A question for JMC
C00481 00277 ∂07-Jun-87 1033 JMC re: One more thing re JMC
C00490 00278 ∂07-Jun-87 1604 JMC re: "Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fallout from Chernobyl"
C00491 00279 ∂07-Jun-87 1811 JMC re: One more thing re JMC
C00502 00280 ∂07-Jun-87 2203 JMC re: Russia, feudalism and academia
C00504 00281 ∂07-Jun-87 2227 JMC re: Russia, feudalism and academia
C00506 00282 ∂07-Jun-87 2316 JMC re: Distinguishing Soviet vs. US actions (was Re: US and Soviet Union)
C00507 00283 ∂08-Jun-87 0749 JMC re: What is meant by "Finlandlization" (sic) of the west? Jim?
C00509 00284 ∂08-Jun-87 0808 JMC re: The Doppelganger Effect
C00510 00285 ∂08-Jun-87 0958 JMC re: A new mailing list
C00511 00286 ∂08-Jun-87 1016 JMC
C00512 00287 ∂08-Jun-87 1030 JMC actions speak louder than words
C00514 00288 ∂08-Jun-87 1034 JMC re: deadline
C00515 00289 ∂08-Jun-87 1106 JMC urgent grade
C00516 00290 ∂08-Jun-87 1207 JMC Was Tom Hayden a hero or just a promoter of genocide - or both?
C00522 00291 ∂08-Jun-87 1456 JMC re: Teaching Assistant
C00523 00292 ∂08-Jun-87 1457 JMC re: urgent grade
C00524 00293 ∂08-Jun-87 1516 JMC Was Tom Hayden a hero or a just a promoter of genocide?
C00526 00294 ∂08-Jun-87 1536 JMC red and black
C00527 00295 ∂08-Jun-87 1612 JMC upward and onward with Helen's generation
C00529 00296 ∂08-Jun-87 1851 JMC re: Mid-Peninsula Free University
C00531 00297 ∂08-Jun-87 2219 JMC re: CS522 -- Heuristic Programming Seminar
C00532 00298 ∂08-Jun-87 2223 JMC re: Was Tom Hayden a hero or a just a promoter of genocide?
C00533 00299 ∂08-Jun-87 2300 JMC re: talkin bout my ge-ge-generation
C00537 00300 ∂09-Jun-87 0016 JMC
C00538 00301 ∂09-Jun-87 0922 JMC re: Teaching Assistant
C00539 00302 ∂09-Jun-87 0925 JMC re: lunch
C00541 00303 ∂09-Jun-87 1209 JMC Workshops in AI sponsored by AAAI.
C00545 00304 ∂09-Jun-87 1230 JMC
C00547 00305 ∂09-Jun-87 1321 JMC re: "Largest Peacetime...
C00548 00306 ∂09-Jun-87 1427 JMC Soviet and U.S. foreign policy
C00559 00307 ∂09-Jun-87 1641 JMC Gorbachev and peace
C00561 00308 ∂09-Jun-87 1712 JMC Arbab paper
C00562 00309 ∂09-Jun-87 2114 JMC re: stanford vs ussr
C00568 00310 ∂09-Jun-87 2127 JMC re: Gorbachev and peace
C00569 00311 ∂09-Jun-87 2156 JMC Question for Helen and maybe Richard Steinberger
C00572 00312 ∂09-Jun-87 2350 JMC re: re: lunch
C00573 00313 ∂10-Jun-87 0947 Mailer failed mail returned
C00576 00314 ∂10-Jun-87 1001 JMC re: Advising
C00577 00315 ∂10-Jun-87 1003 JMC
C00578 00316 ∂10-Jun-87 1020 JMC re: Advising
C00579 00317 ∂10-Jun-87 2211 JMC re: re: re: lunch
C00580 00318 ∂11-Jun-87 0927 JMC re: References
C00581 00319 ∂11-Jun-87 0933 JMC re: US involvement in S. Vietnam
C00582 00320 ∂11-Jun-87 1341 JMC re: References
C00583 00321 ∂11-Jun-87 1347 JMC re: quitting date
C00584 00322 ∂11-Jun-87 1408 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
C00588 00323 ∂11-Jun-87 1530 JMC
C00589 00324 ∂11-Jun-87 1549 JMC re: cat recipe
C00591 00325 ∂11-Jun-87 2045 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
C00592 00326 ∂11-Jun-87 2141 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
C00594 00327 ∂12-Jun-87 0950 JMC
C00595 00328 ∂12-Jun-87 1127 JMC
C00596 00329 ∂12-Jun-87 2208 JMC red and black
C00597 00330 ∂13-Jun-87 0925 JMC metaepistemology
C00599 00331 ∂13-Jun-87 1830 JMC another way of putting it
C00601 00332 ∂13-Jun-87 2121 JMC Solar power satellites
C00605 00333 ∂13-Jun-87 2133 JMC re: another way of putting it
C00606 00334 ∂13-Jun-87 2144 JMC re: another way of putting it
C00607 00335 ∂13-Jun-87 2205 JMC re: another way of putting it
C00608 00336 ∂13-Jun-87 2211 JMC re: another way of putting it
C00609 00337 ∂13-Jun-87 2337 JMC
C00610 00338 ∂14-Jun-87 2001 JMC
C00611 00339 ∂15-Jun-87 0722 JMC
C00612 00340 ∂15-Jun-87 0725 JMC send paper
C00613 00341 ∂15-Jun-87 1827 JMC re: Summer Project
C00614 00342 ∂15-Jun-87 2021 JMC re: [ito@aoba.tohoku.junet: Elis Loop Tie]
C00615 00343 ∂15-Jun-87 2103 JMC re: food and climate
C00618 00344 ∂16-Jun-87 0935 JMC re: solar power satellites
C00620 00345 ∂16-Jun-87 1113 JMC re: Summer Project
C00621 00346 ∂16-Jun-87 1131 JMC
C00622 00347 ∂16-Jun-87 1151 JMC Hopper award
C00623 00348 ∂16-Jun-87 1456 JMC re: MIT Article on Lisp
C00624 00349 ∂16-Jun-87 1559 JMC Symbol Grounding Problem and Disputes
C00625 00350 ∂16-Jun-87 1656 JMC
C00626 00351 ∂16-Jun-87 1659 JMC re: correction of formaer msg.
C00627 00352 ∂16-Jun-87 1805 JMC comments on Hewitt
C00628 00353 ∂16-Jun-87 1937 JMC
C00629 00354 ∂17-Jun-87 1001 JMC re: hoter
C00630 00355 ∂17-Jun-87 1754 JMC re: Radar warning on Stanford ave.
C00631 00356 ∂18-Jun-87 1305 JMC Cheeseman
C00634 00357 ∂18-Jun-87 1423 JMC
C00635 00358 ∂18-Jun-87 1426 JMC
C00656 00359 ∂18-Jun-87 1426 JMC
C00662 00360 ∂18-Jun-87 1427 JMC papers mailed
C00663 00361 ∂18-Jun-87 1655 JMC re: workshop on the foundations of AI
C00664 00362 ∂18-Jun-87 1657 JMC re: Causality
C00665 00363 ∂18-Jun-87 1708 JMC
C00666 00364 ∂19-Jun-87 1359 JMC Goetz
C00670 00365 ∂19-Jun-87 1407 JMC re: Your fall grad course
C00671 00366 ∂19-Jun-87 1408 JMC reservations
C00672 00367 ∂19-Jun-87 1423 JMC re: Rowland Glowinski
C00673 00368 ∂19-Jun-87 1444 JMC certificates of respectability
C00676 00369 ∂19-Jun-87 1503 JMC
C00677 00370 ∂20-Jun-87 1444 JMC Goetz
C00679 00371 ∂21-Jun-87 1625 JMC revised version of comments
C00680 00372 ∂21-Jun-87 1627 JMC
C00705 00373 ∂21-Jun-87 1627 JMC
C00711 00374 ∂21-Jun-87 1936 JMC Tom Hayden
C00714 00375 ∂21-Jun-87 1940 JMC Goetz
C00715 00376 ∂21-Jun-87 2138 JMC re: Tom Hayden
C00716 00377 ∂21-Jun-87 2227 JMC (→20606 1-Jul-87)
C00717 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂10-Apr-87 1259 JMC re: David McAllester
To: daniel@MOJAVE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 7 Apr 87 18:47:01 PST.]
I'll be out of town, but please also invite Carolyn Talcot, clt@sail,
Shankar, nsh@sail and Vladimir Lifschitz, val@sail. Jussi Ketonen, jk@sail
may also be interested.
∂10-Apr-87 1300 JMC re: Pam Widrin, Alliant
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Apr-87 11:12-PT.]
Please refer this to Joe Weening.
∂10-Apr-87 1333 JMC Programming and math
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Suppose we regard programming as a branch of engineering or even merely a
skilled trade like being an electrician. Other branches of engineering
have had people who consider scientific work in the subject as irrelevant
to their specific engineering jobs. In the main, this approach has lost,
and such people are called handbook engineers. There is every reason to
believe that the same will be evident with programming in the long run.
Those who resist scientific education will fall behind. They will find
themselves under the supervision of the better educated.
∂10-Apr-87 1338 JMC a question abbut queues
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
One reason why supermarkets may not use a single queue is that space in
a supermarket is at a premium. They can always use all they have to stock
more goods. I've never seen a supermarket where there was space for a
a queue like that in a bank.
∂10-Apr-87 1352 JMC Stanford phones
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
My impression is that there is great incompetence at all levels in the
programming and operation of the Stanford telephone system.
∂10-Apr-87 1356 JMC re: booby trapped nuclear weapons?
To: POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from POSER@CSLI.Stanford.EDU sent Mon 6 Apr 87 11:36:48-PDT.]
I have read that the reverse is true. Nuclear weapons are designed so as
to be as difficult as possible to set off without authorization. Of course,
this wouldn't preclude a conventional booby trap that would make the weapon
inoperable, e.g. by a conventional chemical explosion.
∂10-Apr-87 1401 JMC re: Earth's rotation
To: yduJ@SPAR-20.ARPA, su-etc@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from yduJ@SPAR-20.ARPA sent Wed 8 Apr 87 13:20:56-PDT.]
There is no big hullaballoo and it happens almost every year - sometimes twice.
The problem is that the second as the unit of time is kept constant, but
the length of the day in seconds isn't so constant, therefore there has
to be a "leap day" every so often.
∂10-Apr-87 1421 JMC
To: CLT
Remember to send Feferman reference to Hayashi.
∂11-Apr-87 0939 JMC re: Programming and math
To: TRACZ@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 10 Apr 87 23:15:32-PDT.]
When I caught up on su-etc after returning from Japan I
found remarks by Richard Steinberger beginning as follows:
"There is a popular misconception (popular among educators and laymen
alike) that programming and mathematics are somehow related."
It was followed by supporting messages from others.
∂11-Apr-87 1005 JMC re: [Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Re: Hopcroft Report]
To: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, hopcroft@CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU,
MCDERMOTT-DREW@YALE.ARPA
[In reply to message from NILSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 11 Apr 87 09:32:32-PDT.]
I haven't had time to read McDermott's draft, and maybe I won't, but here
is a comment on the issues raised by Nils. I agree with him that it is
desirable to be more neutral with regard to controversies with AI and
suppose that I would probably agree with his specific points.
Also I have found it necessary to emphasize that AI is a branch of
computer science that is concerned with successful behavior under certain
complicted conditions of available information. It is related to
psychology, because humans are often in such conditions, but it isn't a
branch of psychology, because the the informational strategies are
available and required are the same whether the intelligent behavior is
required of a human, a robot, a Martian or a dog. This point may help
with your introduction, because the question becomes one of what kind
of science AI is. I think it's science rather than engineering per se,
because one can study what means will achieve what ends independently
of one's intentions of building something.
∂11-Apr-87 1053 JMC Okner
To: CLT
said to send him the 1099, and he'd file an amended return after
April 15.
∂11-Apr-87 1058 JMC re: vis comm
To: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 11 Apr 87 10:02:26-PDT.]
The only person in computer science with whom I have extremely bad
relations is Joel Moses. I will personally have nothing to do with
a committee that he chairs. He removed my contributions from a
book he edited without telling me, and I regard that as dishonest.
∂11-Apr-87 1104 JMC re: vis comm
To: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 11 Apr 87 10:02:26-PDT.]
To add to my previous point. This was underhanded behavior, and the
chairman of a visiting committee is in an excellent position to
engage in underhanded behavior by making informal comments to
whomever the committee advises, i.e. Jim Gibbons in this case.
I have no idea what specific positions Moses has relative to
CSD, but I advise not trusting him an inch. When I commented
about this to some people at M.I.T. they cited other examples,
but I don't remember who it was or what the examples were.
∂11-Apr-87 1110 JMC re: vis comm
To: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 11 Apr 87 10:57:34-PDT.]
His not being chairman makes it less bad, but I think I had better
state my objections to Gibbons - copy to Moses. Incidentally, my
complaint would apply in lesser degree to Michael Dertouzos, were
he involved. When I complained to him, he said it was Moses's
doing, and I didn't attempt to check it out.
∂11-Apr-87 1123 JMC re: vis comm
To: NILSSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 11 Apr 87 11:17:45-PDT.]
You're right, and I'll do it.
∂11-Apr-87 1212 JMC dartmo.tex
To: RA
This file has a typing error in almost every sentence. Please fix them.
∂11-Apr-87 1231 JMC re: do you mind?
To: REGES@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 3 Apr 87 23:40:06-PST.]
4:15-5:30 T and Th is ok, since I rarely go to the colloquium, but what
will this do to attendance?
∂11-Apr-87 1234 JMC reges@score
To: LES
Why shouldn't the Department do its administrative work on its free
computer?
∂11-Apr-87 1236 JMC Igor Rivin course on algebraic computation.
To: reges@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, IGS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I notice its absence from your schedule, but I believe it will be
in the catalog.
∂11-Apr-87 1245 JMC re: Invitation to Qualitative Physics Workshop
To: forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 8 Apr 87 22:17:59 CST.]
Thanks, and I'll try to make part of it. I'm committed to talk at a
Computers and Law Workshop with the same dates.
∂11-Apr-87 1250 JMC re: booby trapped nuclear weapons?
To: POSER@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 10 Apr 87 19:11:52-PDT.]
I think you underestimate the ruthlessness of movie makers
in violating plausibility. It isn't merely scientific plausibility
they will violate.
∂11-Apr-87 1653 JMC Marines
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The scandal of the Marine guards in the Moscow embassy reminds me of
something I thought but didn't say at the time the 240 Marines were
killed by the suicide bomber and Lebanon and suspected when the Iran
rescue mission failed. All these are evidence that the Marine leadership
has become slack. They didn't make sure the maintenance of the helicopters
was checked, and they didn't make sure the security precautions for
the building they occupied were adequate even after the Israelis had
already been attacked by suicide bombers, and they didn't make sure
discipline was maintained at the Moscow embassy.
Most likely the solution requires drastic measures - the firing and
perhaps court-martial of the commanding general and his temporary
replacement by a general from another service, from the Air Force
or the Army.
∂11-Apr-87 2241 JMC re: Marines
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 11 Apr 87 22:31:21-PDT.]
In each of the three cases the Commander-in-Chief was not directly
responsible for the negligence of the Marine officers. In case of
Lebanon, however, President Reagan wrongly took the responsibility,
letting the officers off the hook. At least it was wrong unless he gave
orders that security precautions against suicide attacks not be taken, and
no-one has ever suggested that micro-management was his style.
∂12-Apr-87 0919 JMC
To: CLT
∂30-Mar-87 1607 RA Lisa from Custom Floors
Lisa called re floor damage insurance. Her tel. (408) 374 6286
∂12-Apr-87 1056 JMC Jussi will call
To: NSH
When I'm back Thursday, I'll want to get your opinion.
∂12-Apr-87 1057 JMC (→20472 16-Apr-87)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I'll be back from Kansas on Thursday April 16.
∂15-Apr-87 2143 JMC
To: ME
;!
∂15-Apr-87 2143 JMC
To: ME
previous mail was caused by a misprint
∂16-Apr-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
To: JMC
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I'll be back from Kansas on Thursday April 16.
∂16-Apr-87 1513 JMC re: jmc talk
To: ai.ellie@MCC.COM
[In reply to message from AI.BOYER@MCC.COM sent Thu 16 Apr 87 16:49:32-CDT.]
Ellie, could you make a reservation for me at the usual place for May 5 and 6?
∂16-Apr-87 1845 JMC re: Lisp Pointers
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Apr-87 17:50-PT.]
See lisp.tex[w87,jmc]. I imagine it to be in English.
∂16-Apr-87 2125 JMC The necessity defense
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
With a judge and jury of somewhat different political opinions, this
defense will win for a mob that attacks and burns an abortion clinic.
If a jury were to acquit on such grounds in the South in a case in
which (say) blacks operated the clinic, the attackers might be re-arrested on
a Federal charge of violating the civil rights of the operators of
the clinic. Do you suppose Amy could be retried on charges of violating
the civil rights of the CIA recruiters and their potential recruits.
Most moderate leftists don't like violating people's civil rights although
they will look hard for excuses to acquit people like Carter and Hoffman.
However, hard leftists find it extremely important to establish the principle
that people who oppose them have no civil rights at all. The Sandinistas
gradually established this principle.
a233 1323 16 Apr 87
AM-Carter-Hoffman, Bjt,0826
Shipwrecked Sailors' Defense Wins Case for Carter, Hoffman
NORTHAMPTON, Mass. (AP) - The ''necessity defense'' that Amy Carter
and her co-defendants used to win acquittal on charges stemming from
a protest of CIA recruiting is a centuries-old legal argument rooted
in shipwrecks and cannibalism, legal experts say.
Miss Carter, career radical Abbie Hoffman and 13 other demonstrators
were found innocent Wednesday of disorderly conduct and trespassing.
The jury apparently agreed with their argument that a need to protest
CIA mining of Nicaraguan harbors and other allegedly illegal actions
outweighed the harm in blocking school buses and occupying a
University of Massachusetts building.
The defendants' necessity defense maintained their actions were
warranted by the circumstances and were less offensive than the
activities they were protesting.
It was a twist on a defense used in the 18th and 19th centuries by
shipwrecked English sailors who, adrift without food, would kill a
shipmate and eat him to survive. When tried for murder, the sailors
would plead for mercy by saying the deaths of all would have been a
worse crime than the death of one.
Massachusetts is among the few states that allow a necessity
defense, as a result of a state Supreme Court decision several years
ago, Leonard Weinglass, central defense lawyer at the trial, said
Thursday.
''I think faced with the abundance of evidence of illegal (CIA)
activity, the mere holding of a building for five hours or sitting in
front of a bus for 10 minutes, not only paled in comparison, but
became entirely appropriate,'' Weinglass said.
Legal experts say a key to using a necessity defense is the claim
that the action was prompted by a ''clear and imminent danger.'' With
the sailors it was death; the CIA protesters claimed a danger more
abstract.
''Is it we, the defendants, who are operating outside the system, or
they (the CIA) who have strayed outside the limits of democracy and
law?'' asked Hoffman, 50, during closing arguments in Hampshire
County District Court.
Jurors who were willing to talk said they were convinced it was the
CIA that had strayed, and the defendants were justified in their Nov.
24 demonstration.
''A lot of us were not aware of what the CIA was into. It was
shocking and alarming, the things we heard from witnesses,'' said
juror Ann Gaffney, 64, of Northampton.
She said the panel was impressed by such defense witnesses as
Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg, former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark and former Nicaraguan rebel leader Edgar Chamorro.
''The people of Northampton, a jury of six in Northampton, have
found the CIA guilty of a larger crime than trespassing and
disorderly conduct and decided we had a legitimate right to protest
that,'' said Miss Carter, daughter of former President Jimmy Carter.
The necessity defense is among several ''justification defenses,''
which also include self-defense and insanity claims.
It has been used in more than 100 trials, mostly civil disobedience
cases, since 1984, said Francis Boyle, professor of international and
criminal law at the University of Illinois, who wrote a book on the
subject. Other necessity defense cases have involved protests against
nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants and apartheid.
''What people are saying is, 'We're not the criminals, it's the
people running around in Washington who are the criminals,''' Boyle
said. ''We lose more than we win, but the remarkable thing is that we
win at all.''
Lee Goldstein, a Cambridge lawyer who helped mold the protesters'
defense, said the defendants also had to prove their actions would
abate the danger and that they had taken all necessary legal steps
before resorting to illegal acts.
Carter issued a statement Thursday praising the verdict and his
daughter's actions.
''She protested actions of the CIA in Central America which she, and
her parents, consider to have been improper and probably illegal,''
Carter said.
Carter also said he believed it was unlikely that similar activities
would occur under William Webster, nominated to head the CIA.
Miss Carter, 19, a sophomore at Brown University, and two other
people were accused of disorderly conduct for blocking a bus carrying
protesters. Hoffman was one of a dozen defendants charged with
trespassing for refusing to leave a school building. All faced up to
six months in jail and $500 fines.
Meanwhile, university spokesman James Langley said Thursday the
verdict would not change th response to similar demonstrations.
''The issue from the university's perspective was not the
protesters' cause but the protesters' methods,'' he said.
Langley said the school's policy on allowing CIA recruiters on
campus also has not changed, but it is under review and a report is
expected by the end of next month. He said the spy agency normally
visits campus about once every two years, so the issue was not likely
to present itself again anytime soon.
AP-NY-04-16-87 1623EDT
***************
∂16-Apr-87 2135 JMC rationality in cancer risk estimation
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Bruce Ames, the discoverer of the Ames test that estimates carcinogenicity
of substances by whether they cause mutations in bacteria, is trying
to inject a little rationality. I will be surprised if he wins, given
the political advantages of making cancer an issue.
a230 1304 16 Apr 87
AM-Cancer Risk, Bjt,0708
Cancer-Risk Scale Emphasizes Importance of Exposure
For release at 6:30 p.m. EDT
By WARREN E. LEARY
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have developed a scale for ranking the
potential hazard to humans of natural and man-made chemicals that
cause cancer in animals, a measure they say takes into account
real-life exposure to the substances.
Researchers at the University of California, in Berkeley, said
Thursday that their system - which, for example, rates a daily glass
of beer as a greater cancer hazard than some pesticide pollution - is
designed to help people assess the dangers of the many carcinogens
they hear about.
''Our purpose is not to scare people about an occasional raw
mushroom or beer, but to help them make sense of the many reports
they see about this or that causing cancer in animals,'' Dr. Bruce N.
Ames, the principal researcher, said in a telephone interview.
Ames, with Renae MaGaw and Lois Swirsky Gold of the university's
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, said their scale rates possible cancer
hazards to people based upon the known potency of a substance in
animals and the likely human exposure over a lifetime.
The researchers describe their HERP scale, for ''Human Exposure
dose-Rodent Potency,'' in the April 17 issue of the journal Science,
a special issue focusing on assessing risks.
Ames said the work is an extension of a much-discussed report he
published in 1983. That study concluded that the most-common
carcinogens to which people are exposed are natural substances, such
as by-products of mold and fungus contamination of grains and other
foods, and not man-made compounds such as pesticides and industrial
chemicals.
The new report said half of all chemicals tested, whether natural or
man-made, have been identified as potential cancer-causing agents in
rats or mice. The researchers questioned the validity of making
inferences about human risks based upon high-dose rodent tests.
The scientists said most things that cause cancer in animals in high
doses may pose little real danger to humans in low doses,
particularly if most people have little or no exposure to them.
Simply identifying a substance as a potential cancer agent is not
very useful for making health decisions without considering amount
and likelihood of exposure, as well as other hazards with which
people come in contact, they said.
For example, plants have evolved effective chemical defenses against
their natural pests, the scientists said. By eating plants, people
ingest 10,000 times, by weight, more natural toxic pesticides than
the man-made variety.
Ames bases his HERP rating on a ratio between the dose rate that
induces cancer in half of the animals tested, called TD-50, and
lifetime human daily exposure to the chemical per unit of body
weight.
Using this scale, chlorinated tap water had a low HERP rating that
still was several times higher than the potential hazard of pesticide
residues, the researchers said.
Chlorine in the water kills many disease-causing bacteria and
viruses, they noted, making its potential cancer hazard insignificant
compared with the sickness and death it prevented.
By contrast, the potential hazard from breathing formaldehyde from
building materials in the air of a mobile home is 1,000 times greater
than the risk of chlorinated tap water, according to the scale.
The alcohol in a glass of beer poses a possible cancer hazard 3,000
times that of tap water, said the report, and dried herbs, raw
mushrooms, peanuts and other natural foods can have higher scores in
the amounts generally consumed than trace pollutants.
There aren't enough human data to determine whether any of these
potential hazards warrant a change of eating habits, the researchers
said, but the numbers serve to point out that there isn't enough
information to do low-dose risk assessment on many potential
carcinogens.
''Again, we are not trying to scare people,'' Ames said. ''But I
think the public has been scared stiff about small amounts of
man-made chemicals without a way of comparing the risks.
''If people start worrying about all the things that give cancer,
then they can't concentrate on the important things, such as
cigarette smoking and the buildup of radon gas in buildings,'' he
said.
AP-NY-04-16-87 1604EDT
***************
∂17-Apr-87 1101 JMC
To: CLT
04-20 9am, Custom Floors
∂17-Apr-87 1102 JMC
To: CLT
04-21 9am, Custom Floors, correction: that's Tuesday
∂17-Apr-87 1357 JMC
To: RA
Endowed stationery is at Provost's office.
∂17-Apr-87 1410 JMC re: Necessity Defence
To: PALLAS@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
CC: HOLSTEGE@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 17 Apr 87 12:57:20-PDT.]
The question remains whether the CIA protesters convinced a jury that
their actions were necessary to prevent crimes by the CIA. If they
did, you can't blame the legal system for their acquittal. If they
did not, I should think there are grounds for an appeal.
There are no grounds for an appeal of an acquittal because of the
constitutional provision against double jeopardy. The A.P. reported
that the judge's charge to the jury gave the defense all that it asked
for, and this may even have included his honor's opinion that the CIA
was illegal. My point was that a different judge may do the same for
the bombers of an abortion clinic. Given the usual correlations of
political opinions, it is highly unlikely that the same judge would
do so.
∂17-Apr-87 1412 JMC March 13 message
To: eppley@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
That message was one of 14 I received on that day. I must have
missed reading it. That was certainly enough advance notice, so
that if I didn't agree, I could have responded. On the other
hand, Rutie might have mentioned it orally.
∂17-Apr-87 1523 JMC short bio - rush
To: RA
Please send it to
Lise Hazen
31 Bethune St., No. 2R
New York, NY 10014
∂17-Apr-87 1709 JMC re: The History of Vietnam, a question.
To: acken@SONOMA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Apr 87 16:27:06 MST.]
I am flattered that you would think I might know, but I don't. My
opinion is that it was difficult to lose in Vietnam, and everyone
had to do his part - the peace movement, the military rotation system,
Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Secretary MacNamara, the American
media and the South Vietnamese.
∂17-Apr-87 1811 JMC re: Banquet Speech at the AI and Law conference
To: hafner%corwin.ccs.northeastern.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Apr 87 10:04:10 AST.]
Thank you for the offer to make reservations. Please make them for Wednesday
through Friday nights. Non-monotonic reasoning is ok as a title.
∂18-Apr-87 1253 JMC re: ALERT! Antifreeze in diet drinks!
To: PALLAS@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 18 Apr 87 10:47:50-PDT.]
This seems like one more random panic fueled by ignorance. It is certainly
possible to find out exactly what is used and why.
∂18-Apr-87 1653 JMC
To: RA
yarim.1
∂18-Apr-87 2310 JMC re: antifreeze(?) in soft drinks
To: TERP@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 18 Apr 87 21:28:22-PDT.]
Where does one get Jolt? It sounds like I might prefer it.
∂18-Apr-87 2314 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
To: FOGELSONG@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from FOGELSONG@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 18 Apr 87 22:03:55-PDT.]
There have been no reports on A.P. of political killings of tourists either
deliberate or as innocent bystanders. Our media are quite sensitive to such
things, because they sell papers. Therefore, you should be relatively safe.
Remember, however, that tourists getting long lasting forms of dysentery
doesn't sell papers.
∂18-Apr-87 2344 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
To: FOGELSONG@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 18 Apr 87 23:25:57-PDT.]
I looked at all stories of the last two weeks with the words India or
Kashmir. There were stories about rioting in Uttar Pradesh and killings
in Sri Lanka; no foreigners getting killed were mentioned. This was
actually after your last message. Before I was relying on the fact
that I keep up with the news. In fact there were no surprises.
∂19-Apr-87 0000 JMC re: Attn: Students from India
To: FOGELSONG@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 18 Apr 87 23:48:37-PDT.]
I'm quite sure that the average is less than ten a day killed. This is
enough to cause considerable turmoil but still makes it one of the minor
hazards, e.g. compared to riding in cars. I take a statistical view
of hazards and urge others to do likewise.
∂19-Apr-87 0005 JMC These two are all from Uttar Pradesh in last two weeks
To: fogelsong@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
a239 1510 13 Apr 87
AM-BRF--India-Cows,0162
Police Arrest 26 People for Stealing ''Holy'' Cows for Slaughter
NEW DELHI, India (AP) - Police arrested 26 cattle thieves who stole
more than 140 cows and planned to slaughter the animals, which are
worshiped by millions of Hindus, the United News of India reported
Monday.
The news agency said eight trucks carrying 141 cows were seized
Friday near Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh state, the heart of the north
Indian ''cow belt,'' so called because it is predominantly Hindu.
The cows were being taken to Calcutta in eastern India, the report
added.
Except in Kerala state in south India, the slaughter of cows is
banned in this country of 780 million people. Officially, India is
secular, but 83 percent of the population is Hindu.
Hindus worship cows as a symbol of sustenance and motherhood.
Two weeks ago, Hindu-Moslem riots broke out in western India after
people threw acid on cows during a feud.
AP-NY-04-13-87 1809EDT
***************
a291 1728 18 Apr 87
AM-Hindu-Moslem,0299
Twelve Killed in Hindu-Moslem Riots
NEW DELHI, India (AP) - Three days of fighting between Moslems and
Hindus in Uttar Pradesh state left at least 12 people dead and more
than 150 injured, police said Saturday.
Riots began Tuesday in India's most populous state after the
accidental burning of a Hindu shop. Police said the state was calm on
Saturday.
Moslem and Hindu mobs fought with knives and stones Thursday in the
city of Meerut, 41 miles north of New Delhi.
Three bodies with stab wounds were found in Meerut on Saturday,
raising the statewide death toll to 12, the United News of India news
agency reported police as saying.
Paramilitary troops were patrolling the city, where the 250,000
residents were confined to their homes under a curfew order, the
agency said.
A Moslem religious procession in Meerut was attacked by Hindus
Tuesday after a shop owned by a Hindu was destroyed in an accidental
fire caused by a Moslem's firecracker, authorities said.
There also were riots and fighting in Etah, 108 miles southeast of
New Delhi, and in Ayodhya, 360 miles southeast of New Delhi.
Uttar Pradesh has 130 million people. India's population of 780
million includes 85 million Moslems, 639 million Hindus and much
smaller numbers of Christians, Sikhs and followers of other faiths.
In Punjab state, police said a gang of 10 Sikh separatists shot and
killed five people Friday night at a Hindu priest's home in Banianke
village near the Sikh holy city of Amritsar.
The Sikhs opened fire with automatic weapons inside the home of
Jagdish Lal, killing three of Lal's sons instantly and wounding two
Hindu visitors who died on the way to a hospital, police said. The
priest was uninjured.
AP-NY-04-18-87 2028EDT
***************
∂19-Apr-87 1115 JMC re: These two are all from Uttar Pradesh in last two weeks
To: FOGELSONG@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 19 Apr 87 00:06:07-PDT.]
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to set up a notification request and
collect the stories and transmit them. Perhaps some other SAIL user ...
∂19-Apr-87 1356 JMC Schlipf proposal review
To: RA
I have left a review form in my out box. schlip.re1[let,jmc] contains
the material to be included in the main box.
∂19-Apr-87 1523 JMC
To: RA
Please get rid of almost all of the Stanford ID envelopes next to my desk.
∂19-Apr-87 2140 JMC Rao
To: RA
I'm supposed to give a talk at Cal State Long Beach, but they haven't
told me the location. If a Dr. Rao calls from there give him the
number at Inference 213 417-7997 and have him ask for me c/o Chuck
Williams. Also try to track him down via the number in my CAL file
and have him call me at Inference.
∂21-Apr-87 1348 JMC Paul Haley
To: RA
is scheduled to be an industrial lecturer in Spring 88. However, he has
left Inference in L.A. and moved to Pittsburgh. If it is still possible
to change the name in the catalog, then I need to reach him promptly to
see if he still intends to teach the course. If it's too late, then
I can pursue him at leisure. Please call Chuck Williams at Inference
213 417-7997 (or his secretary) to get Haley's phone number. If he
won't be available, Williams says that someone else from Inference
will probably be available.
∂21-Apr-87 1358 JMC
To: RA
ito.4
∂21-Apr-87 1417 JMC suggestion for M.E. student design competition
To: BXR
Make the lightest chair of given height that can support a certain person's
weight. It could be a table of given height supporting a fixed weight, but
the former would yield a more interesting fly-off. I believe the ultimate
would weigh about a gram and have a rather complex structure in order to
avoid buckling of tiny compressive members.
∂21-Apr-87 1418 JMC EDR
To: feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
I visited them, and I believe I understand the project. It seems to me
that it isn't entirely soundly conceived and it's puzzling why it is
considered suitable for a company, but that's typical of how the Japanese
operate some of their Government instigated projects. My problem concerns
the distinction between those facts that are part of the meaning of a
concept and those that aren't. It doesn't seem to me that there is a
useful boundary.
∂21-Apr-87 1428 JMC Please send CBCL
To: RA
to Shigeki Goto at NTT, Koichi Furukawa at ICOT, Chuck Williams,
Mark Wright and Richard Schroeppel (the last
three at Inference).
∂21-Apr-87 1500 JMC your proposal for a conference
To: aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@CS.UCL.AC.UK
Yours would be the third conference on the subject. The first was
organized by Yorick Wilks at the University of New Mexico. The second
will be in June at M.I.T. organized by Carl Hewitt and an associate
(student maybe). I didn't think much of the first and so instigated
the second. It has papers with official discussants concerning the
major approaches to AI. Even so, I think there is room for another
conference but surely not till 1988 and most likely not before summer.
Because there have been two conferences already, I would like a
definite though approximate proposal about organization, topics and even
speakers. Do you plan on a program committee evaluating submissions?
AAAI can help up to $10K.
∂21-Apr-87 1511 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
To: Chandra%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
CC: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 18 Dec 86 10:32:27-EST.]
I'm sorry that your request fell through the crack twice. I thought I
had approved something and passed it on to Claudia, and twice it turned
out that I hadn't. If it is still relevant, we can still help.
∂21-Apr-87 1538 JMC biography
To: RA
U.S. mail a copy of my biography to
Prof. Jim Browne
Computer Science Dept.
University of Texas,
Austin, TX
adding the appropriate zip if you can find it.
∂21-Apr-87 1630 JMC re: Hoover Media Fellow Tom Bethell
To: R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
CC: gay@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from R.ROLAND@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU sent Tue 21 Apr 87 15:16:05-PDT.]
I'll try to find Bethell's piece in American Spectator, but as I recall it,
Bethell's main criticisms of Stanford were somewhat different.
∂21-Apr-87 2059 JMC re: cs326
To: D.DAEDALUS@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 21 Apr 87 19:51:47-PDT.]
12 pages will be ok. We'll be glad to look at a preliminary version.
I certainly want it this quarter.
∂22-Apr-87 0122 JMC re: Linnas' deportation
To: ZENON@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ZENON@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Wed 22 Apr 87 00:39:54-PDT.]
The Soviet criminal justice system doesn't meet civilized standards. That
alone seems to me to be reason enough not to trust it and maybe reason
enough not to turn someone over to it even if the evidence it has provided
would be convincing if presented in an American court. I also fear that
these trials 45 years after the crimes will not make genocide less likely
in the future but perhaps more likely. I don't have a clear argument for
this, however.
∂22-Apr-87 1218 JMC
To: RA
∂22-Apr-87 0732 CLT reminder
Send vita to manning@RATLIFF.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
∂22-Apr-87 1236 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Apr 87 08:22:50 PDT.]
Request for support from whom?
∂22-Apr-87 1357 JMC
To: RA
I'm holding the Ito letter, because I haven't finally decided yet.
∂22-Apr-87 1409 JMC re: leaving early?
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 22-Apr-87 14:05-PT.]
That would be ok.
∂22-Apr-87 1655 JMC re: Support Requested for Workshop
To: Chandra%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA, AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Chandra%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA sent Wed 22 Apr 87 19:51:56-EDT.]
We will support your workshop with $5K. Please contact Claudia Mazzetti
at the AAAI office to arrange it.
∂22-Apr-87 2155 JMC re: SOSA
To: parker@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from parker@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Wed, 22 Apr 87 20:37:39 PST.]
Louise Parker identifies SOSA as a supporter of ANC. I fear that this is
true. In doing so, she takes her share of responsibility for chopping
off the hands of ANC's black political rivals, or people thought by ANC
to be its rivals, tying them to tires and burning them to death. Perhaps
she thinks some great good will come of this, but experience shows that
organizations that torture people in gaining power, torture even more after
they get it. Tendencies to murder rivals and terrorize would-be neutrals
exist in all parts of the political spectrum. When there is fighting, people
who are thugs by nature often rise to the top. Unlike SOSA, however, the
Reagan Administration tries to get the military opposition it supports, i.e.
the Contras, to behave better. Has SOSA dared to have even one internal
discussion of necklacing or is it afraid to show signs of humanitarianism
lest its unity in militancy be compromised?
There are now more than twenty communist ruled countries. The least inhumane
are those regimes installed by Soviet military power. Where they got
power by their own efforts, communist regimes have been dominated by even
more brutal people. After 30 years, bureaucrats take over from the pure
thugs, and the regimes become merely oppressive.
I trust that Louise Parker will be pleased by the success of her effort
"to stir up controversy and encourage the discussion of ideas". So far
SOSA has managed to increase the acceptance of torture as a means of
political argument. Fortunately, this acceptance has taken an abstract
form.
∂22-Apr-87 2309 JMC re: ANC/SOSA
To: stone@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from stone@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Wed, 22 Apr 87 22:16:40 PST.]
Alas, it's again. I haven't the stomach to have been STILL talking about
SOSA and necklacing. Won't Valerie Stone agree that this is an issue
that should be pressed until SOSA does face it.
∂22-Apr-87 2319 JMC soviet courts & re: JMC, re: w.wroth, re Linnas
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, MACMILK@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
There is a lot of literature on Soviet justice. What comes to mind
is the following book, whose author was a lawyer in the Soviet Union.
2) Author: Simis, Konstantin M
2.1) Simis, Konstantin M. USSR--THE CORRUPT SOCIETY (New York : c1982.)
LOCATION: JN6529.C6S5513 1982: Hoover
2.2) Simis, Konstantin M. USSR--THE CORRUPT SOCIETY (New York : c1982.)
LOCATION: JN6529.C6S5513 1982: Meyer
2.3) Simis, Konstantin M. USSR (New York : c1982.)
LOCATION: JN6529.C6S5513 1982: Green Stacks
Soviet law is unjust in principle and has further injustices in practice.
The injustice in principle is that criminal law is subject to the detailed
intervention of the Communist Party. It can and does, in cases exciting
party interest, tell the judge what to do. The further injustice, probably
not applicable in this case, is that party control leads to corruption, i.e.
the personal interest of a party official can determine verdicts and sentences.
The system can put on great show trials. In the 1930s, more that half
of Stalin's Politburo rivals were forced to confess being German agents
and shot. The show convinced the American Ambassador Joseph Davies whose
book "Mission to Moscow" is a classic of gullibility. Khrushchev later
rehabilitated some of the condemned after 1956. The rest are non-persons
in that the Soviet Encyclopedia doesn't mention their names, and it
remains undecided and undiscussed whether they were unjustly persecuted
or were spies.
In the present case, the Soviet Government is pleased to have its criminal
justice system recognized by the U.S. and Soviet newspapers are likely
to express hope that we will now turn over anyone they ask for.
In the case of Linnas, there is the complication of the Soviet Union's
occupation of the Baltic countries. What they do with him will be considered
in relation to maintaining their control there.
∂23-Apr-87 0246 JMC
To: ME
What's the oldest file in the computer?
∂23-Apr-87 1202 JMC re: PhD admittee, Sherry Listgarten
To: MAD@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
CC: RA@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from MAD@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Thu 23 Apr 87 11:41:04-PDT.]
10:30 would be best.
∂23-Apr-87 1833 JMC re: Halstead
To: JJW
[In reply to message rcvd 23-Apr-87 17:00-PT.]
Yes.
∂23-Apr-87 1850 JMC re: Liam Peyton on vet pref
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 23 Apr 87 15:57:32 PST.]
It's Tommy this and Tommy that and Tommy, go away,
But it's thank you Mr. Atkins when the troop ship's in the bay.
- Kipling
Veterans' preference is an approximate attempt to compensate veterans for
their low pay in service, the fact that service usually doesn't teach
skills that lead to good jobs, for the danger that combat carries with it,
and for the disablement that some have suffered. Like all such attempts
some benefit out of proportion to some standard of fairness, and others
get less. I was one of those who benefitted via the GI bill, while having
suffered nothing worse than occasional boredom in the army into which
I was drafted. At least it attempts to compensate the individuals who
underwent the hardship, unlike many forms of affirmative action which
settle for compensating people of the same race or sex as those who
underwent discrimination.
∂23-Apr-87 2002 JMC re: No motorcycles
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 23 Apr 87 19:01:53-PDT.]
Was it Harry Wolff of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton or
Gardner Lindzey of the Institute for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
Sciences at Stanford?
∂23-Apr-87 2005 JMC your talk
To: SJG
Sorry I missed it. An afternoon of consulting lasted longer than
planned. Have you talked to SIGLUNCH yet?
∂23-Apr-87 2034 JMC re: No motorcycles
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 23 Apr 87 20:14:24-PDT.]
Well, Oppenheimer once chased out the folk dancers.
∂23-Apr-87 2058 JMC sosa
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Everyone who supports a group takes some share, however small, for the
actions of the group. American supporters of the Contras, including me,
take some responsibility for any of their misdeeds and have some obligation
to protest them. Since my support of the Contras has only taken the form
of defending U.S. Government support, I try to get off by also defending
U. S. Government efforts to make them behave better. These efforts have
had considerable success. For example, the Contras shot one of their
officers who had killed civilians.
Indeed SOSA is too small to stop torture by the ANC but
has obligation to protest it. Instead some part of SOSA seems to glory
in it, e.g. the symbolic tire fire when Chief Buthelewizi (sp?) visited
Stanford, and the others didn't protest.
As to THEEP's remarks.
1. The communist regimes in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and Ethiopia
were installed by local communists in revolutions, getting at most
material aid from the Soviets. The Eastern European regimes, except
for Yugoslavia were installed by the Soviet Army. The Soviet regime
itself was a successful revolution. This is the basis for my contention
that communist regimes getting power by their own efforts have been
more brutal. The others pass directly to the bureaucratic stage of
communism without going through the genocidal stage.
∂23-Apr-87 2311 JMC U. Texas year of programming
To: CLT
If you don't know about it, look at the second item in AI.TXT[BB,DOC]/105P.
∂24-Apr-87 0742 JMC re: No motorcycles
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 24 Apr 87 00:02:33-PDT.]
It occurred while I was at Princeton between '49 and '53. We used to hold
folk dances at the IAS on Friday nights. Attendance fluctuated, and probably
Oppenheimer came by some time when the number of actual IAS people had
fluctuated to zero. I'm not surprised that the memory of the event would
fail to last 30 years.
∂24-Apr-87 0818 JMC departure of Reagan Library
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I can't say I ever valued the library much, even though I think Reagan
accomplished quite a bit of good as President. The policy center would
have been more interesting. At least I find the Hoover Institution and
its people far more interesting and congenial than I find the Stanford
departments concerned with similar subject matter.
The campaign against the Reagan Library succeeded by appealing to
political prejudice using the fact that the great majority of the academic
community are of the opposite party from the present president.
The Academic Senate is composed of very intelligent people, but
apparently that level of intelligence isn't sufficient to prevent
"the enthusiasm of crowds" from dominating. Instead the intelligence
went into finding clever rationalizations for what prejudice wanted.
∂24-Apr-87 0836 JMC re: my proposal
To: aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Apr 87 01:39:40 GMT.]
OK, submit a proposal when you are ready. Maybe I'll have
suggestions after the June workshop, but I'm already somewhat
nervous about the utility of discussing alternative paradigms.
Maybe people will just talk past each other. This workshop
is from the June 25 to 27 at M.I.T. Would you like me to try
to get you invited? Maybe they can pay travel.
My own opinion is that further advance in using intensional
objects in AI requires a formal logical approach. It goes slowly.
Perhaps I'll have a more detailed reaction to the scientific
content of your message later.
∂24-Apr-87 2111 JMC Stallman
To: AIR
is in the Bay Area for a week. He'll come down one day.
We'll pay him a consulting fee. Please call him.
He can be reached in the Bay Area at one of
931-4667, 221-6524
where he is staying or at his usual rms@mit-prep.
∂24-Apr-87 2252 JMC assorted drivel
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Now that the pack has been successful in getting rid of the Reagan
Library I fear it will turn its renewed attention to attacking the
Hoover Institution. We will get more such sanctimonious nonsense
as ''We are seriously concerned over public and particularly alumni
perception. It will add to the stereotype of an ultra-liberal or liberal
faculty rejecting a more conservative president, and I think that isn't
true.'' if Manley et. al. succeed in damaging the Hoover.
a006 2157 24 Apr 87
PM-Reagan Library, Bjt,0489
Faculty Opposition Said To Be Behind Reagan Library Transfer
By W. DALE NELSON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Faculty opposition to plans for a Ronald Reagan
presidential library at Stanford University apparently contributed to
a decision to relocate the library to Southern California, sources at
the California school say.
''I think it is fair to say that it was not ignored,'' a Stanford
professor who was active in planning the library said when asked
whether faculty opposition was one reason the library's backers
decided to seek another site. The professor spoke on condition he not
be identified.
Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation members would not go beyond
their official statement that they were pulling out of Stanford
because they felt it essential that the library and a proposed policy
center be located together.
The decision to separate them, however, was made by the university's
trustees in 1984, and the foundation continued planning for the
Stanford facility, holding a news conference in Washington only three
months ago to unveil the architect's design.
''They supposedly had accepted three years ago the idea that a
policy center, if there was to be one, would have to be off campus
and completely separate, so it seems like a big change of mind on
their part,'' said Anthony E. Siegman, a professor of electrical
engineering and a library critic who lives near the proposed Stanford
site.
Last month, 12 former chairmen of the Stanford Faculty Senate said
the library should be scaled down or moved farther from the center of
campus, rather than the 20-acre site personally approved by Reagan
two years ago.
The chairmen noted ''a growing faculty uneasiness over proposed
plans for this structure.''
The library planner who spoke anonymously said a number of leading
educational institutions in Southern California, as well as other
organizations, had expressed interest in being the library's site
since the foundation's announcement Thursday.
John Manley, a political science professor, called the decision not
to locate the complex in Stanford, which is south of San Francisco,
''a community victory.''
Seigman, in a telephone interview, said that although library
critics were happy about the decision, ''We are seriously concerned
over public and particularly alumni perception. It will add to the
stereotype of an ultra-liberal or liberal faculty rejecting a more
conservative president, and I think that isn't true.''
''The library just turned out to be too big and too much of a
tourist attraction for the site,'' he said. ''We were not trying to
drive the library away from the campus.''
''But,'' he added, ''the mood on campus is certainly one of
rejoicing.''
White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Reagan was ''comfortable
with the decision'' although the spokesman said he believed that the
foundation, which operates independently of the White House, did not
consult the president about it.
The president gave a White House dinner Friday night for library
supporters, including at least two members of the foundation board.
AP-NY-04-25-87 0056EDT
***************
∂24-Apr-87 2320 JMC re: lunch?
To: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Apr 87 22:56:17 PDT.]
Carolyn says she can't but would welcome a visit from you at the house
some time Thursday. I'll pass your message on to VAL. I'm not sure
but will get back to you early in the week.
∂24-Apr-87 2320 JMC lunch?
To: VAL
∂24-Apr-87 2253 beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU lunch?
Received: from [128.114.129.2] by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 24 Apr 87 22:53:32 PDT
Received: by ucscd.UCSC.EDU (5.57/1.1)
id AA11319; Fri, 24 Apr 87 22:56:17 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 22:56:17 PDT
From: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (20012000)
Message-Id: <8704250556.AA11319@ucscd.UCSC.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: lunch?
I'm coming to Stanford next Thursday in the morning to set up the
computer equipment and check that the demo I'm giving in your seminar
actually runs on the very computer and in the very room where I plan
to demonstrate it. That means I'll eat lunch at Stanford too and
would be happy to have some company if you and/or Carolyn and/or
Vladimir would like to join me. If your schedule doesn't permit it
don't hesitate to say so.
∂25-Apr-87 1645 JMC
To: NSH
Can you meet with Jussi and me at 5pm on Monday.
∂25-Apr-87 1646 JMC
To: LES
Jussi wants us to figure out a salary for him.
∂25-Apr-87 1807 JMC re: Jussi Salary
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Apr-87 16:51-PT.]
He was Senior Research Associate. His Lucid salary is $80K, and I
told him we couldn't match that.
∂25-Apr-87 1935 JMC re: "combat" service
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Sat, 25 Apr 87 13:12:52 PST.]
Why men are willing to fight is complex, but there is certainly a biological
aspect. Young men fight individually sometimes, and tribes engage in even
more wars than nations. It isn't that people think it can't happen to them;
it's rather that the consideration doesn't weigh as much as it does in older
men and probably in women of all ages. Fighting is one of those aspects
of human personality that society rightly attempts to limit.
If it were up to Helen there would be no war. However, if Helen were
President, there is no reason to suppose she would be more successful
at avoiding war than other women national leaders have been, e.g.
Golda Meier and Margaret Thatcher. Each handled her war in such a
way that elicited very similar expressions of praise and blame
as were received by men in similar positions. I happen to believe
that both acted correctly and limited the damage they weren't able
to avoid. There is some evidence that General Galtieri had some
male chauvinist idea that Mrs. Thatcher would behave indecisively
on account of her sex. The idea will be less prevalent in the future.
I read somwhere that the Aztecs considered childbirth the female
equivalent of war. However, I suppose that childbirth among the Aztecs
was a lot more dangerous than it is today. Many countries have
rewarded families with children with subsidies, and my opinion is
that having children should be made easier for intelligent women
by various kinds of subsidies. Of course, this would be resisted
by equalitarians and the idiots who think the population problems
of Bangladesh will be easied by ZPG in Palo Alto.
∂26-Apr-87 0102 JMC re: Secular quote of the day
To: ANDREW@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ANDREW@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 26 Apr 87 00:41:21-PDT.]
I don't see anything secular about that. Seems like one of the religions
of the 1960s to me.
∂26-Apr-87 1053 JMC re: workshop at MIT 25-27th June
To: aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Apr 87 01:29:42 GMT.]
OK, I'll call Hewitt and Kurtz. No talk will be required or allowed
because of the way they have organized the conference. I agree with
your idea that it would have been better to have organized the
conference around problems rather than the paradigms themselves or
at least to have asked the speakers about paradigms to address
specific problems. Had I thought of it, it would have been done
that way. It depends on what happens this June, but a priori this
idea raises the importance of your proposed workshop.
∂26-Apr-87 1400 JMC re: "combat" service
To: PALLAS@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from PALLAS@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 26 Apr 87 11:20:06-PDT.]
I tried the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1986), and it didn't
list deaths in the armed forces either under vital statistics or under
defense. Will someone volunteer to go or telephone the Government document
room in Green Library? This is the kind of thing librarians know how to find
out.
∂26-Apr-87 1448 JMC swimming in the sea
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
It appears that the Contras, like communist rebels in the past, swim
in a sea of peasant support. The article quotes Sandinista statements
that it's just a small sea. Some will say the relocation is for the
peasants' own good as was said about relocations in Vietnam by those
who supported them.
a231 1351 26 Apr 87
AM-Contras-Evacuation, Bjt,0919
Nicaraguan Peasants Relocated to Eliminate Support for Contras
An AP Extra
By ANDREW SELSKY
Associated Press Writer
NUEVA GUINEA, Nicaragua (AP) - The leftist Sandinista government is
relocating thousands of civilians in south-central Nicaragua in an
attempt to eliminate support for the Contra rebels in the area.
Saturnino Mendoza, a regional director of the Union of Farmers and
Cattlemen, said more than 1,800 people have been relocated since the
program started April 8 in the sparsely populated zone.
Mendoza claimed many of those being relocated are firm supporters of
the U.S.-backed Contras, who have had a steady presence in this area,
120 miles southeast of Managua, the capital.
''The civilians are being removed to take away the social base of
the Contras. This will be a big blow to the Contras,'' he said.
He added that the civilians must leave, whether they want to or not,
because their homeland ''has become a militarized zone - a no man's
land.''
The union is helping the government in the program, Mendoza said, in
which at least 4,000 people will be moved by the time it is over.
The area being evacuated is remote and extends southeasterly from
Nueva Guinea. It was not clear exactly how much territory is covered
by the program, authorized under the state of emergency in effect
almost continuously since March 1982.
This program is the largest undertaken by the government since it
moved thousands of Miskito Indians away from their homelands along
the Coco River in northeastern Nicaragua in 1982. That program later
was rescinded because of widespread opposition.
(The Associated Press submitted a request last week to the Defense
Ministry in Managua for further details of government policy on such
evacuations and also sought official comment on the Nueva Guinea
relocations, but it did not receive a response. During the weekend,
the AP was told no Defense Ministry officials were available to
answer the questions or to comment.
(A Western diplomat in Managua, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said the Sandinista government evacuates civilians ''when it is going
to mine certain areas, or establish a free-fire zone or when they
think the peasants are pro-Contra.'')
Residents of villages strung along a dirt road leading from Nueva
Guinea, the region's largest town, to the south say they have seen
groups of hundreds of evacuees walking along the road during the past
two weeks.
''Yesterday, it took an hour for a group of people to pass by
here,'' Rafael Romero Fonseca said as he lounged outside his
rough-hewn shop in Colonia Serrano. ''They were carrying hammocks,
and had their children, pigs and cows with them. They were escorted
by soldiers.''
Clemente Duarte, a farmer passing the time of day outside Romero
Fonseca's shop, said that since the evacuations began, he has become
afraid to tend his fields, which are an hour's ride on horseback in
the direction the people were being evacuated from.
''I am afraid to go out there now, because that land has become a
free-fire zone,'' Duarte said. ''There are no campesinos out there
anymore, just abandoned farms.''
About half the evacuees have been taken to a relocation camp called
Cascal, about 20 miles north of Nueva Guinea. Three relocation camps
in all are being created to take in the flood of evacuees, Mendoza
said.
Plots of land within the camps will be assigned to each family in
compensation for having to leave their homes, Mendoza added.
The evacuees came from farms hacked out of the jungle. Some said
their fields were brimming with beans, corn and rice when government
soldiers ordered them to leave earlier this month.
''I was out in the fields cutting corn when I saw the soldiers
come,'' said Santiago Ruiz Rivera, a 62-year-old, one-legged man.
''By the time I got to my house it was surrounded by solders. They
told me, 'Prepare to leave.'''
Within the hour Ruiz Rivera, his wife and their eight children
joined a column of 1,500 civilians, escorted by 600 government
soldiers, on a three-day march to an evacuee reception center, he
said.
Ruiz Rivera said he left behind his crops, 14 cows, 17 pigs and his
home.
Now, he and his family live in Cascal under a plastic sheet nailed
to a thin wood frame. Hundreds of the flimsy structures are set up on
the hard ground, which is covered with the stubble of brush blackened
from burning.
Ruiz Rivera said he lost his leg in an accident while felling trees
to clear land 13 years ago.
''We made pure jungle and mountain into clean and rich land,'' he
said. ''Now I'm too old to start again.''
He said he would try to take his family to stay with relatives in
Leon, a northern town he had left 13 years ago because of drought.
Mendoza said the evacuees will be encouraged to stay in the
relocation camps and to plant crops there.
He said the government will set up schools and clinics for the
evacuees.
''It is better for them here,'' he said. ''Right now, they are
living under plastic sheets, but soon they will have housing, and
education and health facilities - more than what they had in their
former homes.''
Some evacuees managed to bring cattle and chickens with them, but
many had only rations of corn and beans given by the government
AP-NY-04-26-87 1650EDT
***************
∂26-Apr-87 1926 JMC re: question about Reagn library
To: M.MCD@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from M.MCD@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU sent Sun 26 Apr 87 14:47:38-PDT.]
It's entirely possible the Reagan Foundation doesn't give a damn what you
believe.
∂26-Apr-87 2125 JMC re: comment?
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Apr 87 21:15:50 PDT.]
I have been only once to Peking and many times to the Soviet Union. Also
I speak Russian and have friends there. For this reason I cannot make
comparisons from my own experience. I found Moscow more pleasant, and I
suspect that it depends on individual circumstances. Besides, my
complaints are mostly about communist politics, and politics doesn't come
up and can be ignored in most circumstances.
∂27-Apr-87 0119 JMC re: JPL visit
To: coraki!pratt@SUN.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Apr 87 15:58:44 PDT.]
1. Your impression about JPL vision and robotics agrees with that
I got in a recent visit - as a member of a Telerobotics Technology
Advisory Committee. Indeed Don Gennery is one of our early 70s
PhDs.
2. The gravitational assist idea is quite simple. The encounter is
indeed elastic. Suppose for example you meet Jupiter head on in
its orbit. In a Jovocentric co-ordinate system you bounce off - leaving
with the same velocity with which you came in. In the solar co-ordinate
system you pick up an increment of twice Jupiter's orbital velocity.
If your velocity is v and Jupiter's is u, and you collide head on,
(i.e. your orbit is a close in hyperbola relative to Jupiter), your
relative velocity is u+v coming in and -(u+v) going out. Returning
to the solar co-ordinate system, your velocity is now -2u-v, i.e. you
are going in the opposite direction 2u faster. That's the extreme
case; coming in at an angle gets you less benefit.
∂27-Apr-87 1226 JMC
To: RA
Please find phone number and/or net address for John Hopcroft. Try chron.
∂27-Apr-87 1357 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Apr-87 13:38-PT.]
Franklin Hersch. As I said, his main virtue to me is that he has
been there for many years and seems likely to be there for many
years more.
∂27-Apr-87 1408 JMC
To: richardson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Do you have a net address for John Hopcroft?
∂27-Apr-87 1443 JMC mcderm[s87,jmc] Comments on McDermott's opus on AI
To: jeh@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU
1. Make the title "AI as a branch of computer science".
2. Remove the assertion that computer science should really be
called informatics from the first paragraph. I agree with the
remark mainly, but this isn't the place for it. Perhaps the
transition McDermott wants could be accomplished by some such
phraseology as "Computer science is as much concerned with the
form of expression of information as it is with the algorithms
that process it. Indeed the subject is called `informatics' in
much of Europe.
3. At the bottom of page 1, the sentence "We can define ... " is
fuzzy and not quite correct. Better would be
AI is concerned with programs that achieve goals in certain kinds
of open-ended "information situations" where there may not be a
complete model of the situation in which the program has to act.
These are the situations in which human intelligence is most
effective and which offer the greatest difficulties for computer
science.
4. Apart from the above remarks, I think the essay is somewhat of
a sampler, but I think it will do.
∂27-Apr-87 2105 JMC reply to message
To: RICHARDSON@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 27 Apr 87 20:11:57-PDT.]
Thanks.
∂27-Apr-87 2107 JMC re: thermostats
To: Restivo@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 27 Apr 87 20:08:54-PDT.]
I don't ascribe intelligence to thermostats - only certain beliefs,
either the room is too hot or too cold or ok. The paper is
Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines, and Rutie can give you
on or mail it. RA@SAIL. Vladimir is editing a collection of
my AI papers.
∂28-Apr-87 1436 JMC re: thermostats
To: Restivo@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 28 Apr 87 14:13:55-PDT.]
Term paper for whom?
∂28-Apr-87 1443 JMC re: picture taking
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 28-Apr-87 13:52-PT.]
I can't see him Monday, because I'll be in Texas. I can see him tomorrow
at 3pm here provided he will agree in writing to give me one print each of
two of his pictures. (Photographers have promised copies before and usually
don't keep their promises).
∂28-Apr-87 1452 JMC
To: RA
Carolyn Caddes wants you to call her.
∂28-Apr-87 1745 JMC re: thermostats
To: Restivo@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 28 Apr 87 16:59:37-PDT.]
Avoid fisticuffs with Dreyfus; you're bigger than he is. I would take
up the matter except that they might suppose there are other reasons
for not liking the paper than the mere unorthodoxy of the ideas expressed.
I would be glad to read the paper, however.
∂28-Apr-87 2244 JMC
To: RA
Did I send qlisp to Eichi Goto?
∂29-Apr-87 0411 JMC women's choices
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The present state of knowledge doesn't permit a definite answer as to
why many women choose to be housewives and why many others give their
jobs only an auxiliary role in their lives. More than one factor may
be involved.
1. There are social factors of how people are raised. Moreover, women
may be more sensitive to social expectations than men. The more feminists
grumble about what the social expectations are, the more I suspect that
they are more effective with women.
2. There may be genetic factors, especially affecting the educational
choices of teen age girls. This is where girls make the choices are
made that cut them off from many careers. This is also where the peer
group social effects are most important also.
3. Not having a career is a respectable option for women. At all ages
this affects choices, e.g. to not take physics in high school in spite
of pressures from family and teachers.
Whether the effects are biological or social, at present there is very
strong selection pressure in favor of women not taking careers seriously.
Women who do have many fewer children than those who don't. Feminism
may be almost wiped out in two generations.
∂29-Apr-87 1402 JMC re: Women's career aspirations
To: isaacs@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from isaacs@psych.stanford.edu sent 29 Apr 87 10:47:06 PDT.]
(This difference, by the way, doesn't appear until about 4th grade, so
genetics doesn't seem to be doing it.)
This is unfortunately a non sequitur. Many genetically determined
characteristics don't arise at particular points in development.
∂29-Apr-87 2100 JMC re: next Thursday
To: beeson%ucscd.UCSC.EDU@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 29 Apr 87 11:42:13 PDT.]
I thought I could, but I can't.
∂30-Apr-87 0919 JMC reply to message
To: unido!ztivax!reinfra@seismo.CSS.GOV,
aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 30 Apr 87 13:30:15 -0100.]
AAAI will support your proposed Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning
for up to $10,000. Please contact Claudia Mazzetti to make arrangements.
General facts about AAAI support of workshops in following message.
∂30-Apr-87 0923 JMC reply to message
To: unido!ztivax!reinfra@seismo.CSS.GOV
[In reply to message sent Thu, 30 Apr 87 13:30:15 -0100.]
Workshops in AI sponsored by AAAI.
AAAI will sponsor workshops in particular areas of AI. So far more
than 15 have been sponsored. The format is not prescribed except that
this program does not sponsor large conferences.
Here are some policies.
1. Up to $10K can be approved per workshop.
2. No honoraria for speakers or overhead to institutions will be paid.
3. Any workshop emphasizing commercial technology must be neutral
among the suppliers of relevant technology, e.g. people from the
different suppliers should be contacted and should have equal opportunity
to submit papers.
4. Proposals should be sent to
John McCarthy.
Electronic mail to JMC@SU-AI.STANFORD.EDU is preferred, but U.S.
mail to
Professor John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford, CA 94305
will also work. If you get impatient you can phone (415)723-4430.
5. Proposals should contain approximations to the following:
a. budget.
b. subject, detailed enough to evaluate relevance to AI
and possible overlap with other workshop proposals.
c. conditions of participation including how papers
and attendees are to be selected.
d. when and where if this is known.
6. Correspondence should be copied to AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX.STANFORD.EDU
or to
Ms. Claudia Mazzetti, Executive Director
AAAI
445 Burgess St.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
You can phone her at (415)328-3123.
7. After McCarthy has approved the proposal further arrangements should
be made with Mazzetti at the AAAI office. This includes transfer of
money and possible help with publicity and workshop preprints and
publication.
8. After the workshop is finished there should be a report suitable
for publication in AI Magazine.
9. There should also be a financial report to the AAAI office, and
unexpended money is to be returned to AAAI.
∂30-Apr-87 0931 JMC Re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: RA
∂16-Mar-87 2000 SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: expert on women's gymnastic
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 87 20:00:03 PST
Date: Mon 16 Mar 87 19:58:06-PST
From: Karin Scholz <SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Fri 13 Mar 87 21:49:00-PST
Message-ID: <12286994770.12.SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
john,
many gymnastics coaches are former gymnasts, but nadia's former coach,
bela carolli, is not, so he would be a good example for you to use.
he is large. i don't know if i would call him fat. he is currently
coaching in houston. i called his gym, but they don't have any
publicity photos of him to send out. magazines like 'international
gymnast' have photos of him coaching almost every month, however,
so you could check the magazine shops for a photo. 'sports illustrated'
certainly had photos of him during the olympics coverage this past
olympics. (he was mary lou retton's coach, too.) i'll check the
-------
∂30-Apr-87 0932 JMC Re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: RA
∂16-Mar-87 2002 SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU Re: expert on women's gymnastic
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Mar 87 20:01:56 PST
Date: Mon 16 Mar 87 20:00:01-PST
From: Karin Scholz <SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Fri 13 Mar 87 21:49:00-PST
Message-ID: <12286995118.12.SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
continued...
i'll check the mag shop on emerson to see if they carry 'international
gymnast.'
good luck,
karin
-------
∂30-Apr-87 0934 JMC re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: RA
∂17-Mar-87 1001 SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU re: expert on women's gymnastic
Received: from SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 17 Mar 87 10:00:49 PST
Date: Tue 17 Mar 87 09:58:49-PST
From: Karin Scholz <SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: expert on women's gymnastic
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>" of Mon 16 Mar 87 21:28:00-PST
Message-ID: <12287147817.28.SCHOLZ@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Mac's on Emerson doesn't carry 'International Gymnast.' Printer's Inc
might.
Good luck,
karin
-------
∂30-Apr-87 0934 JMC picture
To: RA
If convenient the picture of Carolli, should have the caption:
In what is this man an expert?
Also I would like another slide showing Nadia Comenici performing
or one of his other pupils.
∂30-Apr-87 1344 JMC
To: RA
Please return her call and see if you can satisfy her.
869-7440, robin albert, acm
∂30-Apr-87 1508 JMC re: industrial lectureship
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-87 15:05-PT.]
Haley says he'll do it. Yes, it's a NY number, but it's too late now.
Try tomorrow.
∂30-Apr-87 1547 JMC aids
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
BBOARD readers may remember that a few months ago I asked whether
people with AIDS might become reservoirs of infection of other diseases
that could be transmitted to people without AIDS. This was in connection
with the question of whether a doctor with AIDS had a right not to be
assigned by a hospital to work not involving contact with patients. I was
assured by quotations from people who worked with AIDS that there was no
danger of this. The following news story suggest that that conclusion was
overoptimistic. I have emphasized the most relevant paragraph, which is
towards the end.
a221 1418 30 Apr 87
AM-CDC-AIDS-Tuberculosis, Bjt,0694
TB Cases Up for First Time Since 1953; AIDS Partly To Blame
Eds: For Release 6:30 p.m. EDT.
By JOSEPH B. FRAZIER
Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA (AP) - Cases of tuberculosis in the United States are up
significantly for the first time in the 34 years records have been
kept, and the spread of AIDS may be partly to blame, federal
officials reported Thursday.
New TB cases declined by an average of 1,706 a year from 1982 to
1984, but by only 54 in 1985. In 1986, the number of new cases
recorded rose by 374 to 22,575, an increase of 1.7 percent, the
Centers for Disease Control reported.
''This indicates to us that we have a very serious problem; we need
to pay attention to this,'' said Dr. Dixie Snider, director of the
CDC's tuberculosis division. He warned that an increase of TB among
AIDS patients may mean an increase in the disease among the general
population.
The report said the matching of lists of AIDS and TB patients in
roughly half the states found that 4.2 percent of the AIDS patients
in those states also had TB. The relationship between AIDS and TB
would be better understood if all states matched AIDS and TB
registries, the CDC said.
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is a fatal condition that
destroys the body's ability to fight disease and leaves it open to a
variety of infections, including tuberculosis. It has been diagnosed
in more than 33,000 Americans, and more than 19,000 have died.
In July, the Journal of the American Medical Association said AIDS
patients often suffer severe and unusual forms of TB and said
tuberculosis should be seen as a signal of possible AIDS infection. A
survey of 134 New Jersey AIDS patients found 29 of them, or 21
percent, to have TB, it said.
While TB is usually confined to the lungs, in AIDS patients it
appears in bones, the heart lining, the nerves, lymph glands or
rectum, the magazine said.
Snider said the CDC's 1986 figures are preliminary and may be
slightly higher when completed. They include only indigenous TB
cases, not cases brought in from another country, he said.
The tuberculosis increases are the highest where AIDS is more of a
problem, Snider said. In New York City, TB has increased by 40
percent in two years, he said, adding that the the most dramatic
increases are in neighborhoods with high instances of AIDS and among
men ages 25-44.
''We have good circumstantial evidence that AIDS is responsible for
a great part of it,'' he said.
Other populations where an increase in TB has been noted, he said,
include minorities, the homeless and the foreign-born.
''The rate of tuberculosis has been higher among minorities than
non-minorities for years, and the gap is getting worse,'' Snider
said. Minorities often have poorer housing and nutritional habits and
less access to medical help, he said, and the same applies to the
homeless.
People born abroad may come from areas where the TB rate is hundreds
of times what it is in the United States. They may bring the bacteria
with them and develop the disease within a year or two after they
arrive, he said.
He said other illnesses, such as mycobacterium avium-intracellulare,
an ailment that has similarities to pneumonia, show up in about a
third of AIDS victims. ''It was rare before the AIDS epidemic
increase,'' he said, adding that it tends to stay with AIDS patients
and not infect the general population.
*****
''The important thing to remember is that the tuberculosis problem
is different in that other people are susceptible to it,'' he said
''Tuberculosis in New York City will spill outside the AIDS community
to others.''
*****
Snider said the breakthrough in the fight against TB came in the
late 1940s with the discovery of the antibiotic streptomycin.
National reporting of TB cases was not fully implemented until 1953.
Tuberculosis spreads when a person who has it coughs, sending the
bacteria out in water droplets. It is contagious but difficult to
spread.
AP-NY-04-30-87 1717EDT
***************
∂30-Apr-87 1557 JMC Reply to telex from France
To: RA
I understand my talk is on May 22. I have made reservations as
follows:
AF4 Los Angeles-Paris arriving May 21 5:30pm
AF35 Paris-Chicago May 26 leaving 1655
Request Paris hotel reservations this period one person.
∂30-Apr-87 1603 JMC re: Personal Advice
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-87 15:58-PT.]
My opinion is that you will find it interesting and that they won't be
disappointed. Most likely President Reagan and assorted Nobel Prize
winners have turned them down. I suggest both a technical talk and
one related to the software business. I'll bet there are people from
Chico state who have made more money out of software than you have so far.
After you have done it once, you'll know whether you want to accept the
next such invitation.
∂30-Apr-87 1610 JMC re: Personal Advice
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-Apr-87 15:58-PT.]
P.S. I have done this kind of thing several times. The several day, e.g. two,
day version is the more useful. I recently did one at Cal State Long Beach,
but they organized it in what seems to me a suboptimal way. They had
two successive talks by different speakers back to back. I only went,
because they offered $1,000 (more than twice what any previous branch
of Cal stated had offered. It seems to me I used to do it for expenses),
and because I was going to L.A. that day anyway. This one was done by
the Civil Engineering Department, and it seemed that the civil engineers
themselves weren't actually much interested in what I or the other speaker
had to say. Usually it's more interesting.
∂01-May-87 0006 JMC re: DEC CPU Update
To: Facil@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, TOM@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
kolk@NAVAJO.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu sent Thu, 30 Apr 87 21:51:55 pdt.]
Curiously, I agree entirely with David Cheriton on this one. We should get
the best possible deal on a VAX from D.E.C.
∂01-May-87 0014 JMC re: The spreading of TB caused by AIDS
To: BOUSSE@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from BOUSSE@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Thu 30 Apr 87 17:21:40-PDT.]
About 45,000 a year die in automobile accidents - down from close to 60,000.
About 50,000 American servicemen died in the Vietnam War.
∂01-May-87 1756 JMC re: Korean Computer Science
To: cheriton@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 1 May 87 17:38:36 pdt.]
Richard Stallman, stallman@mit-prep, visited there last month, although
quality of PhD work might be out of his line of interests. It's a rather
special institute, formed on the advice of Fred Terman, and subject to
the Ministry of Science and Technology rather than the Ministry of
Education. I visited it in 1978 and didn't get any very clear impression.
∂01-May-87 1804 JMC re: AIDS , TB, and Stanford
To: J.JACKK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, SU-ETC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from J.JACKK@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU sent Fri 1 May 87 14:11:35-PDT.]
I think Stanford requires a TB test, because it always has. Whether it is
still warranted, I don't know. It is one of the many filters in our society
that occasionally catches an otherwise undiagnosed case of TB. Requiring
TB tests was extremely common before it became curable. If I remember
correctly, TB once kill 300,000 Americans a year. Now there are about
1,000 new cases a year and they are almost all cured.
∂01-May-87 2242 JMC
To: RA
ershov.4,marchuk.2
∂02-May-87 1110 JMC
To: ME
∂02-May-87 0917 MDD Roger Schank
There is some possibility of his coming to NYU,
and I wonder whether you'd be willing to express an
opinion of his work.
Please send your reply to
davism@nyu.edu
I'd also appreciate it if my forwarding address from SAIL
could be changed to read like that. I don't know how to do it.
Thanks, Martin
∂02-May-87 1115 JMC re: Roger Schank
To: MDD@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message rcvd 02-May-87 09:17-PT.]
I haven't followed Schank's work in detail. It seems to me that the
early conceptual dependency work was useful though not as definitive
as he claimed. I have almost no knowledge of what he has done since
he moved to Yale. I assume you know that there has been criticism of
the extent of his involvement in his company and that the company has
made exaggerated claims. I don't know the details of either criticism
and have no opinion of their validity.
I have forwarded your request to change your forwarding address to
Martin Frost.
∂02-May-87 1340 JMC
To: JJW
* Shigeki Goto
* Research Div. Musashino Electrical Communication Lab.
* 3-9-11, Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180, Japan
∂02-May-87 1821 JMC French visa
To: RA
It just occurred to me that I need a French visa for my trip starting
May 20. Please call Mr. Hersch to find out what to do. My passport
data is
>Passport 050056916, (expires: 27 Jun 93) (issued: San Francisco
* 1983 June 28)
∂03-May-87 0205 JMC art for artists' sake
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I'm with the public on this one. It is another example of the
fact that as soon as some people escape being oppressed themselves,
they tend to oppress others --- at least their descendants do.
EDITOR'S NOTE - In a cultural tug-of-war triggered largely by the
placement of outlandish, post-modern sculptures in public places,
government bureaucrats now are consulting the people more about their
choice of public art, and artists are more and more going to court
and the legislature to assert their rights.
By HUGH A. MULLIGAN
AP Special Correspondent
The Philistines are coming, and this time they may be winning.
A role reversal in the biblical script now casts the little guy as
their champion, loading up his slingshot to keep from being dumped on
by the Goliaths of the art world.
In several cities, aroused and outraged citizens are intent on
giving the bums' rush to slabs of rusting steel, outsized concrete
cubes and accretions of twisted pipe, neon tubing and bent railroad
track paid for by taxpayers' money after beatification by the
custodians of public culture as masterpieces of minimalist,
environmental or post-modern art.
The old MGM roaring lion, over the legend ''Ars Gratia Artis'' - art
for art's sake - comes across these days as a carnivore let loose in
the coliseum with an appetite for sculptors who bestrew the landscape
with unpopular pieces of public art.
Minimalist sculptor Richard Serra is suing the U.S. General Services
Adminstration for $30 million for damage to his career after a panel
bowed to public protest and ordered the removal of his 120-foot-long,
l2-foot-high, 78-ton ''Tilted Arc'' from Manhattan's Foley Square.
His massive creation has been spray painted with obscenities,
mistaken for an outdoor privy, renamed ''The Berlin Wall,'' and
denounced as an eyesore, a hideout for muggers and a hospice for bag
ladies. Some 1,300 office workers in the Jacob K. Javits Federal
Building signed a petition to get rid of it.
In St. Louis, alderman Timothy Dee is pushing for a binding
referendum to remove ''Twain,'' another gigantic Serra sculpture of
rusting slabs of steel taking up almost an entire block on the high
ground above Eero Saarinen's soaring Gateway Arch. Art lovers say the
eight panels of steel set in the ground to form an irregular polygon
are ''the cutting edge of art.'' The public has overwhelmingly
decided in newspaper and television polls that ''Twain Weck'' or ''Le
Grand Pissoir,'' as it is also known to scoffers, should be cut up
and carted away to the junk pile.
Serra, a major sculptor whose massive creations occupy parks and
squares in Paris, Toronto, the Netherlands, Pittsburgh and West
Germany, contends that removing his works would be immoral, a
desecration of art, and censorship.
In his lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, he argues
that ''Tilted Arc'' is ''site specific,'' which in art vernacular
means the piece was created for this particular plaza and to move it
anywhere else would destroy it. In other words, get out of my space.
The dark red, oxidizing piece of Cor-Ten steel was thrust across the
federal plaza at a cost of $181,000 as part of the
Art-in-Architecture program which allocates one half of 1 percent of
the estimated cost of all federal building for fine arts to ''enhance
the environment and improve the quality of life.''
Many who look at it every day say it's a hunk of junk that does
neither.
Art critic Michael Brenson, who praises the ''savage elegance'' of
Serra's unadorned slab of curving steel, argues that removing it
would ''badly compromise'' the federal art program, and
''unmistakably condone the kind of stubbornly uninformed public
opinion that should never be encouraged by any serious cultural
organization.''
At first, some of the uninformed occupants of the Javits complex
thought Serra's sculpture was a huge beam left behind by the
construction crews. When informed it was put there for art's sake and
maybe forever, they became even more stubborn. They found the piece
''hostile,'' ''threatening,'' ''bullying'' and pronounced it
''penny-a-pound scrap iron'' that blocks entrances and walls off the
plaza from use for noontime rock and jazz concerts.
''The art is depressing and overbearing'' testified Judge Gregory
Carman of the Court of International Trade during the three days of
hearings that whipped up the cream of New York's art world against
the proletarian protestors. ''It invites graffiti. Transients have
actually been seen urinating on it. Some people avoid the plaza
because they think it is subway construction.''
A committee chosen by the National Endowment for the Arts to find an
alternative site ''that will not impair the integrity'' of the work
has yet to hold its first meeting, preferring to await the outcome of
Serra's suit.
Minimalist art stirs up the public mostly because there doesn't seem
to be anything minimal about these mammoth creations. Controversies
have raged over Claes Oldenburg's 100-foot high steel baseball bat in
Chicago, his ''Clothespin'' in Philadelphia, his ''Crusoe Umbrella''
in Des Moines, Robert Murray's ''Nimbus'' in Juneau, Alaska, and
Christo Javacheff festooning 11 islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay with
6 million square feet of pink plastic, and gift-wrapping the Pont
Neuf in Paris and the Reichstag in Berlin.
Last October, the good burghers of Allentown, Pa., awoke to find
their parks and intersections decorated, some say littered, with nine
more abstract sculptures, the gift of hometown philanthropist Philip
Berman, who made his fortune in trucking and retailing.
The city of l04,000 in the peaceful Lehigh Valley had sort of grown
accustomed to Berman's couple of dozen previous benefactions, like
Paul Sisko's big red cube with the bolt through it in Cedar Park,
known locally as ''The Screw in the Park,'' and ''Theseus,'' by
Israeli artist Tumarkin, a large white figure on what seems like
railroad tracks and which may or may not be a woman pushing or
pulling a plow.
Berman's latest batch was too much for Holly Gabovitz, who thought
the citizens should be consulted before modern art was ''forced down
their throats.'' She collected 900 signatures petitioning their
removal to a less conspicuous site, perhaps a sculpture garden, where
those who want to see them can.
''They can sell it, destroy it, do whatever they want. It's
theirs,'' was donor Berman's reaction, but he hoped in time people
might even come to understand and love the outdoor art. ''People go
look at a sculpture and yell horrors. What they're doing is just
expressing an animal instinct of fear. And what do they fear?
Something they don't know.''
Mrs. Gabovitz said she wasn't afraid of the art; she just didn't
want to be forced to look at it.
In recent times, similar art controversies have rended the nation's
cultural fabric, and in one case, its paint cloth. Well, almost.
The Philistines had a field day in Atlanta a few years back when a
janitor in the Richard Russell Building, home of federal offices,
mistook an unframed canvas by artist Sam Gilliam, worth $50,000, for
a painter's dropcloth and tried to throw it out.
The $450,000 worth of art in Atlanta's ultramodern Hartsfield
Airport also stirred a tempest in the public paint pot.
When the new terminal opened in the fall of l980, Bob Jones III,
head of Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C., called for the
removal from public view of ''a lewd photograph of a woman's
backside.''
Shirley Franklin, then city commissioner of cultural affairs,
defended artist Michael Siede's dancer in leotards as ''a statement
about the beauty of the human form.''
''If your reasoning holds,'' answered the affronted evangelist,
''then let's all take off our clothes in order to grace the world
with beauty.''
Artists aren't the only ones making statements, as Stephan Antonakos
found out when Atlanta Constitution columnist Lewis Grizzard, the
John Ruskin of the Rednecks, critiqued his collage of geometric bits
of colored neon tubing.
''Compared to the 'artist' responsible for the neon in Atlanta's
airport, the guy who did the 'Isle of Palm Motel - No Vancancy'
(spelled just like that) was an artistic genius.''
Philadelphia, where the concept of allocating funds for fine art in
public projects was invented in 1959, is now involved in a reverse
post-modernist snit. It seems the mandarins of municipal culture
rejected a sculpture of Thomas Jefferson on the grounds that it
looked suspiciously like Thomas Jefferson.
To connoisseurs of the abstract, the surreal and the phallic
non-functional, anything resembling classical pigeon-flecked pedestal
statuary is as abhorrent as a cardboard cutout of stripper Ann Corio
in the lobby of the old Trocadero burlesque house. Convinced that the
odds were loaded in favor of environmental art, sculptor Walter
Erlebacher withdrew his commission, charging that the fine arts
selection committee ''seemed confused between acting legitimately in
aesthetic guidance and acting as a dictatorship in censoring a
particular art form.''
At the state Capitol in Olympia, Wash., legislators deemed Michael
Spafford's murals of the 12 labors of Hercules ''obscene'' and voted
to have them draped over with curtains. When Senate Majority Leader
Ted Bottiger led a drive to have artist Alden Mason's murals removed
from the upper chamber, he was besieged with phone calls.
''Because of you big city press people,'' Bottiger fumed, ''I had to
explain all day I'm not a redneck, rural stumblebum. I've got three
college degrees. I'm not anti-art. I've got art in my office with the
price tags on it. All I ask is that the frames blend in with the
decor.''
Painter Alexander Shundi backed his van up to the New Milford,
Conn., senior citizens center last month and carted off all 34 of his
paintings from an exhibition sponsored by the Housatonic Art League.
He was protesting the removal of four of them from the large hall
where the town selectmen meet to a smaller room, after Golden Agers
complained about nudity and sexual bluntness.
''This sexy stuff is for the birds,'' declared Stephen Gereg, a
member of the center's advisory board. ''This is our hall and we have
to live with the stuff every day.''
In vain does the artist argue that Michelangelo adorned the Sistine
Chapel with some very sensuous nudes.
He didn't exactly get away with it. Egged on by his scandalized
master of ceremonies, Biagio de Cesena, Pope Paul IV intended to
destroy the frescoes, including the ''Last Judgment,'' Michelangelo's
final masterpiece. Then the pope was persuaded to bring in Daniele da
Volterra to paint diapers on the offending figures, which earned the
artist the nickname of ''Il Braghettone'' -the breeches-maker.
Michelangelo got his revenge by condemning the papal master of
ceremonies to Hell, where he appears in the bottom left-hand corner
with the ears of a jackass as Minos, the tour guide on Charon's
ferryboat for lost souls.
Five centuries later, all Italy is divided over whether restorers at
work on the Sistine Chapel should censor the censors and undiaper the
figures. Now Parisians, who suavely shipped off Serra's huge steel
arcs called ''Clara-lara'' from the gardens of the Tuileries to the
suburbs, are having une crise de foie over architect I.M. Pei's glass
pyramid in the forecourt of the Louvre.
Even the Soviets bowed to letters in Pravda and got rid of an
unpopular war memorial in downtown Moscow.
Over the years the Philistines have drawn some surprising recruits.
Lord Elgin saw nothing sacrilegious in removing the Elgin Marbles,
those magnificent friezes, from the Parthenon on the Acropolis in
Athens. Several popes and Napoleon had no qualms about relocating the
obelisks of Ramses and Thutmose, which surely were site specific to
the temple of Luxor at Heliopolis. Now the Greeks and Egyptians want
them back.
When Marcel Duchamps' abstract ''Nude Descending a Staircase'' was
exhibited in the nation's capital, Teddy Roosevelt thought it
''looked like an explosion in a shingle factory.''
Custodians of the Pittsburgh airport immobilized an Alexander Calder
mobile and painted it green and yellow, the city's colors. And a New
York bank chopped up a Noguchi aluminum sculpture.
With courage born of a quart of brandy, Winston Churchill slashed
away with his old admiralty sword at an unflattering portrait by
Graham Sutherland, presented to him by Parliament on his 80th
birthday. ''It made me look like I was having a difficult stool,''
growled Winnie.
As a result of this cultural tug-of-war, bureaucrats now are
consulting the people more about the choice and placement of public
art, and artists are more and more going to court and the legislature
to assert their rights.
''The like-it-or-lump-it theory of public art is dead,'' said
William J. Diamond, the General Services Administration's regional
administrator named in the Richard Serra suit. After the ''battle of
Foley Square,'' he laid down new ground rules for input by the local
community before commissioning government art.
Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado recently signed a bill adding a senator
and house member to the jury selecting public art, after several
legislators were perturbed by a $79,500 sculpture at the state
penitentiary in Canon City featuring gushing gargoyles and
silhouettes of dancing women, one of whom was pregnant.
After the uproar over Allentown's ''monstrosities,'' community
development director Donald Bernhard conceded that ''in the future
we'll probably work a little closer with the Arts Commission, at
least on site selection, but I don't think it's realistic or
appropriate to have a public referendum on every piece of artwork we
place in the city.''
On the other side of the tugging match between art and its
beholders, Connecticut artist Walt Spitzmiller settled out of court
his suit against L.L. Bean, the Maine sporting goods giant. The
artist charged that the firm, without his knowledge, altered ''Hunter
and Friend,'' his painting for the cover of last fall's mail-order
catalog. The grizzled hunter emerged as a clean-shaven, slack-jawed
yuppie, and even his faithful dog had been given a nose job.
Spitzmiller was a key witness at a hearing on a proposed Connecticut
''Act Concerning Art Preservation and Artists Rights,'' which
provides that mere possession of a work of art doesn't give the owner
any right to deface or destroy it.
In a national confrontation between the ''moral rights'' of artists
and private property laws, Sen. Edward Kennedy seeks to amend the
copyright law by providing resale royalties of 7 percent for artists
and protection of their work from distortion, mutilation, negligence
or willful damage.
Lawyer Alvin S. Lane, who specializes in the legal aspects of art,
thinks there should be a moratorium of five to 10 years on removal of
public art to protect an artist from ''capricious or premature
rejection'' of his work.
While conceding that ''panels of experts who choose public art also
make mistakes and have no place to hide them,'' Lane opposes art by
popular vote lest ''we end up with an aesthetic common denominator of
sterile, benign and conventional art that will neither offend nor
stimulate anyone.''
That's how the sparks fly from the chisel these days. There are
those who would haul Serra's ''Tilted Arc'' off to the junkyard, and
those who would have hauled Sir Winston into court for defacing a
Sutherland.
''Trashing public art is a popular pastime because it's essentially
harmless,'' says Bruce Bradley, a talk show host on radio KMOX in St
Louis. ''It doesn't offend any racial or ethnic group.'' Bradley
recently invited listeners to liven up Serra's ''Twain'' by
relocating the pink plastic flamingos from their lawns.
Next morning, all 38 flamingos placed around one of the huge steel
plates had vanished. Stolen. Or perhaps deemed not site specific.
∂03-May-87 1129 JMC (→20516 6-May-87)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I'll be back Friday night May 6 from a trip to Texas and New Mexico.
∂03-May-87 1135 JMC (→20520 8-May-87)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I'll be back Friday night May 8.
∂05-May-87 1448 JMC
To: RA
By the way the pictures got here.
∂06-May-87 1342 JMC Pucci
To: bergman@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, LES@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Please schedule me and Les together, so I can pass the buck as much
as possible. Maybe Carolyn should be included too at the same
time. Rutie has my schedule. If Carolyn is included, Thursday
is difficult.
∂06-May-87 1346 JMC Pucci
To: CLT
This is instead of adding you to a message to Bergman and Les, which
would have been difficult over the net. I suggested including you
and Les and me in the same meeting with Pucci so as to pass as much
of the buck as posssible to Les.
∂08-May-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
To: JMC
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I'll be back Friday night May 8.
∂08-May-87 2046 JMC re: suppes
To: SHOHAM@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 6 May 87 13:46:54-PDT.]
When and where?
∂08-May-87 2050 JMC I'm sorry I have to decline the November meeting. It's clear to
To: ito%aoba.tohoku.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
CC: MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
me that if I want to accomplish my goals next Fall at the University
of Texas, I shouldn't take substantial trips. I hope to visit Sendai
again before too long.
∂08-May-87 2053 JMC re: Scientific and Engineering Advisory Board for SDI
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 08-May-87 14:22-PT.]
Yes, I will attend.
∂08-May-87 2133 JMC parking tickets
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I am astonished that the matter continued so long on the bulletin board
before anyone called anyone in authority to tell them about their goof
and ask what to do about it. Incidentally, my daughter Susan in Texas
tells me that she has received duns from San Jose for tickets she is
sure she paid. This suggests that the goof is county-wide.
∂08-May-87 2135 JMC parking
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Second thought: I'll bet that the end result of the bungle will be that
people who haven't paid their tickets will be able to avoid doing so.
Since there are so many people who paid and haven't kept cancelled checks,
the judges are almost certain to make the officials accept such excuses.
∂09-May-87 1355 JMC french reservations
To: RA
It seems from the latest French telegram that this travel agency thinks it
is supplying tickets and saying that the reservations can't be changed.
This is inconvenient, since I have other travel plans. Please try to
figure out what to do. I suppose I need to get in touch with the French
organizers of the affair, my actual hosts.
∂09-May-87 1419 JMC
To: RA
daily.15
∂09-May-87 1440 JMC
To: MYV@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I am interested in TARK II. Please keep me on the list.
∂09-May-87 1602 JMC
To: RA
shapir.re3
∂09-May-87 1633 JMC
To: RA
panam.1
∂09-May-87 1638 JMC buslet
To: RA
I tried to tex daily.15[let,jmc], and it didn't work, apparently because
of a bug in your buslet file or possibly because I tried to use it
logged in as myself. Please fix it so that I can use these files
directly by putting the necessary file for letters in let,jmc.
∂09-May-87 1647 JMC re: buslet
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 09-May-87 16:44-PT.]
I'll try it for now, but this won't work in the long run, because I assume
that Zohar may make further changes in ztex for his own convenience. Or
am I misinterpreting the z.
∂09-May-87 1724 JMC
To: CLT
ok, I'm off now.
∂09-May-87 2144 JMC re: Meeting
To: JJW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
Ullman@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from JJW rcvd 09-May-87 17:40-PT.]
2pm on the 18th is ok as is any other time on the 18th or 19th except
11 to 1 on the 18th. I would like Carolyn to come also, and she can
make that time but would prefer 3pm.
∂10-May-87 0834 JMC wallst.2
To: RA
I notice that my previous letter went to their office in San Francisco.
That's just a business office. Please send this one to the publication
office in New York.
∂10-May-87 0908 JMC lunch
To: elliott%slacvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
Are you free for lunch some day this week?
∂10-May-87 1050 JMC
To: JK
{\bf McCarthy, John (1982)}: {\it Coloring Maps and the Kowalski Doctrine},
Report No. STAN-CS-82-903, Computer Science Department, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305.
∂10-May-87 1222 JMC re: old parking tickets:SIGNATURE collection time CANCELLED.
To: BRONSTEIN@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 10 May 87 11:15:04-PDT.]
Your letter is getting better and better. However, I would change the
word "malice" to "greed", since I doubt that they dislike you. It may be
that the amount they bid for the right to collect the fines was based on
a calculation that some people who didn't owe money would pay anyway.
If so they deserve to be caught short. I would threaten a class action
civil suit against them and the County as well as taking the matter to
the District Attorney. Incidentally, one letter from an attorney might
be more effective than any number of individual complaints, since it
seems to me that there really are grounds for a lawsuit. A class action
suit could end up with a judgment requiring them to seek out everyone
whom they billed, write a letter of apology, and ask everyone who
believes he had already paid to file for a refund, i.e. meeting your
full demands.
∂10-May-87 1223 JMC parking tickets
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I would suggest those who have received such letters to relax and not
pay until the matter is cleared up.
I look at the matter objectively, since I haven't yet received such
dunning letters.
∂10-May-87 1634 JMC re: my talk about you and Feigenbaum
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 10-May-87 16:15-PT.]
I'm planning to come.
∂10-May-87 2053 JMC re:old parking tickets, improvement?
To: BRONSTEIN@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 10 May 87 19:10:15-PDT.]
I don't really know, but if included the phrase should begin "We fully
intend to seek ...". I suppose it's a good idea. I suggest that rather
than bothering with signatures, you simply ask for concurring computer
mail and just include the names. Since the letter has no legal
significance, there is no need.
∂11-May-87 0726 JMC status of proposal
To: amarel@VENERA.ISI.EDU, simpson@VENERA.ISI.EDU
What is the status of our proposal? When should I call to talk about
it? I am sending Saul the proceedings of a recent workshop on the
logical treatment of the frame problem, and I think it shows that
the work that Vladimir and I do is at the center of current interest
in the logic of AI. I hope that is considered relevant.
∂11-May-87 0950 JMC re: LUNCH
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 10 May 87 17:42:13 PDT.]
See you at 1130 Thursday.
∂11-May-87 1035 JMC free KCL
To: RWW@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
A recent AILIST (AI.TXT[BB,DOC]) announces the free availability of KCL.
∂11-May-87 1524 JMC Keith Clark
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
phoned my answering machine and will call again tomorrow. He will be
in town next Thursday and wants to talk about (among other things) the
possibility of spending "a term" here, and he asked me to forward this
message to you in case he didn't reach you. In fact I'll be in France
next Thursday, but perhaps he'll be able to reach you, and he should
probably talk also (about scientific matters) to Vladimir.
∂11-May-87 1809 JMC France
To: RA
Please send whoever sent me a telegram, a telegram saying that I
will make my own travel arrangements.
∂11-May-87 1823 JMC pledge
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
"under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s. "In God
we trust" on the money came before I was a child. It means that all
others pay cash and is therefore appropriate for the currency.
∂12-May-87 0910 JMC re: Lexicon Workshop Proposal for AAAI funding
To: walker@FLASH.BELLCORE.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 12 May 87 09:55:25 edt.]
I have your proposal and will reply this week. I have been out of town.
∂12-May-87 1003 JMC re: Keith Clark
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 12-May-87 09:47-PT.]
I will be in Europe next week leaving Wednesday and returning the
following Friday night.
∂12-May-87 1306 JMC Vladimir
To: VAL
∂12-May-87 0603 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM Vladimir
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 May 87 06:03:00 PDT
Date: Mon 11 May 87 20:15:36-CDT
From: Bob Boyer <AI.BOYER@MCC.COM>
Subject: Vladimir
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ics.browne@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ai.novak@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ai.woody@MCC.COM
Message-ID: <12301645251.37.AI.BOYER@MCC.COM>
We have discussed various possibilities for Vladimir
Lifschitz for the Fall.
Please let us know whether it would be a good idea to invite
Vladimir as a cs faculty visitor for the Fall, with his wife
still at Stanford, or his wife at UT, teaching or not
teaching at UT. Based on a just received message from JC
Browne, I think it is possible, even quite possible, to get
Vladimir a visiting appointment for the Fall. It is not
certain, due to a university-wide freeze on further visitors
for the Fall, which all has to do, I presume, with the
legislature taking its sweet time about next year's
appropriations. Gordon Novak is a close neighbor of the
chairman of the Slavic languages department and would be
most willing to talk with him about a position for
Vladimir's wife. Whether anything could be worked out for
Mrs. Lifschitz this Fall I cannot guess.
As a first step, rushed vitas would be appreciated.
If it would be best just to work on a plan for numerous
consultant visits by Vladimir, at MCC or UT, please say so.
-------
∂12-May-87 1306 JMC Vladimir
To: VAL
∂12-May-87 1229 AI.BOYER@MCC.COM Vladimir
Received: from MCC.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 12 May 87 12:28:17 PDT
Date: Tue 12 May 87 14:26:58-CDT
From: Bob Boyer <AI.BOYER@MCC.COM>
Subject: Vladimir
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: ai.novak@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ics.browne@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ai.woody@MCC.COM
Message-ID: <12301843927.83.AI.BOYER@MCC.COM>
JC Browne, who just got back in town after being gone since
before your last visit, has kindly observed that money is
available to bring Vladimir down to UT for some short visits
while you are here next Fall. I suggest that you give JC a
ring and work out the details, if this is the way you and
Vladimir would like to go.
-------
∂12-May-87 1308 JMC re: Vladimir
To: AI.BOYER@MCC.COM
CC: ai.novak@R20.UTEXAS.EDU, ics.browne@R20.UTEXAS.EDU,
ai.woody@MCC.COM, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from AI.BOYER@MCC.COM sent Tue 12 May 87 14:26:58-CDT.]
According to my discussion with Vladimir, short visits might be the best,
but I have forwarded today's messages to him, and I suggest you talk to him
directly.
∂12-May-87 1429 JMC re: list of workshops that I know of
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 12 May 87 14:08:34 PDT.]
Your list of workshops includes both ones that I have approved and ones
that are just applications and maybe applications that have been approved
by someone else. Can you let me know which are which? I have 5 applications
now includeing Cheeseman and Reinfrank, and I'll let you know my intentions
today.
∂12-May-87 1435 JMC Workshop approvals
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
I have decided to approve the following workshops, and this empties
my stack.
Cheeseman $3K (note that this is less than requested)
Sullivan on intelligent interfaces → $5K
Gale on AI and Statistics
Reinfrank on non-monotonic reasoning → $10K
Walker on linguistics workshops → $5K
I'll communicate with the proposers and they will contact you.
∂12-May-87 1437 JMC re: Uncertainty in AI workshop
To: CHEESEMAN%PLU@AMES-IO.ARPA, aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 10 Apr 87 16:40:41 PST.]
I am approving your workshop this time for $3K. Please arrange details
with Claudia.
∂12-May-87 1443 JMC re: Workshop proposal
To: wiley!joe@LLL-LCC.ARPA, aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Apr 87 16:55:42 PST.]
I am approving your workshop for up to $5K in accordance
with your budget, except that we don't pay management fees. You
can put the extra into transportation and expenses. Please make
all further arrangements with Claudia Mazzetti at AAAI.
The following is the announcement, but it also includes some
policies.
Workshops in AI sponsored by AAAI.
AAAI will sponsor workshops in particular areas of AI. So far more
than 15 have been sponsored. The format is not prescribed except that
this program does not sponsor large conferences.
Here are some policies.
1. Up to $10K can be approved per workshop.
2. No honoraria for speakers or overhead to institutions will be paid.
3. Any workshop emphasizing commercial technology must be neutral
among the suppliers of relevant technology, e.g. people from the
different suppliers should be contacted and should have equal opportunity
to submit papers.
4. Proposals should be sent to
John McCarthy.
Electronic mail to JMC@SU-AI.STANFORD.EDU is preferred, but U.S.
mail to
Professor John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford, CA 94305
will also work. If you get impatient you can phone (415)723-4430.
5. Proposals should contain approximations to the following:
a. budget.
b. subject, detailed enough to evaluate relevance to AI
and possible overlap with other workshop proposals.
c. conditions of participation including how papers
and attendees are to be selected.
d. when and where if this is known.
6. Correspondence should be copied to AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX.STANFORD.EDU
or to
Ms. Claudia Mazzetti, Executive Director
AAAI
445 Burgess St.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
You can phone her at (415)328-3123.
7. After McCarthy has approved the proposal further arrangements should
be made with Mazzetti at the AAAI office. This includes transfer of
money and possible help with publicity and workshop preprints and
publication.
8. After the workshop is finished there should be a report suitable
for publication in AI Magazine.
9. There should also be a financial report to the AAAI office, and
unexpended money is to be returned to AAAI.
∂12-May-87 1448 JMC reply to message
To: unido!ztivax!reinfra@seismo.CSS.GOV
[In reply to message sent Thu, 30 Apr 87 13:30:15 -0100.]
Your workshop on non-monotonic reasoning is approved for up to $10K.
Please make all further arrangements with Claudia Mazzetti.
∂12-May-87 1450 JMC re: proposal for AAAI funding
To: walker@FLASH.BELLCORE.COM, aaai@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 3 May 87 19:50:15 edt.]
Your workshop is approved for $5K as requested. Please make further
arrangements with Claudia.
∂12-May-87 1451 JMC re: visa
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 12-May-87 14:48-PT.]
Yes, please do it. I'll bring in the passport and photo tomorrow.
∂12-May-87 1515 JMC membership directory
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
would be more useful if it included such telephone
numbers and electronic addresses as members chose to supply.
∂12-May-87 1702 JMC
To: RA
chudno.re1
∂12-May-87 1756 JMC re: Windmills on 580 (or is it 205?)
To: Tracy@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Tracy@Sushi.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 12 May 87 16:46:24-PDT.]
The windmills between here and the Central Valley, more specifically in
Altamont pass, indeed generate electricity, though not much. They are
a creation of the alternate energy religion of the 1970s. PG & E is
required to buy any power they produce at a price that the State
Energy Commission sets on the basis of what it imagines P G and E's
options to be for new power. They get (or got) an energy tax credit in
addition to the investment tax credit.
Imagine them to belong to your dentist and similar investors. The tax
laws are sufficiently complicated that the average investor can't tell
whether he is winning or losing. Since they generate much less energy
than was planned, because they're often broken, most probably the
investors are losing. They are of various designs, because the promoters
favored different designs, although research credits also played a role.
I remember visiting a "research" windmill at San Luis Dam, where they kept
actual records. That one had generated electricity at six percent of
capacity over a year. The following year it was gone, and the museum
there had no record of what it had generated.
The biggest engineering problem with windmills is that the power they
generate is proportional to the cube of the wind velocity. Typically
they are optimized for winds of up to a certain velocity. If the wind
is stronger the blades have to be stopped to avoid breakage. At low
velocities they are inefficient. As a result they aren't cost-effective.
This was known before they were built, but faith conquered all.
Get out of your car sometime and listen to the noises they make. I've
heard it has turned out to be impossible even to graze cattle under them,
because the cattle are spooked by the groans and shrieks.
The cost to the public of the alternate energy religion has never been
estimated, but I bet it's large.
Split atoms, not wood.
∂13-May-87 1042 JMC belated reply
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
I'm sure that many people felt more comfortable criticizing the Reagan
Library on amenity grounds than as a continuation of the attack on the
Hoover Institution. Moreover, as I said, I would have been more
comfortable with a site near 280. Also the library without the policy
center wouldn't be of much interest to me. However, the origin of the
attack was political and it remains tarred with it. Anti-Reagan partisans
correctly consider driving away the library a political victory.
The issue that remains is the continuation of the attack on the Hoover
Institution using whatever administrative anomalies exist to disguise
the fact that the attack is really on Hoover serving as a base for
the expression of ideas abhorrent to the attackers. They need to disguise
even to themselves that they are attacking the academic freedom of
people with whom they disagree. There is still no admission on the left
that the academic freedom of people to the right of them has ever been
attacked.
As to the existence of political animus, I still remember with disgust
Craig Heller's remark in the Senate that he thought the anti-Hoover
resolution that had just passed 29-1 "lacked oomph".
∂13-May-87 1054 JMC
To: AIR
I left a GMW paper on your desk. Someone at MCC gave it to me for you.
∂13-May-87 1101 JMC Accuracy in Academia
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Some may remember that inquired about opinions of Accuracy in Academia,
a sideline of Reid Irvine's Accuracy in Media. The latter criticizes
what it considers bias in the media from a point of view that most would
describe as right wing. From a similar point of view Accuracy in Academia
criticizes what some professors teach. This criticism is expressed in
a newsletter Campus Report a copy of which (I subscribed) I have left
in the lounge. When it was founded Accuracy in Academia was criticized
as an attempt to violate academic freedom. On the basis of the one
issue of Campus Report so far received, my opinion is that the critics
are mistaken. It seems to me that it is entirely legitimate for students
to criticize what any professor teaches from any point of view and
to put the criticism in a nationally circulated newsletter if they
wish. ETC readers may form their own opinions by looking at this
Campus Report. Understand that the issue is not whether the criticism
is correct or even whether the bare facts are accurately reported. It
is whether such criticism constitutes a violation of academic freedom.
The article, about a teacher of black studies, doesn't advocate any
action against the professor. However, even if it did advocate it, in
my opinion this is not a violation of anyone's rights. If, however,
the college or university took some action against the professor or failed
to take an action in her favor, e.g. granting tenure, then the question
arises as to whether the action was improperly motivated. Of course,
when a professor is fired, definite reasons must be given and justified.
When tenure is denied, it is legitimate to say merely that the university
thinks it can get someone better for the job. The burden of proof that
the motivation is bad lies with the supporters of the person denied tenure.
∂13-May-87 1252 JMC re: Parking Facts/Trivia
To: OR.LUSTIG@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from OR.LUSTIG@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Wed 13 May 87 11:33:39-PDT.]
The pattern of faculty parking is also quite different during finals week.
∂13-May-87 1409 JMC
To: rdz@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
06-24 26 and 27,thurs.-sat., foundations of AI conference
∂13-May-87 1421 JMC
To: RA
metrop.1
∂13-May-87 1433 JMC re: Jacks Seminar Room Scheduling
To: LES
[In reply to message sent 13 May 87 1355 PDT.]
It might be worthwhile to point out that a directory command ordinarily
tells when the file was last updated provided all users are careful not
to alter the file even trivially.
∂13-May-87 1442 JMC re: next meeting
To: shoham@JERRY-LEE-LEWIS
[In reply to message sent Wed, 13 May 87 14:31:30 PDT.]
I will, alas, be away from the 20th true the 29th.
∂13-May-87 1525 JMC bibliography to Prof. Paris
To: perlis@MIMSY.UMD.EDU
I received an inquiry from Prof. J. B. Paris
Department of Mathematics
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL
United Kingdom
in relation to "a survey of mathematical approaches to the problem
of reasoning under uncertainty". I'm sending him a paper each
of mine and Vladimir's, and I think he would benefit from the
current version of your bibliography.
∂13-May-87 1528 JMC
To: RA
paris.1
∂13-May-87 1702 JMC re: A prospective student,
To: MARTIN@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 13 May 87 16:16:50-PDT.]
I will be in Europe. He could talk to Carolyn Talcott.
∂13-May-87 2336 JMC your paper
To: d.daedalus@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
I think your paper is quite good and would like to discuss with
you the issues it raises. I agree with it mostly, especially
with the idea that causality is a partly an epistemological idea
and not just a physical idea. However, I don't agree with your
final remark that causality is tightly connected with human
intelligence and that there are better ways of organizing
knowledge. My intuitive opinion is that causality is needed in certain
information situations, regardless of whether the thinker is
human or a computer program. The physicists can avoid using
causality, because the situations they formalize have a certain
information-theoretic completeness. Suppose we say that the
baseball caused the window to break. An omniscient physicist
might be able to avoid using causal language, because he could
run the equations backwards as well as forwards. However, if
the physicist is only human he has only certain information
and will find the causal language essential to express what
he knows. A robot in the same information-theoretic situation
will also need causal language.
I haven't checked out your criticism of Lifschitz's system. In
particular it isn't obvious to me that he would have to formulate
the heavier-than-air, lighter-than-air problem the way you did.
If so the formalism needs revision. You should talke to him
about it.
Incidentally, Shoham is at Stanford now and is running a seminar
on causality. Have you been attending it? If you don't know
about it send a message to SHOHAM@SCORE.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂14-May-87 1003 JMC re: AAAI Housing
To: AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 14 May 87 09:26:24 PDT.]
Thanks for making the Westin reservation.
∂14-May-87 1050 JMC re: the title of the book
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 14-May-87 10:40-PT.]
I'd like to think more about the title. Maybe it should have a title
more indicative of the specialization within AI, e.g. involving
"common sense knowledge". I don't know whether it is necessary
that the title should use the word "papers" or an equivalent. If
not, something like "Giving programs common sense" would do. It
is sometime customary to give a volume the title of the lead paper,
so that "Programs with Commmon Sense" might do as a title for the
volume.
∂14-May-87 1113 JMC re: photographer
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 14-May-87 10:59-PT.]
I assume she means Tuesday of next week or does she mean in June?
Let the photographer come here, and get me when he wants me.
∂14-May-87 1826 JMC windmills
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The windmills on 580 are not a research project; they are the result
of investments. Presumably something could be learned from them, but
I doubt that adequate records of performance are kept. The
one I mentioned at San Luis Dam was a research project, but it was
dismantled, and I suspect this was because the measured six percent
of capacity at which it operated was regarded as a failure. I am
in favor of tech, high or low, if it works. I agree that windmills
can be made to generate power at some cost, but we might only be
able to afford one 40 watt bulb per house. The rationale of the tax
subsidies was that even if no-one could figure out how to make them
efficient, maybe the subsidies would lead to a way of doing it. As
for fission energy, it is both safer and more efficient than anything
else on the horizon.
About two years ago there was a proposal to put windmills on the
Shawangunk hills in New York. Unfortunately, it didn't go through.
I say unfortunately, because I believe it would have been very educational
for the rock climbers in the Shawangunks, who I suppose to be mostly
environmentalist in their politics, to hear the shrieks and groans
and see the small amount of power generated.
∂14-May-87 2214 JMC Fascism
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Fascism in Italy involved a lack of free elections, a maximal leader
(Mussolini), denial of free speech to opponents and their arbitrary
arrest, imprisonment and exile. It had some other ideas that I suppose
were not anti-democratic per se, e.g. the corporate state. The idea
of this is that people were politically organized by occupation rather
than by locality of residence. It also involved extreme nationalism,
and Italy conquered Ethiopia in the thirties, long after establishment
of empires by this means had gone out of fashion. Mussolini took power
in Italy in 1921 and Hitler not till 1933, so Mussolini was the sole
example for 12 years. The doctrine was explicitly anti-democratic as
contrasted with certain other countries in which lip service was paid
to democracy but not practiced. After 1933 Mussolini became allied
with Hitler who was far worse. Italian Fascism was internally murderous
only on a very small scale as contrasted with Nazism. Fascism was
admired by some right wingers and wise guys. The wise guys said things
like, "Fascism has made the trains run on time". The right wingers
sometimes admired crushing the labor unions.
Of course, the term was used more generally than to cover Mussolini's
doctrine and regime. In particular, communists were inclined to call
anything Fascist of which they disapproved such as preventing them
from disrupting other people's meetings. I believe this epithet was
used at Stanford in the early 1970s against attempts to protect meetings
Stanford radicals were intent on disrupting.
∂14-May-87 2255 JMC Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
greater than it is today. In particular, they make men and women somewhat
more equal. My opinion is that if more people carried guns, there would
be more killings, mainly in fights and accidents, but people might feel
safer in some environments. Muggings in public would be less frequent,
because the mugger might be shot by a bystander. Rapists would have
relatively short lives, because while they would succeed in overpowering
maybe 9/10 of their victims, sooner or later a victim would shoot him. I
doubt that our society is presently dangerous enough to justify universal
possession of weapons, but the New York subways might be approaching that
level.
∂15-May-87 0959 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
To: MACMILK@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 15 May 87 08:21:15-PDT.]
Katie you missed my point. The odds would usually still be against the
innocent in any individual encounter. The bad guy would practice with
guns more than the innocent just as they now practice karate more.
However, guns introduce a substantial random variable so that the expected
survival time of a bad guy, e.g. rapist or strong arm robber, would be
less than it is now. For example, a some rape victim would turn out to
have a gun concealed under her clothing or under the mattress.
I repeat that I regard this as a measure of desperation to be held in
reserve for the possibility that things get much worse. Before we go to
encouraging or requiring people to own handguns, we should relax the rules
against search and the rules against using confessions and evidence
obtained in violation of the rules. This would require a Constitutional
Amendment.
Nevertheless, Goetz should be acquitted.
∂15-May-87 1134 JMC
To: ME
How about a pagedelete command in E?
∂15-May-87 1211 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
To: MACMILK@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from MACMILK@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 15 May 87 10:33:42-PDT.]
Maybe you still don't understand my point when you cite me as saying
"the odds would pretty much still be against the victim". Odds that
are "pretty much against the victim" are not good enough for continued
activity of the criminal. Suppose the criminal has a 1/n chance of
being put out of action. Then if he commits n crimes, his chance of
survival is approximately 1/e, e.g. if there is a 1/10 chance of the
victim killing him or seriously injuring him, he is unlikely to get away
with 10 crimes. Many rapists commit many more crimes than that.
∂15-May-87 1225 JMC re: Guns are equalizers. Before they existed, the advantage of brawn was much
To: DELANEY@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from DELANEY@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU sent Fri, 15 May 87 12:05:00 PDT.]
I am discussing measures of desperation, i.e. what to do if the situation
gets a lot worse. How bad it is now, I don't know, because I have only
been the victim of a few minor burglaries, although Professor Feferman
was shot a few years ago by a robber in San Francisco. As our society
got richer, we could afford, or thought we could afford, greater civil
liberties that reduce the probability that innocent people will be
punished. One has to admit that some of these increased civil liberties
were promoted by people who believe that or social system should be
replaced completely rather than merely improved, but that's not my
present subject.
Consider the chain gang. It reduced the costs of prisons by making the
prisoners work and renting out their labor. Of course, it requires
considerable brutality in order to make criminals work; few of them
would be criminals if they didn't mind work. It probably requires
giving privileges to some criminals in order to use their brutality
to keep the others in line. Should crime reach a certain level,
it would be necessary to accept more injustice in the criminal justice
system.
My guess is that it has reached that level in certain communities, e.g.
the so-called ghettos. Consider the fact that in a poll 47 percent of
blacks thought that Goetz was justified and 16 percent thought he wasn't.
To me this means that the 47 percent could more readily imagine themselves
being terrorized by four young toughs, probably of their own race, than
they could imagine themselves being shot by a crazy or racist white man.
∂15-May-87 1342 JMC causality
To: d.daedalus@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
CC: VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, shoham@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Let me suggest that you discuss the following causal statement in the
final version of your paper. "A shower of comets striking the earth is
caused by the star Nemesis coming close enough to perturb the comets in
the Oort cloud". In case you aren't familiar with the matter, it's one
of the theories of the periodic mass extinctions. Nemesis is a hypothetical
companion star of our sun.
The point for the theory of causality is that the physics of the
theory is just Newton's law of gravitation, and so perhaps Russell would
have held that the concept of causality was unnecessary. However, we
don't know the mass and orbit of Nemesis nor the locations of any specific
comets in the Oort cloud. Therefore, according to the view, supported in
some form by Kant, you and me, that causality is related to the
epistemological situation of the thinker, speaker or hearer, causal
language is justified in this case for humans. My opinion, apparently
differing from yours as expressed in your paper, is that it is also
justified for a robot, assuming the robot doesn't know the relevant masses
and orbits.
∂15-May-87 1413 JMC phone conversation
To: simpson@VENERA.ISI.EDU
Saul suggests I phone you between 5 and 6 on Monday the 18th. I'll try
it unless you tell me a better time.
∂15-May-87 1557 JMC
To: VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, genesereth@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
05-19 tues 2:45, jmc office
proposed meeting: jmc,val,mrg,dave smith on
declarative representation of heuristics
∂15-May-87 1638 JMC re: MS Program Committee Meeting
To: JUTTA@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 15 May 87 14:39:30-PDT.]
June 8 is ok for me. If the folders arrive Monday, I'll try to look at them
by Tuesday, but on Wednesday morning I leave till Friday of the following week.
∂15-May-87 1647 JMC re: Alternative Political Party
To: M.MARUM@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from M.MARUM@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU sent Fri 15 May 87 00:41:28-PDT.]
I notice judicious ellipses in the program of the "alternative party".
My conjecture is that some of the ellipses contain statements about
the Jews being responsible for Germany's troubles.
∂15-May-87 1651 JMC thanks and comment
To: danny@THINK.COM
Thanks for the information you sent me.
My point wasn't that connectionism was peripheral to AI, although it may be.
Rather the collection of papers is peripheral both to what AI is as a
scientific activity and even to connectionism. Think what a naive reader,
and Graubard tells us that almost all will be naive, will imagine the field
has been up to for the last 30 years on the basis of reading the collection
of papers.
Just as there is no paper really saying what "conventional AI has been", there
is no paper saying what connectionism is.
∂16-May-87 1003 JMC re: "But if you kick him ..."
To: W.WROTH@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from W.WROTH@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU sent Sat 16 May 87 08:40:26-PDT.]
Because there is so little possibility of practicing the psychological
situation of being attacked, subtle advice about when to stop your
counterattack is almost meaningless. For example, it seems to me
that Goetz could successfully claim temporary insanity. We should
demand fully rational behavior from him by the fourth time he finds
himself in such a situation. Fortunately, things aren't that bad,
and the likelihood the situation happening four times to any
individual is pretty small. Moreover, if it did happen to anyone
four times, the likelihood of his surviving all four encounters
is small.
It seems to me that it is most important for the person
under attack to put everything he or she has into the counterattack
if he or she has the resources to counterattack at all. Therefore,
any psychological preparation should emphasize this as well as being
sure that the attack is real and one isn't about to attack an innocent.
Under such circumstances burglars take their chances. There is one
circumstance in which the legal strictures on excessive force are
right. An example is when there are repeated burglaries by unarmed
young teen-agers, and someone decides to make an example by killing
a few. He should be punished for that. However, if a householder
in fear kills a burglar, he shouldn't be punished even if hindsight
says that something much less would have done.
On another matter, Miranda wasn't reversed by the recent
Supreme Court decision, it was merely modulated a little. The
details are non-memorable except for police officers and lawyers.
∂17-May-87 1307 JMC re: Goetz should be convicted
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, SU-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU sent Sun, 17 May 87 10:59:52 PDT.]
Unfortunately, if Goetz is convicted, the judge won't dare give him
a light sentence. However, I think you're two easy on him on the financial
part; he should be required to give them each $5 as he promised + interest.
∂17-May-87 1312 JMC re: Goetz should be convicted
To: Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, SU-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU sent Sun, 17 May 87 10:59:52 PDT.]
Besides why do you place such a low value on "a NYC mugger's life"? One
would think you were from New Jersey.
∂18-May-87 1004 JMC re: Bad guys practice karate more
To: L.LILITH@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 18 May 87 09:32:37-PDT.]
I heard it somewhere, but I can't remember the source. If I can think
of a way to get more exact information I will.
∂18-May-87 1511 JMC successor to Amarel
To: nilsson@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Saul seems to have passed the buck to his subordinate Simpson in terms
of getting basic research in AI through the DARPA office. I don't know
whether he can be pushed on this matter, but it seems to me that a
requirement for a successor is that he will stand up for whatever basic
research he has agreed to himself.
∂18-May-87 1656 JMC re: [Jon Barwise <BARWISE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>: Memo to Charles Junkerman]
To: SHANKAR@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 18 May 87 16:43:52-PDT.]
Could you draft a memo for me to sign? If I had it tomorrow I could sign
it before I go to France.
∂18-May-87 2246 JMC re: meeting
To: GENESERETH@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 18 May 87 22:13:57 PDT.]
I'll be back the week after next.
∂19-May-87 1351 JMC test
To: kirsh@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
foo
∂19-May-87 1505 JMC re: Invitation to Qualitative Physics Workshop
To: forbus@P.CS.UIUC.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Apr 87 21:28:25 CST.]
I will arrive at 705pm on May 26 on Continental 4729 (Britt)
and unfortunately will depart the following evening to the coincident
AI and Law workshop. If no-one meets me, I'll take a taxi to your
house unless the plane is late.
∂19-May-87 1822 JMC (→20546 30-May-87)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I'll be travelling from May 20 thru May 29.
∂19-May-87 1950 JMC re: latex draft of foundations contribution
To: Hewitt@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 19 May 87 22:26 EDT.]
An attempt to latex the file elicits a demand for clbiba.sty.
∂20-May-87 0121 JMC re: Reagan etc. - Time cover presents a larger context
To: SINGH@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Wed 20 May 87 00:56:02-PDT.]
This Time issue is mere politics in the guise of moralizing, at least
the excerpts quoted are. To put it succinctly, President Reagan and
his advisers felt a moral obligation to avoid betraying the Contras in
the way that the United States betrayed the Vietnamese and Cambodians -
and with the same tragic results. This moral obligation conflicted with
their moral obligation to obey the laws past by Congress.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, consider the behavior of Congress.
It cut off the Contras, leaving them to be slaughtered, and then decided
later to give them $100 million. It will probably cut them off again,
for no reason that actually concerns them or the Sandinistas, but merely
to show "anger" over the Iran bungle.
∂29-May-87 2258 JMC re: Advising
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 24 May 87 10:14:19-PDT.]
As you may have discovered, I have been away. I don't know my schedule next
week, but I'll be in. I suggest phoning Monday afternoon.
∂29-May-87 2305 JMC re: causality paper
To: D.DAEDALUS@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 26 May 87 14:23:46-PDT.]
I've been away, but I'll be in next week. I suggest you phone Monday
afternoon.
∂29-May-87 2306 JMC re: Pony bike locker removal
To: ME
[In reply to message rcvd 26-May-87 15:53-PT.]
It would be a nuisance, but I'd live.
∂29-May-87 2308 JMC re: Lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 27 May 87 11:13 PST.]
I have been out of town till today. How about some day next week?
You name it.
∂29-May-87 2312 JMC re: Charles Moore
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 27-May-87 13:19-PT.]
Tell Newton no. I have been photographed enough recently.
∂29-May-87 2316 JMC re: Today
To: EPPLEY@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 29 May 87 10:56:41-PDT.]
I have been out of town for the last week. Call me Monday afternoon.
∂29-May-87 2320 JMC re: Gang of 4 usage
To: RPG, LES, CLT
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 29-May-87 23:10-PT.]
Qlisp has priority. Les, please try to track and slow down other users.
I suggest a 3 way phone call to adjust schedule.
∂30-May-87 0000 JMC Expired plan
To: JMC
Your plan has just expired. You might want to make a new one.
Here is the text of the old plan:
I'll be travelling from May 20 thru May 29.
∂30-May-87 1310 JMC re: JJW
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 30-May-87 13:04-PT.]
I was hoping to get by with a favorable message.
∂30-May-87 1407 JMC re: re: Lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 30 May 87 14:01 PST.]
That will be fine.
∂30-May-87 1608 JMC paper
To: ullman@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
If you don't have it already, the NAIL group might be interested in
"COL: A language for complex objects based on recursive rules" by
Serge Abiteboul and Stephane Grumbach of INRIA.
∂30-May-87 1637 JMC letter and brochure
To: RA
sejnow.1 needs as an enclosure a description of policy on workshops.
Please make page 3 of worksh[1,jmc] into such an announcement by
copying it into worksh.tex[1,jmc] and entering that file name in
page 2 of files[let,jmc] which is my list of standing files.
∂30-May-87 1734 JMC
To: rdz@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
hewitt.tex[s87,jmc]
∂31-May-87 0026 JMC re: Hewitt's Paper
To: RDZ@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 30 May 87 22:40:20-PDT.]
Thanks for TeXing Hewitt's paper.
∂31-May-87 1046 JMC
To: AIR
I need to talk to you about multi-byte characters in Common Lisp.
∂31-May-87 1047 JMC
To: AIR
Look at msg.msg[jnk,jmc]/522p
∂31-May-87 1058 JMC arbitrary characters in Lisp
To: RPG, AIR
The Japanese have proposed a mult-byte character feature for Common Lisp
for the benefit of Kanji. My question is whether it is good from the
point of view of the use of arbitrary characters for mathematical purposes
and whether it interfaces reasonably with editors that allow arbitrary
character sets.
In mathematical usage the extra characters will be used individually, while
the Kanji use can be satisfied by mode changes.
∂31-May-87 1803 JMC reply to message
To: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 31 May 1987 19:26 EDT.]
Indeed, SAIL worked and SU-AI didn't. SU-AI is the official name
and SAIL is a nickname, so I tell people SU-AI, since I thought
some message systems might require it.
∂31-May-87 2342 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
1. The Boland amendment prohibits "agencies involved in intelligence" or the
armed forces from being used to support the Contras. Secord testified
that he had legal opinions arguing that soliciting private contributions
and foreign support was legal. He did not express a personal opinion
in the matter. He emphasized his dismay at previous betrayals, e.g.
of the Vietnamese, Hmong, etc. The Constitution says something about
foreign policy being made by the President; I don't know whether this
was relevant. So maybe what North, et. al. did was legal.
2. I don't understand Bill's statement that Vietnam is irrelevant.
How can the loss of two million lives because of Congress's betrayal
be irrelevant to evaluating similar situations?
3. I don't know how Bill claims to know that "Ronald Reagan doesn't even
know he is alive". This is drivel, pure and simple. Evidently some
higher meaning of "knows he is alive" is intended, and I suppose Bill
or his guru is the judge of that. Maybe if some of us complain, we'll
see less such nonsense in discussions of politics.
∂31-May-87 2346 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I should mention that my source for the text is a recent issue of
Accuracy in Media, which I will leave in the CSD lounge.
∂01-Jun-87 0041 JMC
To: kirsh@OZ.Berkeley.EDU
Is there a deadline for commentary?
∂01-Jun-87 0918 JMC re: Reminder of Vote Needed
To: BSCOTT@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 1 Jun 87 08:36:32-PDT.]
I'll vote yes on Dill.
∂01-Jun-87 0921 JMC deadline
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Is there a deadline for comments on papers? Is there to be a publication
including comments and replies?
∂01-Jun-87 1233 JMC Perhaps it's you, if you want to do it.
To: VAL
∂01-Jun-87 1228 danny@Think.COM paper on non-monotonic logic
Received: from THINK.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 1 Jun 87 12:28:34 PDT
Received: from christopher by Think.COM via CHAOS; Mon, 1 Jun 87 15:31:01 EDT
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 15:28 EDT
From: Danny Hillis <danny@Think.COM>
Subject: paper on non-monotonic logic
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: irene@Think.COM
In-Reply-To: <8705152358.AA15635@Think.COM>
Message-Id: <870601152847.4.DANNY@CHRISTOPHER.THINK.COM>
I was suprised (at Los Alamos) to find out that G.C. Rota had not
really heard about the current state non-monotonic logics. Rota
publishes a journal called "Advances in Applied Mathematics", that is
reasonably well read, and since I am nominally one of the editors I
would like to get a paper published in the journal on the subject.
Who would be a good person to ask to write one? I don't suppose that
you would be interested? -danny
∂01-Jun-87 1442 JMC re: paper on non-monotonic logic
To: danny@THINK.COM, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 1 Jun 87 15:28 EDT.]
The survey by Reiter I let people copy at Los Alamos is pretty good. Why
should anyone write another soon? Don Perlis at U. Maryland could do a
reasonable job if he wanted to.
∂01-Jun-87 2105 JMC Boland amendment, etc.
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Well I guess I have to spell it out with regard to the lesson of
Vietnam. Different people draw different lessons from Vietnam.
The lesson I draw is that the victory of communism is a terrible
tragedy in any country. Remember that the flood of refugees from
Vietnam didn't start until two years after the communist conquest.
When the communists first won, people hoped that things wouldn't
be too bad, and it took two years before people took to the boats
at the cost of tens of thousands - and maybe hundreds of thousands -
drowned, dead of hunger and thirst, and killed by pirates. In Cambodia
mad intellectuals killed more than a million people, maybe two
million. Anyone who thinks surrender to communism will lead to
peace should notice that communist countries have even more
tendency to attack each other than to attack non-communist
countries.
Yes, I think that what happened in Vietnam is a reason to continue
to supply the Contras.
With regard to Reagan, it is an intellectual self indulgence to
babble about insanity rather than to offer refutation of his policies.
As to his thinking about politics all the time, it seems to me
that one of the major complaints about Reagan is that he takes
too many naps and vacations. Maybe when he goes to his ranch,
he and Mrs. Reagan kick off their shoes and communes with nature enough to
satisfy a Bill and a half.
In the late sixties, I was the victim of quite a bit of "live in
the present" bullying, and although I eventually learned how to
tell them off, I'm still a bit sensitive when I hear or read it.
A President has a hard enough job without people telling him what
he ought to feel.
∂02-Jun-87 1018 JMC re: Yosemite: how are snow conditions these days ?
To: ROBERTS@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 1 Jun 87 23:14:18-PDT.]
Unless this is an unusual year, there is almost certainly rather
deep snow on the trails above (say) 7,000 feet.
∂02-Jun-87 1103 JMC re: Boland amendment, etc.
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM
CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.Com sent Tue 2 Jun 87 09:00:33-PDT.]
1. Richard Steinberger says, "I cannot think of any reason short of pure
maliciousness for aiding the Contras. They have demonstrated that they
are certainly in the same league as the Khmer Rouge." The object of aiding
the contras is to prevent yet another communist regime from getting
established and to replace it by democracy. Steinberger may not agree
with this objective or even believe that it is sincerely held, but he
surely has heard of it.
I suppose Steinberger's statement is a rhetorical exaggeration obviating
the need to supply details. I sometimes feel that need myself. His
comparison with the Khmer Rouge suggests that he can't tell the difference
between more than a million killed and a few tens. His news sources on
Contra atrocities are exhibiting deliberate gullibility, because they take
these reports with Sandinista officials in the room after the Sandinistas
have had time to prepare the witnesses. I believe the Contras have done
some bad things, but they have responded to pressure to clean things up
and have even shot one of their own officers for abusing civilians.
When members of Congressional committees visited Nicaragua before the $100
million was voted, many opponents of Contra aid changed their minds.
2. Steinberger mischaracterizes Jeane Kirkpatrick's recommendations as
well as misspelling her first name. What writing of hers would he say
recommends supporting Fascists? Her distinction between authoritarian
and totalitarian regimes has held up by subsequent events. Specifically
authoritarian regimes often make transitions to democracy, e.g. Spain,
Portugal, Argentina and the Philippines, while no totalitarian regime
has done so except when conquered by other countries.
I don't think he can fairly say that the U.S. is supporting South Africa,
although maybe the most likely alternative to the present regime is
far worse - taking the necklacing as an indications of the policies the
ANC would follow if it won power.
3. Indeed the United States should do more to develop strategies to assist
democratic and non-violent regimes. However, the policy has had some
successes, e.g. in the Philippines, where the U.S. apparently played an
important role in persuading the military to permit the Aquino (coup,
revolt or putsch) and in persuading Marcos to leave peacefully. Carter's
attempt to play a similar role in Iran by persuading the Iranian generals
to hold off misfired badly, resulting in something far worse than the Shah
and incidentally causing the generals we persuaded to lose their lives, so
experience shows that the matter is rather delicate.
4. Steinberger proposes that the U.S. not aid anyone who uses violence.
Does this mean he believes that no-one in any country has the right
to use violence to overthrow a violently oppressive regime? I suspect
he has no policy that applies to left and right alike but merely picks
up what arguments he can find in support of his leftist bias.
∂02-Jun-87 1355 JMC
To: VAL
The Logic of Common Sense in Artificial Intelligence
∂02-Jun-87 1714 JMC re: follow-up conversation
To: JHILL@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 2 Jun 87 13:02:36-PDT.]
Either will do.
∂02-Jun-87 2126 JMC re: NSF proposal
To: JK, NSH
[In reply to message from JK rcvd 02-Jun-87 20:44-PT.]
Thursday at 11 is ok for me.
∂02-Jun-87 2354 JMC re: Boland amendment, etc.
To: goldberg@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from goldberg@russell.stanford.edu sent Tue 2 Jun 87 23:15:25-PDT.]
1. "any" is ambiguous here. I presume you don't mean that anyone
asserted that all crimes are permissible to the President including
A-bombing the U.S. I take it to mean the assertion that some crimes
are permitted.
2. I think it would be necessary to know exactly what Nixon said, and even
then, it would be necessary to know whether he said it with sufficient
deliberation to be sure he didn't simply misspeak. He may have merely
asserted that there are some Constitutional limitations on the extent
to which Congress may limit the actions of the President. The Supreme
Court has occasionally declared Congressional acts unconsitutional
on the grounds that they usurped powers granted by the Constitution
to the President. I believe the recent examples were where Congress
provided that Congress by simple majority vote could take back some
money granted for some purpose. The Court ruled that taking something
back could only be done by a regular Act of Congress subject to the
usual veto and therefore requiring a two-thirds vote by each house
to over-ride the veto.
In particular, the Constitution gives the President the power to
conduct foreign affairs. This isn't as much power as it seems, because
not much can be done without money, and Congress has to vote for that.
These Constitutional provisions have given rise to repeated disputes.
However, most of these disputes have been compromised rather than
going to the Supreme Court, and therefore exactly what the President's
powers are is somewhat murky. However, as I understand it, there has
been no dispute (yet) about the constitutionality of the Boland
Amendment (probably to an appropriation bill), but there have been
disputes about its interpretation, specifically between Boland and
General Secord during a Congressional hearing. I'll put the issue
of Accuracy in Media Report with their dialog in the CSD lounge.
3. The U.S. doesn't do anything in the name of anti-communism as such.
It does it in the name of the security and other interests of the
United States.
4. Of course, no Government official would claim the right to commit
crimes, although they might claim the right to perform some actions
under certain circumstances that would be crimes if committed under
other circumstances or by non-officials.
5. The previous point certainly doesn't obviate all possible worries
that Government officials might take away some of our freedoms
under the guise of some act aimed at defending the country. However,
the trends have run entirely in the opposite direction since the
end of World War II. In particular, telephone taps and mail covers
have been much restricted, and so has the discretion of commanding
officers in enforcing military discipline.
6. Finally, speaking of military discipline, in my opinion the President
should copy Gorbachev in one thing. Namely, he should fire the Chief of
Naval Operations because of the Stark disaster and should have fired the
Commandant of the Marine Corps in connection with previous disasters. The
President can't know who lower down is responsible for the details of a
disaster, but these high military officials are responsible to the
President as Commander-in-Chief for making sure that everyone beneath them
looks diligently for things that might go wrong and corrects them.
∂03-Jun-87 1457 JMC re: Causality
To: D.DAEDALUS@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, shoham@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 3 Jun 87 14:47:59-PDT.]
OK, you can leave it Friday, and come in if you want to discuss it. I
gave a copy to Yoav Shoham who thought it was a nice paper and who
has been running a seminar on causality. If you want to talk to him
also, he is shoham@score.
∂03-Jun-87 1518 JMC
To: RA
Make out a cs326 grade change giving Kevin Quinn an A - from INC.
∂03-Jun-87 1529 JMC cs326
To: RA
CC: VAL
Could you get from Vladimir a list of the papers we handed out in CS326?
He has to make a list for our WICS summer course anyway. A guy named
Rafael Bayce will be asking you for it, but others have asked also.
∂03-Jun-87 1653 JMC request for repeat
To: steinberger@KL.SRI.COM
Your message with the following sentence didn't reach the SAIL bboard. I
only knew about it because of Andy Freeman's reply.
To fail to notice any significant differences between the Soviet Union
of the Stalinist era and the Soviet Union of today requires a
significant self-blinding effort.
∂03-Jun-87 1707 JMC summer job
To: subramanian@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
It looks like we can do it. Please come and see me at your convenience.
∂03-Jun-87 2137 JMC re: meeting
To: CL.SHANKAR@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 3 Jun 87 19:52:06-CDT.]
Friday at 5pm will be ok.
∂04-Jun-87 1109 JMC re: summer job
To: SUBRAMANIAN@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 4 Jun 87 11:04:16-PDT.]
2pm will be fine.
∂04-Jun-87 1203 JMC re: liability statement
To: MAZZETTI@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 4 Jun 87 11:37:51 PDT.]
OK, I'll put something in, but if there is any easy way to do it, it might
be best to have that statement formulated by a lawyer.
∂04-Jun-87 1206 JMC
To: mazzetti@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
10. AAAI assumes no financial responsibility for any debts or other
financial obligations that may be incurred by workshop organizers nor any
liabilities for their actions.
∂04-Jun-87 1848 JMC re: Political primaries
To: J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 4 Jun 87 10:05:09-PDT.]
If you register to vote and fill out the form as belonging to one of
the parties, you will be notified of the primary. The primaries
of all parties in California are at the same time, and the voting
is carried on in just the same way as in the general election. In
fact there are often some non-partisan issues and local candidates
on the ballot at the same time as the party primaries. The process
of getting on the ballot in a primary, e.g. to be one of those
among whom the Republican voters must choose is less formal. For that
you must get a certain number of signatures of voters enrolled in the
party. The number of signatures required and the other formalities
are sufficient so that there aren't too many candidates on the ballot.
∂04-Jun-87 2140 JMC re: Advice
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 4 Jun 87 20:41:39-PDT.]
I'll still be here.
∂05-Jun-87 0026 JMC Soviet politics
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
We have no way of determining what the Soviet reforms will amount
to except by waiting. Nothing we can do short of a credible threat
of war will affect them much, one way or the other. That would be
bad, but no-one proposes it. The motivation for such reforms as
are occurring is dissatisfaction with the way the system works among
the 40 to 60 year old party officials. The disagreements among them
about what reforms to make and how far to carry them have nothing to
do with their expectations about what the U.S. will do.
It is conceivable that their dissatisfaction with their own system
will reach a level at which they'll stop trying to export it, but
there's no sign of that yet.
The Soviet Union will only cease to be a danger to world peace when
it has free elections, so that its foreign policy becomes subject to
public opinion. In the mean time, money might be saved by some
disarmament agreements, but this is unlikely to change the situation
qualitatively.
The dissatisfaction among the ruling class is quite profound, but
whether it will survive the first time there are substantial
demonstrations against their privileges remains to be seen.
∂05-Jun-87 1016 JMC assymetry between U.S. and Soviet Union
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
If one knows little or nothing about the political systems of the world,
it is a virtue to rise above the accident of having been born in a
particular country and assume (before receiving evidence to the contrary)
that one's own and its main rival (once you learn there is one) are
similar. Unfortunately, the differences between communism as practiced
in the countries ruled by communist parties and countries with electoral
democracy are important. Communist countries are quarrelsome, and that's
dangerous.
The secret actions of the U.S Government have been in support of generally
accepted goals. The attacks on the secrecy have mainlyy been by people
who don't agree with the goals.
My opinion is that disarmament is not an important issue and that the
danger of war would not be substantially reduced if both the U.S. and
the Soviet Union had 1/10 their present military strength. If they
totally disarmed, the danger of nuclear war would increase, because
then a secretly initiated arms race would have a chance of achieving
a decisive advantage.
We ought to put some effort into disarmament negotiations aimed at
saving money but take a relaxed and patient attitude towards its
chances of success. We should then turn our attention to other things.
My agenda is almost entirely different from Steinberger's. Such prosperity
the world has achieved is entirely the result of the development of
technology. Further advances can make the whole world as prosperous
as the upper middle class of the U.S today. Technology is advancing
more slowly than it could have done, and its application in many
areas advances glacially. This has allowed much preventable poverty,
sickness and death. Unfortunately, the well-intentioned environmental
movement and the less well-intentioned lawyers have caused much of the
delays.
∂05-Jun-87 1126 JMC Please pass on a request
To: MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
On July 14 I am taking part in an event sponsored by Symbolics
and I want to tease them by wearing the string tie with the Elis
chip on it. Unfortunately, I left the tie in a hotel in Paris.
Do you think that you or Professor Ito could ask Oki Electric Co.
to send me another one?
I'll have the corrected version of the paper soon.
∂06-Jun-87 1014 JMC re: Causality
To: D.DAEDALUS@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, Shoham@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 3 Jun 87 14:47:59-PDT.]
I have your paper and will give it an A on Monday. I would have done so
already, but I forgot to include in my message to my secretary that this
is high priority.
I don't know if you want to pursue the topic further. I have further
comments.
1. The relation between the reversibility of physical laws at the
micro-level, their apparent irreversibility at the macro-level and
the concept of causality has been the subject of considerable study
in philosophy of science. Your remarks about absurdity would be
regarded as intemperate and inadequately supported. From a
scientific point of view the matter was understood in the nineteenth
century by, for example, Maxwell and Boltzmann. I can try to
explain the matter approximately if you like, but someone like
Suppes could give references that would do it better. However,
this isn't decisive for the main points of your paper.
2. The revival of Kant is interesting; I have never studied Kant.
However, your treatment transforms Kant's idea in an interesting
way. Namely, Kant regards causality as a concept necessitated
by the nature of thought, while you actually treat it as a recommendation
in the design of robots. It seems to me that Kant's treatment
led to a lot of unnecessary and very abstract argument, while
treating it as a design recommendation and evolutionary development
in humans concentrates attention on more interesting problems.
3. Granted that causality has a substantial mental component, we
have yet to understand its actual utility in understanding specific
phenomena.
4. I think you didn't do justice to my Nemesis example. It's point was
that the orbit of Nemesis and its effects on specific comets in the Oort
cloud would be entirely computable from Newton's laws if only we knew the
initial positions, velocities and masses of the bodies involved. We're
not likely to get this detailed information in the near future. At our
present level of knowledge, the concept of causality seems important to
express what we do know and what we speculate. Detailed analysis of
the role of causality in expressing the Nemesis theory might pay off.
5. If you want to discuss it further please come by, and I think you
might also find discussions with Shoham valuable. Indeed the three
of us might get together, also including Lifschitz, if you want to
work further in the subject.
∂06-Jun-87 1308 JMC
To: VAL
Suppes would like a copy of the opus that formalizes cause and precond.
∂06-Jun-87 1350 JMC free speech issue?
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
At one of this year's college graduations, the following kind of
incident occurred. A certain political personality was invited to be the
Commencement speaker, but a large part of the graduating class protested,
and he was replaced by someone else. Some of the faculty were irate,
perhaps those who had arranged for him to be the speaker. At the
Commencement ceremony, the original speaker showed up and was introduced.
At this point 40 percent of the graduating class walked out. One of the
professors, a supporter of the replaced speaker, then said, "We should
never capitulate to any group who thinks its voice is loud enough to
silence our freedom". An opponent said, "We know about freedom of speech,
but students at a graduation ceremony should not be forced to listen
to someone they do not want to hear". The basis of the opposition to
the speaker was that he was considered a supporter of people who were alleged
to have killed many of the relatives of the opposers and to have driven
them into exile.
Question: Is there a free speech issue in the sense of the
Constitution?
∂06-Jun-87 1431 JMC re: "hypothetical" question
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Jun-87 14:26-PT.]
Since I still don't have a definite answer from DARPA on whether they
will continue to support my AI work, I can't even think about supporting
you now. However, I believe the budget I have been reduced to doesn't
provide for new people.
∂06-Jun-87 1513 JMC re: Poorly disguised, JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 6 Jun 87 14:39:35 PDT.]
I don't see why you consider it a far fetched claim. The North Vietnamese
didn't conquer South Vietnam until Congress refused to vote $500 million
for arms for Vietnam. The "anti-war" movement including Tom Hayden took
credit for this vote and other withdrawals of U.S. support. I agree that
the "peace" movement wasn't the only cause of the communist victory.
Deficiencies in our military and in South Vietnam itself also played
roles.
∂06-Jun-87 2119 JMC re: A question for JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Sat, 6 Jun 87 18:13:36 PDT.]
I might have managed a concise answer to Helen Cunningham if there
weren't so many wrong presumptions in the question. As it is, I 'll do
two installments. The first will deal with the question with its
assumptions, and the second will compare the U.S. and the Soviet Union
other communist countries in detail.
First I'm not a typical person "of my generation", and I suspect
that Helen may not be typical of hers. Me first.
I have an untypically detailed knowledge of the Soviet Union and
communism for a non-specialist. My parents were (American) communists,
and I was brought up as one. There is (or was) a communist culture, but I
won't take the time to describe it. I see echoes of it in more recent
left wing cultures. I joined the Communist Party at 17 and quit at 25 in
1952. I had gradually become convinced of the substantial truth of the
accusations about the Soviet Union and Stalin that I had hoped weren't
true. Fortunately, I quit in 1952, because after Stalin died in 1953 I
might have stayed in for a while hoping that things would get better. I
remained more or less a socialist considering that the Soviets had
betrayed socialism.
My first visit to the Soviet Union was in 1965, and between then
and 1977 I made more than ten visits. I had learned Russian well enough
to lecture in Russian and to read newspapers and some books. I hoped that
the Soviet Union would get better until 1968 when the invasion of
Czechoslovakia convinced me that it would not. By that time I had made
many scientific contacts and friendships, so I continued to visit.
Still in 1965 I was an opponent of the U.S. position in Vietnam
and took part in the first faculty support of student draft resistance. I
became rather well acquainted with students in connection with my
Mid-Peninsula Free University activity from 1967 to 1971. It was 1970
that convinced me that American and Stanford student radicals were
corrupting themselves in the same way as Soviet communists had done. In
particular I became convinced that they would use oppressively any power
they acquired. I also became convinced of the falsity of the attacks on
American policy that were made at the time and are rather like Helen's
accusations. I became a Republican in 1972 on becoming convinced that
socialism was unlikely to be economically successful even when democratic.
All that remains of my ideological upbringing is atheism.
I should say that reading Russian, experiencing communism and
visiting the Soviet Union are all unnecessary for understanding. It's all
in books, and I consider my personal knowledge only a confirmation and
supplement to what I read in books by people with much better
opportunities to observe than I had. For now I'll just recommend Sidney
Hook's autobiography "An Unquiet Life". The Stanford Bookstore has it.
Now to Helen's mistaken presumptions.
1. I would rather bet that the Soviet Union doesn't have a
specific plan to attack the U.S., but I suspect that if they were
confident of military superiority they would succumb to the temptation to
abuse their power. Therefore, I favor a strong defense.
2. They are indeed "far worse" than we are. In fact my opinion is
that U.S. policy has been rather good.
3. Some of the regimes the U.S. has supported have been
repressive, though often the alternative was worse. Some of the regimes
the U.S. is accused of supporting, e.g. South Africa, are not being
supported. The accusers would be satisfied only if we went to war with
South Africa. I agree with Jeane Kirkpatrick's distinction between
authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and consider amply supported her
belief that the former often are converted into democracies, and the
latter never have.
4. The characterization of the U.S. attitude toward Latin America
is wrong and so is the characterization of U.S. naval activity.
5. The U.S. activity in Vietnam was, as Reagan said, "a noble
effort". The fact that it didn't succeed has cost more than a million
lives.
6. The atomic bomb may have saved my life, since I might have been
involved in the invasion of Japan if the war had lasted a year and a half
longer. It certainly saved hundreds of thousands of American and probably
millions of Japanese lives as well as sparing the Japanese division into
American and Soviet controlled parts.
7. I don't agree with your moral characterization of the U.S. in
general and Reagan in particular. Reagan is a mild man and has shown no
desire to "ram anything down anybody's throat".
8. Finally, I don't agree with your characterization of the
generations. As I recall the last poll I read concerning attitude towards
the Soviet Union, the differences among age groups weren't large. It may
well be that Helen's views are dominant among psychology graduate students
at Stanford. Most of them may have had such views even before they
decided to study psychology. Both politics and profession seem to be
strongly correlated with temperament.
A detailed comparison of communist regimes including the Soviet
Union with democratic regimes including the United States is reserved for
the next installment.
∂07-Jun-87 1033 JMC re: One more thing re JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Sun, 7 Jun 87 04:31:32 PDT.]
It's not clear that I'll actually get to my direct
comparison between the U.S. and the USSR, because of the
new blast of mistakes to be dealt with first.
First a mere misunderstanding. The speculation about your being a
psychology graduate student was intended to account for what seemed to be
your misperception of the attitudes of your generation and mine about the
Soviet Union and defense issues. The polls indicate that the differences
among age groups aren't large today. Your perception might be based on
belonging to a subpopulation that shares your attitudes. Having looked
you up in the Faculty-Staff directory, I see you're a Research Associate.
My generation is not responsible for the McCarthy era; I was
a graduate student at that time. As one who was in Joe McCarthy's
target population, I can report that it wasn't so bad as later
legends have made out.
I presume you are using "paranoid" as a term of political
invective rather than as a technical term in psychology. The trouble with
it from my point of view, which may be an advantage from yours, is that
its exaggeration suggests that it is not intended to be taken literally,
and therefore it disguises your actual characterization of my views and
Reagan's.
I should have used a stronger word than "suspect".
I consider there is a probability considerably greater that 0.5
that the Soviets would abuse any military superiority to some
extent and a substantial probability that they would abuse it
enough to jeopardize our independence as a nation. In the detente
era, U.S. policy was based on a belief that the Soviets would
accept equality in nuclear weapons and the MAD doctrine. The SS-20s
and other developments disabused even Carter of that notion.
What level of suspicion of future Soviet behavior would you
think justifies a strong defense?
I don't think the U.S. supported Franco in Spain.
"The PBS series on Vietnam pointed out ..." Your usage
suggests that all that is necessary is that someone "point out"
"that Ho Chi Minh sought to align his populist regime with the
U.S. after WWII", and I would believe it. Well, I don't believe
it, and I doubt you thought I would accept it on PBS authority.
A civil war didn't break out; it was an invasion, as the North
Vietnamese official history of the war now admits.
Putting the use of the atom bomb in perspective requires some
numbers and a sense of wartime psychology and politics. First
the numbers. The Japanese had already lost 3 million people
in the Pacific War; we had lost either 40,000 or 140,000 (I forget
which). (MacArthur really was a great general). We believed,
and this belief is confirmed by subsequent information, that
an invasion of Japan would have cost many times that many lives.
The number killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was about 200,000,
about the same as had been killed in a single fire bomb raid
on Tokyo. The Japanese had fought almost to the last man on Okinawa,
and there was a substantial chance they would do it in Japan.
In fact even after the atomic bomb the military said that honor
required that the whole country fight to the death, and only
the Emperor himself was able to reverse that.
American wartime psychology and politics was such that with hundreds
of Americans dying daily, it would have been regarded as criminal
to refrain from using a weapon that could end the war. Truman
might have been impeached.
Reagan is not so smart. With difficulty he has learned to keep
two things in mind at once. (1) The Soviet Union is an evil empire.
(2) We live with it on the same planet and may be able to make
useful agreements with it. Most of the media, e.g PBS, are even dumber.
They can keep only one of the two in mind at a time.
Who are these "popular movements of liberation", and do their
victories liberate or only result in greater oppression?
Experience suggests the latter is usually the case.
The "anti-war" movement misrepresented many things, the most important of
which was its lying about U.S. motivations, which were genuinely to
preserve the independence of South Vietnam. The movement also lied about
the nature of the North Vietnamese Government, about the character of the
"National Liberation Front" and about specific events like the Hue
massacre and the result of the Tet offensive. As to the media, basically
Westmoreland was telling the truth about Vietnam, and CBS was lying.
This movement and the people who took part in it still refuse to
face their share of the responsibility for massacres in Cambodia
by people they supported, for the vast prison camps created by
the communists after their victory, for the hundreds of thousands
who drowned trying to escape. I believe the American media also
played an important role in convincing the Vietnamese that they
could live ok under communism. It took two years of communist
rule before the mass flight started.
Whether there is a consensus or not that the war was
unwinnable, I don't agree. In any case the independence of South
Vietnam was sustainable had we continued to supply them.
∂07-Jun-87 1604 JMC re: "Reassessing Nuclear Power: The Fallout from Chernobyl"
To: mrc%panda.com@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
SU-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from MRC@PANDA.COM sent Sun, 7 Jun 87 14:17:31 PDT.]
MRC would be right about nuclear energy were the political considerations
he exclusively mentions dominant in the long run. However, unless a good
new source of energy develops, technological considerations will dominate,
and fission energy will revive. I predict, and hope to be around to see
it, that Sweden will not be able to give up its nuclear reactors in 2010.
∂07-Jun-87 1811 JMC re: One more thing re JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Sun, 7 Jun 87 04:31:32 PDT.]
Comparison of the Soviet Union and the U.S. as promised to Helen Cunningham
Installment I - the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union has three important negative features - the tradition
of Russian nationalism and imperialism, rule by a communist party,
inefficiencies of socialism independent of rule by a communist party.
1. Traditional Russian nationalism and imperialism. Reagan was
right about the Soviet Union being an empire. It is the last
important empire in the world. As a Russian empire, it rules
the Ukraine and the other Soviet Republics as well as its satellite
countries. Almost without exception, each of these countries
has attempted to free itself and has had these attempts crushed
by military force. The ideology of the Russian people is imperialist
towards its dependents. For example, a researcher at Moscow
University visiting Stanford told me that the reason the second
man in each Union Republic Communist Party was a Russian was that
the natives were incompetent. While Russian imperialist ideology
is important, it cannot be disentangled from the imperialism of
the Communist Party, and I think the latter is much more important.
This opinion contrasts with that of some important commentators like
George Kennan who ascribe the unpleasant aspects of the Soviet policy
to Russian tradition, most often to their 250 years of vassalage
to the Mongols, but sometime to the Russian custom
of swaddling infants. I think there is now evidence that Kennan is
mistaken, because most of the bad features of Soviet communism are
copied in other communist countries with quite different traditions.
2. Rule by a communist party. Rule by a communist party has the following
bad features almost all of which have turned up in almost all communist
countries.
a. Monopoly of organization and media. Without the consent
of the Communist Party it is illegal to publish anything (even tickets
to events have to be passed by the censor), form any organization
(even a local organization of stamp collectors), hold meetings (even
scientific). These prohibitions have been enforced.
b. Prohibition of criticism of the Party as an organization
or of the Soviet system. Prohibition of unwanted criticism of
specific actions. It has never been allowed for a person accused
in court of "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda" to offer evidence
that the accusation is true.
c. Prohibition of unauthorized emigration. This is important,
because it means that if the Party decides to oppress some class of
people, those people do not have the option of taking their talents
elsewhere. Emigration would otherwise limit oppression as it has
in countries without this restriction.
d. Fake elections with only one candidate and that selected
by the Party.
e. Top-down rule within the Party. The higher bodies are
elected by lower bodies, but the higher bodies name the candidates.
The top-down rule extends to a single ruler. A consequence is that
the talents of a courtier are decisive in rising in the Party
hierarchy. The system is essentially feudal in that when someone
rises he takes his followers along with him.
f. There is no effective discussions of alternatives to present
policies even within the leadership. No ambitious second level party
leader dares maintain an independent position. Read "Khrushchev
Remembers" to learn that when Stalin died no Politburo member knew what
any other thought about anything and the comic opera aspects of
Khrushchev's successful plot to arrest and kill Beria.
g. Communist ideology is used to justify current policies
including Russian rule of other nationalities, Soviet rule of the
satellites and hostility to the West.
h. Soviet propagandist hostility to the West takes the form
of spreading the most extreme lies.
i. A consequence of the feudalism is widespread corruption
including bribery.
Almost all these characteristics exist in other communist
party ruled societies. A particularly comic example, punctuated
by murders, is exemplified by the documents captured in Grenada
and published by the State Department. To the extent permitted
by their societies, they also exist in non-ruling communist parties
like that of the U.S.
3. In my opinion, even democratic socialism has important
disadvantages compared to capitalism. They all exist in the Soviet
Union in exacerbated form because Party rule limits criticism.
a. Limitation of the right of initiative. When economic
activity is rationally organized by the state, new activities of
a given kind can only be initiated at the proper place. Under
capitalism, a wide class of activities can be initiated by anyone
who can find financial backing. One can argue with this theoretical
conclusion, but in fact hardly anything new has come out of the
socialist countries.
b. Allocation by politics rather than the market. If you
want a better apartment under socialism, the required skill is
political rather than economic, and such skills are highly
developed. Also if you want your computer design to be manufactured
the required skill is political. Because industrial firms have
more money than there are computers to buy, all computers manufactured
are sold, but at a fixed price. Therefore, there is no market signal
to tell whether one is better than another. This led the Soviet
"leaders" to decide in 1965, "Goddamn it, copy IBM" and in the late
1970s, "Goddamn it, copy D.E.C.".
All this notwithstanding, there are plenty of fine people
in the Soviet Union and plenty of good research, especially in fields
requiring only individual effort and not good organization, e.g. pure
mathematics. We can have scientific and cultural relations with them,
but these will be better if we don't allow the Party and KGB to take
advantage of us. (In the above I forgot the KGB; it's important.)
Human rights pressure in spite of Soviet official protests
that we're interfering in their internal affairs are important, because
Soviet people who don't dare advocate human rights on their own can
often find it safe to recommend yielding to foreign pressure on specific
issues.
This has become long enough. In my next I'll praise the U.S.
in comparison, and in the final installment I'll have a few questions
for Helen Cunningham.
∂07-Jun-87 2203 JMC re: Russia, feudalism and academia
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 7 Jun 87 21:30:03-PDT.]
I don't see the resemblance between academia and a feudal hierarchy,
either of the Soviet kind or the other. The academic hierarchy is rather
flat. All full professors are on the same level as far as the university
is concerned, and the assistant and associate professors do not take
orders from the full professors even though their promotions are judged by
them. You get more hierarchy if you take department chairmen and deans
into account, but most professors, including the most respected, are not
interested in advancing in that hierarchy. Undergraduate students aren't
part of the hierarchy, since few plan to make their careers in academia,
and graduate students aren't much a part of it, since even if their
ambitions are academic, they are mostly expected to go elsewhere after
getting their PhDs.
What precisely do you have in mind?
∂07-Jun-87 2227 JMC re: Russia, feudalism and academia
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 7 Jun 87 22:15:02-PDT.]
I don't agree at all.
An academic's reputation is national or international.
When Forsythe hired me, he had never met me. We often invite people
we have never met. We hardly ever hire our own PhDs.
The higher bodies aren't at all elected by the lower bodies.
The worst that happens is that the full professors may have
ideas about what constitutes good work in some field that
may be old-fashioned or irrational or cliquish.
It isn't clear what institutional change would eliminate that.
Do you have in mind such a change?
∂07-Jun-87 2316 JMC re: Distinguishing Soviet vs. US actions (was Re: US and Soviet Union)
To: SINGH@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, J.JLT@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 7 Jun 87 22:15:42-PDT.]
Given Bernstein's views, I'm not surprised he would describe Soviet and
American actions in a way that others would find unrecognizable regardless
of whether he knew how the descriptions would be used.
∂08-Jun-87 0749 JMC re: What is meant by "Finlandlization" (sic) of the west? Jim?
To: K.KARN@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from K.KARN@lear.stanford.edu sent Mon 8 Jun 87 01:29:02-PDT.]
The Soviets attacked Finland in 1940 and took some land. As a result
Finland was on the German side in WWII, and at the end the Soviets imposed
a peace treaty on the Finns that took more land and imposed a relationship
part of which persists to this day. It has involved there being no
criticism of Soviet actions in the Finnish press. It also involved
unofficially getting Soviet approval of the Finnish President and Prime
Minister. This may have lapsed. It also involves an agreement to return
to the Soviet Union anyone who escapes across the Soviet border into
Finland. This rarely has much effect, because the Finns whom the escapees
encounter ususally help them get across Finland to Sweden. When someone
says that Finlandization of Europe wouldn't be so bad, remind them that
this would involve turning back anyone who escaped from East Germany.
Actually, what Finlandization would mean isn't definite, but it surely
includes giving up any defense capability against the Soviet Union.
∂08-Jun-87 0808 JMC re: The Doppelganger Effect
To: SINGH@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from SINGH@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 7 Jun 87 23:21:05-PDT.]
Library exercise: Find a set of quotes from Hitler parallel to those
used in the "demonstration" that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are the same.
You are excused from finding one mentioning nuclear weapons, since
Hitler was dead by then.
∂08-Jun-87 0958 JMC re: A new mailing list
To: DAM%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 8 Jun 1987 11:47 EDT.]
I suggest you send a copy of the list to the members of the list so that
they can suggest other names. At least I'd like a copy.
∂08-Jun-87 1016 JMC
To: CLT
I talked to Jeff Wachtel 3-2238, and he said he would try to get it
fixed today and would check on it Thursday. He will also check on
the appropriateness of a sign forbidding drinking in that park.
∂08-Jun-87 1030 JMC actions speak louder than words
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
I assume Helen is referring to my suggested exercise in finding quotes
from Hitler. Words can be indicative all right, but selections can be
made to make points. In particular, almost all heads of states that have
passed through crises have made statements saying essentially, "Our
intentions are peaceful, but we will defend our interests". Occasion for
such statements arises whether the actual intentions are peaceful or not.
If the point of the article is indeed that the parallel statements show
that U.S. and Soviet policies are parallel rather than that certain
statements tend to be made independent of what the policies are I would
consider the Plous and Zimbardo article silly, misleading and perhaps
dishonest.
There are only a few statesmen whose collected statements give a
consistent picture of their policies. I would consider Reagan not
to be an example of this, except for certain very broad statemens
which are consistent. I would expect that one would find Margaret
Thatcher consistent in considerable detail.
∂08-Jun-87 1034 JMC re: deadline
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent 8 Jun 1987 13:15 EDT.]
I expect to get you a draft by the 17th. I have talked to Nils, and
I doubt that he'll be able to do more. I suggest you press him and
some others for considered statements and considered commentaries
even after the workshop itself.
∂08-Jun-87 1106 JMC urgent grade
To: stager@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Please give Kevin Quinn an A in CS326 replacing an incomplete. He had
an operation causing the incomplete but now has submitted an excellent
term paper. He took cs326 this winter. I'm told I can accomplish this
grade change by a message to you.
Please reply to this message. He needs the grade to graduate.
∂08-Jun-87 1207 JMC Was Tom Hayden a hero or just a promoter of genocide - or both?
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
This is a break in between answering Helen Cunningham's questions,
although it has something to do with questions I will ask her
as soon as I've finished answering hers.
The incident I mentioned previously in slightly disguised form was at San
Jose City College and reported in Saturday's San Jose Mercury
rather fully and more sketchily in the San Francisco Chronicle.
I disguised the facts slightly to see if the question of whether there
was a free speech issue would be addressed.
Tom Hayden was invited to be the commencement speaker at San Jose
city college, but the invitation was rescinded when the Vietnamese
members of the graduating class objected. When Hayden showed up
at the invitation of a professor getting an award the Vietnamese
and some others walked out.
The students who walked out of their graduation were 75 Vietnamese
constituting 40 percent of the graduating class. The politician
they objected to was Tom Hayden, the husband of Jane Fonda, an
"anti-war" activist of the 1960s and, according the Mercury,
also a visitor to Hanoi. Certainly he was a supporter of North
Vietnam. Hayden is a California State Assemblyman from Santa
Monica.
"Social science instructor Jack Burrows" arranged for Hayden to appear
anyway. After the Vietnamese left Hayden received, according the Mercury,
a standing ovation.
It seems likely that this happening is the result of a longer conflict
between the veterans of the "anti-war" movement on the faculty and some
students who perhaps regard them as assistants to genocide
rather than as heroes. Inviting Hayden to be the commencement speaker
strikes me as a "That'll show the little bastards" gesture of someone who
was unable to convince them in his social science classes that the North
Vietnamese were their liberators. The "standing ovation" also suggests
some friction between the Vietnamese and their classmates. Perhaps the
Vietnamese studied too hard.
The San Jose Mercury said,
"After the ceremony, Burrows said it was unfortunate that his statement
interrupted the commencement. But, he said `I'm glad I did what I did. I
don't regret it. You either stand for something or you don't.'
"David Yancey, president of the faculty senate told the audience,
`I believe most faculty members support Tom Hayden's right to appear
here'.
"Charlotte Powers, president of the board of trustees, called for
everyone living in America to respect the U.S. Constitution and the
protection it gives to freedom of speech.
"Ron Berube was one of the few faculty members to walk out when
Hayden appeared. `It was a gross mishandling of the while thing', he said.
`They're merely reopening and pouring salt in the wound'."
Burrows didn't say what it was he stood for, and I suppose it
was the virtue of the "anti-war" movement, a proposition difficult to
sell to Vietnamese refugees.
Defining the issue as one of free speech serves the purpose of
evading whether Hayden was a hero in the 1960s or an assistant to genocide.
There is an interesting parallel with Helen's remarks about
her 1950s teachers trying to persuade her that the Soviet Union was
bad. Now "her generation", taking generation in the political as
well as the chronological sense, is in charge in the schools, and is
having difficulty selling its views to the children. All the "peace
education" sponsored by NEA notwithstanding, 18 year olds voted for
Reagan in a slightly larger ratio than the population as a whole.
∂08-Jun-87 1456 JMC re: Teaching Assistant
To: gloria@RATLIFF.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 8 Jun 87 15:22:20 CDT.]
I will not be here in the Fall. CS306 will be taught by N. Shankar.
Ask him.
∂08-Jun-87 1457 JMC re: urgent grade
To: STAGER@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 8 Jun 87 14:10:08-PDT.]
Please do.
∂08-Jun-87 1516 JMC Was Tom Hayden a hero or a just a promoter of genocide?
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
From the New York Times of Sunday, June 7,p. 6E, 2 days after the SJCC affair
Speaking of Vietnam
California State Assemblyman Tom Hayden, who as a campus firebrand two
decades ago flung brickbats over the war in Vietnam, chose not to be on
the receiving end last week. Mr. Hayden cancelled his scheduled
commencement speech at San Jose City College after groups of Vietnamese
students threatened to disrupt the proceedings. "This was a decision
made in consideration of those people who should graduate without the
threat of violence and disruption," said Bill Schulz, a spokesman for
Mr. Hayden. Tip Nguyen, a San Jose attorney, whol helped plan one of
the anti-Hayden demonstrations, accused the Santa Monica democrat of
having "supported the North Vietnamese in the conquest of South
Vietnam".
It appears that Mr. Hayden, besides making no statement responding to
the Vietnamese complaint, may have been engaging in deception.
∂08-Jun-87 1536 JMC red and black
To: MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I see that I have referred to parts of formulas in red and in black on
my transparencies. Should I change this for the published version?
∂08-Jun-87 1612 JMC upward and onward with Helen's generation
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
One of the stories I left out of my account of my background concerned a
meeting of the Mid-Peninsula Free University during which one of the
radical group, perhaps then still a Stanford student, threatened to kill
me. I didn't think the threat was intended seriously, and I did nothing
about it, and nothing happened. I just noticed an article entitled "GOP
Front-Runners Offering Few New Ideas" in today's San Jose Mercury News by its
political editor. Lo and behold, the Mercury News Political Editor seems
to be that very same guy, who was also one of the building trashers.
I'm inclined to suspect his objectivity. Is that permissible?
∂08-Jun-87 1851 JMC re: Mid-Peninsula Free University
To: OLIPHANT@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from OLIPHANT@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU sent Mon, 8 Jun 87 17:41:19 PDT.]
The Mid-Peninsula Free University was the largest of several
"free universities" formed about 1967. The MPFU was based in Palo Alto,
and its guiding principle was that anyone could undertake to teach a
course in anything - even people who were in grade school at the time.
At its peak there were about 1,000 members and 180 courses. Catalogs
are probably still extant. Subjects included psychodrama, sex, drugs,
how-to-do-it, astrology and other fads, popular science, and various
courses whose content was primarily social. A good time was had by
all. It operated a store and for a while a cafe based on volunteer
principles. About 1970 it was taken over by Maoists, who looted it
and abandoned it with unpaid debts, e.g. electric bills and social
security taxes. Its non-political activists had also gotten tired
of it. Someone should write its history. The cafe was where Rudyard's
Pub is now.
∂08-Jun-87 2219 JMC re: CS522 -- Heuristic Programming Seminar
To: quintus!qed!watson@SUN.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon 8 Jun 1987 21:45:03 PDT.]
Assuming you're talking about the summer quarter, I have never taught
in that quarter, and I'll be spending next Fall at U. Texas, Austin.
Also I don't know who is teaching 522.
Best Regards,
∂08-Jun-87 2223 JMC re: Was Tom Hayden a hero or a just a promoter of genocide?
To: b.bcplayr@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from b.bcplayr@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU sent Mon 8 Jun 87 20:50:27-PDT.]
Had Hayden been against our participation merely in order to save American
lives, one certainly couldn't accuse him of being a supporter of genocide.
However, he was a supporter of a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge victory,
and acted effectively toward that end. Therefore, he shares some small
share of the responsibility for the consequences of that victory.
∂08-Jun-87 2300 JMC re: talkin bout my ge-ge-generation
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@psych.stanford.edu sent Mon, 8 Jun 87 21:26:44 PDT.]
Indeed 1960s radicals weren't, for the most part, into killing. I don't
recall that this guy was connected with Bruce Franklin's Venceremos, but
that outfit was into killing. One of my daughter's grade school and high
school classmates and the daughter of a Stanford Medical School Professor
spent four years in prison for the murder (with others) of an unarmed
prison guard. Two guards were taking a prisoner from one prison to
another when their car was forced of the road and both were shot. One
survived and described Andrea. Since she had a red Afro, it wasn't hard.
The story is involved but eventually they were all caught, tried and
convicted. The gang included both radical students and professional
criminals, whom the students had recruited by visiting prisons. The
criminals pulled the triggers. The prisoner who was rescued was not
grateful, since he was in for something far less serious than murder,
and demanded to speak to Franklin. Unfortunately, he only got to talk
to Franklin on the telephone, and so, when he later turned states evidence,
was not able to provide the evidence needed to indict Franklin.
Franklin was also the theorist of the prisoner-radical connection which
was responsible for almost all the radical killings, including the
Symbionese Liberation Army murder of the Oakland School Superintendent and
the Brink's murders in New York. He wrote an article, which I may still
have somewhere, saying that Marx was mistaken in not ascribing
revolutionary potential to the lumpen-proletariat, e.g. to ordinary
criminals.
For those that haven't heard of Franklin, he was a Professor of English
at Stanford and the leader of a Maoist gang called Venceremos. He was
eventually, after a long hearing, fired for inciting an illegal occupation
of the Computation Center. Actually that was probably the least of
his crimes. He is now a Professor of English at Rutgers.
∂09-Jun-87 0016 JMC
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
Were you in the Bay Area in the late 60s and early 70s?
∂09-Jun-87 0922 JMC re: Teaching Assistant
To: gloria@RATLIFF.CS.UTEXAS.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 9 Jun 87 08:29:54 CDT.]
Indeed I was confused. I'll answer the original message shortly.
∂09-Jun-87 0925 JMC re: lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 8 Jun 87 21:27 PST.]
Either is ok. How about Wednesday? How about the Flea Street Cafe
for a change? It's on Alameda de las Pulgas about two blocks North
of the Sand Hill Road intersection on the right side - just before
you come to the Dutch Goose.
∂09-Jun-87 1209 JMC Workshops in AI sponsored by AAAI.
To: lb0q#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
AAAI will sponsor workshops in particular areas of AI. So far more
than 15 have been sponsored. The format is not prescribed except that
this program does not sponsor large conferences.
Here are some policies.
1. Up to $10K can be approved per workshop.
2. No honoraria for speakers or overhead to institutions will be paid.
3. Any workshop emphasizing commercial technology must be neutral
among the suppliers of relevant technology, e.g. people from the
different suppliers should be contacted and should have equal opportunity
to submit papers.
4. Proposals should be sent to
John McCarthy.
Electronic mail to JMC@SU-AI.STANFORD.EDU is preferred, but U.S.
mail to
Professor John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford, CA 94305
will also work. If you get impatient you can phone (415)723-4430.
5. Proposals should contain approximations to the following:
a. budget.
b. subject, detailed enough to evaluate relevance to AI
and possible overlap with other workshop proposals.
c. conditions of participation including how papers
and attendees are to be selected.
d. when and where if this is known.
e. program committee if this is known
6. Correspondence should be copied to AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX.STANFORD.EDU
or to
Ms. Claudia Mazzetti, Executive Director
AAAI
445 Burgess St.
Menlo Park, CA 94025
You can phone her at (415)328-3123.
7. After McCarthy has approved the proposal further arrangements should
be made with Mazzetti at the AAAI office. This includes transfer of
money and possible help with publicity and workshop preprints and
publication.
8. After the workshop is finished there should be a report suitable
for publication in AI Magazine.
9. There should also be a financial report to the AAAI office, and
unexpended money is to be returned to AAAI.
10. AAAI assumes no financial responsibility for any debts or other
financial obligations that may be incurred by workshop organizers nor any
liabilities for their actions.
∂09-Jun-87 1230 JMC
To: GIO@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I would accept an invitation to the Canton conference.
∂09-Jun-87 1321 JMC re: "Largest Peacetime...
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM, brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@kl.sri.com sent Tue 9 Jun 87 12:02:13-PDT.]
The Center for Defense Information has a political agenda - anti-defense
or at least against most current defense proposals.
The defense budget is still below the 10 percent of GNP it was in 1960.
Please explain why you thing the current discussions with the Russians
and with the allies at the Venice meeting don't count as some "desire
for entering any forms of arms control treaty".
∂09-Jun-87 1427 JMC Soviet and U.S. foreign policy
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
1. The Soviet military buildup. In the 1970s, the U.S. attitude towards
detente was based on the idea that the Soviets would accept parity
in nuclear weapons and wouldn't move toward first strike capability.
Late in the Carter Administration, the Government decided that
this hadn't happened. On a slightly different issue they decided jointly
with NATO that the Soviet installation of SS-20 missiles threatening
western Europe required a response. The Reagan Administration carried
out the compensating installation of cruise missiles and Pershings, and
now it looks like there is some chance that both the SS-20s and our
missiles will be removed.
It is said that the Soviets are approaching first strike capability.
Certainly there will always be some uncertainty in their minds as to whether
they really have it, so using it will depend on the attitude of their
political leaders.
2. The facts about the communist system cited in a previous message
are relevant to how we regard their military buildup.
Since public opinion plays almost no role in determining Soviet
foreign and military policy, everything depends on the leader and
the Politburo, and we can never be certain about that.
One of my fears is that some general may win a victory in Afghanistan
by being even more genocidal than the Soviet Union has been and may
get power.
Communist ideology justifies any action against the West. I refer to
just about any book by a military or KGB defector, e.g. the Penkovsky
memoirs.
3. The Soviet Union has been very brutal in using its power even against
its allies, e.g. Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I omit earlier aggressions
against Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Roumania, Czechoslovakia,
Poland and Tannu-Tuva, allowing the excuse that they occurred during Stalin's
rule.
4. Communism outside the Soviet Union complicates matters considerably.
Originally, all communist parties were entirely subservient to the
Soviet Union which controlled even their stands on domestic issues.
Many Western communist parties, including that of the U.S., maintain
this subservience. Thus the U.S. Communist Party has always anyone
who criticized the Soviet Union about anything. I believe the latest
batch of expulsions was in 1968 when a few protested the invasion of
Czechoslovakia. Other non-ruling communist parties are independent
to varying degrees. Ruling communist parties maintain subservience
in countries with Soviet troops, e.g. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Bulgaria and Outer Mongolia.
However, the main complication is that communism is an evil and a danger
regardless of what the Soviet Union does. I agree with Reagan with
his statement that the Soviet Union is an "evil empire", but I thing
his less well known accusation that the Soviet Union is "the focus
of evil in the world" requires qualification. I agree with the leftists
that communist movements would exist if the Soviet Union disappeared,
but I don't agree that it arises from good motivations.
Communism fits Richard Dawkins's concept of a meme, analogous to a gene,
a self-reproducing configuration in the social world. As an ideology,
it appeals to rationalism and resentment of oppression. However, as
an organized phenomenon it also appeals to a desire for power to
arrange other people's lives, to a desire to acquire personal privilege
by politics rather than by economic activity and to motivation by
hatred. Like other forms of totalitarianism, it is militarily powerful
out of proportion to its economic or industrial power.
Why totalitarian regimes are militarily strong isn't clear. For example,
it is today believed that one German soldier in World War II was worth
three American soldiers. The allies crushed the Germans by vastly
superior numbers of men and equipment. Perhaps this is like the fact that
aggressive military societies like the Spartans, the Mongols, and the
Northmen have always been militarily successful out of proportion to their
manpower or other resources.
Anyway, everywhere communism has established itself, it has rapidly
developed disproportionate military strength. Very likely, the fact
that the communists claim perfection and suppress all dissent plays
a role.
Aside on Vietnam: The North Vietnamese victory in South Vietnam doesn't
prove superiority of their society, except in a narrow military sense.
It is sometimes argued that regardless of the evils of communism, we
shouldn't help other countries defend themselves against it unless
a communist victory in that country is an immediate threat to the
U.S. I dissent for the following reasons.
1. Compassion. The U.S. might have saved two million Cambodian lives
by continuing to supply them and half a million Vietnamese lives.
Once we were committed, it was particularly dishonorable to desert
our allies. Consider the Hmong.
2. It is already true that military men contemplating a coup in some
country find left wing slogans and reliance on Soviet help a
great resource.
Remark: Everything would be vastly better if the U.S. weren't alone
in defending democracy. I hope the countries that helped the Contras
will draw the right conclusion. Namely, they need to be able to offer
that help directly, rather than via covert U.S. action that runs the
risk of political collapse.
U.S. foreign policy since World War II
My opinion is that U.S. Administrations have been basically honest
about the motivations for our actions. The declared motivations are
approximately the real ones. It is a combination of sympathy, compassion
(to use a currently fashionable phrase) and national interest. It is
misleading to underestimate the role played by generous motives. There
have been cases where the regimes we allied ourselves with became brutal,
and sometimes disengagement would have been the right strategy. By the
way, it is common for the left to interpret maintaining normal commercial
relations as a level of support that implicates the U.S. in any real
or fancied misdeeds of the regime. However, disengagement has sometimes
led to disaster, both for us and the people of the country, e.g. Iran.
Also covert action has led to lying about details. In general this
doesn't offend me much.
This series of messages was a lot of work, and I hope to lay off.
Doubtless many things could have been said better.
∂09-Jun-87 1641 JMC Gorbachev and peace
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Here is a supplement to my previous message.
1. It is possible that Gorbachev might bring about sufficient
reforms so that the Soviet Union would no longer be a danger
to the rest of the world. We have to wait and see. There is
not much we can do to influence the situations. Vigorous
criticism of inadequacies in the reforms and continued violations
of human rights is of some help, because it permits Soviets
to stick their necks out a little farther by pointing out the
advantages of placating Western public opinion.
2. Sakharov has said that democracy in the Soviet Union is essential
in safeguarding peace.
3. Peace with the Soviet Union is what we have now. We should maintain
it. Although I have said why I consider the Soviet Union dangerous, I
oppose hostile action of any kind, i.e. any kind of military threats
or support for sabotage. This requires clarification, because Soviet
propaganda will call criticism and the maintenance of Radio Liberty
hostile action. However, they know the difference, and the maintenance
of Radio Liberty will not hinder any foreign policy reforms Gorbachev
might try to make.
∂09-Jun-87 1712 JMC Arbab paper
To: VAL
Yes, he is wrong in his interpretation of my paper, and maybe also in
drawing conclusions from the interpretation he give. It seems to me
that his paper is rather confusing.
∂09-Jun-87 2114 JMC re: stanford vs ussr
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 9 Jun 87 20:32:03-PDT.]
Yes, the program was one written at M.I.T. by Alan Kotok and friends for
the IBM 7090 under my patronage, but I took it with me to Stanford.
The Soviet group used an M-20 at the Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics. There were four games, because they had two
versions of their program. The M-20 is far inferior to the IBM 7090,
but we used about 10 minutes per move, and they often used hours.
The match was by telegram and took about a year. I arranged it after
my first trip to the Soviet Union. The stronger version of their program
won both of its games, and the the games with the weaker were terminated
after 40 moves as had been agreed in the beginning. One of the positions
was about even, and in the other they were substantially ahead. In my
opinion, their program was better, and they were much more serious
scientists than the M.I.T. undergraduates had been.
The match cost them dearly. The head of the group, Alexander Kronrod
shortly thereafter signed a petition against putting the logician and
poet Esenin-Volpin in an insane asylum. He was fired from the Institute,
but my informant told me that the Party had not demanded that he be
fired, but the physicists were angry at his having used so much computer
time in the chess match. The rest of his group quit and moved to a
different institute.
The Kaissa group is very serious and strong, but I haven't hear much about
them lately.
∂09-Jun-87 2127 JMC re: Gorbachev and peace
To: rocky!maslen@ROCKY
[In reply to message sent Tue, 9 Jun 87 20:00:23 PDT.]
Indeed, but it seems to me that what I wrote admits that meaning. Do
you know a relevant grammatical rule?
∂09-Jun-87 2156 JMC Question for Helen and maybe Richard Steinberger
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU,
steinberger@KL.SRI.COM
Now that I've done my best on her questions, here's one for her.
Sorry it has to be a hypothetical question.
1. Suppose it were true that the anti-war movement played an
important role in getting Congress to cut off all supplies to
the Cambodian and South Vietnamese Governments.
2. Suppose it were true that this cutoff played a decisive role
in causing their defeat by both the resulting shortage of
ammunition and the sense of abandonment.
3. Suppose it were true that the leaders of the "anti-war" wanted
a North Vietnamese victory - that we are, for example, to take
seriously Sam Brown's statement to the North Vietnamese Ambassador
to the U.N. that the day the North Vietnamese took Saigon was the
happiest day of his life.
Then would the anti-war movement bear any share of the moral
responsibility for the massacres in Cambodia and for the
concentration camps in Vietnam and the thousands drowned trying
to escape?
Are enough of the above suppositions true so that it does have
some of the responsibility?
Does it have any moral obligation to avoid such an onus in the future?
∂09-Jun-87 2350 JMC re: re: lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 9 Jun 87 22:25 PST.]
OK, let's make it Thursday at noon, and I'll make the reservation.
∂10-Jun-87 0947 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In processing the following command:
MAIL
The command was aborted because these Host Name(s) are Unknown or Ambiguous:
isl.stanford.edu
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
∂10-Jun-87 0947 JMC re: Repeat of a couple of questions for JMC
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from danny@isl.stanford.edu sent Wed, 10 Jun 87 09:07:31 PDT.]
I'm not in a mood to answer more questions at length, and I haven't
studied the details of what has been published about the Contras.
I read one piece (NYT?) saying that they were mostly dodgin the
Sandinista draft with no clear answer to the reporter's question
of why they had chosen to join one army just to get out of being
drafted into another. Though I suppose if I was anti-Sandinista,
the imminence of being drafted into the Sandinista army might
trigger my joining the Contras. Incidentally, it's Somoza,
not Samoza. I also don't know about Pastora and why he quit.
I suppose there are some former Somoza officers in the Contras;
where else would they go. It would be politically ideal if all
Contras were former Sandinistas who realized they had been duped
by the communists, but it seems unlikely. Concrete questions about
what their goals and prospects are and whether their victory would
lead to something more democratic and whether their defeat would
settle Nicaragua in the totalitarian Cuban mold would be more
relevant. Unfortunately, I have no answers for those either.
I suggest that someone invite a Contra spokesman to give a
talk at Stanford. There have certainly been enough speakers for
the Sandinistas.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂10-Jun-87 1001 JMC re: Advising
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 10 Jun 87 09:48:58-PDT.]
The thesis topic looks ok, but your first problem is to get into
the PhD program. Have you started on that? I'm willing to say
that in my course you sounded like a PhD student and I'm willing
to review some work with a view to saying more.
∂10-Jun-87 1003 JMC
To: RA
See ai.txt[bb,doc]/141p and preregister me for AAAI.
∂10-Jun-87 1020 JMC re: Advising
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 10 Jun 87 10:12:29-PDT.]
In principle master's programs are not transmutable into PhD programs,
and I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened. Each department at Stanford
has its own rules. Your best bet is to do work that will get you a
strong recommendation when you apply for Fall 88. Therefore, I will
be glad to discuss it with you at 3pm today if that's feasible. I'm
going off now, but I'll be in the office before 3.
∂10-Jun-87 2211 JMC re: re: re: lunch
To: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 10 Jun 87 22:08 PST.]
see you there.
∂11-Jun-87 0927 JMC re: References
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 11 Jun 87 09:17:48-PDT.]
It's Shoenfield. Gentzen is correctly spelled. If you go to the Math
Library you'll surely find both.
∂11-Jun-87 0933 JMC re: US involvement in S. Vietnam
To: W.WROTH@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from W.WROTH@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Thu 11 Jun 87 09:18:58-PDT.]
It is worthwhile recounting that Diem's stated reason for cancelling
the reunification elections was that the communists were not permitting
any non-communist campaigning in the North and were planning to achieve
the usual 99.95 percent vote in North by the usual communist methods.
∂11-Jun-87 1341 JMC re: References
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 11 Jun 87 11:48:22-PDT.]
Remember that Socrates only goes back to 1973.
∂11-Jun-87 1347 JMC re: quitting date
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 11-Jun-87 10:17-PT.]
July 10 is again just before I go on a trip. It seems to me that I will
need you full time for the last two weeks, if I manage to fulfill my
promises to write things.
∂11-Jun-87 1408 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@psych.stanford.edu sent Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:56:54 PDT.]
1. I see that my question about whether the "anti-war" movement bears ANY
responsibility for genocide by the people they supported has been evaded
again - this time by ascending to the meta-level. Helen, I did my best to
answer your questions. Now, how about mine? Let me make the question
more concrete. Do the Vietnamese students at San Jose City College have
any legitimate complaint against Tom Hayden?
2. East Coast radicals also became involved with professional criminals.
The Brinks murders and earlier murders during a bank robbery by a different
group of radicals had the same character. There does seem to be more
of it in California, but the phenomenon is on a small enough scale so
that it could be a statistical fluctuation.
3. Before the revolution Russia exported food, and Gorbachev told an
interviewer that he hoped that the Soviet Union would be a net food
exporter by the end of the century. We do pay tariffs on bananas
and coffee. The Soviet Union also has a shortage of paper and lumber
with more trees than any other country in the world.
The Soviet system is responsible for the lack of fresh foods in
winter. At least that's what the Soviet newspapers are now allowed to
say. They are produced in the Southern Republics, and they could buy more
from India and Pakistan. Moreover, they could often be bought in Moscow
at enormous prices from Georgians who would fly to Moscow with sacks of
food. So why couldn't someone buy a truck and make a business of
transporting food to Moscow. Because it's an illegal capitalist practice.
Now something like it is being allowed, but it's still illegal to for the
trucker or independent retailer to hire people other than family members.
∂11-Jun-87 1530 JMC
To: RA
stone.1
∂11-Jun-87 1549 JMC re: cat recipe
To: LYN@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from LYN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Thu 11 Jun 87 13:55:48-PDT.]
This is a very dangerous recipe. When we made it for ten teenagers as
a luncheon dish it DID NOT SATISFY. The cat meat barely covered the
bottom of the pie, and only the fortunate accident that there were
several police cruisers outside returning from a riot prevented the
hungry cat lovers from resorting to cannibalism. I have to say that
the Palo Alto police performed with their usual elan and tact, sending
one of their number to pick up recently a recently run over opossum
and two run over cats as a means of diverting the hungry teen agers
from each other and the hostess.
∂11-Jun-87 2045 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@psych.stanford.edu sent Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:56:54 PDT.]
I think we're converging. Perhaps the only thing left that could be
argued about is whether Tom Hayden had "any reason to expect the 'crime'
to be committed". Of more current interest is whether the supporters of
the Sandinistas "have any reason to expect a crime to be committed" by the
people they support.
∂11-Jun-87 2141 JMC re: US/USSR/Vietnam/60s Radicalism
To: helen@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from helen@Psych.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 11 Jun 87 21:30:47 PDT.]
I don't believe the U.S. supported the Sandinistas until after Somoza was
overthrown. At the time of the overthrow the Sandinistas comprised
quite a broad coalition, including somewhat conservative people and
definitely including the woman running La Prensa. It was her husband's
assassination, presumably by Somoza people, that triggered much of
the anti-Somoza feeling. However, the coalition was led by Ortega
and is fellow self-styled Marxist-Leninists. They soon got rid of
all the others from any share of power. The Carter Administration
gave the Sandinistas $74 million on the argument that we should make
friends with them. I don't know how far the process of squeezing out
all the non-Marxists had gone at the time the Carter Administration
gave them, but I think it was far enough that there was considerable
protest. The reason for the reversal during the Reagan Administration
was that promises of democracy were being violated. Doubtless leftists
will have other explanations for the reversal.
∂12-Jun-87 0950 JMC
To: CLT
I paid Zella only usual amount.
∂12-Jun-87 1127 JMC
To: RA
We need to do my trip expenses when you come back.
∂12-Jun-87 2208 JMC red and black
To: MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
ok, I'll see about changing it.
∂13-Jun-87 0925 JMC metaepistemology
To: SJG
I think I failed to state the main point about the relevance of metaepistemology
to criteria for meaningfulness. Whether the knowledge seeker has
any opportunity to verify a proposition is contingent on his
particular circumstances, both his ability to do experiments and his
ability to communicate with others, as well as on his criteria for
verification. If we want a theory about what he can learn, it has
to be based on the relation between the world and his position in it.
What we know or postulate about the world can't reasonably depend
on his particular position in it. Any metaepistemology that didn't
take the world as objective would be extremely complex.
∂13-Jun-87 1830 JMC another way of putting it
To: SJG
If intelligence evolves in a world or is programmed into an artificial
world, there is nothing that automatically guarantees that every true
proposition about that world is testable by that intelligence. Slight
variations in the world or the place in it of the intelligence can
greatly affect what can be tested. Therefore, if the intelligence
demands to know about testability before it can seriously entertain
a proposition, it's way of thinking about the world is going to be
very different from the way the god that designed the world thinks
about it - even if the intelligence is smarter than the god.
∂13-Jun-87 2121 JMC Solar power satellites
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
It would be good if the Soviets can make this idea work.
Our National Academy of Sciences and Office of Technology
Assassination pooh-poohed it.
a270 1939 13 Jun 87
AM-Super Satellites,0341
Report: Soviets Plan Huge Satellites to Make Electricity, Reflect
Light
NEW YORK (AP) - The Soviet Union is planning to build huge
satellites that would convert sunlight into electricity for use on
Earth and would reflect sunlight for lighting at night, according to
a report published Sunday.
The New York Times reported that the giant new rocket developed by
the Soviets would be used to lift the satellite components into
orbit.
''The ultimate goal is to beam energy back to earth'' for conversion
into electricity, said Nicholas L. Johnson, an expert on Soviet space
programs at Teledyne Brown Engineering in Colorado Springs, Colo.
''They also talk about using reflectors in space to light cities and
farms.''
Guri I. Marchuk, head of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and other
Soviet officials recently have hailed the goal of solar power
satellites.
''Power is a prerequisite for anything you do in space,'' said Peter
E. Glaser, vice president of Arthur D. Little Inc. in Cambridge,
Mass., and a pioneer of the solar-power satellite idea.
''Proceeding with solar power satellites will give them a number of
options. They're planning all kinds of moves, years ahead of us.''
The plan has several stages, according to western experts, the Times
reported.
First would come space-based solar reflectors to bounce sunlight to
Earth for lighting at night. Next would be construction of huge
satellites that turn sunlight into energy. The third step would be
constructing antennas on the ground to receive energy and turn it
into electricity.
William R. Graham, President Reagan's science adviser, told the
Times that the plan may not be entirely peaceful.
''There's no strong division in their large projects between the
civilians and the military,'' said ''A substantial power capability
in space is something they could put to many uses.''
Following a May 15 launching of the new Soviet rocket Energia,
Marchuk told Tass, the official news agency, that it would permit
''the placement of experimental solar power plants in orbit.''
AP-NY-06-13-87 2233EDT
***************
∂13-Jun-87 2133 JMC re: another way of putting it
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jun-87 21:25-PT.]
I hoped that would simplify matters. Evidently it didn't. The point is
that the god is right. The world is as he built it. It is unfortunate
if the intelligence can't even entertain the god's plan as a hypothesis.
He might be satisfied with a homomorph of the god's plan, but what if
he can't find one, while the god's plan is simple enough to describe.
∂13-Jun-87 2144 JMC re: another way of putting it
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jun-87 21:35-PT.]
Let's discuss it in person some time.
∂13-Jun-87 2205 JMC re: another way of putting it
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jun-87 21:47-PT.]
It's not in my 1960 paper, although that paper says the same thing in
other words. Where did you find it?
∂13-Jun-87 2211 JMC re: another way of putting it
To: SJG
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jun-87 22:08-PT.]
No, it was 1960. The paper was given in 1958.
{\bf McCarthy, John (1960)}: ``Programs with Common Sense'', in Proceedings of the
Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London.
% common[e80,jmc],
% common.tex[e80,jmc]
∂13-Jun-87 2337 JMC
To: SJG
On the other hand, Goodwin's "reasoned control" is too hard to follow.
∂14-Jun-87 2001 JMC
To: RA
Pls. make Tuesday noon reservation for 3, Flea St. Cafe.
∂15-Jun-87 0722 JMC
To: SJG
I guess I must have jumped to the conclusion that all basketball players are black.
∂15-Jun-87 0725 JMC send paper
To: RA
Please call David Kirsh (see phon) and ask whether ordinary mail is
fast enough for my commentary on Carl Hewitt's presentation. The
file is hewitt.1[s87,jmc], and the output is hewitt.dvi. If he wants,
you can MAIL both that file and memo.tex[let,jmc]. Otherwise, just
U.S. mail or Federal Express the output.
∂15-Jun-87 1827 JMC re: Summer Project
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 15 Jun 87 15:44:55-PDT.]
We need to talk. Except probably for the Reiter paper, each of the books
you mention might be a summer's work, just reading it. We need to settle
on what you are going to do and see what actually has to be read in order
to get started on it.
∂15-Jun-87 2021 JMC re: [ito@aoba.tohoku.junet: Elis Loop Tie]
To: MS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 16 Jun 87 10:15:28 jst.]
I received Professor Ito's message. Please forward the following to him.
I did not realize the ties were a special gift to you. I supposed they
were a general premium given by Oki Electric Co. to customers and
potential customers. Please let me withdraw my request.
∂15-Jun-87 2103 JMC re: food and climate
To: Crew@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from Crew@sushi.stanford.edu sent Mon 15 Jun 87 15:59:01-PDT.]
I believe it is correct to say that the Soviets exploited their satellites,
and especially East Germany after World War II. They also got substantial
industrial equipment from West Germany, i.e. plants the Western Allies had
dismantled for them and substantial reparations from Finland. They also
took plants from Manchuria, which they occupied at the end of the war.
On the other hand, there has been time enough to recover from the World
War II for all countries. I believe that the economic standing of countries
today is related to efficiency of their economic systems and not to
how much capital they have accumulated. In Western countries invested
capital in industrial plant is between 1.6 and about 2 times their
annual production, and in the Soviet Union it was 2.6. (All numbers
are old and approximate). Anyway in the 42 years since the end of
World War II, there has been plenty of time to accumulate capital.
U.S. aid to all but very underdeveloped countries stopped in the 1960s.
I remember reading that U.S. economic aid to Taiwan stopped in 1966.
Of course, private investment continues.
∂16-Jun-87 0935 JMC re: solar power satellites
To: REED@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from REED@Sierra.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 16 Jun 87 09:13:15-PDT.]
There are two mistakes in Michael Reed's remarks on solar power satellites.
1. The reason for the National Academy's rejection was cost not danger.
The power level on the ground in the target was too low to be harmful.
Everything to be done in space is considered enormously expensive.
2. The power companies aren't "knocking themselves out" to put anything
into operation except what they are already financially committed to.
Environmentalist politicians like Governors Dukakis and Cuomo
and the leaders of the Sierra Club are too eager to find them at
fault for cost overruns caused by environmentalist meddling. Their
prudent strategy is to let the system run down to the point of power
shortage and then see which way the political winds are blowing.
∂16-Jun-87 1113 JMC re: Summer Project
To: brink@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 16 Jun 87 10:23:20-PDT.]
Make it 2pm Wednesday.
∂16-Jun-87 1131 JMC
To: VAL
Thanks for the comments. I assume it's ok to quote your badcheck example.
∂16-Jun-87 1151 JMC Hopper award
To: hillis@THINK.COM
Would you like to be nominated? If so and no-one else is already doing
it, send me a biography. It's for computer professionals who did their
good deeds while still boy scouts - or at least while under 30.
∂16-Jun-87 1456 JMC re: MIT Article on Lisp
To: RDZ@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 16 Jun 87 17:47 EDT.]
I found out about it. The license is for the LISP machine and its operating
system. I believe the tape is of the operating system.
∂16-Jun-87 1559 JMC Symbol Grounding Problem and Disputes
To: AIList@STRIPE.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon 15 Jun 1987 23:23-PDT.]
This dispute strikes me as unnecessarily longwinded. I imagine that the
alleged point at issue and a few of the positions taken could be
summarized for the benefit of those of us whose subjective probability
that there is a real point at issue is too low to motivate studying the
entire discussion but high enough to motivate reading a summary.
∂16-Jun-87 1656 JMC
To: RA
nafeh.2
∂16-Jun-87 1659 JMC re: correction of formaer msg.
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Jun-87 16:57-PT.]
The w87 file is the 1987 discussion of the earlier paper, the one
I printed for you.
∂16-Jun-87 1805 JMC comments on Hewitt
To: kirsh%oz.ai.mit.edu@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Yesterday, I express mailed you my comments. Today I express mailed you
a revised version correcting an error found by Vladimir Lifschitz.
∂16-Jun-87 1937 JMC
To: CLT
07-01 6:30pm, dinner at Hurds
∂17-Jun-87 1001 JMC re: hoter
To: RA
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Jun-87 09:58-PT.]
Same area as original hoter.ess. Also make an entry for it in approriate
page of files[let,jmc].
∂17-Jun-87 1754 JMC re: Radar warning on Stanford ave.
To: ILAN@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ILAN@score.stanford.edu sent Wed 17 Jun 87 14:28:11-PDT.]
The last time I saw them I got a ticket. They usually cover a particular
street for a day or two when the residents grumble about cars driving too
fast.
∂18-Jun-87 1305 JMC Cheeseman
To: SJG
I suggest starting with the 3rd paragraph, leaving out the first two, or
conceivably moving them to the end. Thus start by saying "I believe
Cheeseman's main points to be as follows." Also it might be worthwhile
to devote a paragraph to the distinction between default reasoning and
probabilistic reasoning, perhaps saying that before default reasoning
was formalized, many people treated defaults as though they were assertions
of probability - skipping lightly over the fact that there was no way
to assign the probabilities.
The example, taken from the probability or statistics literature
was of tigers on Mars, and as I recall, the problem was the assignment
of 1/2 to totally unknown probabilities, because if one assigned 1/2
to red tigers, 1/2 to green tigers, 1/2 to yellow tigers, one had to
make an argument about correlation in order to avoid getting 7/8 for
the probability of there being some kind of tiger on Mars. It might
be worthwhile your phoning someone in the statistics department for
a reference. I'd rather not be quoted than be quoted as proposing
a garbled version of a well-known paradox of probability theory.
Your text is milder than your initial denunciation. I rather prefer the
style in which one says, "This paper presents the following thought
provoking ideas. .... Thus I have shown that each of them is
entirely wrong.
∂18-Jun-87 1423 JMC
To: RA
reiter.2
∂18-Jun-87 1426 JMC
To: kirsh%oz.ai.mit.edu@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{Comments on Carl Hewitt's ``Organizational Semantics''}
I shall comment on several aspects of the paper.
1. As a distinct approach to AI, the approach proposed in this
paper is rather undeveloped. This may be quite justified, because it
is entirely possible that none of the more developed approaches will
succeed in reaching human level intelligence. Something entirely new
may be required. Therefore, I comment on what is here, and take a
positive attitude toward this approach. Instead of comparing it with
my favorite logic approach, I will consider it in its own terms and
discuss how it might be made better.
The intuition behind the whole approach is that correct decisions
arise from the interaction of small parts of an organized whole. Each
part has its own internally consistent but limited view of the matter.
The limited views are mutually inconsistent in general.
2. The term ``organizational semantics'' isn't described as a
semantics in the conventional mathematical sense, namely as a way of
assigning meanings to certain syntactic objects. One can imagine doing
so, however. I suppose this would involve regarding certain class of
program as operating via interaction of the parts of an organization,
each with its own goals and agenda, and defining the meaning of the
program in terms of this interaction.
3. The parts of the program are to proceed by ``negotiation
and debate''. These are never distinguished from each other. It
reminds me that Marvin Minsky and I are mentioned several times in
the autobiography of a certain distinguished physicist, occurring
always in the phrase ``John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky''. Marvin
and I have always imagined ourselves as distinct.
It isn't spelled out in the paper, but I would imagine
negotiation to involve messages back and forth between two parts
of the program aimed at achieving a compromise between their
respective goals and//or views. More complex negotiations could
occur among several entities.
Debate, on the other hand, might involve each part expressing
arguments for its preferred action with a decision being made by
a third part of the program.
Jon Doyle in various papers proposes ``deliberation'' as
describing the way a person considers various points of view and
the way a program should consider them. In deliberation, it would
seem that a single entity considers successively subgroups of the
propositions at its disposal and the recommendations that follow
from the separate groups and then combines the considerations in
some way. This agrees better with my intuition of how a person
decides complex matters and the way an AI program should decide them.
4. Hewitt considers that logic is ok in considering the
microworlds but is inadequate for the overall reasoning, because
it can't deal reasonably with contradictory information, since
contradictory information permits the deduction of arbitrary
conclusions. He further remarks that non-monotonic logic doesn't
change this.
I think Hewitt is mistaken about this point. It seems to
me that ``micro-theories'' dealing with separate aspects of the
world are likely to be useful, and Hewitt's problem of how to
combine them when they suggest contradictory conclusions, especially
conclusions about what to do, is a real and interesting problem.
Whether it's the main problem of AI is another matter.
However, the various systems of non-monotonic logic do
purport to attack the problem. They do it by proposing that
the micro-theories be formalized as default theories or in case
of circumscription using abnormality predicates. Taken separately
they can propose contradictory conclusions, because abnormality
is minimized in circumscription, and taking only a small subset
of the available information into account permits making many
of the abnormality predicates false. When bodies of information
are combined, the theories are still consistent, because the
formulating the micro-theories as default theories or using
circumscription has weakened them enough to keep them consistent.
When abnormality is minimized in the combined theory, in general
more tuples of entities have to be abnormal in the various ways.
It can't be claimed that the various forms of non-monotonic
logic have been demonstrated to meet Hewitt's goals, but anyway
they purport to be viable approaches to meeting them.
Let us consider Hewitt's specific example of a nuclear power
plant, but let's move the issue back to the East Coast, where it
is currently being fought over. There are two micro-theories.
One is nuclear science and engineering combined with specific
facts about the design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
It has many defaults in it, including assumptions that the
laws of physics and the effects of various dosages of
radiation are understood and that the inspections purporting
to show that the plant has been built in accordance with its
design have been done correctly. The second micro-theory,
that of Governor Dukakis, has considerable overlap of with
the first, but perhaps contains also some high priority defaults
preferring conclusions that accord with his commitments to
supporters of the Clamshell Alliance.
Any individual resolving the issue in his own mind is going to
take into account certain subsets of these micro-theories, according to
his level of understanding and the ``salience'' to him of various
considerations. For example, he may actually take into account
who would be offended or pleased by his reaching various conclusions
and what this would do to his relations with his friends. We are
very far from being able to formalize all this today in logic or
in any other system.
However, besides any circumscriptions that may be done,
there is also a process of deliberation and debate that consists,
at least partially, of making various additions, and maybe even
deletions, from the set of facts being taken into account in the
non-monotonic reasoning processes. These additions (and deletions)
are the result of a process whose logical formulation would require
meta-reasoning.
I certainly hope that Hewitt will be able to put his
intuitions about how this should precede in a more explicit form.
4. The main program example involves concurrent processes.
Two people with jointly accessible bank account attempt withdrawals
that would jointly take out more money than there is in the account.
The process is formalized both in terms of guarded Horn clauses
and in terms of actors.
The guarded Horn clause formulation is syntactically logic,
but Hewitt asserts that interpreting them as logical sentences
leads to a contradiction. Without following the details myself,
I'll bet he's right.
It seems to me that this is just one more illustration of the
well-known fact that logic programming in its practical forms doesn't
coincide with logic. The question is defined as follows. A logic
program has the form of a collection of logical sentences. Suppose
it computes a result. This result has the form of an assertion
that a certain tuple of objects satisfies a certain predicate.
It is natural to ask whether this assertion is a logical consequence of the
collection of sentences comprising the program. This is the {\it soundness}
problem for the logic programming language. It can also be asked whether
the program will find that answer whenever it is a consequence of the
sentences that certain tuple of constants satisfies the sentences of
the program. This is the {\it completeness} problem for the language.
Pure Prolog has been proved sound though not complete, and the
completeness result has been extended to certain classes of ``stratified''
programs with negation. Prolog with cuts is even more incomplete and as soon as
``predicates'' with side effects are added to the language, it usually
becomes unsound.
Nevertheless, even with the unsoundness, it is sometimes
intuitively attractive to think of the program as though it were
logic, taking into account the differences between what actually
happens and the logical consequences of the program when this is
important. Hewitt's example of the GCH program is a case when
the logic program is unsound regarded as a logical theory.
It may often be worthwhile to try to patch up the correspondence
between logic and logic programming. For example, if the language
has ``predicates'' with side effects, we can imagine that the
``predicates'' really have additional arguments representing the
state, and the side effect ``predicates'' relate the values of
variables in one state with their values in a successor state.
Thus logic programmers often take advantage of the fact that
proving something true and taking an action that makes it true
sometimes have analogous logical properties.
Some such interpretation may also work for the guarded Horn
clause language.
My own preference is to contemplate programs that work with
collections of logical sentences with sound interpretations rather than to
patch up logic programming. Anyway logic progamming is limited in what
logical sentences it can interpret. However, I agree that logic
programming is worthwhile, and patching up its semantics is also
worthwhile. For this reason, I cannot attach great significance to
Hewitt's discovery of another example of a logic program which is
inconsistent regarded as a colection of logical sentences.
It may also be useful to regard logic programs of various kinds
as objects, e.g. as quoted S-expressions and then have theory of their
interpretations expressed in logic. For example, a logical theory of
logic programs with ``predicates'' that made sentences become true as
well as proved them could itself be expressed in a formalism in which
states of computation were explicit objects. While the logic program
itself might be inconsistent regarded as a collection of logical sentences,
there would be a proper logical theory of its behavior when executed.
It would be interesting if the pseudo-logical form of the logic program
resulted in simplifications in the logical theory of its behavior.
\noindent {\bf References}
The final version of these comments will contain references ---
to circumscription, to Jon Doyle's discussion of deliberation
and to some of the attempts to extend the semantics of logic programs.
\noindent Note: Vladimir Lifschitz remarks that the example of the checking account
may be approximated using circumscription as follows. We write the axioms
$$badcheck(Check1) ∧ badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance,$$
$$¬badcheck(Check1) ∧ badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check1),$$
$$badcheck(Check1) ∧ ¬badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check2),$$
$$¬badcheck(Check1) ∧ ¬badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check1)$$
$$ -amount(Check2),$$
$$newbalance≥0,$$
$$amount(Check1)=70,$$
$$amount(Check2)=80,$$
and
$$oldbalance=100.$$
If we add some arithmetic axioms to these
sentences and circumscribe $badcheck$ with $newbalance$ varied,
then there will be two minimal models, with one bad check in each.
!\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ \number\year\ by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of HEWITT.1[S87,JMC]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
\vfill\eject\end
!The content of this paper divides into parts.
1. A proposal for ``organizational semantics'' of programs that deal with
inconsistent beliefs and conflicting proposals for action. Some desiderata are
mentioned, but no definite proposals are made. In fact, the phrase
``organizational semantics'' occurs only in the abstract and the introduction.
2. An assertion that the use of logicin AI is limited to ``microtheories,''
because logic cannot deal with the contracdictory microtheories that powerful
AI systems need to use. It is asserted that non-monotonic logic is covered
by the same remarks. This is mistaken, because cicumscription purport to deal
with this problem by weakening the theories enough to restore consistency and
then getting conclusions as strong as possible by minimizing something, e.g.
abnormality.
Hewitt's Diablo Canyon example might be handled by axioms
$\neg stupid-fanatics(Ablone-Alliance) \supset <theory1>$
where
$<theory> \vdash \neg safe (Diablo-Canyon) (Governor-Dukakis) \supset
<theory1> \neg political-appointment (Governor Dukakis)$
\end
!The intuitions
1. arguing entities
2. negotiation and debate
3. connection to logic
4. Non-monotonic logic indeed purports to solve the problem.
5. Organizational semantics
to explain behavior as the outcome of negotiation and debate within
an organization.
∂18-Jun-87 1426 JMC
To: kirsh%oz.ai.mit.edu@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
%list of macros
!\magnification\magstep1
\parskip 6pt
\hsize 6true in
\vsize 8.5true in
\hoffset .25true in
\scriptfont\itfam=\sevenrm \scriptscriptfont\itfam=\fiverm
\def\mathspace{\mathinner{\mkern-\thinmuskip}}
{\obeyspaces\gdef\rtcmath{\it\obeyspaces\let =\mathspace}}
\everymath={\rtcmath}
\everydisplay={\rtcmath}
% quick and dirty mkop
{\obeyspaces\gdef {\ }}
\raggedbottom
\def\hcr{\hidewidth\cr}
!% date and time
\newcount\hours
\newcount\minutes
\newcount\temp
\newtoks\ampm
% set the real time of day
\def\setdaytime{%
\temp\time
\divide\temp 60
\hours\temp
\multiply\temp -60
\minutes\time
\advance\minutes \temp
\ifnum\hours =12 \ampm={p.m.} \else
\ifnum\hours >12 \advance\hours -12 \ampm={p.m.} \else \ampm={a.m.} \fi \fi
}
\setdaytime
\def\theMonth{\relax
\ifcase\month\or
January\or February\or March\or April\or May\or June\or
July\or August\or September\or October\or November\or December\fi}
\def\theTime{\the\hours:\ifnum \minutes < 10 0\fi \the\minutes\ \the\ampm}
\def\cltdate{\rm \theMonth\space\number\day\space\number\year}
\def\jmcdate{\rm \number\year\space\theMonth\space\number\day}
\def\today{\cltdate}
!% from eklman[ekl,jjw]
\font\ek = cmtex10 at 10truept % typewriter type (TeX character set)
\def\uncatcode{\catcode`\{=12 % undoes most of TeX's character codes
\catcode`\}=12
\catcode`\$=12
\catcode`\_=12
\catcode`\&=12
\catcode`\%=12
\catcode`\#=12
\catcode`\↑=12
\catcode`\↓=12
\catcode`\ =12}
%\def\\{\begingroup \let\\=\endgroup \uncatcode}
% The following macros set things up so that we can write lines of terminal
% interaction in the form
%
% \beginekl
% ...
% \endekl
%
{\catcode`\↑↑M=13\global\let ↑↑M=\break} % This must be on one line!
\def\beginekl{\par\begingroup
\uncatcode
\parindent 0pt
\rightskip 0pt plus 1fil
\interlinepenalty 50
\baselineskip 11pt
\parskip 11pt plus 4pt minus 4pt
\catcode`\↑↑M=13
\ek\eat}
\def\eat#1{} % to eat the first <cr>
\def\endekl{\par\vskip-\baselineskip % cancel the last empty line
\vskip\the\parskip % put in space
\endgroup\vskip-\parskip\noindent} % cancel the next space to go in
\catcode`"=13 \def"#1"{\hbox{\ek\frenchspacing#1}}
%{\catcode`\"=\active
% \obeylines \gdef"{\ttverbatim \spaceskip\ttglue \let↑↑M=\ \let"=\endgroup}}
\def\turnonquotes{\catcode`\"=\active}
\def\turnoffquotes{\catcode`\"=\other}
\turnonquotes
!\newcount\scount
\newcount\ecount
\def\section#1{\bigbreak\global\advance\scount 1
\leftline{\rm \the\scount. \quad \bf #1}
\smallskip}
\def\leql#1{
\global\advance\ecount 1
\expandafter\xdef\csname eqlab#1\endcsname{\number\ecount}
\leqno(\rm\the\ecount)}
\def\eqref#1{\csname eqlab#1\endcsname}
!% Sarah's macros
%\title{<title>} gives a title and by John McCarthy
\def\by{\bigskip\centerline{\bf by John McCarthy, Stanford University}}
\def\title#1{\halign{\centerline{\bf ##}\cr#1\crcr}\by}
!%Additions by jmc
\mathsurround=2pt
%Should get a little more space around formulas embedded in text.
%bulleted item
\def\itemb{\item{$\bullet$}}\def\itemx{\par\hang\indent\ignorespaces}
%non-bulleted but indented more
\def\itemxx{\par\indent\hangindent2\parindent\indent\ignorespaces}
∂18-Jun-87 1427 JMC papers mailed
To: kirsh%oz.ai.mit.edu@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
I decided it would be better to let you print out the copies of my
comments if you can. The first file, hewitt.1[s87,jmc], contains
the comments, and the second, memo.tex[let,jmc], contains some macros.
The part of the first file after the \end is just notes, so don't try
to print it.
Let me know whether you succeed in printing it.
∂18-Jun-87 1655 JMC re: workshop on the foundations of AI
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 18-Jun-87 14:55-PT.]
That's fine. Go ahead.
∂18-Jun-87 1657 JMC re: Causality
To: D.DAEDALUS@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 18 Jun 87 15:12:38-PDT.]
By August 14, I'll be travelling again, and then I'll be at U. Texas, Austin
for the fall quarter. I suggest you talk to Vladimir or Yoav Shoham.
∂18-Jun-87 1708 JMC
To: VAL
Kirsh, David "KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU"@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, 617 253-6569
∂19-Jun-87 1359 JMC Goetz
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
The NYT article today shows a strong difference of opinion between almost
all "black leaders" and ALL the ordinary blacks they interviewed. All the
ordinary blacks supported Goetz, and all the black politicians except for
Roy Innis of CORE claimed that the verdict "declared open season on
blacks". One black leader said that if a black had shot four white youths
who surrounded him, there would be demands for the death penalty.
I would explain the difference as follows. Any politician must think
carefully before getting out of line with his political allies. There
is considerable disadvantage to any black politician getting out of line
here, because they trade in white guilt feelings and black militance and
race oriented attitudes.
An ordinary black is in a different position. He can put himself in one
of two positions. First he can imagine himself shot by a crazy white man,
who either hates blacks or fears them so much that he shoots them out of
excessive fear. Second he can imagine himself surrounded by four black
teenagers, who are likely to mug him. It seems that an average black New
Yorker is more likely to fear the latter than the former. He is much more
likely to have acquaintances and relatives who have been mugged than to
know people who have been injured by racist whites in NY. Therefore, he
identifies with Goetz rather than with his attackers. Also most blacks
have associations not based on race in addition to their specifically
black associations.
Perhaps many of them also feel that they would be better able to protect
themselves against crime if the anti-gun laws weren't so rigorous.
Besides Roy Innis, who apparently is not a candidate for office, Goetz's
black sympathizers include the leaders of the Guardian Angels, a mostly
black and Hispanic anti-crime organization.
∂19-Jun-87 1407 JMC re: Your fall grad course
To: AI.CAUSEY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 19 Jun 87 13:09:51-CDT.]
That's fine. I hope some philosophy students will find the topics interesting.
Thank you very much.
∂19-Jun-87 1408 JMC reservations
To: ai.ellie@MCC.COM
I forget whether this has been done already, but I'll need them
for Sunday and Monday nights June 29 and 30.
∂19-Jun-87 1423 JMC re: Rowland Glowinski
To: BSCOTT@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 19 Jun 87 14:05:55-PDT.]
I'll vote for Glowinski under the assumption that the face-to-face vote
was unanimous.
∂19-Jun-87 1444 JMC certificates of respectability
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
A person with a suitable certificate of respectability, prudence,
responsibility and competence should be trusted to the extent stated in
the certificate. For example, he could be permitted to pass the
inspection points in airports, to carry concealed weapons and to enter
various buildings. The certificates would be supplied for a fee by
insurance companies, bonding companies and other companies entering the
respectability business after whatever investigations they chose to make
and after the client demonstrated whatever competence they considered
appropriate. The certifying company would undertake to pay appropriate
damages if a client misbehaved in ways that the certificate said he
wouldn't. For example, the damages for hijacking an airplane, committing
a murder or infecting someone with AIDS might be set at $10 million. The
company providing the certificates would be required to demonstrate
adequate financial capability. The certificate would not relieve the
client of criminal liability for his acts. Civil liability might be
handled as an extension of present liability insurance.
I would bet that the AAA would find it profitable to extend my present
automobile liability coverage to include liability for my hijacking
an airplane for a very modest addition to the premium I already pay.
Young black men whose churches or other organizations helped them
get certificates might find it worthwhile to display them in certain
environments.
Such certificates would provide a strong incentive to avoid even the
appearance of criminal or irresponsible behavior.
It isn't clear to me what civil libertarians would think of this proposal.
∂19-Jun-87 1503 JMC
To: mazzetti@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
Glad to accept 25th edition invite.
∂20-Jun-87 1444 JMC Goetz
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Various politicians have claimed that a black in Goetz's situation would
have been convicted. I doubt it. Suppose
1. A black had shot four whites in a subway car.
2. The four whites all had criminal records involving violence.
3. The black had been mugged before.
4. The black was self-employed in a respectable occupation and had
no previous record of violence or reputation for violence.
5. The circumstances of his being accosted were similar.
Let us modify the case slightly, and suppose that the mugging had
been motivated by racism rather than robbery and the whites had
criminal records involving violence against blacks. There is no
actual parallel case that I've heard of in NY, but it doesn't seem
impossible, and its subjective probability for liberals is
high enough so that the black's claim of fear would be taken
seriously. My opinion is that the black would get off, perhaps
with less fuss than Goetz did.
He would probably still get off if the record and motivation
involved robbery, but the slightly lower subjective probability
of robbery by whites might be taken into account in evaluating
the reasonableness of his fear.
∂21-Jun-87 1625 JMC revised version of comments
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
If my comments on Hewitt's paper haven't been duplicated yet, please
try to replace them by the revised and expanded version that will
constitute the next message. The auxiliary file is unchanged, but
I'm mailing it to you again in case you deleted it.
∂21-Jun-87 1627 JMC
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{Comments on Carl Hewitt's ``Organizational Semantics''}
I shall comment on several aspects of the paper.
1. As a distinct approach to AI, the approach proposed in this
paper is rather undeveloped. Nevertheless, its presentation at this time
may be quite justified, because it is entirely possible that none of the
more developed approaches will succeed in reaching human level
intelligence. Something entirely new may be required. Therefore, I
take a positive attitude toward Hewitt's proposals.
Instead of comparing it head-on with my favorite logic approach, I will
consider it in its own terms and discuss how it might be made better.
I confess that my ideas for its improvement involve injecting more
logic, especially non-monotonic logic.
The intuition behind the whole approach is that correct decisions
arise from the interaction of small parts of an organized whole. Each
part has its own internally consistent but limited view of the matter.
The limited views are mutually inconsistent in general.
2. The term ``organizational semantics'' doesn't seem to be
explained as a semantics in the conventional mathematical sense, i.e. as a
way of assigning meanings to certain syntactic objects. One can imagine
doing so, however. I suppose this would involve regarding a certain class
of programs as operating via interaction of the parts of an organization,
each with its own goals and agenda, and defining the meaning of the
program in terms of this interaction.
3. The parts of the program are to proceed by ``negotiation
and debate''. These are never distinguished from each other. It
reminds me that Marvin Minsky and I are mentioned several times in
the autobiography of a certain distinguished physicist, occurring
always in the phrase ``John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky''. Marvin
and I have always imagined ourselves as distinct.
It isn't spelled out in the paper, but I would imagine
negotiation to involve messages back and forth between two parts
of the program aimed at achieving a compromise between their
respective goals and/or views. More complex negotiations could
occur among several entities.
Debate, on the other hand, might involve each part expressing
arguments for its preferred action with a decision being made by
a third part of the program.
Jon Doyle in various papers proposes ``deliberation'' as
describing the way a person considers various points of view and
the way a program should consider them. In deliberation, it would
seem that a single entity considers successively subgroups of the
propositions at its disposal and the recommendations that follow
from the separate groups and then combines the considerations in
some way. This agrees better with my intuition of how a person
decides complex matters and the way an AI program should decide them.
But see the final note.
4. Hewitt considers that logic is ok in considering the
microworlds but is inadequate for the overall reasoning, because
it can't deal reasonably with contradictory information, since
contradictory information permits the deduction of arbitrary
conclusions. He further remarks that non-monotonic logic doesn't
change this.
I think Hewitt is mistaken about this point. It seems to
me that ``micro-theories'' dealing with separate aspects of the
world are likely to be useful, and Hewitt's problem of how to
combine them when they suggest contradictory conclusions, especially
conclusions about what to do, is a real and interesting problem.
Whether it's the main problem of AI is another matter.
However, the various systems of non-monotonic logic do
purport to attack the problem. They do it by proposing that
the micro-theories be formalized as default theories or in case
of circumscription by using {\it abnormality predicates} as in
(McCarthy 1986). Taken separately
they can propose contradictory conclusions, because abnormality
is minimized in circumscription, and taking only a small subset
of the available information into account permits making many
of the abnormality predicates false. When bodies of information
are combined, the theories are still consistent, because the
formulating the micro-theories as default theories or using
circumscription has weakened them enough to keep them consistent.
When abnormality is minimized in the combined theory, in general
more tuples of entities have to be abnormal in the various ways.
It can't be claimed that the various forms of non-monotonic
logic have been demonstrated to meet Hewitt's goals, but anyway
they purport to be viable approaches to meeting them.
Let us consider Hewitt's specific example of a nuclear power
plant, but let's move the issue back to the East Coast, where it
is currently being fought over. There are two micro-theories.
One is nuclear science and engineering combined with specific
facts about the design of the Seabrook nuclear power plant.
It has many defaults in it, including assumptions that the
laws of physics and the effects of various dosages of
radiation are understood and that the inspections purporting
to show that the plant has been built in accordance with its
design have been done correctly. The second micro-theory,
that of Governor Dukakis, has considerable overlap of with
the first, but perhaps contains also some high priority defaults
preferring conclusions that accord with his commitments to
supporters of the Clamshell Alliance.
Any individual resolving the issue in his own mind is going to
take into account certain subsets of these micro-theories, according to
his level of understanding and the ``salience'' to him of various
considerations. For example, he may actually take into account
who would be offended or pleased by his reaching various conclusions
and what this would do to his relations with his friends. We are
very far from being able to formalize all this today in logic or
in any other system.
However, besides any circumscriptions that may be done,
there is also a process of deliberation and debate that consists,
at least partially, of making various additions, and maybe even
deletions, from the set of facts being taken into account in the
non-monotonic reasoning processes. These additions (and deletions)
are the result of a process whose logical formulation would require
meta-reasoning.
I certainly hope that Hewitt will be able to put his
intuitions about how this should precede in a more explicit form.
4. The main program example involves concurrent processes.
Two people with jointly accessible bank account attempt withdrawals
that would jointly take out more money than there is in the account.
The process is formalized both in terms of guarded Horn clauses
and in terms of actors.
The guarded Horn clause formulation is syntactically logic,
but Hewitt asserts that interpreting them as logical sentences
leads to a contradiction. Without following the details myself,
I'll bet he's right.
It seems to me that this is just one more illustration of the
well-known fact that logic programming in its practical forms doesn't
coincide with logic. The question is defined as follows. A logic
program has the form of a collection of logical sentences. Suppose
it computes a result. This result has the form of an assertion
that a certain tuple of objects satisfies a certain predicate.
It is natural to ask whether this assertion is a logical consequence of the
collection of sentences comprising the program. This is the {\it soundness}
problem for the logic programming language. It can also be asked whether
the program will find that answer whenever it is a consequence of the
sentences that certain tuple of constants satisfies the sentences of
the program. This is the {\it completeness} problem for the language.
Pure Prolog has been proved sound though not complete, and the
completeness result has been extended to certain classes of ``stratified''
programs with negation. Prolog with cuts is even more incomplete and as soon as
``predicates'' with side effects are added to the language, it usually
becomes unsound.
Nevertheless, even with the unsoundness, it is sometimes
intuitively attractive to think of the program as though it were
logic, taking into account the differences between what actually
happens and the logical consequences of the program when this is
important. Hewitt's example of the GCH program is a case when
the logic program is unsound regarded as a logical theory.
It may often be worthwhile to try to patch up the correspondence
between logic and logic programming. For example, if the language
has ``predicates'' with side effects, we can imagine that the
``predicates'' really have additional arguments representing the
state, and the side effect ``predicates'' relate the values of
variables in one state with their values in a successor state.
Thus logic programmers often take advantage of the fact that
proving something true and taking an action that makes it true
sometimes have analogous logical properties.
Some such interpretation may also work for the guarded Horn
clause language.
My own preference is to contemplate programs that work with
collections of logical sentences with sound interpretations rather than to
patch up logic programming. Anyway logic progamming is limited in what
logical sentences it can interpret. However, I agree that logic
programming is worthwhile, and patching up its semantics is also
worthwhile. For this reason, I cannot attach great significance to
Hewitt's discovery of another example of a logic program which is
inconsistent regarded as a colection of logical sentences.
It may also be useful to regard logic programs of various kinds
as objects, e.g. as quoted S-expressions and then have theory of their
interpretations expressed in logic. For example, a logical theory of
logic programs with ``predicates'' that made sentences become true as
well as proved them could itself be expressed in a formalism in which
states of computation were explicit objects. While the logic program
itself might be inconsistent regarded as a collection of logical sentences,
there would be a proper logical theory of its behavior when executed.
It would be interesting if the pseudo-logical form of the logic program
resulted in simplifications in the logical theory of its behavior.
\noindent {\bf References}
The final version of these comments will contain references ---
to circumscription, to Jon Doyle's discussion of deliberation
and to some of the attempts to extend the semantics of logic programs.
\noindent {\bf Note: Circumscriptive treatment of the bad check example}
Vladimir Lifschitz remarks that the example of the
checking account may be approximated using circumscription as follows. We
write the axioms
$$badcheck(Check1) ∧ badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance,$$
$$¬badcheck(Check1) ∧ badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check1),$$
$$badcheck(Check1) ∧ ¬badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check2),$$
$$¬badcheck(Check1) ∧ ¬badcheck(Check2)$$
$$ ⊃ newbalance=oldbalance-amount(Check1)$$
$$ -amount(Check2),$$
$$newbalance≥0,$$
$$amount(Check1)=70,$$
$$amount(Check2)=80,$$
and
$$oldbalance=100.$$
If we add some arithmetic axioms to these
sentences and circumscribe $badcheck$ with $newbalance$ varied,
then there will be two minimal models, with one bad check in each.
\noindent {\bf Note: Debate and Negotiation}
I share Hewitt's intuition that some internal decision making
processes are analogous to debate and negotiation.
We take as our notion of debate a process of making a decision
between two alternatives, e.g. alternative actions $a1$ and $a2$. A key
phrase in a debate is, ``Yes, but $\ldots$''. Using circumscription and
and abnormality theory, this can be modeled as follows. Debater D1 makes
an assertion that has the effect of supporting his proposed outcome $a1$
provided abnormality is circumscribed taking the agreed facts $\alpha$
into account plus his assertion $p1$. Debater B's ``yes, but $\ldots$''
adds an assertion $p2$ whose effect is to cancel one of A's default cases.
Thus circumscribing abnormality in $α ∪ \{p1\}$ entails $ShouldDo(a1)$,
while circumscribing abnormality in $α ∪ \{p1,p2\}$ entails $ShouldDo(a2)$.
D1 can now propose an additional assertion that will switch the decision
back. It seems to me that internal debate is more likely to follow this
model than real debate, becaue denying or completely ignoring assertions
is less likely in internal debate.
Also this model seems better to me than isolated micro-theories,
because it proposes a way for the debaters' assertions to interact.
Negotiation is different. Here it seems that instead of two
alternative decisions, there are two objectives to be optimized, and
some compromise between them has to be reached. Off hand, it seems
likely that formalization of this process should involve quantitative
considerations, so that it can be stated how much of one desideratum
is being traded off for how much of the other. The process of
real two party negotiation seems quite different from a process of
an individual compromising his objectives. This is because two
party negotiation often involves threats, implicit or explicit about
what each party will do if agreement is not reached. Only if the
two parties have a common overall objective does it become like
the decision of a single party.
Anyway I don't have a logical model of negotiation to propose
at present.
\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ \number\year\ by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of HEWITT.1[S87,JMC]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
\vfill\eject\end
The content of this paper divides into parts.
1. A proposal for ``organizational semantics'' of programs that deal with
inconsistent beliefs and conflicting proposals for action. Some desiderata are
mentioned, but no definite proposals are made. In fact, the phrase
``organizational semantics'' occurs only in the abstract and the introduction.
2. An assertion that the use of logicin AI is limited to ``microtheories,''
because logic cannot deal with the contracdictory microtheories that powerful
AI systems need to use. It is asserted that non-monotonic logic is covered
by the same remarks. This is mistaken, because cicumscription purport to deal
with this problem by weakening the theories enough to restore consistency and
then getting conclusions as strong as possible by minimizing something, e.g.
abnormality.
Hewitt's Diablo Canyon example might be handled by axioms
$\neg stupid-fanatics(Ablone-Alliance) \supset <theory1>$
where
$<theory> \vdash \neg safe (Diablo-Canyon) (Governor-Dukakis) \supset
<theory1> \neg political-appointment (Governor Dukakis)$
\end
The intuitions
1. arguing entities
2. negotiation and debate
3. connection to logic
4. Non-monotonic logic indeed purports to solve the problem.
5. Organizational semantics
to explain behavior as the outcome of negotiation and debate within
an organization.
∂21-Jun-87 1627 JMC
To: KIRSH%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
%list of macros
\magnification\magstep1
\parskip 6pt
\hsize 6true in
\vsize 8.5true in
\hoffset .25true in
\scriptfont\itfam=\sevenrm \scriptscriptfont\itfam=\fiverm
\def\mathspace{\mathinner{\mkern-\thinmuskip}}
{\obeyspaces\gdef\rtcmath{\it\obeyspaces\let =\mathspace}}
\everymath={\rtcmath}
\everydisplay={\rtcmath}
% quick and dirty mkop
{\obeyspaces\gdef {\ }}
\raggedbottom
\def\hcr{\hidewidth\cr}
% date and time
\newcount\hours
\newcount\minutes
\newcount\temp
\newtoks\ampm
% set the real time of day
\def\setdaytime{%
\temp\time
\divide\temp 60
\hours\temp
\multiply\temp -60
\minutes\time
\advance\minutes \temp
\ifnum\hours =12 \ampm={p.m.} \else
\ifnum\hours >12 \advance\hours -12 \ampm={p.m.} \else \ampm={a.m.} \fi \fi
}
\setdaytime
\def\theMonth{\relax
\ifcase\month\or
January\or February\or March\or April\or May\or June\or
July\or August\or September\or October\or November\or December\fi}
\def\theTime{\the\hours:\ifnum \minutes < 10 0\fi \the\minutes\ \the\ampm}
\def\cltdate{\rm \theMonth\space\number\day\space\number\year}
\def\jmcdate{\rm \number\year\space\theMonth\space\number\day}
\def\today{\cltdate}
% from eklman[ekl,jjw]
\font\ek = cmtex10 at 10truept % typewriter type (TeX character set)
\def\uncatcode{\catcode`\{=12 % undoes most of TeX's character codes
\catcode`\}=12
\catcode`\$=12
\catcode`\_=12
\catcode`\&=12
\catcode`\%=12
\catcode`\#=12
\catcode`\↑=12
\catcode`\↓=12
\catcode`\ =12}
%\def\\{\begingroup \let\\=\endgroup \uncatcode}
% The following macros set things up so that we can write lines of terminal
% interaction in the form
%
% \beginekl
% ...
% \endekl
%
{\catcode`\↑↑M=13\global\let ↑↑M=\break} % This must be on one line!
\def\beginekl{\par\begingroup
\uncatcode
\parindent 0pt
\rightskip 0pt plus 1fil
\interlinepenalty 50
\baselineskip 11pt
\parskip 11pt plus 4pt minus 4pt
\catcode`\↑↑M=13
\ek\eat}
\def\eat#1{} % to eat the first <cr>
\def\endekl{\par\vskip-\baselineskip % cancel the last empty line
\vskip\the\parskip % put in space
\endgroup\vskip-\parskip\noindent} % cancel the next space to go in
\catcode`"=13 \def"#1"{\hbox{\ek\frenchspacing#1}}
%{\catcode`\"=\active
% \obeylines \gdef"{\ttverbatim \spaceskip\ttglue \let↑↑M=\ \let"=\endgroup}}
\def\turnonquotes{\catcode`\"=\active}
\def\turnoffquotes{\catcode`\"=\other}
\turnonquotes
\newcount\scount
\newcount\ecount
\def\section#1{\bigbreak\global\advance\scount 1
\leftline{\rm \the\scount. \quad \bf #1}
\smallskip}
\def\leql#1{
\global\advance\ecount 1
\expandafter\xdef\csname eqlab#1\endcsname{\number\ecount}
\leqno(\rm\the\ecount)}
\def\eqref#1{\csname eqlab#1\endcsname}
% Sarah's macros
%\title{<title>} gives a title and by John McCarthy
\def\by{\bigskip\centerline{\bf by John McCarthy, Stanford University}}
\def\title#1{\halign{\centerline{\bf ##}\cr#1\crcr}\by}
%Additions by jmc
\mathsurround=2pt
%Should get a little more space around formulas embedded in text.
%bulleted item
\def\itemb{\item{$\bullet$}}\def\itemx{\par\hang\indent\ignorespaces}
%non-bulleted but indented more
\def\itemxx{\par\indent\hangindent2\parindent\indent\ignorespaces}
∂21-Jun-87 1936 JMC Tom Hayden
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
National Review of July 3 has the following item.
Tom Hayden canceled a commencement address at Cal State San Jose when
Vietnamese students threatened to demonstrate outside the auditorium.
"These people ... are remnants of the Saigon police state that lost the
war," Hayden said, "and they show, obviously, that they have learned
nothing about freedom since coming here."
Unfortunately, National Review doesn't give a source, and they locate
the event at "Cal State San Jos'e", which I suppose is different from
San Jose City College.
If the quote is accurate, it indicates an obtuse stubbornness on the
part of Hayden, which we might generalize to 1960s radicals. It also
indicates a certain selectivity in his ideas of what respect for freedom
of speech involves. I'd be very surprised if Tom Hayden were
always opposed to demonstrating against commencement speakers.
Would someone volunteer to telephone Hayden's Santa Monica and get
his present opinion of whether the Vietnamese students showed that
they had "learned nothing about freedom" in demonstrating against
him, and if so, what general principle is that an instance of?
Someone of that generation would be good.
∂21-Jun-87 1940 JMC Goetz
To: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Also from National Review. An NBC poll of New Yorkers found that 61 percent
"think he was right when he shot the four black teenagers, 21 percent think
he was wrong". Among blacks, only 48 percent think he was right, and 31
percent think he was wrong.
∂21-Jun-87 2138 JMC re: Tom Hayden
To: GOLDBERG@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 21 Jun 87 20:32:23-PDT.]
National Review is William Buckley's rightist magazine. I haven't heard
the accuracy of its quotes challenged, however. My doubts about their
source on this one stem from its inaccuracy about the college and putting
an accent on Jose. This suggests that whoever wrote the item had not
seen the Bay Area newspaper stories.
∂21-Jun-87 2227 JMC (→20606 1-Jul-87)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I will be away till July 1. I will check MAIL occasionally, however. I
can be reached by telephone evenings as follows. June 22-23 Hyatt Grand
Hotel, NYC. June 23-26 M.I.T. Endicott House 617 326-5151 June 27
Colonnade Hotel, Boston, June 28 29, Brookhollow Hotel, Austin, TX.