perm filename OUTGO.MSG[1,JMC]27 blob
sn#871497 filedate 1989-03-25 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00504 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00049 00002 ∂01-Jan-89 2102 JMC re: visit
C00050 00003 ∂01-Jan-89 2146 JMC charging my salary
C00051 00004 ∂02-Jan-89 1002 Mailer Two stories about Cuba
C00062 00005 ∂03-Jan-89 1238 JMC re: grumbles about your intro
C00064 00006 ∂03-Jan-89 1550 JMC re: grumbles about your intro
C00065 00007 ∂03-Jan-89 1726 JMC re: cross product
C00067 00008 ∂03-Jan-89 1835 JMC re: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
C00068 00009 ∂03-Jan-89 1839 JMC DARPA announcement
C00077 00010 ∂03-Jan-89 1858 Mailer re: Planet of the Year: Endangered Earth
C00081 00011 ∂03-Jan-89 2223 JMC
C00082 00012 ∂03-Jan-89 2224 JMC
C00083 00013 ∂04-Jan-89 2334 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
C00086 00014 ∂05-Jan-89 0009 JMC re: Artificial Intelligence
C00088 00015 ∂05-Jan-89 1326 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
C00091 00016 ∂05-Jan-89 1338 JMC
C00092 00017 ∂05-Jan-89 1402 JMC
C00093 00018 ∂05-Jan-89 1415 JMC re: Project Summary
C00094 00019 ∂05-Jan-89 1514 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
C00098 00020 ∂05-Jan-89 1531 Mailer environmental organizations
C00102 00021 ∂05-Jan-89 1534 Mailer environmental organizations
C00103 00022 ∂05-Jan-89 1549 JMC Simpson
C00104 00023 ∂05-Jan-89 1712 JMC re: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
C00105 00024 ∂05-Jan-89 1713 JMC Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
C00108 00025 ∂05-Jan-89 1736 JMC re: conference plans
C00109 00026 ∂05-Jan-89 2208 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
C00112 00027 ∂05-Jan-89 2215 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
C00114 00028 ∂05-Jan-89 2256 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
C00123 00029 ∂06-Jan-89 0006 JMC
C00124 00030 ∂06-Jan-89 1053 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
C00127 00031 ∂06-Jan-89 1100 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
C00129 00032 ∂06-Jan-89 1528 JMC
C00130 00033 ∂07-Jan-89 1358 JMC
C00136 00034 ∂07-Jan-89 1359 JMC
C00137 00035 ∂07-Jan-89 1639 JMC responses to a few comments
C00140 00036 ∂09-Jan-89 0055 Mailer 1991 freshmen
C00150 00037 ∂09-Jan-89 0224 JMC paper
C00154 00038 ∂09-Jan-89 0931 JMC paper
C00155 00039 ∂09-Jan-89 0931 JMC
C00251 00040 ∂09-Jan-89 1016 JMC Please U.S. mail
C00252 00041 ∂09-Jan-89 1356 JMC
C00253 00042 ∂10-Jan-89 0002 JMC Summary of November computer charges.
C00256 00043 ∂10-Jan-89 0118 JMC
C00257 00044 ∂10-Jan-89 0940 JMC re: dartmouth
C00258 00045 ∂10-Jan-89 1137 JMC re: edi
C00259 00046 ∂10-Jan-89 1145 JMC re: Jan 28th meeting
C00261 00047 ∂10-Jan-89 1146 JMC reply to message
C00262 00048 ∂10-Jan-89 1627 JMC tomorrow night
C00263 00049 ∂10-Jan-89 1813 JMC Freedman
C00265 00050 ∂11-Jan-89 1822 JMC context
C00266 00051 ∂11-Jan-89 1903 JMC re: SRI is not receiving JMC's postings
C00267 00052 ∂11-Jan-89 2318 JMC re: [Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal]
C00268 00053 ∂11-Jan-89 2319 JMC meeting
C00269 00054 ∂12-Jan-89 1147 JMC papers for students
C00270 00055 ∂12-Jan-89 1919 JMC re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
C00271 00056 ∂12-Jan-89 1923 JMC re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
C00272 00057 ∂13-Jan-89 1450 JMC broadcasting classes
C00276 00058 ∂13-Jan-89 1501 JMC
C00280 00059 ∂13-Jan-89 1656 JMC re: SITN
C00281 00060 ∂13-Jan-89 1743 Mailer quote from Dartouth's President Freedman
C00284 00061 ∂13-Jan-89 2133 JMC purging SAIL characters
C00285 00062 ∂13-Jan-89 2210 Mailer telling the truth inadvertently
C00286 00063 ∂13-Jan-89 2303 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00288 00064 ∂14-Jan-89 0035 JMC re: More on the TV question
C00291 00065 ∂14-Jan-89 1829 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00293 00066 ∂14-Jan-89 2215 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00295 00067 ∂15-Jan-89 1438 Mailer re: telling the truth inadvertently
C00296 00068 ∂15-Jan-89 1607 JMC heat on weekends
C00297 00069 ∂16-Jan-89 1156 JMC re: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
C00300 00070 ∂16-Jan-89 1442 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00302 00071 ∂16-Jan-89 1524 VAL re: Nonmonotonic Seminar: meeting time
C00303 00072 ∂16-Jan-89 1613 JMC re: CS323
C00304 00073 ∂16-Jan-89 1733 JMC
C00305 00074 ∂16-Jan-89 2155 JMC
C00306 00075 ∂17-Jan-89 1255 JMC new version of the context section
C00319 00076 ∂17-Jan-89 1615 JMC re: Algorithm Help
C00320 00077 ∂18-Jan-89 1859 JMC re: heat on weekends
C00321 00078 ∂18-Jan-89 1937 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00325 00079 ∂18-Jan-89 1943 JMC re: My Posting on ca.environment
C00326 00080 ∂18-Jan-89 2012 JMC
C00328 00081 ∂19-Jan-89 0259 Mailer Democracy in China
C00332 00082 ∂19-Jan-89 1056 JMC re: My Posting on ca.environment
C00333 00083 ∂19-Jan-89 1100 JMC re: 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
C00334 00084 ∂19-Jan-89 1100 JMC re: 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
C00335 00085 ∂19-Jan-89 1112 Mailer re: Democracy in China
C00337 00086 ∂19-Jan-89 1134 JMC cable for computer phone connection
C00338 00087 ∂19-Jan-89 1707 Mailer re: Democracy in China
C00339 00088 ∂19-Jan-89 2157 JMC reply to message
C00340 00089 ∂19-Jan-89 2206 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
C00342 00090 ∂20-Jan-89 0048 JMC
C00343 00091 ∂20-Jan-89 1123 JMC reply to message
C00344 00092 ∂20-Jan-89 1126 JMC reply to message
C00345 00093 ∂20-Jan-89 1138 JMC re: CSD Retreat
C00346 00094 ∂20-Jan-89 1417 JMC re: CYCL WORSHOP JANUARY 30,31
C00347 00095 ∂20-Jan-89 2231 Mailer re: western culture
C00351 00096 ∂21-Jan-89 1318 JMC re: CS309 for 1989/1990
C00352 00097 ∂22-Jan-89 0115 JMC re: phone call
C00353 00098 ∂22-Jan-89 1245 Mailer re: Western Culture (JMC,Floyd,Seowan)
C00355 00099 ∂22-Jan-89 1425 JMC re: cs 323 homework due date
C00356 00100 ∂22-Jan-89 2133 Mailer Family Members Demand Freedom For Prisoners
C00362 00101 ∂23-Jan-89 0335 JMC
C00363 00102 ∂23-Jan-89 1022 JMC request for information
C00364 00103 ∂23-Jan-89 1320 JMC re: request for information
C00365 00104 ∂23-Jan-89 1734 JMC re: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
C00369 00105 ∂23-Jan-89 2046 Mailer re: Western Culture (JMC,Floyd,Seowan)
C00370 00106 ∂24-Jan-89 0214 JMC paper
C00371 00107 ∂24-Jan-89 0218 JMC
C00372 00108 ∂24-Jan-89 0218 JMC
C00373 00109 ∂24-Jan-89 0958 JMC re: paper
C00374 00110 ∂24-Jan-89 1018 JMC re: White Trash Cookbook
C00375 00111 ∂24-Jan-89 1155 Mailer re: western culture
C00377 00112 ∂24-Jan-89 1627 JMC re: copyright
C00378 00113 ∂24-Jan-89 1631 JMC
C00379 00114 ∂24-Jan-89 1643 JMC re: Science fiction reference needed
C00380 00115 ∂24-Jan-89 1812 JMC integral reactor
C00383 00116 ∂24-Jan-89 1814 JMC tomorrow night
C00384 00117 ∂24-Jan-89 1851 JMC re: integral reactor
C00385 00118 ∂25-Jan-89 1323 JMC re: reference
C00386 00119 ∂25-Jan-89 1342 JMC re: USENET censorship at Stanford
C00387 00120 ∂25-Jan-89 1503 Mailer re: Who will be the new Science Advisor?
C00391 00121 ∂25-Jan-89 1506 JMC re: hacking hardware
C00392 00122 ∂25-Jan-89 1508 JMC
C00393 00123 ∂25-Jan-89 2156 JMC re: quals
C00394 00124 ∂25-Jan-89 2200 JMC re: earplugs
C00398 00125 ∂26-Jan-89 0958 JMC re: spelling
C00399 00126 ∂26-Jan-89 1001 JMC
C00400 00127 ∂26-Jan-89 1027 JMC
C00401 00128 ∂26-Jan-89 1030 JMC re: times
C00402 00129 ∂26-Jan-89 1153 JMC re: cs 323 lecture this afternoon
C00403 00130 ∂26-Jan-89 1216 Mailer El Salvador
C00407 00131 ∂26-Jan-89 1310 JMC meeting on contexts alias situations
C00408 00132 ∂26-Jan-89 1311 JMC
C00409 00133 ∂26-Jan-89 1314 JMC re: times
C00410 00134 ∂26-Jan-89 1614 JMC re: meeting on contexts alias situations
C00411 00135 ∂26-Jan-89 1632 JMC American Mercury
C00412 00136 ∂26-Jan-89 1635 JMC
C00413 00137 ∂26-Jan-89 1816 JMC re: American Mercury
C00414 00138 ∂26-Jan-89 1826 Mailer re: censoring the KKK
C00416 00139 ∂26-Jan-89 1952 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
C00417 00140 ∂26-Jan-89 2135 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
C00418 00141 ∂26-Jan-89 2350 JMC re: UC Santa Barbara
C00419 00142 ∂26-Jan-89 2351 JMC
C00420 00143 ∂26-Jan-89 2353 JMC re: CIE Conference
C00421 00144 ∂27-Jan-89 0116 JMC
C00422 00145 ∂27-Jan-89 0134 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
C00424 00146 ∂27-Jan-89 0151 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
C00426 00147 ∂27-Jan-89 0155 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
C00427 00148 ∂27-Jan-89 0156 JMC
C00429 00149 ∂27-Jan-89 0216 JMC reply to message
C00430 00150 ∂27-Jan-89 0217 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
C00431 00151 ∂27-Jan-89 0917 JMC
C00432 00152 ∂27-Jan-89 1053 JMC possible CS course to build simulation environment
C00437 00153 ∂27-Jan-89 1054 JMC Index prohibitorum
C00438 00154 ∂27-Jan-89 1117 JMC
C00439 00155 ∂27-Jan-89 1136 JMC Index liber prohibitorum
C00440 00156 ∂27-Jan-89 1509 JMC re: Ortega quotes
C00441 00157 ∂27-Jan-89 1806 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
C00444 00158 ∂27-Jan-89 1831 JMC
C00445 00159 ∂27-Jan-89 2008 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
C00446 00160 ∂27-Jan-89 2122 JMC re: More Account Information
C00447 00161 ∂28-Jan-89 0858 JMC
C00449 00162 ∂28-Jan-89 1107 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
C00452 00163 ∂28-Jan-89 1147 JMC
C00453 00164 ∂28-Jan-89 1218 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
C00454 00165 ∂28-Jan-89 1220 JMC rec.humor.funny
C00456 00166 ∂28-Jan-89 1337 JMC
C00457 00167 ∂28-Jan-89 1411 JMC
C00458 00168 ∂28-Jan-89 2307 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
C00462 00169 ∂29-Jan-89 1227 JMC re: Request to see Don Kennedy
C00463 00170 ∂29-Jan-89 1431 JMC Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
C00465 00171 ∂29-Jan-89 1431 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00468 00172 ∂29-Jan-89 1436 JMC rec.humor.funny
C00471 00173 ∂29-Jan-89 1445 Mailer Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00482 00174 ∂29-Jan-89 1450 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00483 00175 ∂29-Jan-89 1551 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00485 00176 ∂29-Jan-89 1600 JMC re: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
C00487 00177 ∂29-Jan-89 1620 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00488 00178 ∂29-Jan-89 1621 JMC
C00489 00179 ∂29-Jan-89 1633 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00490 00180 ∂29-Jan-89 2115 JMC re: What is BOAC?
C00491 00181 ∂29-Jan-89 2138 JMC
C00492 00182 ∂29-Jan-89 2238 JMC re: Templeton called
C00493 00183 ∂29-Jan-89 2321 JMC re: Residual Context Comments
C00494 00184 ∂29-Jan-89 2346 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
C00495 00185 ∂30-Jan-89 0007 JMC
C00496 00186 ∂30-Jan-89 0014 JMC
C00497 00187 ∂30-Jan-89 0019 JMC re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00498 00188 ∂30-Jan-89 0023 JMC re: University's legal rights
C00499 00189 ∂30-Jan-89 0038 JMC re: Has your son Simon changed his name to Barry?
C00501 00190 ∂30-Jan-89 0039 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00502 00191 ∂30-Jan-89 0044 JMC re: Your uncle Pat
C00505 00192 ∂30-Jan-89 0107 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00506 00193 ∂30-Jan-89 0127 JMC
C00507 00194 ∂30-Jan-89 0811 JMC re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00508 00195 ∂30-Jan-89 1117 Mailer misquote
C00509 00196 ∂30-Jan-89 1122 JMC misattribution
C00510 00197 ∂30-Jan-89 1441 JMC Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00521 00198 ∂30-Jan-89 1456 JMC Stanford Daily wrong quotation
C00525 00199 ∂30-Jan-89 1459 JMC Censoring rec.humor.funny
C00536 00200 ∂30-Jan-89 1620 Mailer re: Gorbachev
C00538 00201 ∂30-Jan-89 1658 JMC
C00539 00202 ∂30-Jan-89 2106 JMC re: libraries
C00540 00203 ∂30-Jan-89 2113 JMC re: funny business
C00542 00204 ∂30-Jan-89 2324 JMC re: funny business
C00543 00205 ∂31-Jan-89 0828 Mailer mechanic wanted
C00544 00206 ∂31-Jan-89 1130 Mailer re: Anti-abortion
C00547 00207 ∂31-Jan-89 1212 JMC Car Mechanic Wanted
C00549 00208 ∂31-Jan-89 1212 JMC Re: mechanic wanted
C00551 00209 ∂31-Jan-89 1244 Mailer failed mail returned
C00554 00210 ∂31-Jan-89 2309 JMC soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C00557 00211 ∂01-Feb-89 0913 Mailer making rec.humor.funny unmoderated at Stanford
C00558 00212 ∂01-Feb-89 0920 JMC re: Your statement of protest
C00559 00213 ∂01-Feb-89 1640 JMC re: rec.humor.funny petition
C00562 00214 ∂01-Feb-89 1644 JMC re: israel
C00563 00215 ∂01-Feb-89 1649 JMC re: original correspondance
C00564 00216 ∂01-Feb-89 1651 JMC re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
C00567 00217 ∂01-Feb-89 1711 Mailer re: A Trip to Meyer (was: rec.humor.funny)
C00570 00218 ∂01-Feb-89 1743 JMC re: original correspondance
C00571 00219 ∂01-Feb-89 1836 JMC re: banning newspapers
C00573 00220 ∂01-Feb-89 1837 JMC re: Newspaper reports
C00574 00221 ∂01-Feb-89 1853 JMC I lost
C00575 00222 ∂01-Feb-89 2159 JMC re: rec.humor.funny petition
C00576 00223 ∂01-Feb-89 2334 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
C00578 00224 ∂01-Feb-89 2335 JMC
C00579 00225 ∂02-Feb-89 0751 JMC
C00580 00226 ∂02-Feb-89 0818 JMC
C00581 00227 ∂02-Feb-89 1625 JMC re: AI
C00582 00228 ∂02-Feb-89 1650 JMC re: Telephone Messages
C00583 00229 ∂03-Feb-89 0830 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00584 00230 ∂03-Feb-89 0832 JMC re: Telephone Messages
C00585 00231 ∂03-Feb-89 1126 Mailer re: capital punishment
C00588 00232 ∂03-Feb-89 1335 JMC
C00589 00233 ∂03-Feb-89 1354 JMC censorship of rec.humor.funny
C00591 00234 ∂03-Feb-89 1822 JMC re: "left wing" purges of libraries.
C00592 00235 ∂03-Feb-89 1824 Mailer re: capital punishment
C00593 00236 ∂03-Feb-89 2144 JMC re: Book Burning (this message may contain offensive material)
C00594 00237 ∂03-Feb-89 2334 Mailer rec.humor.funny signatures
C00595 00238 ∂04-Feb-89 0120 JMC re: Admissions folders
C00596 00239 ∂04-Feb-89 0144 JMC clipping file
C00597 00240 ∂04-Feb-89 1047 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
C00598 00241 ∂04-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: Censorship battle
C00599 00242 ∂04-Feb-89 1143 Mailer capital punishment
C00600 00243 ∂04-Feb-89 1237 JMC lunch Monday
C00601 00244 ∂04-Feb-89 1943 JMC Please get me a xerox of
C00602 00245 ∂05-Feb-89 0059 Mailer re: More on K's & W's
C00604 00246 ∂05-Feb-89 0132 JMC
C00605 00247 ∂05-Feb-89 1002 JMC
C00606 00248 ∂05-Feb-89 1224 JMC
C00607 00249 ∂05-Feb-89 1904 Mailer re: 2 Questions of form "Where does one find ..."
C00608 00250 ∂05-Feb-89 2231 JMC
C00609 00251 ∂06-Feb-89 0112 JMC
C00610 00252 ∂06-Feb-89 1105 JMC Please send a copy of "Some philosophical problems ..." to
C00611 00253 ∂06-Feb-89 1517 JMC
C00612 00254 ∂06-Feb-89 1845 JMC mail and appointment
C00614 00255 ∂06-Feb-89 2012 JMC fruit flies
C00615 00256 ∂07-Feb-89 1132 JMC re: The impossible
C00616 00257 ∂07-Feb-89 1709 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect revisited
C00618 00258 ∂07-Feb-89 1801 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00620 00259 ∂07-Feb-89 2334 JMC re: Winning against your admins
C00625 00260 ∂08-Feb-89 0845 JMC re: Round 1 Meeting
C00626 00261 ∂08-Feb-89 1152 JMC re: A Granularity Question
C00628 00262 ∂08-Feb-89 1222 JMC Congratulations
C00629 00263 ∂08-Feb-89 1246 JMC
C00630 00264 ∂08-Feb-89 1328 JMC re: free speech-campus report
C00631 00265 ∂08-Feb-89 1341 JMC Please make a 10 copies of Measures of the Value of Information from
C00632 00266 ∂08-Feb-89 1459 Mailer Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C00644 00267 ∂08-Feb-89 1657 JMC re: The new Malthuses (sssss I feel like Sylvester the cat)
C00645 00268 ∂08-Feb-89 1710 JMC
C00647 00269 ∂08-Feb-89 1757 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
C00649 00270 ∂08-Feb-89 2216 JMC
C00650 00271 ∂08-Feb-89 2225 JMC newsgr[w89,jmc]
C00651 00272 ∂08-Feb-89 2307 Mailer re: Censorship
C00652 00273 ∂09-Feb-89 0856 JMC re: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
C00653 00274 ∂09-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: meeting
C00654 00275 ∂09-Feb-89 1244 JMC re: "left wing" purges of libraries.
C00656 00276 ∂10-Feb-89 0939 JMC su-etc discussion of rec.humor.funny
C00657 00277 ∂10-Feb-89 1738 JMC statement
C00660 00278 ∂10-Feb-89 2127 Mailer rec.humor.funny
C00663 00279 ∂11-Feb-89 0252 JMC re: Voltaire
C00664 00280 ∂11-Feb-89 0255 JMC book burning, etc.
C00665 00281 ∂11-Feb-89 1331 JMC
C00666 00282 ∂11-Feb-89 1431 JMC re: book burning, etc.
C00669 00283 ∂11-Feb-89 1736 JMC re: book burning, etc.
C00675 00284 ∂11-Feb-89 2023 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect revisited
C00677 00285 ∂11-Feb-89 2123 JMC re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
C00678 00286 ∂11-Feb-89 2330 JMC re: Voltaire
C00679 00287 ∂12-Feb-89 0934 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
C00680 00288 ∂12-Feb-89 1248 Mailer re: Club-of-Rome ecological systems studies were mathematically flawed
C00682 00289 ∂12-Feb-89 1828 JMC
C00683 00290 ∂12-Feb-89 1859 Mailer re: Give America a chance.
C00688 00291 ∂12-Feb-89 2144 JMC
C00711 00292 ∂12-Feb-89 2230 JMC
C00712 00293 ∂12-Feb-89 2238 JMC re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
C00713 00294 ∂12-Feb-89 2238 Mailer
C00714 00295 ∂12-Feb-89 2314 JMC
C00715 00296 ∂12-Feb-89 2315 JMC
C00739 00297 ∂13-Feb-89 0020 JMC ``signers''
C00750 00298 ∂13-Feb-89 0230 JMC re: well
C00751 00299 ∂13-Feb-89 0832 JMC re: Rec.Humor.Funny
C00752 00300 ∂13-Feb-89 1138 Mailer Kennedy remarks
C00760 00301 ∂13-Feb-89 1707 JMC re: student question
C00761 00302 ∂13-Feb-89 1833 JMC re: student question
C00762 00303 ∂13-Feb-89 1838 Mailer re: Troops in Korea
C00763 00304 ∂14-Feb-89 1015 JMC Pat Simmons
C00765 00305 ∂14-Feb-89 1051 Mailer Kennedy statement
C00769 00306 ∂15-Feb-89 1754 Mailer Kennedy and rhf
C00773 00307 ∂16-Feb-89 1203 JMC
C00774 00308 ∂16-Feb-89 1204 JMC Please send cbcl to
C00775 00309 ∂16-Feb-89 1206 JMC re: Ivanov
C00776 00310 ∂16-Feb-89 1709 JMC
C00777 00311 ∂16-Feb-89 1719 Mailer re: beware of "driveways" masquerading as parking spaces in "A" lot near chem/bio
C00779 00312 ∂16-Feb-89 1722 JMC re: Satanic Verses
C00780 00313 ∂16-Feb-89 1747 Mailer Could it actually damage relations?
C00783 00314 ∂16-Feb-89 1935 JMC rhf
C00785 00315 ∂16-Feb-89 1956 JMC
C00786 00316 ∂16-Feb-89 2305 JMC rhf
C00792 00317 ∂16-Feb-89 2352 Mailer re: Kennedy statement
C00793 00318 ∂17-Feb-89 0827 JMC
C00794 00319 ∂17-Feb-89 0907 JMC re: rhf
C00795 00320 ∂17-Feb-89 0909 JMC rhf
C00796 00321 ∂17-Feb-89 1235 JMC re: $50K
C00797 00322 ∂17-Feb-89 1244 Mailer re: Stanford's @#@$%$@↑#! parking tickets!
C00799 00323 ∂17-Feb-89 1440 JMC test
C00800 00324 ∂17-Feb-89 1525 JMC issues
C00801 00325 ∂17-Feb-89 1533 JMC re: What's the best way to undo/break rivets?
C00802 00326 ∂17-Feb-89 1754 JMC re: Spelling reform joke
C00803 00327 ∂17-Feb-89 1800 JMC re: REC.HUMOR.FUNNY and the Faculty Senate
C00805 00328 ∂17-Feb-89 1801 Mailer rec.humor.funny and the Faculty Senate
C00807 00329 ∂18-Feb-89 1701 JMC Please fax
C00808 00330 ∂19-Feb-89 1303 JMC
C00809 00331 ∂19-Feb-89 1308 JMC
C00810 00332 ∂19-Feb-89 1411 Mailer tape recorder giveaway
C00811 00333 ∂19-Feb-89 1509 JMC re: the free tape recorderλ
C00812 00334 ∂19-Feb-89 1540 Mailer
C00813 00335 ∂19-Feb-89 2228 Mailer Satanic verses
C00817 00336 ∂20-Feb-89 1208 Mailer re: Satanic verses
C00819 00337 ∂20-Feb-89 1219 JMC Please send
C00820 00338 ∂20-Feb-89 1222 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
C00821 00339 ∂20-Feb-89 1717 JMC Galbiati
C00822 00340 ∂20-Feb-89 1920 JMC re: visit to Stanford
C00824 00341 ∂20-Feb-89 2010 JMC Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
C00828 00342 ∂20-Feb-89 2019 JMC email address
C00829 00343 ∂20-Feb-89 2103 JMC rabino.re1
C00830 00344 ∂20-Feb-89 2113 JMC rabinov recommendation
C00831 00345 ∂20-Feb-89 2222 JMC
C00832 00346 ∂20-Feb-89 2236 JMC re: RHF, AIR, Senate
C00834 00347 ∂20-Feb-89 2353 JMC check on book
C00835 00348 ∂21-Feb-89 0857 JMC re: ACM position on electronic journalism
C00836 00349 ∂21-Feb-89 0900 JMC re: email address
C00837 00350 ∂21-Feb-89 0909 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
C00839 00351 ∂21-Feb-89 0922 JMC re: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
C00840 00352 ∂21-Feb-89 0924 Mailer Satanic Verses
C00841 00353 ∂21-Feb-89 1314 JMC Answer call
C00842 00354 ∂21-Feb-89 1820 JMC csd resolution
C00843 00355 ∂21-Feb-89 1935 JMC draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
C00844 00356 ∂22-Feb-89 0055 JMC re: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
C00845 00357 ∂22-Feb-89 1014 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
C00848 00358 ∂22-Feb-89 1450 JMC re: Admissions committee - round 2.
C00849 00359 ∂22-Feb-89 1559 JMC
C00850 00360 ∂22-Feb-89 1600 JMC Please send a vita
C00851 00361 ∂22-Feb-89 1739 Mailer candidates for non-patronage or even picketing
C00852 00362 ∂22-Feb-89 1756 JMC re: More censorship--individual, this time.
C00854 00363 ∂22-Feb-89 1801 JMC E
C00855 00364 ∂22-Feb-89 1901 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
C00858 00365 ∂22-Feb-89 2154 Mailer re: take a cat home tonight
C00859 00366 ∂23-Feb-89 0857 JMC reply to message
C00860 00367 ∂23-Feb-89 0911 JMC reply to message
C00861 00368 ∂23-Feb-89 0921 JMC Not much luck at Waterloo
C00863 00369 ∂23-Feb-89 0929 JMC on-line version of your statement
C00864 00370 ∂23-Feb-89 1128 JMC re: Not much luck at Waterloo
C00865 00371 ∂23-Feb-89 1137 JMC Please go
C00866 00372 ∂23-Feb-89 1239 JMC re: take a cat home tonight
C00867 00373 ∂23-Feb-89 1249 JMC
C00868 00374 ∂23-Feb-89 1620 JMC reply to message
C00869 00375 ∂23-Feb-89 1655 JMC
C00873 00376 ∂24-Feb-89 0034 JMC
C00874 00377 ∂24-Feb-89 1506 JMC re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
C00875 00378 ∂24-Feb-89 1518 JMC re: on-line version, minus footnote calls
C00876 00379 ∂24-Feb-89 1636 JMC re: are you sure?
C00877 00380 ∂24-Feb-89 1727 JMC re: Japan Workshop
C00878 00381 ∂24-Feb-89 1732 Mailer re: re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
C00879 00382 ∂24-Feb-89 1801 JMC re: Leftist purges of libraries
C00880 00383 ∂24-Feb-89 1826 JMC
C00881 00384 ∂25-Feb-89 1112 JMC
C00882 00385 ∂25-Feb-89 1538 JMC
C00883 00386 ∂26-Feb-89 1343 Mailer
C00886 00387 ∂26-Feb-89 1420 JMC ysp
C00887 00388 ∂26-Feb-89 1431 JMC ysp
C00888 00389 ∂26-Feb-89 1615 Mailer re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
C00889 00390 ∂26-Feb-89 1757 JMC re: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
C00890 00391 ∂26-Feb-89 1818 JMC re: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
C00891 00392 ∂26-Feb-89 1918 JMC re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
C00892 00393 ∂27-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: mechanic wanted
C00893 00394 ∂27-Feb-89 1055 JMC re: Possible RHF Senate Motion
C00894 00395 ∂27-Feb-89 1154 JMC re: Baker's work on Yale shooting
C00895 00396 ∂27-Feb-89 1154 JMC
C00896 00397 ∂27-Feb-89 1227 JMC
C00897 00398 ∂27-Feb-89 1305 JMC re: your home line
C00898 00399 ∂27-Feb-89 1318 JMC
C00899 00400 ∂27-Feb-89 1408 JMC re: AP back up
C00900 00401 ∂27-Feb-89 1422 JMC re: CSD faculty letter
C00901 00402 ∂27-Feb-89 1432 Mailer animal rights
C00903 00403 ∂27-Feb-89 1626 JMC reply to message
C00904 00404 ∂27-Feb-89 1631 JMC fax
C00905 00405 ∂27-Feb-89 1718 JMC Przymusinski
C00907 00406 ∂28-Feb-89 0028 JMC amnon shaashua
C00908 00407 ∂28-Feb-89 0855 Mailer re: Defense spending as % GNP
C00909 00408 ∂28-Feb-89 1145 Mailer re: It's all in the name
C00910 00409 ∂28-Feb-89 1734 JMC Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
C00921 00410 ∂28-Feb-89 1738 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
C00923 00411 ∂28-Feb-89 1800 JMC reply to message
C00924 00412 ∂28-Feb-89 2145 Mailer Templeton Apologizes!!
C00925 00413 ∂28-Feb-89 2156 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
C00926 00414 brad%looking@waterloo.edu
C00927 00415 ∂01-Mar-89 0736 JMC [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
C00928 00416 ∂01-Mar-89 0737 JMC [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
C00929 00417 ∂01-Mar-89 1255 Mailer re: IMPORTANT: all car insurers, especially California Casualty !!!
C00934 00418 ∂01-Mar-89 1316 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
C00935 00419 ∂01-Mar-89 1502 JMC BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
C00960 00420 ∂01-Mar-89 1510 JMC re: my Ms.C. thesis
C00961 00421 ∂01-Mar-89 1512 JMC re: Your interview on 3rd
C00962 00422 ∂01-Mar-89 1552 JMC
C00963 00423 ∂01-Mar-89 1747 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
C00964 00424 ∂01-Mar-89 1751 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
C00965 00425 ∂01-Mar-89 2324 JMC
C00966 00426 ∂02-Mar-89 0028 JMC statement
C00968 00427 ∂02-Mar-89 0043 JMC your statement
C00970 00428 ∂02-Mar-89 0849 JMC reply to message
C00971 00429 ∂02-Mar-89 0859 JMC re: address
C00973 00430 ∂02-Mar-89 0908 JMC reply to message
C00974 00431 ∂02-Mar-89 0926 JMC OK to publicize?
C00975 00432 ∂02-Mar-89 1201 JMC re: press conference
C00976 00433 ∂02-Mar-89 1614 JMC re: Your interview on 3rd
C00977 00434 ∂02-Mar-89 1635 JMC re: my apologies.
C00978 00435 ∂02-Mar-89 1739 JMC re: Folders
C00979 00436 ∂02-Mar-89 2224 JMC terminal and Nafeh
C00980 00437 ∂02-Mar-89 2234 JMC rhf does so have educational value
C01005 00438 ∂03-Mar-89 1423 Mailer re: One clean way of dealing with university censorship
C01007 00439 ∂03-Mar-89 1435 JMC CFAR Petition
C01011 00440 ∂03-Mar-89 1445 JMC
C01012 00441 ∂03-Mar-89 1619 JMC re: Letter to request DARPA approval for Japan trip
C01013 00442 ∂03-Mar-89 1704 Mailer rhf referred to Library Committee
C01014 00443 ∂04-Mar-89 0952 JMC
C01015 00444 ∂04-Mar-89 1659 JMC phd admissions
C01016 00445 ∂05-Mar-89 1217 JMC
C01017 00446 ∂05-Mar-89 1220 Mailer re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
C01018 00447 ∂05-Mar-89 1225 Mailer help wanted
C01019 00448 ∂05-Mar-89 1805 Mailer grumble about aclu
C01020 00449 ∂05-Mar-89 2330 JMC
C01021 00450 ∂06-Mar-89 1001 JMC re: a true story
C01022 00451 ∂06-Mar-89 1010 Mailer re: grumble about aclu
C01024 00452 ∂06-Mar-89 1030 JMC Pat Simmons......
C01025 00453 ∂06-Mar-89 1137 JMC re: help wanted
C01026 00454 ∂06-Mar-89 1208 JMC re: help wanted
C01027 00455 ∂06-Mar-89 1400 JMC re: Nature's Sunshine Distributor
C01028 00456 ∂06-Mar-89 1441 JMC re: help wanted
C01029 00457 ∂06-Mar-89 1451 JMC re: help wanted
C01031 00458 ∂06-Mar-89 1505 JMC
C01032 00459 ∂06-Mar-89 1644 JMC re: [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: times]
C01033 00460 ∂07-Mar-89 1158 Mailer
C01034 00461 ∂07-Mar-89 1206 JMC reply to message
C01035 00462 ∂07-Mar-89 2243 Mailer re: I'm an Agnostic and proud of it . . . I think.
C01037 00463 ∂08-Mar-89 1215 JMC re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
C01039 00464 ∂08-Mar-89 1220 JMC re: Visit to Edinburgh?
C01040 00465 ∂08-Mar-89 1231 JMC re: Story for Campus Report
C01041 00466 ∂08-Mar-89 1232 Mailer schedule on rhf consideration
C01043 00467 ∂08-Mar-89 1240 JMC re: Final Exams
C01044 00468 ∂08-Mar-89 1629 JMC re: dinner?
C01045 00469 ∂08-Mar-89 1634 JMC re: dinner?
C01046 00470 ∂08-Mar-89 1800 JMC re: 1962 IFIP article
C01047 00471 ∂09-Mar-89 1242 JMC re: Visit to Edinburgh?
C01048 00472 ∂09-Mar-89 1802 JMC re: my SAIL account
C01049 00473 ∂10-Mar-89 1046 JMC re: my M.Sc. thesis
C01050 00474 ∂10-Mar-89 1047 JMC re: censorship
C01051 00475 ∂10-Mar-89 1057 Mailer re: slaves
C01053 00476 ∂10-Mar-89 1255 JMC re: Alliant meeting
C01054 00477 ∂10-Mar-89 1301 Mailer re: hey, bud ...
C01055 00478 ∂10-Mar-89 1355 Mailer The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C01057 00479 ∂10-Mar-89 1356 Mailer Ujaama
C01059 00480 ∂10-Mar-89 1418 JMC reference
C01060 00481 ∂10-Mar-89 1719 JMC re: Religion. Who was it who said...
C01061 00482 ∂10-Mar-89 2006 JMC re: Religion. Who was it who said...
C01062 00483 ∂10-Mar-89 2008 JMC re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C01063 00484 ∂10-Mar-89 2011 JMC re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
C01064 00485 ∂10-Mar-89 2148 JMC Timothy probably innocent
C01065 00486 ∂11-Mar-89 1405 JMC PhD Admissions
C01066 00487 ∂11-Mar-89 1559 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
C01067 00488 ∂11-Mar-89 1605 JMC Formal reasoning budget
C01068 00489 ∂11-Mar-89 1617 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
C01069 00490 ∂11-Mar-89 1757 JMC re: Thomas Sowell (was Re: Discrimination)
C01070 00491 ∂11-Mar-89 1929 JMC re: `Help
C01071 00492 ∂11-Mar-89 2202 Mailer re: secession and new admissions policy
C01073 00493 ∂11-Mar-89 2319 JMC
C01074 00494 ∂12-Mar-89 1419 JMC re: secession and new admissions policy
C01075 00495 ∂12-Mar-89 1426 Mailer re: Blabs dodging admissions issue?
C01076 00496 ∂12-Mar-89 1430 Mailer re: redlich---a side note.
C01077 00497 ∂12-Mar-89 1513 Mailer re: john maccarthy
C01082 00498 ∂12-Mar-89 1518 JMC re: secession and new admissions policy
C01083 00499 ∂12-Mar-89 1829 JMC phone line
C01084 00500 ∂12-Mar-89 2043 JMC meeting about Soviet visitors
C01085 00501 ∂12-Mar-89 2234 Mailer personal exchanges
C01086 00502 ∂12-Mar-89 2244 JMC re: Sowell
C01087 00503 ∂13-Mar-89 0035 JMC
C01088 00504 ∂13-Mar-89 1046 JMC re: Sowell
C01093 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Jan-89 2102 JMC re: visit
To: darden@MIMSY.UMD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 1 Jan 89 14:53:17 EST.]
I'm not sure about Sunday yet, but we can surely find some time.
Where is the meeting, when are you talking, and where will you
be staying?
∂01-Jan-89 2146 JMC charging my salary
To: CLT
Let it be charged to the Department, but you should ask Betty if
NSF still has the rule that the percentage of the Principal
Investigator's salary charged to a grant can't be reduced much
below what it was in the budget without NSF permission.
∂02-Jan-89 1002 Mailer Two stories about Cuba
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Castro Rejects Soviet Reforms
By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer
HAVANA (AP) - President Fidel Castro, celebrating the 30th
anniversary of his revolution, rejected market-oriented economic
reforms and said that for Cuba, it is ''socialism or death.''
Castro's remarks, in a televised speech Sunday night, seemed aimed
at the Soviet Union and other Communist countries that have been
abandoning strict adherence to Marxist doctrine.
''Today we say with more force than ever, socialism or death,
Marxism -Leninism or death,'' he said.
Castro spoke to a large gathering from the balcony of the municipal
building in the eastern city of Santiago, where he had proclaimed
victory for his revolutionary struggle on Jan. 1, 1959.
He did not refer directly to the Soviet Union in his remarks, saying
only that the contemporary situation has been marked by
''confusion.''
In other speeches, Castro has been more explicit about his rejection
of the reform policies of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev.
He has said that Cuba will never embrace any reforms that ''reek of
capitalism.'' He also has acknowledged that the changes under
Gorbachev could cause ''difficulties'' for Cuba.
The Cuban-Soviet friendship, although far from breaking up, seems
more tenuous now than it has been in decades.
A key question is whether Soviet unhappiness with the way Cuba has
used economic aid from the Kremlin - estimated at $5 billion annually
- will lead to cutbacks. Castro has used the economic aid to help
build his country's schools and hospitals, the Soviets say, and has
neglected industrial development.
Calling the revolution a ''beacon of light before the eyes of the
world'' Castro said Cuba has an enormous responsibility to Third
World countries to stick to its present hard-line Marxist-Leninist
course.
Much of Castro's speech was devoted to reviewing the revolutionary
heritage of the people of Santiago and other cities in eastern Cuba.
Cuba officials said Castro is expected to deliver a policy address
on Wednesday.
Despite Sunday's call for ideological steadfastness, Cuban policy
has undergone some drastic changes in the past year, including its
recent commitment to withdraw its 50,000 troops from Angola by 1991.
In Latin America, Castro has been aggressively pursuing interests
common to other countries in the area. The evolution of democracy in
Latin America, which has been welcomed by the Reagan administration,
has also had the ironic side effect of opening diplomatic
opportunities for Castro.
The Cuban leader, once known for his efforts to promote violent
revolution, now seems more interested in pursuing normal ties with
elected governments.
Castro attended presidential inagurations in Ecuador and Mexico in
recent months and may participate in the inauguration of the
President Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela next month.
During Castro's visit to Mexico in late November, his first since he
was exiled there in the 1950s, he said he envisions the eventual
unity of Cuba and the rest of Latin America.
''One day, we will make one big giant,'' he said.
*****
*****
I agree more with Abrams, but actually the differences aren't
so large.
State Department Official, House Panel Member Disagree on Cuba
WASHINGTON (AP) - A State Department official and a member of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee disagreed today on whether the United
States needs a new policy on Cuba.
''I don't think we need a new policy. I think the policy's
working,'' said Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state for
inter-American affairs.
''It's a policy of putting pressure on (Cuban President Fidel)
Castro to isolate him, to make his economic situation more difficult,
to try to force him out of Angola, to try to force him to make human
rights concessions. That's what's working,'' Abrams said on the
ABC-TV program ''Good Morning America.''
But Rep. Robert Toricelli, D-N.J., interviewed on the same program,
said ''to have an American policy that is basically based on the idea
that we wish the revolution didn't happen, we wish that he'd go away,
is really foolish going into a fourth decade.''
Torricelli said he thinks a policy is needed that would require some
reforms from Castro in exchange for an improved relationship with the
United States, a policy that ''puts a real price on a new
relationship, a real price on his policies in Nicaragua and Angola
and human rights at home. We may find that that gets some results.''
Castro, celebrating the 30th anniversary of his revolution, said in
a televised speech Sunday night that it is ''socialism or death'' for
Cuba, as he rejected market-oriented economic reforms. His remarks
seemed aimed at the Soviet Union and other Communist countries that
have been abandoning strict adherence to Marxist doctrine.
Toricello said that ''despite the rhetoric, I think there's some
reason to believe there can be change.''
He said ''the difficulty here is that he doesn't understand what
necessarily is required for better relations. And what
(President-elect) Bush should be doing is spelling that out exactly.
We want some change of policy in Nicaragua, we want him to continue
to adhere to not aiding violent revolution in Latin America, we want
the Angolan accords fulfilled, we want his promises kept on
immigration, we want human rights changes in Cuba.''
Abrams said that if Castro wants a changed relationship with the
United States, ''probably his first real step has got to be
implementing'' the Angola agreement ''and taking the troops out.''
But, Abrams said, he thinks Castro is ''a first generation communist
leader...who is unable to countenance a reduction in his personal
power, real democracy, real change. It will take the next generation
coming, I think, for there to be real change in Cuba.''
AP-NY-01-02-89 1038EST
- - - - - -
a075 0821 02 Jan 89
PM-US-Cuba, SUB, a071,0035
WASHINGTON: SUBS 7th graf to CORRECT spelling of Torricelli.
Torricelli said that ''despite the rhetoric, I think there's some
reason to believe there can be change.''
He said, 8th graf
AP-NY-01-02-89 1115EST
***************
∂03-Jan-89 1238 JMC re: grumbles about your intro
To: ginsberg@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 3 Jan 89 09:33:15 PDT.]
We're almost there. As for minimizing something other than ab, Vladimir
minimizes precond and causes in one of his action papers. I minimize
on(x,l,s) in some of my formulations.
Doing a deductive closure, for which I would like a precise definition, is
a nonmonotonic operation, since adding an assertion to the set of sentences
on which deductive closure is done can shrink the deductive closure. Morever,
forming a deductive closure is just circumscribing the predicate deducible.
You can't take into account all possible conditions, because you may not
know them all. Another person can later tell you either that Tweety is
a penguin or that Penguins can't fly.
I am occasionally surprised when someone takes as a new insight a
matter that I regarded as obvious. I suppose it seemed obvious,
because thinking about the inadequacy of monotonic first order
logic is what led me to circumscription in the first place.
∂03-Jan-89 1550 JMC re: grumbles about your intro
To: ginsberg@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 3 Jan 89 14:01:03 PDT.]
Tentatively, I will agree that if one's knowledge of both the world
state and the world's laws of motion is complete, then one can get
by with a monotonic theory.
∂03-Jan-89 1726 JMC re: cross product
To: beeson@UCSCD.UCSC.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 3 Jan 89 16:25:58 PST.]
Ordinary 3-d vector analysis with the dot and cross products was
invented by the American physicist J. Willard Gibbs. He knew about
quaternions but considered them unnecessarily complex. The book
Vector Analysis by Gibbs and Wilson, not only expounds vector
analysis, but goes into the politics if I remember correctly.
I got it out of the Los Angeles Public Library when I was a
high school student and was much impressed.
However, k is determined by the 2-d plane in n dimensions, so
neither vectors nor quaternions are directly relevant.
∂03-Jan-89 1835 JMC re: [Takayasu ITO: US-Japan Cooperative Research on Theoretical Computer Science]
To: peters@RUSSELL.Stanford.EDU
CC: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 03 Jan 89 18:02:14 PST.]
Carolyn Talcott and I and Richard Weyhrauch and Sol Feferman were all
involved in a previous exchange financed by NSF under a joint U.S.
Japan program. It worked out ok, but we're not eager to do it again
soon.
∂03-Jan-89 1839 JMC DARPA announcement
To: CLT, VAL
∂03-Jan-89 1358 @Score.Stanford.EDU:nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu DARPA Announcement
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jan 89 13:58:50 PST
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 3 Jan 89 13:55:51-PST
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (5.59/25-eef) id AA06061; Tue, 3 Jan 89 13:52:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 13:52:08 PDT
From: Nils Nilsson <nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8901032152.AA06061@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: faculty@score
Subject: DARPA Announcement
For your information:
-------
Return-Path: <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by Warbucks.AI.SRI.COM with INTERNET ;
Tue, 3 Jan 89 07:10:02 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 07:03:02 PST
From: Sue Smith <SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: BAA - ISTO
To: DARPA-DB@KL.SRI.COM
Message-ID: <12459606567.10.SSMITH@KL.SRI.COM>
DARPA-DB: .BAA.BIDS.ISTO.
COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY
DECEMBER 28, 1988
ISSUE: PSA-9746
BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA#89-05): RESEARCH IN INFORMATION AND SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY SOL BAA#89-05 DUE 043089 POC R. H. Register, (Contracts),
(202)694-1771; MAJ J. Mark Pullen, USA, (Technical), (202)694-5051.
Advanced Computing Systems. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) is soliciting proposals for research in the area of information
science and technology in support of the DARPA Basic Research Program and
the DARPA Stragetic Computing program. Proposed research should investigate
innovative approaches and techniques that lead to or enable revolutionary
advances in the state of the art. Specifically excluded is research which
primarily results in evolutionary improvement to the existing state of
practice. When appropriate, new concepts are to be demonstrated by means of
systems prototypes. Topics to be considered include, but are not limited to
parallel computing architectures; microsystem design and prototyping;
software technology research; networking/command, control and
communications; machine intelligence; and manufacturing technology. General
Guidelines. Unless the nature of the research precludes such, the work is
expected to produce experimental prototypes that can be distributed to the
research community for evaluation and use. This will normally require the
delivery of products such as prototype software and/or hardware, designs,
and other associated systems that embody results of the research. Proposals
must provide specific details concerning technology transition, both within
the research community and into industrial application. In order to
encourage and facilitate technology transfer, software and systems
interfaces should be designed to anticipate future standards. All prototype
deliverables should be documented appropriately, and examples and tutorial
material should be provided when necessary. Sources for research will be
selected by a formal technical/scientific/business decision process.
Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or
unacceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the
announcement. Evaluation of proposals will be performed using the following
criteria which are listed in order of priority: quality, relevan{e, and
personnel; related experience and capability; cost. Principal funding for
proposals selected under this announcement will begin in Fiscal Year 1990
with some modest initial efforts in Fiscal Year 1989. It is anticipated
that at least twenty million dollars in funding will be available to
support proposals in this area for Fiscal Year 1990. However, proposals
will be evaluated within technical program areas and must compete for
limited funds available in those areas. Proposals submitted may be
evaluated as they are received, or they may be collected and reviewed
periodically. Prospective proposers are encouraged to submit a proposal
abstract not later than January 30, 1989. DARPA/ISTO intends to respond to
such abstracts within 30 days of receipt, providing an assessment of the
likely viability of a full proposal. This procedure is intended to minimize
unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and review, and is not a
requirement {or submission or selection of proposals. Proposals can range
from small-scale efforts that are primarily theoretical in nature, to
medium-scale experimental and prototyping efforts of hardware and/or
software, to larger-scale integrated systems efforts which include
industrial cooperation and cost sharing. This announcement will remain in
effect until April 30, 1989. The complete Broad Agency Announcement,
including required formats for full and abstract proposals and other
pertinent details, can be obtained by written request to: DARPA/ISTO (ATTN:
BAA #89-05), 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209-2308. Telephonic
requests for this announcement will not be accepted. Inquiries of a
contractual nature may be directed to Ron H. Register at (202) 694-1771.
SPONSOR: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Contracts
Management (CMO), 1400 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209-2308
-------
-------
∂03-Jan-89 1858 Mailer re: Planet of the Year: Endangered Earth
To: COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from COOLEY@kl.sri.com sent Tue, 3 Jan 89 15:17:19 PST.]
Your posting, and I presume TIME itself, are pussyfooting on the issue
of nuclear energy. This is because the "worthy" organizations you
list are part of the problem - not part of the solution. Present
style nuclear power plants are the only readily expandable form of energy
generation that doesn't put CO2 in the atmosphere. After 15 years
solar energy is still a small scale special purpose thing, even after
many governments of put money into it. In contrast France now generates
75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants and Japan 30 percent,
both having started long after the U.S. However, the long term problem
is to use nuclear energy for other uses than present uses of electricity.
The largest problem is to power cars with liquid hydrogen or with
electric batteries that give range and performance comparable to
gasoline powered cars.
Safer nuclear plants are possible and should be developed, but I'll
bet TIME fails to compute how much CO2 Seabrook and Shoreham will
save putting in the atmosphere. Some previously anti-nuclear
environmentalists, e.g. Sen. Wirthlin of Colorado, are beginning
to see the light, but Nader remains fanatical, and so, I believe,
does the Sierra Club. These outfits regard their alliances with
each other and with politicians as more precious than saving the
world from the greenhouse effect.
Until they face the harm they have done, they are only posturing.
I urge su-etc readers not to send donations to any of the
outfits mentioned in the message, except possibly the Nature
Conservancy, which buys land for refuges. The others all
do more harm than good. There are more reasons than their
anti-nuclear position why this is so.
Here they are again: Greenpeace,WWF,Sierra Club, Cousteau
Society, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Network, Natural
Resources Defense Council,The Nature Conservatory,the Wilderness
Society.
∂03-Jan-89 2223 JMC
To: MPS
cherno.1, kotov.1
∂03-Jan-89 2224 JMC
To: MPS
That was kotov.2
∂04-Jan-89 2334 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
To: arean@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from arean@polya.stanford.edu sent 5 Jan 89 06:46:52 GMT.]
I lack the scholarship to discuss each of the countries mentioned by
Luis F. Arean. However,
1. I believe he has caricaturized Jeane Kirkpatrick's position.
It is often possible to choose support democratic forces, and
this has been the U.S. position when feasible, especially during
the Reagan Administration.
2. Kirkpatrick's main point, that authoritarian regimes often
convert to democracy, and totalitarian regimes never do, is
supported by considerable evidence that has arisen since she
made the point, e.g. the Philippines, Portugal, Argentina,
perhaps now even Chile. On the other side we have Cuba,
where a referendum on Castro is "absurd an inconceivable".
There may now be some hope for actual communist regimes,
but this hasn't happened yet in any case.
3. The interpretation that the U.S. helped overthrow Arbenz
because of the United Fruit Company is quite likely just
the standard left wing interpretation of U.S. motives. Is
there real evidence that this was the main reason?
Is there evidence that the U.S. was involved at all in the
overthrow of Goulart?
4. While Kirkpatrick may have supported the Argentines, the
U.S. Government supported the British in the Falklands war.
∂05-Jan-89 0009 JMC re: Artificial Intelligence
To: DEK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, feigenbaum@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from DEK rcvd 04-Jan-89 23:58-PT.]
In late 1955, I decided on that name for the Dartmouth Summer
Research Project on Artificial Intelligence and used it in
the grant application to the Rockefeller Foundation. I chose
it, because I was disappointed in some of the papers Shannon
and I received for our collection ``Automata Studies''. He
had chosen the name as more modest than a title suggesting
intelligence. The choice of AI was to nail the flag to the
mast. It has been much criticized, but I think it was and
remains the right name for the field.
There remains the question of whether I invented the name or
saw it in some article, perhaps a popular article. Although
I have asked several audiences, no-one has come up with
a reference. As to publication, there were several publications
after the summer of 1956, that referred to the summer project,
but I can't cite one. Newell and Simon were using the term
``complex information processing'' which didn't live. When
Minsky and I started the M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory in Spring 1958.
Why?
∂05-Jan-89 1326 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@hanauma.stanford.edu sent Thu, 5 Jan 89 10:02:25 pst.]
Richard Ottolini says that the U.S. should provide an example by
using less natural resources. This might make sense if some
natural resource were in limited supply and the U.S. was depriving
other countries of it. I formerly thought that oil was such a
resource and the only one. It has now turned out that not even oil
is in short supply. It will be, but it seems that the investment
horizon is short enough and the oil supply large enough, so that
only research into alternatives is appropriate. For example, the
synfuels projects collapsed when the price of oil went down.
They'll be revived when prices warrant it. I've already harangued
about nuclear energy and the greenhouse effect.
What other resources does Ottolini claim the U.S. is hogging?
The fact about how to help the undeveloped world is the reverse
of Ottolini's recipe. The faster the developed world increases
its ability to produce, and the more it ``exploits'' the cheap
labor of the undeveloped countries, the quicker these countries
will escape from poverty. However, this requires a certain
political capacity on the part of undeveloped countries to avoid
wasting any help they get. The Sunday New York Times had an
article on Ghana's increasing prosperity. One of the keys to it
was getting the increase in civil service under control. The
number of civil service employees had grown from 35,000 to
300,000 from the end of colony status to the early 1980s.
I think the discrediting of socialism will lead to big improvements
in development.
∂05-Jan-89 1338 JMC
To: VAL
The DARPA project summary is now urgent.
∂05-Jan-89 1402 JMC
To: MPS
Sullivan put two messages on the machine. Did you get both?
∂05-Jan-89 1415 JMC re: Project Summary
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 05-Jan-89 14:09-PT.]
Since she didn't mention having received the report and it being
inadequate in some sense, I suppose the copy you sent is mislaid
in there office. Therefore, the new copy should suffice.
Was it to Sullivan that you sent the memo or to Simpson?
∂05-Jan-89 1514 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
To: mrc@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 5 Jan 1989 13:50:04 PST.]
1. Name one current right-winger who has the pipe-dream that the
populations of communist countries would revolt if they could.
It seems to me that Crispin has expressed one of the liberal
pipe-dreams about right-winger pipe-dreams. As long as free
expression was almost completely suppressed, asking whether the
Soviet people would vote for a capitalist democracy is like
asking whether Alaskans would vote for Alaska adopting California
weather. Neither considered change sufficiently possible to
worth deciding about.
2. Crispin doesn't seem to be current with the news from the
Soviet Union. Before glasnost, Crispin's opinion that
inhabitants of communist countries almost all like it that way
was an unrefutable speculation if you insisted on ignoring what
emigres say - as most "experts" do. Now there is evidence to the
contrary. (1) There are now 800,000 private businesses in the
Soviet Union, i.e. 800,000 groups have taken advantage of the
relaxation of the prohibitions. (2) The authorities are
complaining about the competition of these businesses with state
businesses, so the general public must be voting with their feet.
There's an A.P. story about that today. (3) The Democratic
Union, which proposes itself as an opposition party to the
Communist Party, exists and is growing, even though many people
refrain from supporting it only because they regard it as to much
of a strain on the tolerance of the authorities.
3. Crispin says that most communist regimes are dictatorships.
Let him name those that he considers not to be dictatorships.
4. Kirkpatrick listed those she considered authoritarian and
totalitarian, so the criterion isn't entirely meaningless.
5. It is too soon to say what will become of the communist
countries. There are certainly grounds for hope.
6. Cuba doesn't presently allow freedom of emigration.
Apart from those items, Crispin makes some good points.
∂05-Jan-89 1531 Mailer environmental organizations
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I have been asked to say what other harm they have done besides
their opposition to nuclear energy. I don't have time for
a detailed list, but here's some.
1. Fundamentally, they have it backwards about material progress.
They tend to oppose it. Some environmentalists oppose it in
general, but most just oppose individual aspects of it, and
none actually support it.
Here's a Stanford example, saved in the computer.
"...Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent
of giving an idiot child a machine gun." Paul Ehrlich, %2An Ecologist's
Perspective on Nuclear Power%1, May/June 1975 issue of
Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report
In fact, material progress is what permits protection of the
environment.
2. Here's a detail. Sierra Club (Loma Prieta Chapter) delayed
the completion of turning U.S. 101 just South of San Jose into a
freeway for more than 10 years. During this time, the stretch
was known as "blood alley", and tens of people died or were
crippled who would not have suffered if the freeway had been
completed on schedule. It appears that a public organization,
unlike a corporation, cannot be sued for the consequences of
its acts. Indeed most people don't even consider that such
an organization has any moral responsibility for unfortunate
consequences of its successful advocacies. As a result,
they act quite irresponsibly. Members of such organizations
should propose a reform. Namely, when taking a public
position is advocated within the organization, an impact
statement should be prepared, taking into account possible
negative consequences of the success of the position.
I would be grateful to anyone who would do the research required
to establish (from the State) accurate information on how long
the delay in completing 101 was and how many people were killed
on 101 during it.
∂05-Jan-89 1534 Mailer environmental organizations
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
This is a postscript to my previous message.
Petr Beckmann's book "Eco-hysterics and Techno-phobes" documents
a lot of the harm environmentalists and their organizations have
done. It's a bit old but still capable of warming the blood.
∂05-Jan-89 1549 JMC Simpson
To: AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
finally returned my calls. He says there isn't any possibility
of support for Arkady in his AI program. He didn't know about
the CBCL discussions, but that is clearly a long term matter -
many months anyway. He also said that AI as a whole is being
squeezed. I asked by what, and he mentioned high definition TV
and neural nets.
∂05-Jan-89 1712 JMC re: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 5 Jan 89 17:07:36-PST.]
I should be able to make one of these times. Let me ask my colleagues
Jussi Ketonen and Arkady Rabinov about their possibilities.
∂05-Jan-89 1713 JMC Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂05-Jan-89 1709 M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
Received: from HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jan 89 17:09:34 PST
Date: Thu 5 Jan 89 17:07:36-PST
From: Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: m.machefsky@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12460240914.77.M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
John,
I work for DEC's External Research Program (ERP). Although I have
resided on campus for several years, I've never had the opportunity to
meet you professionally. (Actually, we did meet once at a child-birth
class at the YMCA, but I don't know if you remember that.) Eliot
Levinthal forwarded me a copy of the above proposal. I was interested
in it and wondered if we might meet sometime next week to discuss it
and your other current research. My group manager, Jean Bonney, will
be here from Maynard, and she would like to talk to you, too. We are
free on Thurs. Jan 12 from 3:00-5:00, and on Friday Jan. 13 from
11:30-3:00. Would it be possible to meet with you during that time?
regards,
Ira
-------
∂05-Jan-89 1736 JMC re: conference plans
To: darden@MIMSY.UMD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 5 Jan 89 20:32:06 EST.]
Sunday evening still looks ok. Suppose I pick you up at 7pm.
∂05-Jan-89 2208 Mailer re: Authoritarian vs. totalitarian
To: mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 5 Jan 1989 18:52:14 PST.]
I seem to have gotten involved in several disputes at once.
Crispin may not know that the 800,000 private (nominally co-op)
enterprises are a matter of the last two years - since they
became legal. Before that, one could argue, with no more and no
less justification than Crispin argues, that the Soviet people
supported their prohibition. Now that they are allowed the
Soviet people patronize them.
Probably, the best way to avoid the enormous loss between harvest
and market that the Soviet Union suffers would be to allow
wholesale middlemen in the food business. I believe this is
still forbidden, because Marxist doctrine regards wholesalers as
the worst kind of profiteers. A middleman who bought from
farmers and expects to sell to retail stores is going to take
great care that his potatoes don't freeze and that his grain
isn't eaten by rats.
It isn't the function of Americans, whether liberals or
conservatives, to accept or reject any plebiscites other
countries may hold - even communist countries. We are free to
comment on their fairness and the amount of intimidation
involved. I have no advance comment on a hypothetical Soviet
plebiscite. I wouldn't expect the Soviet Union to change to
a capitalist system via a single plebiscite. Rather one would
hope that a series of steps would lead to political democracy
and a system with substantial elements of capitalism. It might
even happen that their rejection of socialism would lead to
going overboard to a system that would delight the followers
of Ayn Rand.
∂05-Jan-89 2215 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@hanauma.stanford.edu sent Thu, 5 Jan 89 18:39:44 pst.]
Richard Ottolini favors conservation, solar and nuclear in that order.
One cannot object to economical conservation. However, the main
human resource is human labor, and this resource, like others is
measured in money. In short, uneconomical conservation is a bad
idea. Admittedly, it can be argued that some things are not
priced today at their true costs, but I don't believe that the
adjustments will be so large.
Many countries have put effort into developing solar power. The
options remain about the same as they were twenty years ago, and
they are all very, very expensive. If solar power is to serve
Northern and cloudy countries, some way of transmitting the energy
very long distances is needed.
I'll discuss nuclear energy further in my answer to Tony Siegman.
∂05-Jan-89 2256 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from siegman@sierra.stanford.edu sent Thu, 5 Jan 1989 18:22:47 PST.]
Siegman's view of nuclear power is too U.S. oriented. Presumably the
standard of operation of nuclear power plants should be measured
according to those countries that do it best, and those plants in
the U.S. that are operated best. I saw a list of ten or fifteen
plants that operated above 95 percent of nominal availability.
The best, at more than 98 percent, was in Japan, but a few were
in the U.S. Identical plants in the U.S. have come into operation
at a factor of five differences in cost.
The first plants were turnkey operations, fully constructed by
GE and Westinghouse. They came in slightly over budget, and these
companies lost small amounts of money on them. Then the utilities
decided to be their own general contractors, buying only the
nuclear steam systems from the suppliers. This worked for a few
utilities, e.g. Commonwealth Edison, but was disastrous for most.
They were indeed to arrogant about their own capabilities.
Ratcheting requirements during construction added to their woes.
The anti-nuclear ideology of the 1970s reduced the quality of
the engineering students oriented to nuclear engineering; it
just wasn't popular.
France committed itself fully to nuclear electricity in 1973 using
a Westinghouse plant design. It now successfully generates 75 percent
of its electricity from nuclear plants, and has no major accidents.
It has had some difficulty with getting its breeder reactors to
operate reliably, however, but there is no shortage of uranium
at present, so the breeders can be postponed.
Now to the issues raised by Siegman.
Waste disposal. A nuclear power plant produces about one cubic
meter of fission products per year. This is in the form of used
fuel rods. These rods contain left-over uranium, plutonium
produced by conversion of U238 and the fission products. The
rods need to be stored for a few years and then chemically
reprocessed, separating the fissionable material from the
fission products. The former go back into the fuel cycle
and the latter are the waste, i.e. the cubic meter. They generate
a lot of energy at first, about 0.5 percent of the energy
generated by the plant is left over in the fission products,
so it pays to let them cool for some more years. Then they
can be stored. After 500 years, the remaining radioactivity
is less than that of the uranium ore with which the fuel
cycle started.
I haven't seen any argument that large amounts of land have
to be used to store such a small quantity of waste.
What has happened is a consequence of the political process.
Solutions have been repeatedly postponed, because the problem
is eminently postponable from a technical point of view, and
the politicians, e.g. Congress and successive administrations,
find it easier to call for yet another study than to make
decisions. If we postpone solving the waste disposal problem
for another 50 years, no great harm will be done, and other
countries will doubtless offer to take it off our hands for
a suitable price.
The basic fact about the political process is that the anti-nuclear
movement can still extract promises from Democratic politicians
and even some Republicans. The utilities satisfy themselves with
defeating the initiative campaigns to close existing plants and
paying for the advertisements of the Committee on Energy Awareness.
They aren't about to stick their necks out further at the risk
of being punished by State Utilities Commissions for talking out
of turn.
The Chernobyl accident was close to the worst case nuclear accident.
About 40 percent of the fission products of a reactor physically
larger than American reactors went up in the air.
A lot depends on what standards you propose for increases in
radioactivity. If you regard any measurable increase in
environmental radioactivity as unacceptable, and some people
put it that way, then the whole world has already become
uninhabitable from the 1950s bomb tests. If you regard a
one percent increase in background as unacceptable, then
only a small region around Chernobyl is contaminated.
If you would regard an increase in radioactivity in the
vicinity of an accident to the largest natural radioactivity
of a major American city, i.e. Denver I believe, then
one can pretty well prove that an unacceptable increase
would be confined to a very small area indeed. Finally,
if you take a level at which harm has actually been
demonstrated to humans or animals, you get something
even larger.
The U.S. can afford to futz around for another 20 years or
maybe even 50 with only a small cost in relative standard
of living compared to Japan and France unless the greenhouse effect
reaches substantially greater political salience and other
countries pressure us to reduce CO2 emissions. Even
another oil crisis that is prolonged needn't force us to
use nuclear energy on a much larger scale. We can use
synfuels, at a far greater environmental cost.
Moreover, if an emergency occurs requiring a sudden turn
to nuclear energy, plants can be built in two years,
according to an estimate I extracted from a Westinghouse
official in 1979 at a conference on potential energy
emergencies. His estimate wasn't even based on getting
priorities of the level that were given in World War II.
All he needed was the right to build a large number of
plants of identical design.
∂06-Jan-89 0006 JMC
To: MPS
putnam.2
∂06-Jan-89 1053 Mailer re: Planet-of-the-year
To: pallas@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from pallas@polya.stanford.edu sent 6 Jan 89 17:39:15 GMT.]
I used to agree with Joe Pallas about not waiting until the resource ran
short before building a replacement. It's just common sense. However,
consider what happened with synthetic fuels. Enough was to done to
approximately establish the costs. To actually operate either the oil
shale plants or the gas-from-coal plants to compete with present oil
and natural gas prices would have required very large continued
Government subsidies. Congress refused, probably correctly. Whether
these facilities can really be put in place fast enough to avoid
substantial economic dislocation depends on how far in advance
the oil shortage can be credibly predicted.
I remember the conference on possible emergencies in
1979. Everyone was alarmed except the representatives of the oil
companies. They didn't say much, but it now seems that the
companies had predicted the oil glut well in advance, but weren't
going to suffer the public relations disadvantage of pounding the
table about it when the conventional wisdom was saying the
reverse. Solar energy did get the money for its demonstration
plants, because there were political factors beyond economic
rationality in its favor.
∂06-Jan-89 1100 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
To: pallas@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from pallas@polya.stanford.edu sent 6 Jan 89 18:19:26 GMT.]
Everything released from Chernobyl is ending up contaminating the
ground and aquifers somewhere, and most of it is quite
close to Chernobyl. The Soviet report on the accident, which I
can lend to anyone sufficiently interested, is quite explicit
in saying that the pine trees nearby will be shedding radioactive
needles about three years after the accident, i.e. about now.
This prediction was presumably based on Soviet experience with
the 1958 accident in the Urals which they still haven't admitted.
By the way, putting Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the same
sentence is a common journalistic practice that should be resisted.
Chernobyl released 15,000,000 times as much radioactivity.
∂06-Jan-89 1528 JMC
To: MPS
reiter.re3 provides the basis for filling out the Canadian form.
∂07-Jan-89 1358 JMC
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.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}
∂07-Jan-89 1359 JMC
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
More tomorrow.
∂07-Jan-89 1639 JMC responses to a few comments
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
There will be a new version tomorrow, so please make your
changes to it.
The numbering corresponds to that of your comments.
1. That's all agreeable.
2. I sent the file.
2. ok about the copyright notice. I think I'll try to pressure
the AI journal to be more relaxed about bibliographies and
copyrights.
3. My spaces around the dashes were an oversight, and I fixed it.
4. I'm agreeable to the changes you want to make in the displayed
formulas. If I get time, I'll make them in the next version, but
my priority is for substantive changes that have to be made.
The \leql macro is for making equation numbers for reference
in the text.
5. The \noindent items are indeed subsections.
6. This prevented an overlong line, but you should do whatever
works for you.
7. Again a subsection.
II. Minor stylistic comments.
I intend to be responsive to all these. Being telegraphic
is one of my vices, and I never intend to be cryptic.
I have made essentially all the 31 changes you propose. I will
include references to both TARK volumes. I'll think more about
the aptness of the reference to the extinction issue. I preferred
a variant of my own wording on item 26.
Now I'll look at your major comments, and I probably won't agree
with all of them.
∂09-Jan-89 0055 Mailer 1991 freshmen
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I want to commment on two items in the following A.P. story.
1. There is an increase in smoking. My guess is that this is a
reaction to the oppressive and self-righteous anti-smoking
propaganda. We can expect other anti-establishment reactions,
where the establishment has to include people who correctly
considered themselves anti-establishment in the 1960s, but now
are viewed by the high schools students as establishment, even
though many still nostalgically regard themselves as
anti-establishment. I fear we will have more anti-establishment
reactions taking the form of self-damaging behavior. Smoking
doesn't bother me so much; it only shortens life a bit. Crack
may be far worse.
Self-righteousness is more dangerous than smoking.
2. The decline in the fraction of college students with Pell
grants is far greater than what can be accounted for by the
increased number going to vocational students. The A.P.'s
education writer tactfully doesn't mention what may be the main
reason, perhaps because she identifies with the eductational
establishment. This may be the increases in tuition far beyond
the rate of inflation. It's the tact that amuses me rather
than the fact.
a007 2201 08 Jan 89
PM-Freshman Class, Bjt,0698
Class Of '92 Getting Less Financial Help, But More Plan Advanced
Study
By JILL LAWRENCE
AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Entering college freshmen are getting less aid
from the federal government and are increasingly interested in making
their educations pay off in cold cash, according to a survey of more
than 300,000 students.
The annual survey nonetheless found that students entering college
in 1988 were more likely than their 1987 counterparts to want to
pursue graduate study despite the financial obstacles.
And although students are more interested in making money, they seem
less interested in business careers as a means of reaching that goal,
the survey said.
The findings released Sunday by the American Council on Education
and the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of
California at Los Angeles are based on questionnaires filled out by
308,007 freshmen entering 585 two-and four-year colleges and
universities. The results were adjusted to reflect the total
population of 1.64 million first-time, full-time entering students
and have a margin of error of plus or minus two points.
Only 15.6 percent of freshmen entering school last fall received
Pell grants, the government's major aid program for low- and
middle-income students, the survey found. That was the lowest level
since the survey began 23 years ago and less than half the 31.5
percent who received Pell grants in 1980.
Freshman participation in other federal aid programs also fell,
while students reported greater reliance on family contributions,
savings, loans and institutional grants.
The amount of Pell grant aid awarded to students actually rose
nearly 57 percent from 1980 to 1988, or 17 percent taking inflation
into account, according to The College Board, a New York-based
lobbying group.
But during the same period, the aid was more sharply aimed at the
very neediest post-secondary students, many of whom shun college in
favor of vocational schools that teach cosmetology, art, drama, auto
mechanics, business skills or other trades.
Victoria Tripp, an Education Department spokeswoman, said 11 percent
of Pell money went to vocational students in 1980, compared with 27
percent in 1988. ''That figure will increase to one-third in the
early 1990s,'' she predicted. ''The money is targeted to those
students and there has been a proliferation of those schools.''
Despite the falloff in college aid, a record proportion of freshmen
said they were interested in pursuing advanced degrees - 58.7
percent, compared with 48.3 percent in 1980.
''The rising degree aspirations suggest that a growing proportion of
students feel the bachelor's degree will not be an adequate
credential in the job market during the next decade and into the next
century,'' said Kenneth C. Green, associate director of the survey.
In line with that, a record 72.6 percent of the freshmen indicated
''making more money'' was a very important factor in their decision
to attend college. By contrast, the proportion who said they were
going to college ''to gain a general education'' declined for the
11th straight year, to 60.1 percent.
Examining personal habits, the survey also found that a 22-year
decline in smoking may be reversing itself. In 1966, 16.6 percent of
the freshmen said they were frequent smokers. That fell steadily to
8.9 percent in 1987, but rose to 10.1 percent among those entering
college last fall.
A record high percentage of freshmen (10.5 percent) said they
frequently felt depressed, while there was no real change in those
rating their emotional health as above average (56.1 percent, as
opposed to 56.8 percent in 1987).
Survey director Alexander Astin of UCLA said the survey revealed
several potential sources of increased stress for students, including
concern about paying for college; increased interest in advanced
degrees; and tougher competition for admission to selective
institutions.
On the career front, the survey found that freshman interest in
entering the business world to be leveling off - 24.6 percent in 1987
and 23.6 percent in 1988 - after two decades of steady gains. The
results ''suggest that student interest in business careers may have
reached a plateau after the dramatic increases of the 1970s and
1980s,'' survey officials said.
AP-NY-01-09-89 0045EST
***************
∂09-Jan-89 0224 JMC paper
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
I have now completed those revisions that were based on your comments.
You will see that I have accepted most of your emendations, even the
large ones. I have a bit of fiddling to do with the references, and
I want to accept your advice to elaborate the section on reifying
context. Here are some responses to your general comments, in no
particular order.
1. I suppose I am more interested in communicating with philosophical
logicians than with philosophers in general. I didn't realize that
you are considering yourselves as having more in common with AI than
with philosophy.
2. I don't see how I can express my optimism about formalizing common
sense more sharply and contrast it better with the general philosophical
opinion that this is impossible.
3. I am not hopeful about understanding what the csli people are up to
in time to affect this paper. I can talk to Barwise or Perry or David
Israel tomorrow and see if I can make some sensible remark relating
my goals to theirs. My impression was that they were much too syntactical
for much intersection, but this may have changed in the several years
since I formed that impression.
As for your GENERAL COMMENTS ON CONTENT.
1. I'll leave it as is.
2. I accepted your modification and added a bit more. I may have
to remove it to the Remarks section on rereading.
3. Tentatively, I'll leave it as is - unless I have time to see
if I want to change my opinion of Pearl's approach.
My opinion that he misses the main tasks is based on some older papers,
not on the book.
4. I tinkered.
5. I tinkered but didn't accept your suggestion to say that this
is not where we want help from philosophy. It would be nice if
we could get some.
6. I tinkered.
7. I stuck in "practical reason" and left in "free will". Maybe
I'll take it out on further thought.
8. This point seems minor in the present context, and I'm not
inclined to elaborate the question of "better" here.
9. I'll do more.
Your comments have been most helpful. If you have inhibited
yourself in order to avoid discouraging me and have yet more,
fire away.
Should I send you the present version or would you prefer to
wait till I've said more about context?
∂09-Jan-89 0931 JMC paper
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
The new version follows in the next message. However, I want to
make a big revision in the section on contexts. Also do you
want an abstract? It seems to me that I could express my optimism
about eventual success in formalizing common sense in an abstract
or a revised introductory paragraph.
∂09-Jan-89 0931 JMC
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
%thomas[f88,jmc] Another try at AI and logic for Thomason
%see thomas[e88,jmc] for some dropped material
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{Artificial Intelligence, Logic and Formalizing Common Sense}
!\section{Introduction}
%thomason comments in f88.in[let,jmc]/575p
This is a position paper about the relations among
artificial intelligence (AI), mathematical logic and the
formalization of common sense knowledge and reasoning. It also
treats problems of concern to both AI and philosophy. I thank
the editor for inviting it. The position advocated is that
philosophy can contribute to AI if it treats some of its
traditional subject matter in more detail and that this will
advance the philosophical goals also. Actual formalisms (mostly
first order languages) for expressing common sense facts are
described in the references.
One path to human-level AI uses mathematical logic to
formalize common sense
knowledge in such a way that common sense problems can be
solved by logical reasoning. This methodology requires
understanding the common sense world well enough to formalize
facts about it and ways of achieving goals in it. Basing AI on
understanding the common sense world is different from basing it
on understanding human psychology or neurophysiology.
This approach
to AI, based on logic and computer science, is complementary to
approaches that start from the fact that humans exhibit intelligence,
and that explore human psychology or human neurophysiology.
This article discusses the problems and difficulties, the
results so far, and some improvements in logic and logical languages
that may be required to formalize common sense. Fundamental
conceptual advances are almost certainly required. The object of the
paper is to get more help for AI from philosophical logicians. Some
of the requested help will be mostly philosophical and some will be
logical. Likewise the concrete AI approach may fertilize
philosophical logic as physics has repeatedly fertilized mathematics.
There are three reasons for AI to emphasize common sense
knowledge rather than the knowledge contained in scientific
theories.
(1) Scientific theories represent compartmentalized
knowledge. In presenting a scientific theory, as well as in
developing it, there is a commonsense pre-scientific stage. In
this stage, it is decided or just taken for granted what
phenomena are to be covered and what is the relation between
certain formal terms of the theory and the commonsense world.
Thus in classical mechanics it is decided what kinds of bodies
and forces are to be used before the differential equations are
written down. In probabilistic theories, the sample space is
determined. In theories expressed in first order logic, the
predicate and function symbols are decided upon. The axiomatic
reasoning techniques used in mathematical and logical theories
depend on this having been done. However, a robot or computer
program with human-level intelligence will have to do this for
itself. To use science, common sense is required.
Once developed, a scientific theory remains imbedded
in common sense. To apply the theory to a specific problem,
commonsense descriptions must be matched to the terms of the theory.
As an example, a formalization of
the relation between the formula $s = {1\over 2} gt↑2$
and the facts of specific situations in which bodies fall
is discussed in (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). It uses the ``situation
calculus'' introduced in that paper.
(2) Commonsense reasoning is required
for solving problems in the common sense world. From the problem
solving or goal-achieving point of view, the commonsense world is
characterized by a different {\it informatic situation} than that
{\it within} any formal scientific theory. In the typical common
sense informatic
situation, the reasoner doesn't know what facts are relevant to
solving his problem. Unanticipated obstacles may arise that involve
using parts of his knowledge not previously thought to be relevant.
(3) Finally, the informal metatheory of any scientific
theory has a commonsense informatic character. By this I mean
the thinking about the structure of the theory in general and the
research problems it presents. Mathematicians invented the
concept of a group in order to make previously vague parallels
between different domains into a precise notion. The thinking
about how to do this had a commonsense character.
It might be supposed that the common sense world would admit a
conventional scientific theory, e.g. a probabilistic theory. But no
one has yet developed such a theory, and AI has taken a somewhat
different course that
involves nonmonotonic extensions to the kind of reasoning used in
formal scientific theories. This seems to us likely to work better.
Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole and Frege all included common sense
knowledge when they discussed formal logic. However,
formalizing much of common sense knowledge and reasoning proved
elusive, and the twentieth century emphasis has been on formalizing
mathematics. Some important philosophers, e.g. Wittgenstein, have
claimed that common sense knowledge is unformalizable or mathematical
logic is inappropriate for doing it. Though it is possible to give a
kind of plausibility to views of this sort, it is much less easy to
make a case for them that is well supported and carefully worked out.
If a common sense reasoning problem is well presented, one is well on
the way to formalizing it. The examples that are presented for this
negative view borrow much of their plausibility from the inadequacy of
the specific collections of predicates and functions they take into
consideration. Some of their force comes from not formalizing
nonmonotonic reasoning, and some may be due to lack of logical tools
still to be discovered. While I acknowledge this opinion, I haven't
the time or the scholarship to deal with the full range of such
arguments. Instead I will present the positive case, the problems that
have arisen, what has been done and the problems that can be foreseen.
These problems are often more interesting than the ones suggested by
philosophers trying to show the futility of formalizing common sense, and
they suggest productive research programs for both AI and philosophy.
In so far as the arguments against the formalizability of
common sense attempt to make precise intuitions of their authors,
they can be helpful in identifying problems that have to be solved.
For example, Hubert Dreyfus (196xx) said that computers couldn't have
``ambiguity tolerance'' but didn't offer much explanation of the
concept. With the development of nonmonotonic reasoning, it became
possible to define some forms of {\it ambiguity tolerance} and show
how they can and must be incorporated in computer systems. For
example, it is possible to make a system that doesn't know about
possible {\it de re}//{\it de dicto} ambiguities and has a
default assumption that amounts to saying that a reference holds
both {\it de re} and {\it de dicto}. When this assumption is
leads to inconsistency, the ambiguity can be discovered and
treated.
If a computer is to store facts about the world and reason
with them, it needs a precise language, and the program has to embody
a precise idea of what reasoning is allowed, i.e. of how new formulas
may be derived from old. Therefore, it was natural to try to use
mathematical logical languages to express what an intelligent computer
program knows that is relevant to the problems we want it to solve and
to make the program use logical inference in order to decide what to
do. (McCarthy 1959) contains the first proposals to use logic in AI
for expressing what a program knows and and how it should reason.
(Proving logical formulas as a domain for AI had already been
studied).
The 1959 paper said:
\begingroup\narrower\narrower
% COMMON.TEX[E80,JMC] TeX version Programs with Common Sense
%
The {\it advice taker} is a proposed program for solving problems by
manipulating sentences in formal languages. The main difference
between it and other programs or proposed programs for manipulating
formal languages (the {\it Logic Theory Machine} of Newell, Simon and
Shaw and the Geometry Program of Gelernter) is that in the previous
programs the formal system was the subject matter but the heuristics
were all embodied in the program. In this program the procedures will
be described as much as possible in the language itself and, in
particular, the heuristics are all so described.
The main advantages we expect the {\it advice taker} to have
is that its behavior will be improvable merely by making statements to
it, telling it about its symbolic environment and what is wanted from
it. To make these statements will require little if any knowledge of
the program or the previous knowledge of the {\it advice taker}. One
will be able to assume that the {\it advice taker} will have available
to it a fairly wide class of immediate logical consequences of anything
it is told and its previous knowledge. This property is expected to
have much in common with what makes us describe certain humans as
having {\it common sense}. We shall therefore say that {\it a program
has common sense if it automatically deduces for itself a sufficiently
wide class of immediate consequences of anything it is told and what
it already knows.}
\par\endgroup
The main reasons for using logical sentences extensively in AI
are better understood by researchers today than in 1959. Expressing
information in declarative sentences is far more modular than
expressing it in segments of computer program or in tables. Sentences
can be true in much wider contexts than specific programs can be
useful. The supplier of a fact does not have to understand much about
how the receiver functions, or how or whether the receiver will use it.
The same fact can be used for many purposes, because the logical
consequences of collections of facts can be available.
The {\it advice taker} prospectus was ambitious in 1959, would
be considered ambitious today and is still far from being immediately
realizable. This is especially true of the goal of expressing the the
heuristics guiding the search for a way to achieve the goal in the
language itself. The rest of this paper is largely concerned with
describing what progress has been made, what the obstacles are, and
how the prospectus has been modified in the light of what has been
discovered.
The formalisms of logic have been used to differing
extents in AI, mostly much less ambitious, and we'll begin by
recounting some of them.
1. A machine may use no logical sentences---all its
``beliefs'' being implicit in its state. Nevertheless, it is often
appropriate to ascribe beliefs and goals to the program, i.e. to
remove the above sanitary quotes, and to use a principle of
rationality---{\it It does what it thinks will achieve its goals}.
Such ascription is discussed from somewhat different points of view
in (Dennett 1971), (McCarthy 1979a) and
(Newell 1981). The advantage is that the intent of the machine's
designers and the way it can be expected to behave may be more readily
described {\it intentionally} than by a purely physical description.
The relation between the physical and the {\it intentional}
descriptions is most readily understood in simple systems that admit
readily understood descriptions of both kinds, e.g. thermostats. Some
finicky philosophers object to this, contending that unless a system
has a full human mind, it shouldn't be regarded as having any mental
qualities at all. This is like omitting the numbers 0 and 1 from the
number system on the grounds that numbers aren't required to count
sets with no elements or one element.
Indeed if your main interest is the null set or unit sets, numbers
{\it are} irrelevant, but the number system loses clarity and uniformity
if 0 and 1 are omitted. Likewise, when one studies phenomena like belief,
e.g. because one wants a machine with beliefs and which reasons about
beliefs, it works better not to exclude simple cases from the formalism.
One battle has been over whether it should be forbdden to ascribe to a simple
thermostat the belief that the room is too cold.
(McCarthy 1979a) says much more about ascribing mental qualities
to machines, but that's not where the main action is in AI.
2. The next level of use of logic involves computer programs
that use sentences in machine memory to represent their beliefs but
use other rules than ordinary logical inference to reach conclusions.
New sentences are often obtained from the old ones by ad hoc programs.
Moreover, the sentences that appear in memory belong to a
program-dependent subset of the logical language being used. Adding
certain true sentences in the language may even spoil the functioning
of the program. The languages used are often rather unexpressive
compared to first order logic, for example they may not admit
quantified sentences, or they may use a
different notation from that used for ordinary facts to represent
``rules'', i.e. certain universally quantified implication sentences.
Most often, conditional rules are used in just one
direction, i.e. contrapositive reasoning is not used.
Usually the program cannot infer new rules; rules
must have all been put in by the ``knowledge engineer''. Sometimes
programs have this form through mere ignorance, but the usual
reason for the restriction is the practical desire to make the program
run fast and deduce just the kinds of conclusions its designer
anticipates.
We
believe the need for such specialized inference will turn out to be
temporary and will be reduced or eliminated by improved ways of
controlling general inference, e.g. by allowing the heuristic rules to
be also expressed as sentences as promised in the above extract from
the 1959 paper.
3. The third level uses first order logic and also logical
deduction. Typically the sentences are represented as clauses, and the
deduction methods are based on J. Allen Robinson's (1965) method of
resolution. It is common to use a theorem prover as a problem solver,
i.e. to determine an $x$ such that $P(x)$ as a byproduct of a proof of
the formula $∃xP(x)$.
This level is less used for practical
purposes than level two, because techniques for controlling the
reasoning are still insufficiently developed, and it is common for the
program to generate many useless conclusions before reaching the desired
solution. Indeed, unsuccessful experience (Green 1969) with this method
led to more restricted uses of logic, e.g. the STRIPS system of (Nilsson
and Fikes 1971).
%The promise of (McCarthy 1959) to express the
%heuristic facts that should be used to guide the search as logical
%sentences has not yet been realized by anyone.
The commercial ``expert system shells'', e.g. ART, KEE and
OPS-5, use logical representation of facts, usually ground facts only,
and separate facts from rules. They provide elaborate but not always
adequate ways of controlling inference.
In this connection it is important to mention logic programming,
first introduced in Microplanner (Sussman et al., 1971)
and from different points of view by Robert Kowalski (1979) and Alain
Colmerauer in the early 1970s.
A recent text is (Sterling and Shapiro 1986). Microplanner
was a rather unsystematic collection of tools, whereas Prolog relies
almost entirely on one kind of logic programming, but the main idea
is the same. If one uses a restricted class of sentences, the so-called
Horn clauses, then it is possible to use a restricted form of logical
deduction. The control problem is then much eased, and it is possible
for the programmer to anticipate the course the deduction will take.
The price paid is that only certain kinds of facts are conveniently
expressed as Horn clauses, and the depth first search built into
Prolog is not always appropriate for the problem.
Even when the relevant facts can be expressed as Horn clauses,
the reasoning carried out by a Prolog program may not be appropriate.
For example, the fact that a sealed container is sterile if all the
bacteria in it are dead and the fact that heating a can kills a
bacterium in the can are both expressible as Prolog clauses. However,
the resulting program for sterilizing a container
will kill each bacterium individually, because it will have to
index over the bacteria. It won't reason that heating the
can kills all the bacteria at once, because it doesn't do
universal generalization.
Nevertheless, expressibility in Horn clauses is an
important property of a set of facts and logic programming has
been successfully used for many applications. However, it seems
unlikely to dominate AI programming as some of its advocates
hope.
Although third level systems express both facts and rules
as logical sentences, they are still rather specialized. The axioms
with which the programs begin are not general truths about the world
but are sentences whose meaning and truth is limited to the narrow
domain in which the program has to act. For this reason, the ``facts''
of one program usually cannot be used in a database for other programs.
4. The fourth level is still a goal. It involves representing
general facts about the world as logical sentences. Once put in
a database, the facts can be used by any program. The facts would
have the neutrality of purpose characteristic of much human information.
The supplier of information would not have to understand
the goals of the potential user or how his mind works. The present
ways of ``teaching'' computer programs by modifying them or
directly modifying their databases amount to ``education
by brain surgery''.
A key problem for achieving the fourth level is to develop
a language for a general common sense database. This is difficult,
because the {\it common sense informatic situation} is complex.
Here is a preliminary list of features and
considerations.
1. Entities of interest are known only partially, and the
information about entities and their relations that may be relevant
to achieving goals cannot be permanently separated from irrelevant
information.
%
(Contrast this with the situation in gravitational
astronomy in which it is stated in the informal introduction to
a lecture or textbook that
the chemical composition and shape of a body are irrelevant to the
theory; all that counts is the body's mass, and its initial position
and velocity).
Even within gravitational astronomy, non-equational theories arise
and relevant information may be difficult to determine. For example, it was
recently proposed that periodic extinctions discovered in the
paleontological record are caused by showers of comets induced by a
companion star to the sun that encounters and disrupts the Oort cloud of
comets every time it comes to perihelion. This theory is qualitative
because neither the orbit of the hypothetical star nor those of the comets
is available.
2. The formalism has to be {\it epistemologically adequate},
a notion introduced in (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). This means that
the formalism must be capable of representing the information that
is actually available, not merely capable of representing actual
complete states of affairs.
For example, it is insufficient to have a formalism that
can represent the positions and velocities of the particles in a
gas. We can't obtain that information, our largest computers don't
have the memory to store it even if it were available, and our
fastest computers couldn't use the information to make predictions even
if we could store it.
As a second example, suppose we need to be able to predict
someone's behavior. The simplest example is a clerk in a store.
The clerk is a complex individual about whom a customer may know
little. However, the clerk can usually be counted on to accept
money for articles brought to the counter, wrap them as appropriate
and not protest when the customer then takes the articles from the store.
The clerk can also be counted on to object if the customer attempts
to take the articles without paying the appropriate price. Describing
this requires a formalism capable of representing information about
human social institutions. Moreover, the formalism must be capable
of representing partial information about the institution, such as
a three year old's knowledge of store clerks. For example, a three
year old doesn't know the clerk is an employee or even what that
means. He doesn't require detailed information about the clerk's
psychology, and anyway this information is not ordinarily available.
The following sections deal mainly with the advances we see
as required to achieve the fourth level of use of logic in AI.
!\section{Formalized Nonmonotonic Reasoning}
It seems that fourth level systems require extensions
to mathematical logic. One kind of extension is formalized {\it nonmonotonic
reasoning}, first proposed in the late 1970s (McCarthy 1977, 1980, 1986),
(Reiter 1980), (McDermott and Doyle 1980), (Lifschitz 1988a).
Mathematical logic has been monotonic
in the following sense. If we have $A \vdash p$ and $A ⊂ B$, then we also
have $B \vdash p$.
If the inference is logical deduction, then exactly the same
proof that proves $p$ from $A$ will serve as a proof from $B$. If the
inference is model-theoretic, i.e. $p$ is true in all models of $A$,
then $p$ will be true in all models of $B$, because the models of $B$
will be a subset of the models of $A$. So we see that the monotonic
character of traditional logic doesn't depend on the details of the
logical system but is quite fundamental.
While much human reasoning is monotonic,
some important human common sense reasoning is not. We
reach conclusions from certain premisses that we would not reach if
certain other sentences were included in our premisses. For example,
if I hire you to build me a bird cage, you conclude that it is appropriate
to put a top on it, but when you learn the further
fact that my bird is a penguin you no longer draw that
conclusion. Some people think it is possible to try to save
monotonicity by saying that what was in your mind was not a general rule
about asking birds flying but a probabilistic rule. So
far these people have not worked out any detailed
epistemology for this approach, i.e. exactly what probabilistic
sentences should be used. Instead AI has moved to directly formalizing
nonmonotonic logical reasoning. Indeed it seems to me that
when probabilistic reasoning (and not just the axiomatic
basis of probability theory) has been fully formalized, it will
be formally nonmonotonic.
Nonmonotonic reasoning is an active field of study.
Progress is often driven by examples, e.g. the Yale shooting
problem (Hanks and McDermott 1986), in which obvious
axiomatizations used with the available reasoning formalisms
don't seem to give the answers intuition suggests. One direction
being explored (Moore 1985, Gelfond 1987, Lifschitz 1988a)
involves putting facts about belief and knowledge explicitly in
the axioms---even when the axioms concern nonmental domains.
Moore's classical example (now 4 years old) is ``If I had an elder
brother I'd know it.''
Kraus and Perlis (1988) have proposed to divide much nonmonotonic
reasoning into two steps. The first step uses Perlis's (1988)
autocircumscription to get a second order formula characterizing
what is possible. The second step involves default reasoning to
choose what is normally to be expected out of the previously established
possibilities. This seems to be a promising approach.
(Ginsberg 1987) collects the main papers up to 1986. Lifschitz (1988c)
summarizes some outstanding research problems of nonmonotonic reasoning.
!\section{Some formalizations and their problems}
(McCarthy 1986) discusses several formalizations, proposing
those based on nonmonotonic reasoning as improvements of earlier
ones. Here are some.
1. Inheritance with exceptions. Birds normally fly, but there
are exceptions, e.g. ostriches and birds whose feet are encased in
concrete. The first exception might be listed in advance, but the
second has to be derived or verified when mentioned on the basis of
information about the mechanism of flying and the properties of
concrete.
There are many ways of nonmonotonically axiomatizing the
facts about which birds can fly. The following axioms using
a predicate $ab$ standing for ``abnormal'' seem
to me quite straightforward.
%\leql{a4a:}
$$(∀x)(¬ab(aspect1(x)) ⊃ ¬flies(x)).\leql{aiva}$$
%
Unless an object is abnormal in $aspect1$, it can't fly.
It wouldn't work to write $ab(x)$ instead of $ab(aspect1(x))$,
because we don't want a bird that is abnormal with respect to its ability
to fly to be automatically abnormal in other respects. Using aspects limits
the effects of proofs of abnormality.
%leql{a5:}
$$(∀x)(bird(x) ⊃ ab(aspect1(x))).\leql{av}$$
%leql{a6:}
$$(∀x)(bird(x) ∧ ¬ab(aspect2(x)) ⊃ flies(x))\leql{avi}$$
%
Unless a bird is abnormal in $aspect2$, it can fly.
When these axioms are combined with other facts about the
problem, the predicated $ab$ is then to be circumscribed, i.e.
given its minimal extent compatible with the facts being taken
into account. This has the effect that a bird will be considered
to fly unless other axioms imply that it is abnormal in
$aspect2$. (\eqref{av}) is called a cancellation of inheritance
axiom, because it explicitly cancels the general presumption that
objects don't fly. This approach works fine when the inheritance
hierarchy is given explicitly. More elaborate approaches, some
of which are introduced in (McCarthy 1986) and improved in (Haugh
1988), are required when hierarchies with indefinite numbers of
sorts are considered.
2. (McCarthy 1986) contains a similar treatment of the effects
of moving and painting blocks using the situation calculus. Moving
and painting are axiomatized entirely separately, and there are no
axioms saying that moving a block doesn't affect the positions of other
blocks or the colors of blocks. A general ``common sense law of inertia''
%
$$(∀ p e s)(holds(p,s) ∧ ¬ab(aspect1(p,e,s)) ⊃ holds(p,result(e,s))),$$
%
asserts that a fact $p$ that holds in a situation $s$ is presumed
to hold in the situation $result(e,s)$ that results from an event
$e$ unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, Lifschitz
(1985 personal communication) and Hanks and McDermott (1986)
showed that simple treatments of the common sense law of inertia
admit unintended models. Several
authors have given more elaborate
treatments, but in my opinion, the results are not yet entirely
satisfactory.
!\section{Ability, Practical Reason and Free Will}
An AI system capable of achieving goals in the common
sense world will have to reason about what it and other actors
can and cannot do.
For concreteness, consider a robot that must act in the same
world as people and perform tasks that people give it. Its need
to reason about its abilities puts the traditional philosophical
problem of free will in the following form. What view shall we
build into the robot about its own abilities, i.e. how shall we
make it reason about what it can and cannot do? (Wishing to
avoid begging any questions, by {\it reason} we mean {\it
compute} using axioms, observation sentences, rules of inference
and nonmonotonic rules of conjecture.)
Let $A$ be a task we want the robot to perform, and let $B$
and $C$ be alternate intermediate goals either of which would
allow the accomplishment of $A$. We want the robot to be able
to choose between attempting $B$ and attempting $C$. It would be
silly to program it to reason: ``I'm a robot and a deterministic
device. Therefore, I have no choice between $B$ and $C$. What
I will do is determined by my construction.'' Instead it must
decide in some way which of $B$ and $C$ it can accomplish. It
should be able to conclude in some cases that it can accomplish
$B$ and not $C$, and therefore it should take $B$ as a subgoal
on the way to achieving $A$. In other cases it should conclude
that it {\it can} accomplish either $B$ or $C$ and should choose
whichever is evaluated as better according to the criteria we
provide it.
(McCarthy and Hayes 1969) contains proposals for the
semantics of any formalism within which the robot should reason.
The essential idea is that what the robot can do is determined by
the place the robot occupies in the world---not by its internal
structure. For example, if a certain sequence of outputs from
the robot will achieve $B$, then we conclude or it concludes that
the robot can achieve $B$ without reasoning about whether the
robot will actually produce that sequence of outputs.
Our contention is that this is approximately how any
system, whether human or robot, must reason about its ability to
achieve goals. The basic formalism will be the same, regardless
of whether the system is reasoning about its own abilities
or about those of other systems including people.
The above-mentioned paper also discusses the complexities
that come up when a strategy is required to achieve the goal and
when internal inhibitions or lack of knowledge have to be taken
into account.
!\section{Three Approaches to Knowledge and Belief}
Our robot will also have to reason about its own knowledge
and that of other robots and people.
This section contrasts the approaches to knowledge and
belief characteristic of philosophy, philosophical logic and
artificial intelligence. Knowledge and belief have long been
studied in epistemology, philosophy of mind and in philosophical
logic. Since about 1960, knowledge and belief have also been
studied in AI. (Halpern 19xx) and (Vardi 19xx) contain recent
work, mostly oriented to computer science including AI.
It seems to me that philosophers have generally treated
knowledge and belief as {\it complete natural kinds}. According
to this view there is a fact to be discovered about what
beliefs are. Moreover, once it is decided what the objects of
belief are (e.g. sentences or propositions), the definitions of
belief ought to determine for each such object $p$ whether the
person believes it or not. This last is the completeness mentioned
above. Of course, only human and sometimes animal beliefs have
mainly been considered. Philosophers have differed about whether
machines can ever be said to have beliefs, but even those who admit
the possibility of machine belief consider that what beliefs are
is to be determined by examining human belief.
The formalization of knowledge and belief has been studied
as part of philosophical logic, certainly since Hintikka's book (1964),
but much of the earlier work in modal logic can be seen as applicable.
Different logics and axioms systems sometimes correspond to the
distinctions that less formal philosophers make, but sometimes the
mathematics dictates different distinctions.
AI takes a different course because of its different objectives,
but I'm inclined to recommend this course to philosophers also, partly
because we want their help but also because I think it has
philosophical advantages.
The first question AI asks is: Why study knowledge and belief
at all? Does a computer program solving problems and achieving goals
in the common sense world require beliefs, and must it use sentences
about beliefs? The answer to both questions is approximately yes. At
least there have to be data structures whose usage corresponds closely
to human usage in some cases. For example, a robot that could use
the American air transportation system has to know that travel agents
know airline schedules, that there is a book (and now a computer
accessible database) called the OAG that contains this information.
If it is to be able to plan a trip with intermediate stops it has
to have the general information that the departure gate from an
intermediate stop is not to be discovered when the trip is first
planned but will be available on arrival at the intermediate stop.
If the robot has to keep secrets, it has to know about how information
can be obtained by inference from other information, i.e. it has
to have some kind of information model of the people from whom
it is to keep the secrets.
However, none of this tells us that the notions of
knowledge and belief to be built into our computer programs must
correspond to the the goals philosophers have been trying to
achieve. For example, the difficulties involved in building a
system that knows what travel agents know about airline schedules
are not substantially connected with questions about how the
travel agents can be absolutely certain. Its notion of knowledge
doesn't have to be complete; i.e. it doesn't have to determine
in all cases whether a person is to be regarded as knowing a
given proposition. For many tasks it doesn't have to have
opinions about when true belief doesn't constitute knowledge.
The designers of AI systems can try to evade philosophical
puzzles rather than solve them.
Maybe some people would suppose that if the question of
certainty is avoided, the problems formalizing knowledge and
belief become straightforward. That has not been our experience.
As soon as we try to formalize the simplest puzzles involving
knowledge, we encounter difficulties that philosophers have rarely
if ever attacked.
Consider the following puzzle of Mr. S and Mr. P.
{\it Two numbers $m$ and $n$ are chosen such that $2 ≤ m ≤ n ≤ 99$.
Mr. S is told their sum and Mr. P is told their product. The following
dialogue ensues:}
{\obeylines\it
Mr.~P: I don't know the numbers.
Mr.~S: I knew you didn't know them. I don't know them either.
Mr.~P: Now I know the numbers.
Mr.~S: Now I know them too.
In view of the above dialog, what are the numbers?}
Formalizing the puzzle is discussed in (McCarthy 1989).
For the present we mention only the following aspects.
1. We need to formalize {\it knowing what}, i.e. knowing what
the numbers are, and not just {\it knowing that}.
2. We need to be able to express and prove non-knowledge as well as
knowledge. Specifically we need to be able to express the fact that as
far as he knows, the numbers might be any pair of factors of the known
product.
3. We need to express the joint knowledge of Mr.~S and Mr.~P of
the conditions of the problem.
4. We need to express the change of knowledge with time, e.g.
how Mr. P's knowledge changes when he hears Mr. S say that he knew that
Mr. P didn't know the numbers and doesn't know them himself.
This includes inferring what Mr. S and Mr. P still won't know.
The first order language used to express the facts of this
problem involves an accessibility relation $A(w1,w2,p,t)$,
modeled on Kripke's semantics for modal logic. However, the
accessibility relation here is in the language itself rather than
in a metalanguage. Here $w1$ and $w2$ are possible worlds, $p$
is a person and $t$ is an integer time. The use of possible
worlds makes it convenient to express non-knowledge. Assertions
of non-knowledge are expressed as the existence of accessible
worlds satisfying appropriate conditions.
The problem was successfully expressed in the language
in the sense that an arithmetic condition determining the values
of the two numbers can be deduced from the statement. However, this
is not good enough for AI. Namely, we would like to include facts
about knowledge in a general purpose common sense database. Instead
of an {\it ad hoc} formalization of Mr. S and Mr. P, the problem
should be solvable from the same general facts about knowledge that
might be used to reason about the knowledge possessed by travel agents
supplemented only by the facts about the dialog. Moreover, the
language of the general purpose database should accommodate all
the modalities that might be wanted and not just knowledge. This
suggests using ordinary logic, e.g. first order logic, rather than
modal logic, so that the modalities can be ordinary functions or
predicates rather than modal operators.
Suppose we are successful in developing a ``knowledge formalism''
for our common sense database that enables the program controlling
a robot to solve puzzles and plan trips and do the other tasks that
arise in the common sense environment requiring reasoning about knowledge.
It will surely be asked whether it is really {\it knowledge} that
has been formalized. I doubt that the question has an answer.
This is perhaps the question of whether knowledge is a natural kind.
I suppose some philosophers would say that such problems are
not of philosophical interest. It would be unfortunate, however, if
philosophers were to abandon such a substantial part of epistemology
to computer science. This is because the analytic skills that
philosophers have acquired are relevant to the problems.
!\section{Reifying Context}
%The Qualification Problem and
It is now well accepted among AI researchers that AI
systems dealing with the common sense informatic situation
require formalized nonmonotonic reasoning. Some of the relevant
research is discussed in (Lifschitz 1988b). However, it seems
that building a general common sense database may require further
modifications to mathematical logic. At least it will be
necessary to change the way common sense facts are represented by
sentences.
First of all, the context problem arises when
constructing a general database of facts about the common sense
world. Every axiom one considers holds only in a certain
context. A critic can always invent some intellectual or
physical circumstance in which the axiom is too narrow and can be
transcended by people. Some researchers have supposed that it is
only necessary to be patient and that the axioms can be
sufficiently qualified. Some of the qualification can be done by
introducing abnormalities. Consider the following axiom that
might be proposed for using a boat.
%
$$\eqalign{(∀ l1 l2 person& water{-}body boat s)\cr
(¬ab(aspect1(l1,l2,water-body,&boat,person,s))\cr
location(person,s) &= boat\cr
∧ location(boat,s) &= l1\cr
∧ shore-point(l1,&water-body)\cr
∧ shore-point(l2,&water-body)\cr
∧ navigable(water-body&, boat,s)\cr
⊃ location(boat,result(act&(person,propel-boat(l1,l2)),s)) = l2)}.$$
%
It asserts in the situation calculus that a boat may be used to
go from point $l1$ to point $l2$ provided certain conditions are
met. We have not put in anything about the person and other things
in the boat remaining remaining there, because we expect to get this
as a consequence of the common sense law of inertia.
The reader will readily see that the conditionals in this
axiom scheme other than the abnormality condtion are trivial
preconditions, e.g., that the boat is at the location $l1$. Thus,
the axiom requires further qualification. It isn't completely
obvious that this cannot be
done by suitable conditions on
%
$$ab(aspect1(l1,l2,water-body,boat,person,s)),$$
%
but this doesn't seem easy, and we propose to explore a different idea.
The idea is that this sentence is true only in a certain context,
and we propose to reify contexts, i.e. to introduce variables ranging
over contexts.
The main predicate will be
%
$$holds(p,c)$$
%
asserting that the proposition $p$ holds in context $c$. It is often
convenient to consider the value of an individual concept as
represented by the expression
%
$$value(exp,c)$$,
%
where $exp$ is an expression representing an individual concept.
Propositions and individual concepts are discussed in (McCarthy
1979b). There is an additional difficulty with individual
concepts in that we may want to
regard their domains of values as also
context dependent.
We propose to use formalized contexts to do the same
work that context does in natural language and more. The ``more''
refers to the fact that much our non-linguistic thinking is
also context dependent.
%from notebook 1988 March 1 - June 20
Our formalization will have the following properties.
1. Contexts are among the sorts of individuals in a (first order)
language.
2. The basic predicate is $holds$, where $holds(p,c)$ asserts
that proposition $p$ holds in context $c$. (Those familiar with
situation calculus should avoid being misled by a similarity of notation
into assuming that contexts are just a variant of situations). That
they are different will become apparent. The similarity is related to
the fact that there may sometimes be a context associated with a
situation.
3. Contexts are ``rich'' entities not to be fully described.
Thus the ``normal English language context'' contains factual assumptions
and linguistic conventions that a particular English speaker may not
know. Moreover, even assumptions and conventions in a context that
may individually accessible cannot be exhaustively listed. A person
or machine may know facts about a context but doesn't ``know the context''.
4. As an example of intended usage consider the formula
$holds(on(cat,mat),c17)$. Suppose it plays the role of asserting
that a particular cat is on a particular mat on a particular occasion.
$c17$ carries information identifying $cat$ with a particular cat
and also determines the mat and the occasion. The occasion may
be real or fictitious or hypothetical, and the nature of the occasion
is part of $c17$. It is a feature of $c17$ that the time doesn't
have to be specified in the proposition $on(cat,mat)$, although $c17$
may require some other kinds of propositions to include times.
5. We may even regard the use of predicate calculus notation
as a convention of $c17$. Thus we might have
%
%$$holds({\rm ``The\ cat\ is\ on\ the\ mat.''},c18),$$
\centerline{$holds$(``The cat is on the mat.'',$c18$),}
%
where $c18$ is related to $c17$ in certain ways.
6. The above-mentioned $c17$ would be a rather specialized
context. Assertions made in $c17$, i.e. sentences of the form
$holds(p,c17)$ are connected to less specialized contexts by
sentences of our language of contexts. For example, we might have
%
$$meaning(cat,c17) = meaning(belongingto({\rm John\ McCarthy},cat),c9),$$
%
where $c9$ is a context in which ``John McCarthy'' is identified but
the reference to $cat$ as a particular beast is not.
7. There is no ``most general context''. The reason for this
is that the context language needs to allow the possibility of creating
new contexts generalizing certain aspects of the most general previous
contexts.
A convenient example is provided by a variant of the John
Searle's ``Chinese room'' story in which the man keeps all the
information about how to respond to sequences of Chinese
characters in his head. Part of Searle's confusion about who or
what knows Chinese in the situation is the usual identification
of a personality with the body it occupies. This is a convention
of English and other natural languages and does no harm as long
as there is only one personality per body. Avoiding confusion in
the Chinese room puzzle requires distinguishing the personality
carrying on the dialog which does know Chinese from that of the
man in the normal sense which doesn't. If it were actually
feasible and common to carry out conversations at some
significant speed by interpreting a description of a personality,
English would presumably have occasion to make the distinction.
An AI system capable of being told about multiple
personalities in one body would have to be able to generalize the
context of its internal language to one in which the personality
is distinguished from the body.
8. We give one example of a rule relating
contexts in which certain sentences are explicitly indexed by
times and a more specialized context in which a time is implicit.
%
$$∀ptc(holds(p,spectime(c,t)) ≡ holds(attime(t,p),c)).$$
%
9. The context language can be made more like natural
language and more extensible if we introduce notions of entering
and leaving a context. These will be analogous to the notions
of making and discharging assumptions in natural deduction systems,
but the notion seems to be more general. Suppose we have $holds(p,c)$.
We then write
\noindent $enter c$.
\noindent This enables us to write $p$ instead of $holds(p,c)$.
If we subsequently infer $q$, we can replace it by $holds(q,c)$
and leave the context $c$. $holds(q,c)$ will itself hold in
the outer context in which $holds(p,c)$ holds. When a context
is entered, there need to be restrictions analogous to those
that apply in natural deduction when an assumption is made.
One way in which this notion of entering and leaving
contexts is more general than natural deduction is that formulas like
$holds(p,c1)$ and (say) $holds(not\ p,c2)$ behave differently
from $c1 ⊃ p$ and $c2 ⊃ ¬p$ which are their natural deduction
analogs. For example, if $c1$ is associated with the time 5pm
and $c2$ is associated with the time 6pm and $p$ is $at(I, office)$,
then $holds(p,c1) ∧ holds(not\ p,c2)$ might be used to infer that
I left the office between 5pm and 6pm. $(c1 ⊃ p) ∧ (c2 ⊃ ¬p)$
cannot be used in this way; in fact it is equivalent to
$¬c1 ∨ ¬c2$.
10. Perhaps it will be convenient to start the reasoning
done by the program by entering some rather general context.
11. The major goals of research into formaling context
should be to determine the rules that relate contexts to their
generalizations and specializations. Many of these rules will
involve nonmonotonic reasoning.
!\section{Remarks}
The project of formalizing common sense knowledge and
reasoning raises many new considerations in epistemology and
also in extending logic. The role that the following ideas
might play is not clear yet.
\noindent Meta-epistemology
% meta[s88,jmc] Message to AILIST on metaepistemology
% meta[e85,jmc] Meta-epistemology
% metaep[f82,jmc] A proposal for meta-epistemology
If we are to program a computer to think about its own
methods for gathering information about the world, then it needs
a language for expressing assertions about the relation between
the world, the information gathering methods available to an
information seeker and what it can learn. This leads to a subject
I like to call meta-epistemology. Besides its potential applications
to AI, I believe it has applications to philosophy considered in
the traditional sense.
Meta-epistemology is proposed as a mathematical theory
in analogy to metamathematics. Metamathematics considers the
mathematical properties of mathematical theories as objects.
In particular model theory as a branch of metamathematics deals
with the relation between theories in a language and interpretations
of the non-logical symbols of the language. These interpretations
are considered as mathematical objects, and we are only sometimes
interested in a preferred or true interpretation.
Meta-epistemology considers the relation between the world,
languages for making assertions about the world, notions of what
assertions are considered meaningful, what are accepted as rules
of evidence and what a knowledge seeker can discover about the
world. All these entities are considered as mathematical objects.
In particular the world is considered as a parameter.
Thus meta-epistemology has the following characteristics.
1. It is a purely mathematical theory. Therefore, its
controversies, assuming there are any, will be mathematical
controversies rather than controversies about what the real world
is like. Indeed metamathematics gave many philosophical issues
in the foundations of mathematics a technical content. For
example, the theorem that intuitionist arithmetic and Peano
arithmetic are equi-consistent removed at least one area of
controversy between those whose mathematical intuitions support
one view of arithmetic or the other.
2. While many modern philosophies of science assume some
relation between what is meaningful and what can be verified or
refuted, only special meta-\hfill\break
epistemological systems will have the
corresponding mathematical property that all aspects of the world
relate to the experience of the knowledge seeker.
This has several important consequences for the task of
programming a knowledge seeker.
A knowledge seeker should not have a priori prejudices
(principles) about what concepts might be meaningful. Whether
and how a proposed concept about the world might ever connect
with observation may remain in suspense for a very long time
while the concept is investigated and related to other concepts.
We illustrate this by a literary example. Moli\'ere's
play {\it La Malade Imaginaire} includes a doctor who explains
sleeping powders by saying that they contain a ``dormitive
virtue''. In the play, the doctor is considered a pompous fool
for offering a concept that explains nothing. However, suppose
the doctor had some intuition that the dormitive virtue might be
extracted and concentrated, say by shaking the powder in a
mixture of ether and water. Suppose he thought that he would get
the same concentrate from all substances with soporific effect.
He would certainly have a fragment of scientific theory subject
to later verification. Now suppose less---namely, he only
believes that a common component is behind all substances whose
consumption makes one sleepy but has no idea that he should try
to invent a way of verifying the conjecture. He still has
something that, if communicated to someone more scientifically
minded, might be useful. In the play, the doctor obviously sins
intellectually by claiming a hypothesis as certain. Thus a
knowledge seeker must be able to form new concepts that have only
extremely tenuous relations with their previous linguistic
structure.
\noindent Rich and poor entities
Consider my next trip to Japan. Considered as a plan it is
a discrete object with limited detail. I do not yet even plan to
take a specific flight or to fly on a specific day. Considered as
a future event, lots of questions may be asked about it. For example,
it may be asked whether the flight will depart on time and what precisely
I will eat on the airplane. We propose characterizing the actual trip
as a rich entity and the plan as a poor entity. Originally, I thought
that rich events referred to the past and poor ones to the future, but
this seems to be wrong. It's only that when one refers to the past
one is usually referring to a rich entity, while the future entities
one refers to are more often poor. However, there is no intrinsic
association of this kind.
(McCarthy and Hayes 1969) defines situations as rich entities.
However, the actual programs that have been written to reason in
situation calculus might as well regard them as taken from a
finite or countable set of discrete states.
Possible worlds are also examples of rich entities as
ordinarily used in philosophy. One never prescribes a possible
world but only describes classes of possible worlds.
Rich entities are open ended in that we can always introduce
more properties of them into our discussion. Poor entities can often
be enumerated, e.g. we can often enumerate all the events that we
consider reasonably likely in a situation. The passage from considering
rich entities in a given discussion to considering poor entities is
a step of nonmonotonic reasoning.
It seems to me that it is important to get a good formalization
of the relations between corresponding rich and poor entities.
This can be regarded as formalizing the relation between the world
and a formal model of some aspect of the world, e.g. between the
world and a scientific theory.
!\section{References}
\noindent
{\bf Dennett, D.C. (1971)}: ``Intentional Systems'', {\it Journal of Philosophy}
vol. 68, No. 4, Feb. 25.
\noindent
{\bf Dreyfus, Hubert L. (196xx):} {\it What Computers Can't Do:
the Limits of Artificial Intelligence},
New York : Harper \& Row.
\noindent
{\bf Fikes, R, and Nils Nilsson, (1971)}:
``STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of
Theorem Proving to Problem Solving,'' {\it Artificial Intelligence}, Volume 2,
Numbers 3,4, January,
pp. 189-208.
\noindent
{\bf Gelfond, M. (1987)}: ``On Stratified Autoepistemic Theories'',
{\it AAAI-87} {\bf 1}, 207-211.
\noindent
{\bf Ginsberg, M. (ed.) (1987)}: {\it Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning},
Morgan Kaufmann, 481 p.
\noindent
{\bf Green, C., (1969)}:
``Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving.'' In IJCAI-1, pp. 219-239.
\noindent
{\bf Halpern, J. (ed.) (1986):}
{\it Reasoning about Knowledge}, Morgan Kaufmann,
Los Altos, CA.
\noindent
{\bf Hanks, S. and D. McDermott (1986)}: ``Default Reasoning, Nonmonotonic
Logics, and the Frame Problem'', in AAAI-86, pp. 328-333.
\noindent
{\bf Haugh, Brian A. (1988)}: ``Tractable Theories of Multiple Defeasible
Inheritance in Ordinary Nonmonotonic Logics'' in {\it Proceedings of the Seventh
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88)}, Morgan-Kaufman.
\noindent
{\bf Hintikka, Jaakko (1964)}: {\it Knowledge and Belief; an Introduction
to the Logic of the Two Notions}, Cornell Univ. Press, 179 p.
\noindent
{\bf Kowalski, Robert (1979)}: {\it Logic for Problem Solving},
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
\noindent
{\bf Kraus, Sarit and Donald Perlis (1988)}: ``Names and Non-Monotonicity'',
UMIACS-TR-88-84, CS-TR-2140, Computer Science Technical Report Series,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988a)}: {\it Between Circumscription and
Autoepistemic Logic}, to appear.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988b)}: {\it Circumscriptive Theories: A
Logic-based Framework for Knowledge Representation}, this collection.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988c)}: {\it Benchmark Problems for Formal
Nonmonotonic Reasoning}, unpublished.
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1959)}: ``Programs with Common Sense'', in {\it
Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of
Thought Processes}, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
% common[e80,jmc],
% common.tex[e80,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
% phil.tex[ess,jmc] with slight modifications
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1977)}:
``On The Model Theory of Knowledge'' (with M. Sato, S. Igarashi, and
T. Hayashi), {\it Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence}, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1977)}:
``Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence'', {\it Proceedings
of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence}, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
% ijcai.c[e77,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1979a)}:
``Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines'' in {\it Philosophical Perspectives
in Artificial Intelligence}, Ringle, Martin (ed.), Harvester Press, July 1979.
% .<<aim 326, MENTAL[F76,JMC],
% mental.tex[f76,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1979b)}:
``First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions'',
in Michie, Donald (ed.) {\it Machine Intelligence 9}, (University of
Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh).
% .<<aim 325, concep.tex[e76,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1980)}:
``Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning'', {\it Artificial
Intelligence}, Volume 13, Numbers 1,2, April.
% .<<aim 334, circum.new[s79,jmc], cirnew.tex[s79,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1983)}: ``Some Expert Systems Need Common Sense'',
in {\it Computer Culture: The Scientific, Intellectual and Social Impact
of the Computer}, Heinz Pagels, ed.
vol. 426, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
%paper
%presented at New York Academy of Sciences Symposium.
% common[e83,jmc]
%common.tex[e83,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1986)}:
``Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge''
{\it Artificial Intelligence}, April 1986
% circum.tex[f83,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1987)}:
``Generality in Artificial Intelligence'', {\it Communications of the ACM}.
Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 1030-1035
% genera[w86,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1989)}: ``Two Puzzles Involving Knowledge'' in
{\it Formalizing Common Sense} Ablex 1989.
\noindent
{\bf Moore, R. (1985)}: ``Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic'',
{\it Artificial Intelligence} {\bf 25} (1), 75-94.
\noindent
{\bf Perlis, D. (1988)}: ``Autocircumscription'', {\it Artificial Intelligence},
{\bf 36} pp. 223-236.
\noindent
{\bf Reiter, Raymond (1980)}: ``A Logic for Default Reasoning'', {\it Artificial
Intelligence}, Volume 13, Numbers 1,2, April.
\noindent
{\bf Russell, Bertrand (1913)}: ``On the Notion of Cause'',
{\it Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society}, 13, pp. 1-26.
\noindent
{\bf McDermott, D. and J. Doyle, (1980)}:
``Non-Monotonic Logic I,'' {\it Artificial Intelligence\/},
Vol. 13, N. 1
\noindent
{\bf Newell, Allen (1981)}: ``The Knowledge Level,'' {\it AI Magazine\/},
Vol. 2, No. 2
\noindent
{\bf Robinson, J. Allen (1965)}: ``A Machine-oriented Logic Based
on the Resolution Principle''. {\it JACM}, 12(1), 23-41.
\noindent
{\bf Sterling, Leon and Ehud Shapiro (1986)}: {\it The Art of Prolog}, MIT Press.
\noindent
{\bf Sussman, Gerald J., Terry Winograd, and
Eugene Charniak (1971)}: ``Micro-planner Reference Manual,'' Report AIM-203A,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge.
!\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989 by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of thomas[f88,jmc]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
\vfill\eject\end
We begin with a simpler example than the rule for using
boats. Suppose that the sentence ``The library has the book''
is being used for communication, i.e. not just being considered
as a sample sentence. It is being used in a context that
has a time associated with it and which refers to a particular
book under discussion and a particular library. We propose to
formalize the assertion by
%
$$holds(has(library,book),c17),$$
%
where $has$ is conceptually a predicate, but if we are using
first order logic, $has$ is a function whose value is a term
suitable to be the first argument of $holds$. The context
constant $c17$ should give further specification of the meaning
of $has$, since the sentence could mean either that the book is
in the library at the present moment or that the book is one of
those owned by that library. This ambiguity may be resolvable in
a language with predicate functions $has1$ and $has2$, but it
isn't obvious that there won't be additional ambiguities within
$has1$ and $has2$ that have to be resolved by context.
Consider a general 1980s American academic common sense
context. Call it $c1$. In $c1$, the phenomena of books and libraries
are ``sufficiently definite''. The context is not necessarily associated
with the English language. You could imagine a discussion in which
one person is speaking English and another is speaking Russian and
they are both communicating with a machine in a suitable first order
logical language. We won't try to define ``sufficiently definite'',
but the condition would be violated if the hearer went to the wrong
library or returned with the wrong book.
We might now have the sentence
%
$$holds(time(1988.dec.14.pst.1540,
physically(has)(spec(``Stanford_Mathematics'',library),
book(Author: Hintikka,Title: Knowledge and Belief))),c1).$$
%
Context $c17$ is a specialization of $c1$, and the two
sentences are equivalent.
dec 29 Discuss what happens when a flip-flop has to be used outside
of its specified regime.
meaning(scalpel,c19) = meaning(give(scalpel),c7)
jan 7
discuss at some point elaboration tolerance, epistemological adequacy
and ambiguity tolerance
probably under remarks
∂09-Jan-89 1016 JMC Please U.S. mail
To: MPS
a texed copy of soviet[f88,jmc] to
Edward Fredkin
166 Hyslop
Brookline MA 02146
∂09-Jan-89 1356 JMC
To: MPS
gelfon.re3
∂10-Jan-89 0002 JMC Summary of November computer charges.
To: wheaton@ATHENA.Stanford.EDU
We don't seem to have made progress with account names. We need names
like Qlisp or Formal Reasoning not just Stanford numbers and Government
numbers.
∂09-Jan-89 2147 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of November computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jan 89 21:47:29 PST
Date: Mon 9 Jan 89 21:37:55-PST
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of November computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12461338701.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for November.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA807T 100 272.44 15.85 ***.** 12.80 5.00 2284.54
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA807T 100 .12 .00 30.47 .00 5.00 35.59
jmc LABREA 2-DMA807T 100 .00 .00 105.90 .00 5.00 110.90
Total: 272.56 15.85 ***.** 12.80 15.00 2431.03
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA807 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂10-Jan-89 0118 JMC
To: CLT
Leslie Quint will come to see the house at 5pm Tuesday.
∂10-Jan-89 0940 JMC re: dartmouth
To: JK
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jan-89 09:33-PT.]
That leaves two alternatives.
(1) The conservative source, probably Dartmouth Review distorted matters.
(2) As often happens, the written version differs from the oral.
You should inform su-etc.
∂10-Jan-89 1137 JMC re: edi
To: JK
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jan-89 10:52-PT.]
No, I don't have any documents you haven't seen.
∂10-Jan-89 1145 JMC re: Jan 28th meeting
To: Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU, simon@A.GP.CS.CMU.EDU, newell@CENTRO.SOAR.CS.CMU.EDU,
feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, minsky@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,
nilsson@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, mccarthy@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU,
amarel@ARAMIS.RUTGERS.EDU, browne@CS.UTEXAS.EDU,
phw%mit-oz@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, bledsoe@CS.UTEXAS.EDU, bobrow@XEROX.COM,
hart@KL.SRI.COM, buchanan@VAX.CS.PITTSBURGH.EDU, davis@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU
CC: mazzetti@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, plp@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message from Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu sent Tuesday, 10 January 1989 13:20:20 EST.]
Maybe general basic research is covered, but I think that support
for unsolicited proposals in AI by individuals and small groups
is where the main shortage lies. I am doubtful about trying to
agree on a new set of national goals, except in so far as some
packaging will help get support for basic research.
Incidentally, basic is not synonymous with theoretical, and basic
experimental research in AI may have suffered even more than
theoretical research from the short range orientation of the
funding agencies.
∂10-Jan-89 1146 JMC reply to message
To: JK
[In reply to message rcvd 10-Jan-89 10:19-PT.]
You're right. I'll do it.
∂10-Jan-89 1627 JMC tomorrow night
To: CLT
and occasional Wednesday nights, I have a CSLI seminar.
Last time I took Timothy, but it didn't work super well.
I wasn't that interested in the topic, but tomorrow I
want to follow all of it. If you like I could deliver
him to your office at 7:30 and pick him up before 9
and imbed him.
∂10-Jan-89 1813 JMC Freedman
To: JK
I called Petr Beckmann about the discrepancy between the the
cited excerpt of Freedman's speech and what you got from
Dartmouth. He retrieved the Dartmouth Review clipping which
someone had sent him, and read more of it over the phone. It
doesn't resemble what you got and is mailing me a copy. He also
gave me a phone number for the Dartmouth Review, which didn't
answer just now. I'll try in the day time. He speculated that
it might have been a spoof that he misinterpreted, but it didn't
read like it. I'll comment to su-etc after I get the clipping
and reach the Dartmouth Review.
∂11-Jan-89 1822 JMC context
To: bsmith@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
I have been working on formalizing context, treating them as objects,
and I would be glad to talk in your Spring seminar on the subject.
∂11-Jan-89 1903 JMC re: SRI is not receiving JMC's postings
To: COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Fri, 6 Jan 89 10:48:18 PST.]
My home computer is SAIL, and I post to su-etc@sail. It is possible
that SAIL doesn't forward to kl.sri.com. The person to ask
about it is Martin Frost, who is me@sail.stanford.edu.
∂11-Jan-89 2318 JMC re: [Ira Machefsky <M.MACHEFSKY@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>: Meeting to discuss "Intelligent Business Communication" proposal]
To: M.MACHEFSKY@Macbeth.Stanford.EDU
CC: JK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 11 Jan 89 23:10:46-PST.]
Let's make it 1:30 on Friday to discuss business communication.
Do you have my paper "A Common Business Communication Language"?
My colleagues can come. It just slipped my mind to reply.
∂11-Jan-89 2319 JMC meeting
To: m.machefsky@Macbeth.Stanford.EDU
Let's make it 1:30pm on Friday 356 Margaret Jacks Hall.
∂12-Jan-89 1147 JMC papers for students
To: alex@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
Besides the Ginsberg book, please arrange for the students to buy
an additional packet of 8 papers. See me to get copies.
∂12-Jan-89 1919 JMC re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
To: eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 12 Jan 89 16:41:08 PST.]
I have no objection to having my course broadcast.
∂12-Jan-89 1923 JMC re: Broadcast of courses on SUNet
To: allison@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU,
faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: tajnai@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from allison@shasta.stanford.edu sent Thu, 12 Jan 89 17:54:50 PST.]
I have no objection to having my course broadcast and am somewhat dismayed
at Dennis Allison's objections. In general I oppose the paternalism of
restricting people's options ``for their own good'' or just to put on a
better show. It would require very strong evidence of actual harm to
convince me.
∂13-Jan-89 1450 JMC broadcasting classes
To: faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
I was unpleasantly astonished at the large number of faculty who
don't want their classes broadcast. I don't really understand
why they feel that way and wonder if there are some unexpressed
reasons in addition to the reasons given. Do some fear that the
Dean or the Department Chairman watch? It really can't be that
anyone expects to make money from the videotapes of his lectures
that would be lost if there was live viewing, so it can't be
analogous to the football local blackouts, which is motivated by
money rather than ego. (I consider money a more legitimate
motivation than ego.)
I don't devote a large fraction of my effort to teaching - and,
correspondingly, most of my salary is paid from research money.
However, I don't regard the teaching I do as for my amusement
and want to achieve the maximal educational result. I haven't
the information that would permit me to say whether the students
who come to the classroom get a lot more than the students who
see it on TV. I did notice, however, when teaching cs306, that
a certain number of students preferred the overflow room, where
they saw it on TV even when the overflow room was right next to
the regular classroom. Presumably these were students not
strongly motivated to ask questions in class.
It's a bad idea to restrict people's options ``for their own
good'' without extremely strong evidence that they are incompetent
to determine their own best interests. I hope students will
comment on the utility to them of listening to classes remotely.
Finally, I suppose that if some faculty are insistent about not
broadcasting their classes, we should accommodate them for the
time being. Later it might be decided that it is part of the
job of a Stanford faculty member to lecture even if the immediately
present audience is small.
∂13-Jan-89 1501 JMC
To: csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
∂13-Jan-89 1450 JMC broadcasting classes
To: faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
I was unpleasantly astonished at the large number of faculty who
don't want their classes broadcast. I don't really understand
why they feel that way and wonder if there are some unexpressed
reasons in addition to the reasons given. Do some fear that the
Dean or the Department Chairman watch? It really can't be that
anyone expects to make money from the videotapes of his lectures
that would be lost if there was live viewing, so it can't be
analogous to the football local blackouts, which is motivated by
money rather than ego. (I consider money a more legitimate
motivation than ego.)
I don't devote a large fraction of my effort to teaching - and,
correspondingly, most of my salary is paid from research money.
However, I don't regard the teaching I do as for my amusement
and want to achieve the maximal educational result. I haven't
the information that would permit me to say whether the students
who come to the classroom get a lot more than the students who
see it on TV. I did notice, however, when teaching cs306, that
a certain number of students preferred the overflow room, where
they saw it on TV even when the overflow room was right next to
the regular classroom. Presumably these were students not
strongly motivated to ask questions in class.
It's a bad idea to restrict people's options ``for their own
good'' without extremely strong evidence that they are incompetent
to determine their own best interests. I hope students will
comment on the utility to them of listening to classes remotely.
Finally, I suppose that if some faculty are insistent about not
broadcasting their classes, we should accommodate them for the
time being. Later it might be decided that it is part of the
job of a Stanford faculty member to lecture even if the immediately
present audience is small.
∂13-Jan-89 1656 JMC re: SITN
To: ungar@SELF.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from ungar@self.stanford.edu sent Fri, 13 Jan 89 16:05:03 PST.]
I don't understand any sentence beginning "There is no doubt in my
mind that we cheat students by allowing them to ...". Could you
explain the general principle of such sentences?
∂13-Jan-89 1743 Mailer quote from Dartouth's President Freedman
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
It seems it was a spoof. Jussi Ketonen wrote Dartmouth for a
copy of the speech, and it had nothing like that in it. But
after all, people often edit their speeches for publication or
deviate from a previously prepared text. So I phoned Petr
Beckmann, who had put the excerpt in his Access to Energy
newsletter, and he sent me the Dartmouth Review clipping that one
of his subscribers had sent him. The Dartmouth Review clipping
was too short for a whole speech, and it was all in the same
foolish style as the excerpt. However, it seems to me that the
Review played fair, because they included in their version of
Freedman's remarks a quote ``from the French philosopher
Roquefort''. The alleged quote was in the same style as the rest
of the speech and the wording was hard to regard as a translation
from French. Anyway, we've all heard of Roquefort cheese, and I
haven't heard of a philosopher named Roquefort. Neither had
Beckmann. He'll have to apologize to his readers.
The actual speech was nothing great, but it wasn't as foolish
as the spoof. Actually, now that I think of it, it's hard to
imagine people with the Dartmouth Review attitude to President
Freedman actually attending a convocation. Much better to make
up a speech for him.
∂13-Jan-89 2133 JMC purging SAIL characters
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
Vladimir mentioned to me that his paper came out with typos
resulting from the fact that the SAIL character set we use
has symbols, e.g. forall and exists that don't exist in the
standard set. I also forgot to replace these symbols in
the version I sent you. Apparently your TEX just ignores
these symbols. I'll change them before I send you the
next version. A replacement section on context, which I hope is
much clearer will be finished this weekend. That will be about
all, I hope.
∂13-Jan-89 2210 Mailer telling the truth inadvertently
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The following is an excerpt from the A.P. news digest on SAIL
``FROM SUBWAY TO JAIL: Goetz Begins One-Year Sentence
NEW YORK - Bernhard Goetz, heading off to serve a one-year prison
sentence for shooting four black teen-agers in a subway with an
unlicensed gun.''
I think that what A.P. said here is correct, and he is indeed being
sentenced on a charge of which the jury acquitted him.
∂13-Jan-89 2303 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LEE-Y@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Fri 13 Jan 89 22:22:22-PST.]
In the exchange between Ilan Vardi and L.LEE we have one more
example of vicarious envy expressed by L.LEE. Ilan asked whether
poor children are helped by Sesame Street. L.EE didn't answer
his question but said that ``unfortunately'' children from good
environments ``use that advantage to pick up even more knowledge;
so the gap widens ... ''. I don't know whether L.LEE seriously
considers something that helps poor children as unfortunate if it
helps better off children even more.
One interpretation of this view is that life is a constant sum
game where any gain for one person inevitably leads to another's
loss. Another possibility is that L.LEE ascribes intrinsic value
to envy. It considers it bad to do something that improves one
person's lot if it allows someone else to get even more. I call
the envy vicarious, on the supposition that L.LEE is not himself
an underprivileged child.
∂14-Jan-89 0035 JMC re: More on the TV question
To: allison@SHASTA.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
csd@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from allison@shasta.stanford.edu sent Sat, 14 Jan 89 00:01:11 PST.]
Here's one data point on doing TV classes in a professional way.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Jerrold Zacharias of M.I.T.
did the widely praised high school level lectures on physics in a
fully professional way. The cost was about $100,000 per lecture
paid for by post Sputnik educational money. It was his major
activity for several years. The School Mathematics Study Group
was headquartered at Stanford and spent a number of years
preparing filmed high school math courses. If some of us
undertook to produce salable TV lecture courses, the costs would
be similar, and the lecturer preparation and rehearsal time would
be enormous. It might be better for professors to prepare the
material and have actors actually give the lectures.
This matter is entirely orthogonal to allowing students listen to
lectures remotely and tape them. I don't believe the latter
could result in a salable product or even detract from the market
for professionally prepared lecture courses.
Should Department decides to do this, include me out. Those of
us who just continue doing computer science might make a given
video lecture course obsolete before it is even finished.
∂14-Jan-89 1829 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
CC: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU sent Sat 14 Jan 89 17:39:19-PST.]
Was the intention of Sesame Street to help the
``underprivileged'' learn or was it to reduce the difference
between them and the ``privileged''? If the latter, then it
didn't achieve its goal, but the result isn't unfortunate. One
needn't take one's notion of fortunate or unfortunate from the
sponsors of the project. I would be surprised if the original
goal were formulated precisely enough by the initial sponsors of
the program to whether helping poor children become literate and
numerate is regarded as unfortunate if it helped the well off
even more. It seems, however, that the program continues.
Perhaps it would be easier to reduce the literacy of well off
children than to increase the literacy of poor children. Would
a program to do that be good? Come to think of it, there seem
to be many such programs.
∂14-Jan-89 2215 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
CC: ilan@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LEE-Y@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU sent Sat 14 Jan 89 21:15:50-PST.]
1. It doesn't seem to me that the literacy required to fill out
an application to work at MacDonald's or to get a driver's license
has escalated. Therefore, it seems to me that the poor are affected
more by their absolute literacy than by their relative literacy.
Judging from the greatly reduced number of people getting high
scores on the verbal SAT, the standard of literacy of the well-to-do
has declined.
2. I don't understand about Headstart. I thought it was only
available in poor neighborhoods. Some early studies said that
the headstart they gained was lost after a few years, but later
studies said it wasn't.
∂15-Jan-89 1438 Mailer re: telling the truth inadvertently
To: seligman@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from seligman@polya.stanford.edu sent 15 Jan 89 21:39:13 GMT.]
Hmm, I didn't know about that wrinkle. However, Goetz may be
underestimating the power of racial politics if he feels any
assurance that he will be paroled in two months.
∂15-Jan-89 1607 JMC heat on weekends
To: betsy@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
I don't know if you are the right person to ask about this. It's
cold on weekends in Cordura. After a battle some years ago, the
Computer Science Department got the University to agree to heat
Margaret Jacks on weekends. Can't CSLI do likewise?
∂16-Jan-89 1156 JMC re: Proper Use of the Overflow Room
To: C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 16 Jan 89 10:28:57-PST.]
It never occurred to me to look deeply into the question of why
some students, usually about 6 in a class of 40 preferred the
overflow room. I don't know whether it was the same group all
the time. I suppose still others watched on campus TVs. I'm
still surprised and uncomprehending at the level of emotion the
TV matter has raised.
My attitude is that in teaching a class I provide a means of
access to certain scientific material. Students take my courses,
none of which happen to be required, if they think they will find
the material interesting and my presentation helpful in
understanding it. They are at liberty to change their minds
about either at any time. I'm not a mother substitute, so if a
student mistakenly fails to use the class to his best advantage,
I usually don't even notice. The only thing that would offend me
would be behavior that disrupted the class, but I don't recall
that this has ever happened. My ratings, according to the
student opinion surveys, are about average.
I am pleased when my course is broadcast and took the initiative
this time in getting cs323 put on SITN. I hope it will improve
the scientific level of the AI work done in the area.
∂16-Jan-89 1442 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU sent Mon 16 Jan 89 13:21:55-PST.]
I would also be unhappy if Sesame Street was ``hurting the very
people it was designed to help''. However, no case has been made
that it does hurt them even if it increases inequalities. Rather
if it makes people more literate, it helps them even if it
increases the literacy of children from prosperous families even
more.
Indeed I will claim that the semi-literate are helped by the
fully literate becoming more literate. The larger the total
income of society, the more the bottom 20 percent will get. Thus
the semi-literate and illiterate are better off in the U.S. than
in countries where most people are illiterate. The evidence for
this is that they migrate to the U.S. and rarely migrate back.
∂16-Jan-89 1524 VAL re: Nonmonotonic Seminar: meeting time
To: VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from VAL rcvd 16-Jan-89 14:27-PT.]
I also support the change as it also removes a conflict with the
philosophy colloquium.
∂16-Jan-89 1613 JMC re: CS323
To: ortiz@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 16 Jan 89 15:50:26 PST.]
1. Unfortunately, I don't plan that far ahead. Moreover, I'm not sure
what will be in the hands of the class by Thursday.
2. I am all for your doing research, and the topic you suggest is
a good one. You may find that some considerations to be advanced
later in the course will be relevant. After the first third of
the course, I will be glad to discuss this topic with you.
∂16-Jan-89 1733 JMC
To: nilsson@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Is there a mailing list of AI faculty?
∂16-Jan-89 2155 JMC
To: MPS
styopi.2
∂17-Jan-89 1255 JMC new version of the context section
To: Rich.Thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
I might tinker a little more in so far as there is time, but
I hope this is good enough to explain the goals. Suggestions welcome.
I still have to get replace the SAIL special characters by
the circumlocutions required by poverty stricken character sets.
It will be hard for me to give up the logic symbols that I have
been able to use in files for the last 25 years.
\section{Reifying Context}
%contex[w89,jmc] Reifying context - for paper for Thomason
The formula $holds(p,c)$ asserts that the proposition $p$
holds in context $c$. It is used to express explicitly the
dependence of assertions on context. The relation $c1 ≤ c2$ asserts
that the context $c2$ is more general than the context $c1$.
Formalizing common sense reasoning needs contexts as objects,
in order to match the ability of human reasoning to consider context
explicitly. The proposed database of general common sense knowledge
will make assertions in a general context called $C0$. However, $C0$
cannot be maximally general, i.e. it will involve unstated
presuppositions. Indeed we claim that there can be no
maximally general context. Every context involves unstated presuppositions
both linguistic and factual. Sometimes the reasoning system will
have to transcend $C0$, and tools will have to be provided to do
this. For example, if Boyle's law of the dependence of the volume
of a sample of gas on pressure were built into $C0$, discovery of
its dependence on temperature, would have to trigger generalization
that might lead to the perfect gas law.
The following ideas about how the formalization might
proceed are tentative. They are depend on using formalized
nonmonotonic reasoning which is also new. In particular, there
will be nonmonotonic ``inheritance rules'' that allow default
inference from $holds(p,c)$ to $holds(p,c')$, where $c'$ is
either more general or less general than $c$.
Almost all previous discussion of context has been in
connection with natural language, and the present paper
relies heavily on examples from natural language. However, I
believe the main AI uses of formalized context will not be in
connection with communication but in connection with reasoning
about the effects of actions directed to achieving goals. It's
just that natural language examples come to mind more readily.
Here is an example of intended usage.
Consider
%
$$holds(at(he,inside(car)),c17).$$
%
Let us suppose that this sentence is intended to assert that a
particular person is in a particular car on a particular occasion,
i.e. the sentence is not just being used as a
linguistic example but is meant seriously. A corresponding
English sentence is ``He's in the car'' where who he is and which
car and when is determined by the context in which the sentence
is uttered. Suppose, for simplicity, that the sentence is said
by one person to another in a situation in which the car is
visible to the speaker but not to the hearer and the time at
which the the subject is asserted to be on the mat is the same
time at which the sentence is uttered.
In our formal language $c17$ has to carry the information about
who he is, which car and when.
Now suppose that the same fact is to be conveyed as in
example 1, but the context is a certain Stanford Computer Science
Department 1980s context. Thus familiarity with cars is
presupposed, but no particular person, car or occasion is
presupposed. The meanings of certain names is presupposed, however.
We can call that context (say) $c5$. We might then have the sentence
%
$$holds(at(``Timothy McCarthy'',inside((\iota x)(iscar(x)∧
belongs(x,``John McCarthy'')))),c5).$$
%
A yet more general context might not identify a
specific John McCarthy, so that the sentence itself would need
more information. What would constitute an adequate identification
might also be context dependent.
Here are some of the properties formalized contexts might have.
1. In the above example, we will have $c17 ≤ c5$, i.e. $c5$ is
more general than $c17$.
There will be nonmonotonic rules like
%
$$(∀ c1\ c2\ p)(c1 ≤ c2) ∧ holds(p,c1) ∧ ¬ab1(p,c1,c2) ⊃ holds(p,c2)$$
%
and
%
$$(∀ c1\ c2\ p)(c1 ≤ c2) ∧ holds(p,c2) ∧ ¬ab2(p,c1,c2) ⊃ holds(p,c1).$$
%
Thus there is nonmonotonic inheritance both up and down in the generality
hierarchy.
2. There are functions forming new contexts by specialization.
We could have something like
%
$$c19 = specialize({he = Timothy McCarthy, belongs(car, John McCarthy)},c5).$$
We will have $c19 ≤ c5$.
3. Besides $holds(p,c)$, we may have $value(term,c)$, where
$term$ is a term. The domain in which $term$ takes values is defined
in some outer context.
4. Some presuppositions of a context are linguistic and some
are factual. In the above example, who the names refer to are
linguistic. The properties of people and cars are factual, e.g. it
is presumed that people fit into cars.
5. We may want meanings as abstract objects. Thus we might
have
%
$$meaning(he,c17) = meaning(``Timothy McCarthy'',c5).$$
6. Contexts are ``rich'' entities not to be fully described.
Thus the ``normal English language context'' contains factual assumptions
and linguistic conventions that a particular English speaker may not
know. Moreover, even assumptions and conventions in a context that
may individually accessible cannot be exhaustively listed. A person
or machine may know facts about a context but doesn't ``know the context''.
7. Contexts should not be confused with the situations of the
situation calculus of (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). Propositions about
situations can hold in a context. For example, we may have
%
$$holds(Holds1(at(I,airport),result(drive-to(airport,result(walk-to(car),S0))),c1).$$
%
This can be interpreted as asserting that under the assumptions embodied
in context $c1$, a plan of walking to the car and then driving to the airport
would get the robot to the airport starting in situation $S0$.
8. The context language can be made more like natural
language and more extensible if we introduce notions of entering
and leaving a context. These will be analogous to the notions
of making and discharging assumptions in natural deduction systems,
but the notion seems to be more general. Suppose we have $holds(p,c)$.
We then write
\noindent $enter c$.
\noindent This enables us to write $p$ instead of $holds(p,c)$.
If we subsequently infer $q$, we can replace it by $holds(q,c)$
and leave the context $c$. $holds(q,c)$ will itself hold in
the outer context in which $holds(p,c)$ holds. When a context
is entered, there need to be restrictions analogous to those
that apply in natural deduction when an assumption is made.
One way in which this notion of entering and leaving
contexts is more general than natural deduction is that formulas like
$holds(p,c1)$ and (say) $holds(not\ p,c2)$ behave differently
from $c1 ⊃ p$ and $c2 ⊃ ¬p$ which are their natural deduction
analogs. For example, if $c1$ is associated with the time 5pm
and $c2$ is associated with the time 6pm and $p$ is $at(I, office)$,
then $holds(p,c1) ∧ holds(not\ p,c2)$ might be used to infer that
I left the office between 5pm and 6pm. $(c1 ⊃ p) ∧ (c2 ⊃ ¬p)$
cannot be used in this way; in fact it is equivalent to
$¬c1 ∨ ¬c2$.
9. The expession $Holds(p,c)$ (note the caps) represents
the proposition that $p$ holds in $c$. Since it is a proposition,
we can assert $holds(Holds(p,c),c')$.
10. Propositions will be combined by functional analogs of
the Boolean operators as discussed in (McCarthy 1979b). As discussed
in that paper, treating propositions involving quantification is
necessary, but it is difficult to determine the right formalization.
11. The major goals of research into formalizing context
should be to determine the rules that relate contexts to their
generalizations and specializations. Many of these rules will
involve nonmonotonic reasoning.
∂17-Jan-89 1615 JMC re: Algorithm Help
To: leslie%teleos.com@AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue, 17 Jan 89 15:28:30 PST.]
Jeff Ullman is perhaps more accessible than Don Knuth.
∂18-Jan-89 1859 JMC re: heat on weekends
To: BETSY@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 17 Jan 89 17:20:58-PST.]
Thanks. I'll be in, but if this weekend is like today was in
San Francisco, we won't know whether they did it or not.
Thanks, again.
∂18-Jan-89 1937 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LEE-Y@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU sent Tue 17 Jan 89 20:34:01-PST.]
I'm not sure how what I said relates to the question of how great the
disparity between rich and poor is in the U.S. However, now that
Yvonne Lee claims that "... the disparity between rich and poor
(is) greater in the U.S. than in any other developed country?" I
don't know that this is true. What's the evidence (or just the
source of the statement)?
Moreover, why did you restrict the question to developed countries?
In undeveloped countries the disparity between rich and poor is very
great, and this is directly reflected expected length of life.
People in some undeveloped countries have a life
expectation as low as 25 years. Presumably the rich in these
countries have life expectancies today similar to those of people
in developed countries.
As a statistic consider the disparity in expected length of life
between blacks and whites. It's about six years in favor of
whites. Some of this has other causes than riches, because
a substantial part of the disparity remains when one considers
only whites and blacks in the same economic category. The disparity
between men and women is 9 years in favor of women, and this results
in black women, presumably the least privileged group, living
3 years longer than white men, presumably the most privileged
group. My source is the Statistical Abstract of the U.S.
The point is that increasing overall wealth has improved
everyone's life expectancies, and incidentally reduced
disparities in an important aspect of life - its length.
Of course, there is no law of social science that says
that biologists will never invent a medicine costing
a million dollars a year that allows those rich enough
to live to be 200. If it happens, disparities will increase,
at least for a while.
As to the fellow who would be annoyed if his friends had
Porsche's to match his Corvette, he should be ashamed of himself
- or better try to change his attitude. If he can't change his
attitude, he should at least be careful to avoid expressions of
envy.
∂18-Jan-89 1943 JMC re: My Posting on ca.environment
To: COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:09:53 PST.]
I'm not bothered by your reposting, and you are welcome to do it
in the future. The only thing I wish you hadn't done was to
change a reference to bboard readers to ca.environment readers.
This probably led some people to believe that I read
ca.environment and wonder why I don't comment on items there on
which I might be expected to have an opinion. No need to correct
the possible misapprehension, however.
∂18-Jan-89 2012 JMC
To: suppes@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
\input jmclet[let,jmc]
\jmclet
\address
Professor V. S. Styopin
Institute of Philosophy
USSR Academy of Sciences
121019, Moscow, Volkhonka, 14
USSR
\body
Dear Professor Styopin:
If it is convenient for you, I would like to arrange a visit
to the Institute of Philosophy for the week of April 8 to April 16.
If you like I could give three lectures, the first on nonmonotonic
reasoning, the second on formalizing common sense knowledge and
the third on the relations between artificial intelligence and
philosophy.
I am sorry I had to postpone my visit, but I was far behind
on some writing commitments, because of the unexpected trip to Japan
in connection with receiving the Kyoto Prize.
I would also be interested in visiting people outside the
Institute of Philosophy with whom I might have common interests.
\closing
Sincerely,
John McCarthy
Professor
\endletter
\end
∂19-Jan-89 0259 Mailer Democracy in China
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The Feb 3 New York Review of Books has an article by Fang Lizhi
the Chinese astrophysicist and dissident, perhaps the Chinese
equivalent of Sakharov. The article argues that China requires
democracy as developed in the West in order to progress. He
proposes the following.
1. Guarantee of human rights. Most importantly, freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Also
release of Wei Jingsheng and all political prisoners. (Wei
Jingsheng was sentenced to 15 years in 1979 for putting up
posters advocating democracy.)
2. Establishment of a free economic system. Gradual implementation
of economic reforms that will include reforms in property rights.
3. Support for education. Abandonment of the "ignorant masses"
policy; provision of the needed and entirely feasible education
that would be commensurate with China's economic level.
4. Supervision of public officeholders. Use of open glasnost-style
means to root out corruption.
5. An end to China's state of civil war; promotion of peace in the
Taiwan straits. The mainland side to call for mutual renunciation
of force as a means of settling differences. A transition from
mutual hostility toward peaceful competition.
6. Establishment of rule by law. Oppositin to rule by individuals,
whether directly or in disguised form - as when Party documents
or policies override the laws of the nation.
7. Revision of the constitution. Deletion of all language tht
relies of on the principle of "class struggle" to support
dictatorship. Drafting of a Chinese constitution that provides
for political democracy and economic freedom.
***
Just as Western technology has become world technology, so
Western political culture is becoming world political culture,
the stupidity and cowardice of the Stanford Academic Senate
and President notwithstanding.
∂19-Jan-89 1056 JMC re: My Posting on ca.environment
To: COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 09:42:11 PST.]
Actually I do not know how to read or post to ca.environment. What
machine and network is it on?
∂19-Jan-89 1100 JMC re: 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
To: JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 15:25:11 GMT.]
I phoned him in order to get the precise date on which I was to speak.
I wanted to know, because I was thinking of squeezing in a trip to
Moscow in between his meeting and a meeting in Glasgow a week later.
Now that I have decided to stay in the UK that week and go to Moscow
afterwards, it is no longer urgent.
∂19-Jan-89 1100 JMC re: 6th DKBS Workshop - Arnold Spector, Sunderland Polytechnic, UK.
To: JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 15:25:11 GMT.]
Thanks for relaying the message.
∂19-Jan-89 1112 Mailer re: Democracy in China
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM sent Thu, 19 Jan 89 06:31:54 PST.]
I would support Li's proposals for any country. South Africa
lacks full political democracy in Li's sense. It also has limitations
on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and has political
prisoners. So far as I know El Salvador meets all of Li's
conditions formally. However, the effectiveness of some of them
is greatly limited by civil war. Neither has a self-maintaining
political party like China does that never submits to elections.
∂19-Jan-89 1134 JMC cable for computer phone connection
To: CLT
Dick Winter of Winter Electric 969-6795 called to say that they
will be ready to start digging on Monday. They will not need
access to the garage early on. He'll call about that later.
∂19-Jan-89 1707 Mailer re: Democracy in China
To: mrc@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 19 Jan 1989 12:24:57 PST.]
According to the intro to the New York Review article, Fang was recently
denied a visa to travel abroad.
MRC says
I wonder if China will be able to maintain this
separation of party and state?
That's a bit of an exaggeration. One of Fang's main complaints in the
article is that Party and STate are still merged.
∂19-Jan-89 2157 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jan-89 16:57-PT.]
Suppes has it, and I suppose it is on my letter of invitation.
We need to talk about your possible visit also. I'm just about
to write to them.
∂19-Jan-89 2206 Mailer re: The Sesame influence
To: RTC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RTC rcvd 19-Jan-89 18:27-PT.]
Arguments about this are usually among haves though some of them
are vicarious have-nots. For example, I wouldn't conclude that
Yvonne Lee is neither a have nor someone who can reasonably
expect to be a have after further education without an actual
assertion to that effect. I would be surprised if there was
a large separation in income between those who have taken
opposite positions in contributing to bboard.
∂20-Jan-89 0048 JMC
To: alex@JESSICA.Stanford.EDU
Yes they should be turned in.
∂20-Jan-89 1123 JMC reply to message
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 20 Jan 1989 10:45:48 PST.]
Next Thursday and right.
∂20-Jan-89 1126 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 20-Jan-89 10:50-PT.]
No.
∂20-Jan-89 1138 JMC re: CSD Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 20 Jan 1989 10:42:11 PST.]
1. Definitely planning to attend?
∂20-Jan-89 1417 JMC re: CYCL WORSHOP JANUARY 30,31
To: Ai.Judy@MCC.COM
[In reply to message sent Fri 20 Jan 89 16:13:32-CST.]
The message that just arrived was blank.
∂20-Jan-89 2231 Mailer re: western culture
To: S.SEOWON@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU, RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from S.SEOWON@lear.stanford.edu sent Fri 20 Jan 89 17:51:38-PST.]
The issue at Stanford was whether Western cultural history
deserved educational attention in a special course. My opinion
is that the culture developed in the West over many centuries is
more important to the modern world than the cultures that
developed contemporaneously elsewhere. For example, as the Fang
Lizhi quotes indicate, it is more relevant to the development of
China today than Confucian writings about how an enlightened
ruler should behave. Of course, the Marxism that held China back
30 years is also Western in origin. However, as RWF said, it
isn't the property of the West today.
Here are some of the more important ideas.
1. Individual rights as distinct from advice to rulers to be nice.
These include freedom of speech and religion and the right to hold
property.
2. Contract law enforced by an independent judiciary.
3. Representative democracy.
4. The idea of continuous scientific and technological progress.
The interaction of science and technology. Francis Bacon deserves
credit for this.
5. The idea of heaven as a reward for good behavior and
compensation for suffering. It's not an idea I believe in, but I
think it was historically important, although I think it is less
important now.
6. The corporation and capitalism generally. Socialism is
also a Western idea.
7. The development of remote agency, whereby an organization,
company or religion, could send its representatives worldwide.
Why was there no Chinese or Indian Marco Polo who explored
the West?
These are some of my own opinions about the cultural inventions of
the West.
There remains the question of whether courses in Western culture
do much good. I don't know about that. I'll bet, however, that
the replacement "issues and ideas" with its ideological doctrine
and its racial and sexual quota system for books will be a disaster.
Not even that is likely to be done honestly. For example, the
collection of works by women is unlikely to include the most
important woman in the world today - Margaret Thatcher. The
blacks won't include Tom Sowell, and the writers from colonial
countries are unlikely to include V.S. Naipaul.
∂21-Jan-89 1318 JMC re: CS309 for 1989/1990
To: gio@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 21 Jan 1989 13:16:21 PST.]
I'm not involved in this any more.
∂22-Jan-89 0115 JMC re: phone call
To: binford@BOA-CONSTRICTOR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 21 Jan 89 23:00:20 PST.]
Did he give any clue as to what material he was talking about?
∂22-Jan-89 1245 Mailer re: Western Culture (JMC,Floyd,Seowan)
To: SANKAR@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from SANKAR@score.stanford.edu sent Sun 22 Jan 89 10:19:46-PST.]
I agree that there is much that is worthwhile in non-Western cultures.
My point was that modern world political culture, like modern world
technology is mainly descended from Western culture. This is true
to a lesser extent in music and art, and hardly at all in cooking,
except that American fast food seems to be gaining worldwide acceptance.
But this is a more a matter of efficiency than taste.
∂22-Jan-89 1425 JMC re: cs 323 homework due date
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 22 Jan 1989 13:41:33 PST.]
OK, let's make this one due a week from Tuesday.
Your chance of pinning Yvonne Lee down isn't good. I imagine
her to be a sophomore, rather naive. I don't know, of course.
∂22-Jan-89 2133 Mailer Family Members Demand Freedom For Prisoners
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
By RODOLFO GARCIA
Associated Press Writer
MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) - Relatives of political prisoners jailed by
the leftist government demanded a general amnesty on Sunday and
protested forced labor in prison.
The National Movement of Mothers and Relatives of Political
Prisoners marked the second anniversary of its founding by holding a
meeting in the capital, where leaders charged the Sandinista
government was denying family visits to political prisoners.
''The prisoners are being mistreated in jail and (the government)
has denied them family visits for refusing to work,'' said Matilde
Gutierrez, the group's president. She did not elaborate.
She called for ''a total amnesty in the country'' for political
prisoners.
Ms. Gutierrez told The Associated Press that 19 political prisoners
have been on a hunger strike since Jan. 15 in the National
Penitentiary System facility to protest the government's refusal to
permit visits.
The facility, which houses former National Guardsmen who fought
under the late dictator Anastasio Somoza, is located about 14 miles
northeast of Managua.
The Sandinistas toppled Somoza in the 1979 guerrilla war. Some of
the former guardsmen are serving prison terms of up to 30 years.
An official with the Interior Ministry, which operates the prison,
denied that prisoners were fasting.
''There is no hunger strike among the prisoners,'' the official said
on condition of anonymity. He acknowledged that ''they refuse to
work, which is a disadvantage for them.'' The official declined to
elaborate.
''Normally, all of the prisoners who were closely linked with the
Somoza system don't work, they maintain a constant protest and are in
complete disagreement with the penitentiary system,'' the official
said.
President Daniel Ortega said in December that there were 3,142
political prisoners, including former guardsmen and anti-Sandinista
rebels, in Nicaraguan jails.
Ms. Gutierrez on Sunday disputed that figure.
''Throughout the country, there are more than 20,000 political
prisoners, and this affects in all some 30,000 children,'' she said.
Ortega also said the government had released more than 1,300
prisoners in compliance with the Central American peace plan signed
by Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Honduras in
1987.
Also Sunday, Costa Rican security authorities said Sandinista troops
shot and killed a young Nicaraguan trying to cross into Costa Rica.
Luis Antonio Lopez Lopez, 17, died Friday night while trying to get
across the San Juan River in a tiny boat with 16 other young
Nicaraguans, said Carlos Jimenez, spokesman for the Costa Rican
Public Security Ministry.
Costa Rican civil guardsmen reported that the Sandinista troops
opened fire from a hilltop, he said in a telephone interview.
A Nicaraguan Defense Ministry official on Sunday disputed the report
and said Nicaraguan troops exchanged gunfire with anti-Sandinista
guerrillas along the border.
Costa Rica is home to more than 40,000 Nicaraguan refugees who have
fled the economic crisis and civil war in their homeland.
∂23-Jan-89 0335 JMC
To: MPS
jobs.1 needs decoration and an address
∂23-Jan-89 1022 JMC request for information
To: librar@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
I need the original date of publication of "What computers can't do"
by Hubert Dreyfus. It's pre-Socrates, so it will be in the
card catalog. I hope this is a reasonable request.
∂23-Jan-89 1320 JMC re: request for information
To: LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 23 Jan 89 10:34:01-PST.]
Thanks a lot.
∂23-Jan-89 1734 JMC re: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc
To: P.PENSIVE@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 23 Jan 89 15:42:25-PST.]
Most of what is in book form is rather old, but it seems
to me that the criticisms are still applicable, because the
environmental movement hasn't changed either its goals or its methods.
Here are some library references. I've read the Beckmann books, and
he recommended the Tucker book.
2.3) Beckmann, Petr. THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF NOT GOING NUCLEAR (Golem Press,
1976)
LOCATION: RA569.B43: Meyer
2.5) Beckmann, Petr. ECO-HYSTERICS AND THE TECHNOPHOBES (Golem Press, 1973)
LOCATION: GF47.B42: Meyer
Heading 11) Author: Tucker, William, 1942- (5 citations)
11.1) Tucker, William. PROGRESS AND PRIVILEGE. 1st ed. (Garden City, N.Y. :
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1982)
LOCATION: TD170.T82 1982: Meyer
11.4) Tucker, William. PROGRESS AND PRIVILEGE (Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1982)
LOCATION: TD170.T82: Green Stacks
11.5) Tucker, William. PROGRESS AND PRIVILEGE. 1st ed. (Garden City, N.Y. :
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1982)
LOCATION: TD170.T82 1982: Jackson Business
Here are some notes on a phone conversation with Petr Beckmann.
The references are to his newsletter Access to Energy. I have a file
of back issues if you want to look. They are references to other
periodical publications.
Beckmann references
William Tucker - Progress and Privilege 6-7 years old.
The age of environmentalism 1980
Julian Simon -
Clean Coal, dirty air, ackerman(n) and ?
environmentalism and the leisure class 1978
the envir. protection hustle, Frieden
K.C. Barrons, agriculture and the environmental extremists, may 1986
Sierra club show Hodel its true colors, WSJ, 1987 nov
American Spectator has lots
Beckmann suggested phoning
National Council of Environmental Balance, Louisville, KY Irwin Tucker
for more references.
∂23-Jan-89 2046 Mailer re: Western Culture (JMC,Floyd,Seowan)
To: ramsey@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from ramsey@polya.stanford.edu sent 24 Jan 89 03:58:28 GMT.]
What if he did or didn't have African ancestors? The argument is
about culture, not about race.
∂24-Jan-89 0214 JMC paper
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
It's essentially done. I may have to eliminate one or two SAIL
characters still and will finish that off tomorrow. I'll U.S.
mail a Fed Exp a printed copy tomorrow and also email a version.
If you like I'll try to make the formulas more beautiful, but
if you like to tinker with TEX, I'll gladly leave it with you.
∂24-Jan-89 0218 JMC
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
Misprint: Fed exp, not U.S. mail.
∂24-Jan-89 0218 JMC
To: MPS
Please TEX a copy of thomas[f88,jmc] to Fed Exp to Thomason.
∂24-Jan-89 0958 JMC re: paper
To: thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 24 Jan 1989 6:51:59 EST.]
It's never too late for me if it isn't too late for you. Your
first batch of comments improved the paper, and I look forward to
your comments on context. I think you should have at least one
paper version because of TEX uncertainties, and we can
subsequently use electronics.
∂24-Jan-89 1018 JMC re: White Trash Cookbook
To: luke@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 23 Jan 1989 1510-PST.]
I'm looking. I'm looking.
∂24-Jan-89 1155 Mailer re: western culture
To: crew@Polya.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from crew@polya.stanford.edu sent Tue, 24 Jan 89 03:07:14 -0800.]
Your remark about Europeans possibly not remembering a Chinese Marco
Polo is too Euro-centric. The Chinese were literate. I'm assuming
that had a Chinese visited Europe in the Middle Ages and returned,
he would have written a book about it. I'm also assuming that were
there such a book, people would have compared it with Marco Polo's
book, and I would have heard of it.
While the Spanish success in America involved some luck, the
uniformity of European success suggests a systematic difference.
However, the main point about Western culture is that the
political systems, the newspapers, literature and public opinion
all over the world are more descendants of Western culture than
of the native cultures. This is true even in the countries like
Japan, China and Thailand where there was never Western political
control. This is true both of the successes and the failures.
Maoism was based on Western bad ideas.
∂24-Jan-89 1627 JMC re: copyright
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Jan-89 14:50-PT.]
If they are willing to ignore it or don't know about it, I am too.
I don't have the clipping, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NYT
would have difficulty in finding it.
∂24-Jan-89 1631 JMC
To: VAL
{\bf McCarthy, John (1974)}:
Book Review: ``Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey'' by Sir James
Lighthill, in {\it Artificial Intelligence}, Vol. 5, No. 3.
% LIGHT.RE5[ESS,JMC] 25-Jul-75 Lighthill review
∂24-Jan-89 1643 JMC re: Science fiction reference needed
To: Z.Zenon@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 24 Jan 89 15:33:46-PST.]
It may well be Heinlein. I remember reading it when it first
came out which was around 1944 I think. The character was named
Waldo himself and moved to a space station. Also the devices
themselves - remote force amplifiers - were also called waldos.
∂24-Jan-89 1812 JMC integral reactor
To: alex@Polya.Stanford.EDU
The reactor may be good, but there is a fair amount of nonsense
in the article including some of the allegedly direct quotes.
20 percent burnup would be better than is achieved today.
Presumably that is a consequence of the sodium which absorbs
fewer neutrons than water, so more can be absorbed by fission
products without stopping the reaction. The French breeder
reactors use a sodium coolant for that reason. The article
confuses discarding the actinides with reprocessing them.
The original and correct idea is to reprocess them, but the
Carter Administration shut down the reprocessing plants.
I believe the Purex process, invented during World War II,
is not favored by anyone today. The phrase, "... the reactor
core can run full blast at only one-tenth the temperature of
today's water cooled reactors, which burn glassy ceramic
fuel rods that conduct heat poorly" is wrong on the face of it.
Present reactors run at about the same 900 Celsius advertised
for this reactor and one-tenth of that would be about 120K,
well below freezing. I can't figure out what it is meant to
assert unless it is that the temperature difference between
the uranium and the coolant is one-tenth what it is in a
present reactor.
As I said, I fear that this may be one more way in which
the better is used to kill off the good.
∂24-Jan-89 1814 JMC tomorrow night
To: CLT
I will again be at the CSLI faculty seminar. In fact
I will be the speaker.
∂24-Jan-89 1851 JMC re: integral reactor
To: alex@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 24 Jan 1989 18:16:35 PST.]
I'm not sure whether I have time to properly prepare a letter,
but bring the address.
∂25-Jan-89 1323 JMC re: reference
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Jan-89 11:16-PT.]
You can assume it if you can't get in touch with Bob Moore at SRI.
∂25-Jan-89 1342 JMC re: USENET censorship at Stanford
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 25 Jan 89 13:32:20 PST.]
I'll try to help, and I'll begin by calling Ralph. You should also
talk to Les. Maybe the ACLU will help.
∂25-Jan-89 1503 Mailer re: Who will be the new Science Advisor?
To: J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from J.JBRENNER@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Wed 25 Jan 89 13:21:12-PST.]
Mentioning Carl Sagan for Science Adviser suggests that the idea of
Jesse Jackson being President dies hard in certain quarters. Reagan
selected no-one with a political agenda of his own - not even someone
with a right wing political agenda. If Bush is wise, he will do the
same. In fact he will not select anyone on whose behalf a campaign
is waged, on the grounds that doing so will encourage the group waging
the campaign and their opponents to assume that this commits the
Administration to certain policies. I don't know whether Sally Ride
has a political agenda, but her employment by an Arms Control Program
might count as one politically.
The President needs an ambassador to Science not from
science. He also needs someone who has and can get scientific
information relevant to the feasibility and consequences of
technological projects and can co-ordinate the efforts of
Government agencies to get such information. The spokesman for
science to the Government, to the extent that one person fills
that role, is the President of the National Academy of Sciences.
The scientific community chose Carter's former Science Adviser
for that role. It took him a while to overcome the resulting
presumption in the Reagan Administration that he was a spokesman
for Carter policies.
Scientists tend to be liberal politically and even to take
liberal political views as fully mixable with scientific advice.
When Nixon became President, he inherited PSAC, the President's
Scientific Advisory Committee. Shortly, stories began to appear
in the newspapers saying, "President ignores scientific advice
from his own advisers." He concluded that he didn't need to
provide an additional elevated forum for people he considered
his political opponents. Not even Carter revived PSAC.
The situation would be quite different for the Secretary
of Science and Technology were such a cabinet department created.
His role would be political.
∂25-Jan-89 1506 JMC re: hacking hardware
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Jan-89 14:57-PT.]
Let me know when you pass, and I'll see what I can do. When will
you take the quals?
∂25-Jan-89 1508 JMC
To: MPS
I'm coming to mjh now.
∂25-Jan-89 2156 JMC re: quals
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Jan-89 17:59-PT.]
I'm optimistic too, assuming they don't include a section on spelling.
Anyway I'll start thinking about money for a keyboard project. Do
you have any ideas about how much it would cost. I'll ask Les Earnest
who might know.
∂25-Jan-89 2200 JMC re: earplugs
To: CLT
∂25-Jan-89 1721 @score.stanford.edu:croft@csli.Stanford.EDU re: earplugs
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jan 89 17:20:57 PST
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:18:09 PST
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 25 Jan 89 17:18:01-PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA23313; Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:17:55 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:17:55 PST
From: croft@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Croft)
Message-Id: <8901260117.AA23313@csli.Stanford.EDU>
To: golding@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: earplugs
Cc: croft@csli.stanford.edu, su-etc@csli.stanford.edu
Andy, hmm, I'm the same way, I can't work very well with radios
playing and/or conversations going on in the backround. But I've
also found earplugs invaluable when I have to spend a couple hours
in a noisy airport lounge or driving long distances in my old
VW rabbit.
I've found two manufacturers of excellent plugs, they are 1000 times
better than the wax type. And have much better dampening
characteristics than the earmuff style device. These are made of a
nifty foam material. You roll them up into a small cylinder, insert
them, and they expand to fill the exact dimensions of your ear.
The names for these are:
Deci-damps.
and EAR-plugs.
They are really almost identical: EAR-plugs are yellow and come in a
small reusable folding paper carrying case. Deci-damps are white and
come in a plain cellophane little bag.
Unfortunately the foam material they are made out of usually is only
good for a dozen or so uses, before the sound dampening ability
is degraded (by the foam no longer expanding optimally.)
So I buy em by the box (~50 or 100 pair) from a 'safety equipment'
supply company in Santa Clara. The cost is then like 30 cents a pair.
However you can sometimes find them in drugstores (I think I saw them
at Country Sun), but they usually up the price to one or two dollars per
pair(!)
∂26-Jan-89 0958 JMC re: spelling
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jan-89 08:41-PT.]
How about 1030am or 2pm tomorrow? If we could go see the DEC keyboard
or you could bring one it would be good.
∂26-Jan-89 1001 JMC
To: CLT
etc.tex[bb,doc]/71p contains a summary about ear plugs.
∂26-Jan-89 1027 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I will see Gorin tomorrow at 1:30.
∂26-Jan-89 1030 JMC re: times
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jan-89 10:27-PT.]
Sorry, 2pm is now tight. How about 2:30? I just arranged to visit
Ralph Gorin tomorrow to complain and find out about the humor.
censorship.
∂26-Jan-89 1153 JMC re: cs 323 lecture this afternoon
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 26 Jan 1989 11:13:14 PST.]
No problem with today.
∂26-Jan-89 1216 Mailer El Salvador
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
What follows is a January 26 New York Times Editorial. I am
curious to know whether opponents of U.S. policy consider it
a fair statement of the situation.
New Light for the Salvador Tunnel
El Salvador's guerrillas welcomed Ronald Reagan's
Administration with an unsuccesful but bloody "final
offensive". Now they greet George Bush by proposing to
take part in democratic elections this year. It's an abrupt
change, subject to many questions. Yet Washington, which
has long declared guerrilla rejectionism to be El Salvador's
central political problem, can only welcome this apparent
opening toward a settlement.
The guerrilla proposal is contingent on posponement
of the presidential electin from March until September. The
loudest objections come from Arena, the far right party
favored to win the March vote. Given Arena's past tolerance
of death squads, this new fervor for the rule of law rings
hollow.
Delay could benefit Presiden Jose Napoleon Duarte's
Christian Democrats, as well as the Democratic Convergence
coalition allied with the guerrillas. If postponement offers
a real hope of peace, the deal deserves serious consideration.
It's worth recalling that the Reagan Administration asked
Nicaragua to postpone its 1984 presidential vote to give the
democratic opposition a fairer chance, an offer the
Sandinistas spurned.
But the legal obstacles are less formidable than the
political. The guerrillas are burdened by a history of
violence, fanaticism and obfuscation. Their past strategy
has been to demand power first, voting later; their recent
tactic of murdering elected mayors hardly inspires trust.
They now say that, if given security assurances,
they will urge a vote for the Democratic Convergence and
won't disrupt the election. Wil they then agree to a cease
fire until September? Wil they accept the election verdict
and lay down their arms, whoever wins? And on the other side,
is their a way to overcome the barbarous reflexes of the
far right?
A decade of war costing 60,000 lives has chastened
and wearied El Salvador. After $3 billion in U.S. aid the
military is no nearer to victory, nor are the guerrillas.
Salvation for this battered nation can only come from within.
The guerrilla offer warrants a sober and constructive
response.
∂26-Jan-89 1310 JMC meeting on contexts alias situations
To: barwise@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, etch@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
How about next Wednesday? Any time but evening
would do for us. I would like to suggest two
topics. (1) We would like to learn more about
what you have done with your treatment. (2) Discuss
tradeoffs between specificity in the context
and specificity in the propositions or facts
asserted in the context. This might include
funntions that make more specific contexts out
of a given context and the same for facts.
∂26-Jan-89 1311 JMC
To: cc@CCRMA-F4
Sorry. ,cc was misprinted for /cc
∂26-Jan-89 1314 JMC re: times
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jan-89 13:08-PT.]
Confirmed. I'm holding off comment till after my meeting with Ralph
with the idea that the meeting will be more informative if I haven't
criticized him yet.
∂26-Jan-89 1614 JMC re: meeting on contexts alias situations
To: barwise@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
CC: etch@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from barwise@russell.Stanford.EDU sent Thu, 26 Jan 89 14:48:17 PST.]
OK, 2:45 it is. Poor CC is a musician to whom I have already apologized.
I misprinted ,cc instead of /cc. The latter would have designated VAL
to receive a copy of the message. The former turned poor CC into a
recipient. Anyway on more copies to CC.
∂26-Jan-89 1632 JMC American Mercury
To: library@Score.Stanford.EDU
Can you find out for me whether the American Mercury Magazine ceased
publication in 1980 or whether Stanford just stopped subscribing to it?
∂26-Jan-89 1635 JMC
To: VAL
I'm done with Socrates.
∂26-Jan-89 1816 JMC re: American Mercury
To: LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 26 Jan 89 17:51:31-PST.]
Thanks much. The reason I asked is that when I saw a couple issues
in the 1970s, it had become an exceedingly objectionable publication,
full of antisemitism and other kinds of paranoia. Yet Stanford
continued its subscription until the magazine folded. I am going
to maintain that Stanford's policy toward electronic newsgroups
should be modeled on its library policy, i.e. not based on whether
the content is objectionable.
∂26-Jan-89 1826 Mailer re: censoring the KKK
To: byrd@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from byrd@sumex-aim.stanford.edu sent Thu, 26 Jan 1989 17:09:14 PST.]
I believe that there were quite a few cases in which a Southern
city attempted to abandon public support of a facility
when forced by court order to allow blacks to use it. I believe
the courts ruled that they could not abandon a facility if the
purpose of doing so was to prevent blacks from using it.
The ACLU will surely cite these cases. However, I do not regard
the result as certain. Many good guys including judges do not
regard precedents restricting the actions of bad guys as applying
to their fellow good guys.
∂26-Jan-89 1952 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
To: arean@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 27 Jan 89 02:14:00 GMT.]
Your suggestion is good, but it doesn't constitute civil
disobedience. Please don't publicize my message to you before
Monday.
∂26-Jan-89 2135 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
To: arean@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 26 Jan 1989 21:31:03 PST.]
Even though my cover is partially blown by the announcemnt that
rec.humor.funny is on gang-of-four. Thanks for the suggestion.
∂26-Jan-89 2350 JMC re: UC Santa Barbara
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jan-89 17:23-PT.]
Call first, and see if they'll pay for a visit. I suspect that if
you go there, you will be the leading figure in AI. Does the AAAI
directory have a list indexed by institutions.
∂26-Jan-89 2351 JMC
To: MPS
RSVP that I'll come to Hoover Saturday lunch.
∂26-Jan-89 2353 JMC re: CIE Conference
To: wang@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 25 Jan 89 18:07:44 PST.]
Unfortunately, I have another meeting that day, and so I will come shortly
before my talk. I will try to stay to dinner. I will not have a guest.
∂27-Jan-89 0116 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
query[w89,jmc] is preliminary. Suggestions solicited.
∂27-Jan-89 0134 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:28-PT.]
You may recall that many years ago a policy was stated that Stanford
computers were only to be used for Stanford business. This policy
was ignored by everyone including ourselves. Doubtless it has been
forgotten, since the officials of that time are long gone, and the
use of computers has become common. Asking general questions is
likely produce stupid answers, since the generality of the question
leads to the illusion that it can be answered without knowing
specific facts.
∂27-Jan-89 0151 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
To: LES
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:42-PT.]
I have little hope that they will back down without an
organized protest. I have in mind the following and
am willing to consider additional possibilities.
1. A public meeting to consider how to protest.
2. A demonstration with signs.
3. A press conference.
4. An electronic mailing to all faculty with electronic addresses.
Remark: I would like to get people to start calling the list
(containing one item at present) the Index after the Catholic
Church's Index Liber Prohibitorum. If we can get the name in
print before they do, ours will dominate.
∂27-Jan-89 0155 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
To: RDZ@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 27 Jan 89 01:48:35-PST.]
I'll ask that. It suggests that the mattter might have arisen
through some inter-university channel, i.e. from Waterloo big shots
to Stanford big shots.
∂27-Jan-89 0156 JMC
To: RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂27-Jan-89 0151 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
To: LES
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 27-Jan-89 01:42-PT.]
I have little hope that they will back down without an
organized protest. I have in mind the following and
am willing to consider additional possibilities.
1. A public meeting to consider how to protest.
2. A demonstration with signs.
3. A press conference.
4. An electronic mailing to all faculty with electronic addresses.
Remark: I would like to get people to start calling the list
(containing one item at present) the Index after the Catholic
Church's Index Liber Prohibitorum. If we can get the name in
print before they do, ours will dominate.
∂27-Jan-89 0216 JMC reply to message
To: RDZ@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 27 Jan 89 02:01:40-PST.]
We'd certainly want to include them in a press conference. Do you
remember what official said it and what else he said?
∂27-Jan-89 0217 JMC re: Queries for Gorin
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 27-Jan-89 02:11-PT.]
I agree.
∂27-Jan-89 0917 JMC
To: CLT
Gary doesn't even look at American cars.
∂27-Jan-89 1053 JMC possible CS course to build simulation environment
To: VAL
∂27-Jan-89 1038 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU possible CS course to build simulation environment
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Jan 89 10:38:27 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA16232; Fri, 27 Jan 89 10:36:50 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 10:36:50 -0800
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901271836.AA16232@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: bhayes-roth@sumex, buckley@score, de2smith@score, fertig@score,
friedland@sumex, genesereth@score, ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@sail, latombe@coyote, lenat@mcc.com, nilsson@score, shoham@score
Subject: possible CS course to build simulation environment
Hi Folks:
David Smith and I are hoping to organize a group of students next
quarter with the aim of developing a simulation environment that could
be used to test architectures for intelligent agents. In addition to
constructing a simulated environment and an interface to it, we would
also like to see one or more agents constructed that function in this
domain by "cheating" (in other words, they might move from A to B by
directly inverting the procedure that executes the movement). These
cheating agents would be modular, so that a researcher who had
developed (for example) a planner could test that planner by using it
to replace the planning component in one of the cheating agents, and
seeing how much the agent's performance was degraded.
The purpose of this message is to solicit your opinions on the
following:
(1) Are there any obvious organizational issues that we have missed?
Dave and I are expecting to run the project as a spring-quarter
course, open to Master's and Ph.D. students. We expect that a Ph.D.
student would be able to fulfill his programming project requirement
by taking the course.
(2) What do you think of this idea? Would you be interested in being
involved? In providing support, perhaps in the form of equipment?
(Nils has suggested that most of the work be done on Polya (presumably
in Common Lisp), with some graphical interface stuff done on his
Symbolics machines.)
(3) What thoughts do you have about the environment that should be
simulated? Dave and I have only two restrictions on it:
(a) It should be rich. The problems encountered by the agent should
be more interesting than those typically investigated by planning and
other systems.
(b) It should be a domain in which the students are already experts.
We do not want them to spend their time understanding a new domain,
but developing a simulation.
So far, the possible domains that we've come up with are (1) a
kitchen, and (2) robots delivering mail in MJH -- perhaps some sort of
simulated world for Jean-Claude's gophers. The first seems a bit
richer at this point.
Matt Ginsberg
∂27-Jan-89 1054 JMC Index prohibitorum
To: ginsberg@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Are you interested in helping organize a protest against
the prohibition of humor.rec.funny. I have in mind a
humorous protest, and the talents of a playwright might
be required.
∂27-Jan-89 1117 JMC
To: ginsberg@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Please phone 3-4430. I'll be here till 1150.
∂27-Jan-89 1136 JMC Index liber prohibitorum
To: ramsey@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
It will probably be appropriate to organize a protest against
the AIR decision. I'll know more after my meeting with Gorin
this afternoon. My idea is that since the subject is humor,
the protest should be humorous. I noticed your posting, and
I wonder if you would be interested in helping plan. There
will be some discussion of the matter at the CSD TGIF today.
∂27-Jan-89 1509 JMC re: Ortega quotes
To: andy@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:09:07 -0800.]
I saw "go to Miami to seek democracy" before though not the rest of it.
Maybe it's one of Ortega's favorite phrases.
I suppose the Boston Globe would be accurate in quoting the Sandinista
newspaper.
∂27-Jan-89 1806 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
To: jacobs@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from jacobs@polya.stanford.edu sent 28 Jan 89 01:47:59 GMT.]
Stanford has a legal right to do as it pleases with its resources.
For example, it has a legal right to appoint a committee with
representation from various ethnic groups and causes, e.g. feminism
and gay rights, and give this committee the power to remove from
the Stanford library any books the committee finds offensive. Doing
so would expose Stanford to criticism, although if the trend toward
censoriousnes and censorship continues, this might be possible in
the not too distant future.
For this reason the best defense of newsgroup freedom is to make the
analogy with the library. Like keeping a book in the library or
subscribing to a magazine, keeping a newsgroup costs resources.
As with a single book, the cost is rather trivial. However, there
is a long tradition of resisting the purge of libraries. So far
as I am aware there have been no successful attempts to purge
university libraries of anything. In the 1950s, however, there
were occasional successful right wing attempts to purge books
from school libraries and somewhat more successful recent left wing
attempts to purge school libraries.
∂27-Jan-89 1831 JMC
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
The Gorin file is gorin[w89,jmc].
∂27-Jan-89 2008 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
To: peyton@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from peyton@polya.stanford.edu sent Fri, 27 Jan 1989 19:45:10 PST.]
For the first time in recent memory, I find myself in agreement
with Liam Peyton.
∂27-Jan-89 2122 JMC re: More Account Information
To: BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 27 Jan 89 14:25:27-PST.]
I checked and it is indeed what is needed.
∂28-Jan-89 0858 JMC
To: nilsson@TENAYA.Stanford.EDU
%csd[w89,jmc] Draft csd statement
Computer scientists have been involved in making information
resources widely available since the 1960s. Such resources are
analogous to libraries. The newsgroups are available on various
networks are the computer analog of magazines and partial
prototypes of future universal computer libraries. These
libraries will make available the information resources of the
whole world to anyone's terminal or personal computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, the Computer Science
Department has decided not to censor the presence of newsgroups
in the Department's computers.
∂28-Jan-89 1107 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
To: jacobs@POLYA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from jacobs@polya.stanford.edu sent 28 Jan 89 17:31:00 GMT.]
I want to take issue with two points of Joseph Jacob's many, noting
that we seem to be in agreement as to what should actually be done
in the rec.humor.funny case.
1. He compares a university to a business corporation, noting that
while the board of directors isn't the corporation, it has full authority.
The traditional status in universities is different. Authority
is divided. The faculty determines curriculum and awards
degrees. Professors and students have what is called academic
freedom. Professors have tenure, and this tenure is granted
according to certain procedures which are mainly traditional but
which are regulated by the trustees and administration of the
university. Legally a university is a corporation run by its
board of trustees that could change all these traditions in a
single meeting. However, the trustees mostly favor these
traditions and are also convinced that trying to change this
situation would lead to trouble, e.g. the best professors would
go elsewhere and the institution would become less attractive to
students.
For this reason administrations don't always get their way, and
Liam Peyton is basically right.
2. The analogy to not buying a book is not right either. The book
is already in the library, so to speak. People keep checking it out.
The University never specifically allocated a nickel to acquiring
newsgroups. What cost money was implementing Gorin's and Sacks's
censorship.
∂28-Jan-89 1147 JMC
To: MPS
styopi.2
∂28-Jan-89 1218 JMC re: unofficial tally of opinions re rec.humor.funny
To: geddis@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent 28 Jan 89 19:58:54 GMT.]
rec.humor.funny is available by ftp from gang-of-four. One step before
any kind of civil disobedience is a rally of some kind. However, when
I discussed this possibility after tgif yesterday, the sentiment was
unanimous in favor of a letter writing campaign. If you are interested
in taking part in something more dramatic, let me know.
∂28-Jan-89 1220 JMC rec.humor.funny
To: nilsson@TENAYA.Stanford.EDU
I have not yet had a chance to discuss the issue with other faculty.
Would you be interested in joining me in posting the following as
a recommended csd faculty statement. It would be accompanied by
an account of what has happened. There will be a story on the
subject in the Daily Monday.
%csd[w89,jmc] Draft csd statement
Computer scientists have been involved in making information
resources widely available since the 1960s. Such resources are
analogous to libraries. The newsgroups are available on various
networks are the computer analog of magazines and partial
prototypes of future universal computer libraries. These
libraries will make available the information resources of the
whole world to anyone's terminal or personal computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, the Computer Science
Department has decided not to censor the presence of newsgroups
in the Department's computers.
∂28-Jan-89 1337 JMC
To: MPS
daily.16
∂28-Jan-89 1411 JMC
To: VAL
I think regarding contexts as theories will be too weak.
∂28-Jan-89 2307 Mailer re: Rec.humour.funny
To: morgan@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from morgan@jessica.stanford.edu sent 29 Jan 89 00:29:54 GMT.]
1. One of the advantages of having Ed Meese on Campus is that if
one wants his opinion on some subject, one can ask. As it
happens, I mentioned the humor.rec.funny matter in his presence,
just before I was introduced to him, but I am rather sure that he
didn't have a chance to form an opinon, since there wasn't time
to explain what a newsgroup is. If you like, you can look him
up, or else I might try to ask him for you. No purely rhetorical
questions, please.
2. It is known how the issue arose, and much of it is in bboard
messages. I also have copies of some messages exchanged among
the bureaucrats, emailed to me by one of them in response to
my inquiry. I don't want to put them on the bboard, but
they can be summarized. Curiously, there was no complaint at
Stanford. Someone in SDC mentioned the flap, more or less as
gossip, then it rattled around the SDC and AIR bureaucracy
and the upper levels of Stanford Administration since early
December. The decision to censor was made without troubling
the general Stanford community. All this was learned, simply
by asking Ralph Gorin.
3. The original complaint came from an M.I.T. graduate student in
civil engineering named Jonathan Richmond and was about the
following ethnic joke. ``A Jew and a Scotsman were having
dinner. At the end the Scotsman was heard to say, `I'll pay.'
Next day a newspaper headline said, `Jewish ventriloquist
murdered'''. I have told the joke to several Jews and none was
offended. Could someone try telling the joke to Scots to see if
any are offended? Hard to say whether Richmond counts as a
radical or not. I think his offense extended to all jokes
with a racial or ethnic element, so I suppose he is. I think
he's still at M.I.T., so you can call him and ask.
There's more information in earlier su-etc issues. I don't
quite share your optimism, but it's worth a try.
∂29-Jan-89 1227 JMC re: Request to see Don Kennedy
To: HK.GRH@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 10:47:10 PST.]
Thanks for your note. Some of the action on the newsgroup censorship
issue will occur next week, so I'll be back in touch if I want to
make an appointment. Does electronic mail to him work?
∂29-Jan-89 1431 JMC Protesting the censorship of a newsgroup
To: faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Recently AIR and SDC have censored the newsgroup rec.humor.funny.
This has resulted in about 40 messages in su-etc objecting to the
purge and no messages in its favor. There follows a draft
statement on the issue. Individual "signatures" will be
solicited for a final version.
rec.humor.funny is still available on Polya and other computers
not under the control of AIR and SDC. It has been added to
gang-of-four. The following messages include Ralph Gorin's purge
memo, a general exposition of the situation including
recommendations.
I hope the Department will eventually make an explicit
decision not to censor csd-cf and publicize the decision.
∂29-Jan-89 1431 Mailer rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Statement of protest about the AIR purge of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups are
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂29-Jan-89 1436 JMC rec.humor.funny
To: faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Here is the Gorin and Sack message
To the Stanford community,
In Information Resources, we have been confronted with the existence
of a Usenet (Unix users') bulletin board, rec.humor.funny, that
contains jokes including, among others, jokes based on racial, ethnic,
sexual, religious, and other stereotypes. Jokes based on such
stereotypes perpetuate racism, sexism, and intolerance; they undermine
an important University purpose: our collective search for a better
way, for a truly pluralistic community in which every person is
acknowledged an individual, not a caricature.
We have weighed our love of freedom of expression and the free
exchange of ideas in contrast to our respect for the dignity and
rights of every individual. In this situation we find: this bulletin
board does not serve a University educational purpose; its content is
offensive; it does not, in itself, provide a forum for the examination
and discussion of intolerance, an exchange of views, or the expression
of views of the members of the University community.
Stanford University has no commitment to maintain our computing
facilities as a generalized forum for outsiders' indiscriminate
purposes. We are sensitive to the pain caused by racial, religious,
and sexual affronts. For these reasons, we have decided not to have
that bulletin board file on the computers operated by Information
Resources.
We endorse the continued use of our local, unmoderated computer
bulletin boards by members of the University community for the
discussion of ideas, including those that are unpopular. In such a
forum, ideas are subject to the thoughtful judgement of others.
Ralph Gorin, Director John Sack, Director
Academic Information Resources Stanford Data Center
-------
∂29-Jan-89 1445 Mailer Censoring rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, faculty@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
This is an explanation for people not familiar with newsgroups.
To understand the issue, you have to know something
about network newsgroups.
1. There are about 500 national ``newsgroups'' coming
into the Computer Science Department's VAX computer named Polya.
You may think of them as magazines to which the library aspect of
Polya subscribes, but they are all free. Many Stanford computers
receive about the same list.
2. A user of one of these computers can give the command
rn, and the computer will show him the first new item in the first
newsgroup to which he personally has ``subscribed''. He can read
items or skip them or move on to the next newgroup. One can spend
a lot of time at this. One can add or remove newsgroups from one's
personal list.
3. One can also send items to a newsgroup by electronic mail.
4. There are two kinds of newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
Electronic mail received by the computer program maintaining an
unmoderated newsgroup automatically remails it to all the subscribers.
Moderated newsgroups have human editors that select what will be
included. Both kinds flourish.
5. Because some of the newsgroups are received in batches,
it is doubtful that every newsgroup received on Stanford computers
has been selected by anybody. Maybe some of them are not read
by anybody.
6. The cost of receiving newsgroups is very low. The installation
sets a policy on how long the items are kept, and this is implemented
by a program that usually is automatically activated nightly.
7. The subjects of newsgroups include the following.
a. Technical discussions of various scientific and engineering and
philosophical topics.
b. Political and social controversy.
c. Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
drugs.
d. Material concerning users of particular kinds of computer and
particular programming languages.
e. Recipes and jokes.
f. Things for sale. Product announcements.
\noindent THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
Brad Templeton, who runs a small company in Waterloo, Canada
has operated as a hobby a moderated newsgroup for jokes called
rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for humorousness and
explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as a criterion.
Jokes that might be considered offensiveness are encrypted in
the C13 cipher, i.e. letters are displaced by 13 in the alphabet.
If a joke is classified as potentially offensive, the reader
can skip it without decrypting it. Templeton also maintains the
newsgroup rec.humor.d that anyone can use to comment on his selection
policy.
Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate student in civil
engineering. The attack first appeared in some other newsgroups,
and later in the newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered
by the following joke.
A Jew and a Scotsman had dinner in a restaurant. At the end, the
Scotsman was heard to say, ``I'll pay''. The next day there was
a newspaper headline, ``Jewish ventriloquist murdered''.
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended, but I haven't
had a chance to try Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally encrypt,
but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't satisfy his
critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes rec.humor.funny
through the University of Waterloo computer and the University only
receives G-rated jokes.
\noindent THE STANFORD FLAP
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sacks, apparently just as an item of gossip,
making no suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford
people from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control including
those operated by various research groups in the Engineering School,
the Computer Science Department and the Center for Studies in Language
and Information and the Music Department. None of these other
organizations have taken any action or seem inclined to do so as yet.
rec.humor.funny has been added to the gang-of-four computer operated
by the Qlisp research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A few number of other newsgroups are in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
man days of programmer time by people who have no personal taste
for this particular job. It may not have been entirely successful
for technical reasons. The costs are in purging the library---not in
maintaining it.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions.
\noindent OPINION
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. I believe they are one step
towards universal access through everyone's computer terminal to
the whole of world literature. AIR and SDC setting up an index
of prohibited newsgroups is in the same tradition as the Pope's
15th century Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the part of the tradition of academic
freedom in case of newsgroups.
Should Stanford not persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of
a reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this.
One might regard this as another sign of a more general
censorious trend, but maybe it won't get worse.
∂29-Jan-89 1450 Mailer rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Two messages ago from me was a draft statement of protest
to go to Gorin and Sack with copies to higher officials.
After I receive comments, there will be a final version.
∂29-Jan-89 1551 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: philf@LINDY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:36:23 PST.]
From the beginning it was suspected that the decision came from
higher up, and when I visited Ralph Gorin, he indicated this,
although he didn't say it. Since Kennedy and Street didn't put
their names on the memo, I assume they wanted the good soldiers
to take responsibility for it. However, this has the side-effect
that as many other organizations as possible that operate
computers can and should announce decisions not to censor without
apparent conflict with Kennedy. For this reason, we are going
along with the masquerade for the present.
I have requested an appointment with Kennedy, but he won't be
available until next week.
∂29-Jan-89 1600 JMC re: [Alvaro del Val <delval@Portia.stanford.edu> : Assig. #1 ]
To: alex@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 1989 15:51:37 PST.]
Serves me right for giving a problem orally. I'll have to look at
the monkey and banana formalism again to see what I found wrong with
it. The basic problem is that it doesn't permit substitution from
statements about actions in general, but I think I showed how to
fix that and then asked for something more. Why don't you listen
to the tape of the lecture and call me at home tonight (up to midnight)
857-0672. I'm in my office 3-4430 now.
∂29-Jan-89 1620 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: stantz@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:58:40 PST.]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do it.
∂29-Jan-89 1621 JMC
To: jmc@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
foo
∂29-Jan-89 1633 Mailer rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Those who wish to sign the protest should mail to jmc@gang-of-four.
They won't be forwarded, and I'll pick them up at the end of the week.
∂29-Jan-89 2115 JMC re: What is BOAC?
To: Z.Zenon@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 29 Jan 89 20:45:41-PST.]
British Overseas Airline Corporation is the corporate ancestor
of British Airways.
∂29-Jan-89 2138 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
My guess is they'll see it as a censorship cause, but we'll see.
∂29-Jan-89 2238 JMC re: Templeton called
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:37:44 PST.]
I think Templeton's advice is bad in our situation and may have
been bad in his own. He may have had no choice for reasons I
don't fully understand. We can hit them harder with charges of
censorship and stupidity than they can hit us with charges of
racism.
∂29-Jan-89 2321 JMC re: Residual Context Comments
To: thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 28 Jan 1989 10:13:10 EST.]
I adopted all your minor comments from both messages. Your (1)
is too strong, i.e. your conjecture is correct. I need to
think more about how to clarify this.
∂29-Jan-89 2346 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
To: ammon@Polya.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from ammon@polya.stanford.edu sent 30 Jan 89 07:11:09 GMT.]
There was no pressure on Stanford from outside or inside - except
within the Administration. It was a case of pre-emptive surrender.
∂30-Jan-89 0007 JMC
To: MPS
How are we doing on proofreading?
∂30-Jan-89 0014 JMC
To: ARK
Comments on censorship?
∂30-Jan-89 0019 JMC re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
To: crew@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 21:03:52 -0800.]
I stand corrected on rec.humor.d. Templeton's statement of philosophy
was posted on su-etc.
∂30-Jan-89 0023 JMC re: University's legal rights
To: cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 18:43:24 PST.]
I don't know, unless he has a contract. The other possibility is
that there may be an analog to the California doctrine of
"wrongful termination" that was created by the Rose Bird
Court and which has been considerably limited since her
ouster. Also when a university creates formal procedures
for termination, then it is sometimes claimed that they
have undertaken a legal obligation to follow them, and
this can be second guessed by a court.
∂30-Jan-89 0038 JMC re: Has your son Simon changed his name to Barry?
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST.]
∂29-Jan-89 1531 bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU Scots
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jan 89 15:31:26 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA08742; Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:30:46 -0800
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:30:46 -0800
From: Barry Hayes <bhayes@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8901292330.AA08742@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Scots
I sent the joke to some friends of mine in Scotland. I may have
even changed it to "two scots" rather than a Jew and a Scot. I
send every Scots joke I hear to these folks, and have heard nothing
negative from them. Just so's you know...
-b
∂30-Jan-89 0039 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST.]
Also, is Stanford a place where one can eat haggis at all, even furtively?
∂30-Jan-89 0044 JMC re: Your uncle Pat
To: bhayes@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 29 Jan 89 15:30:46 -0800.]
∂30-Jan-89 0031 Mailer rec.humor.funny
Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jan 89 00:31:44 PST
Received: by arisia.Xerox.COM
(5.59++/IDA-1.2.6) id AA27708; Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:29:46 PST
From: Pat Hayes <hayes@arisia.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <8901300829.AA27708@arisia.Xerox.COM>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 29 Jan 89 14:31 PST <LhraH@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: rec.humor.funny
Dear John
I think that your not having tried out the "joke" on a Scot is
revealing. After all, it makes no attack on the character of the
Jewish gentlemen: he indulges, ironically, in a harmless prank which
results in his being promptly murdered by the Scot, motivated
presumably by Scottish meanness, coldbloodedness and temper. This is
just the sort of dangerous stereotyping which Gorin and Sack complain
of, and is liable to lead to the sort of anti-Scottish feeling which
gave rise to Culloden. AS someone who numbers many Scots among his
friends, and lived there for several years, I think I can say that any
true Scottish Nationalist would find this attempt at humor quite
unacceptable in any civilised publication. If Stanford is to be a
place where one can eat haggis proudly, then we must take this sort of
neo-English hatred seriously.
Pat Hayes
∂30-Jan-89 0107 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 00:54:58 PST.]
Your message has caused me to examine my conscience. Perhaps repeating
the joke has caused ill-feelings between Jews and Scots. Stanford
needs to hold a reconciliation meeting between Jews and Scots -
with appropriate speeches, haggis and gefillte fish. All we
have to do is get the Scots to donate the whiskey.
∂30-Jan-89 0127 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Is Les correct that rec.humor.funny was on gang-of-four all along?
∂30-Jan-89 0811 JMC re: Censoring rec.humor.funny
To: holstege@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 06:30:42 -0800.]
I'll fix the typos.
∂30-Jan-89 1117 Mailer misquote
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
A search for the word MOTIVATING in su-etc revealed that today's
Daily's supposed quote from me was from Joseph Jacobs, a PhD
student in computer science. That isn't the only incompetence
shown by the Stanford Daily in this story. Since I attempted to
distinguish between what the University has a legal right to do
and what the traditions of academic freedom require, I lost badly
by this.
∂30-Jan-89 1122 JMC misattribution
To: jacobs@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
A search for the word MOTIVATION in su-etc shows that the
quote attributed to me was actually from you. I already
complained to the Daily about it. The reporter evidently
read etc incompetently. I would be grateful if you would
also phone the Daily and complain. That's 3-4632.
∂30-Jan-89 1441 JMC Censoring rec.humor.funny
To: katz@Polya.Stanford.EDU
This is an explanation for people not familiar with newsgroups.
To understand the issue, you have to know something
about network newsgroups.
1. There are about 500 national ``newsgroups'' coming
into the Computer Science Department's VAX computer named Polya.
You may think of them as magazines to which the library aspect of
Polya subscribes, but they are all free. Many Stanford computers
receive about the same list.
2. A user of one of these computers can give the command
rn, and the computer will show him the first new item in the first
newsgroup to which he personally has ``subscribed''. He can read
items or skip them or move on to the next newgroup. One can spend
a lot of time at this. One can add or remove newsgroups from one's
personal list.
3. One can also send items to a newsgroup by electronic mail.
4. There are two kinds of newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
Electronic mail received by the computer program maintaining an
unmoderated newsgroup automatically remails it to all the subscribers.
Moderated newsgroups have human editors that select what will be
included. Both kinds flourish.
5. Because some of the newsgroups are received in batches,
it is doubtful that every newsgroup received on Stanford computers
has been selected by anybody. Maybe some of them are not read
by anybody.
6. The cost of receiving newsgroups is very low. The installation
sets a policy on how long the items are kept, and this is implemented
by a program that usually is automatically activated nightly.
7. The subjects of newsgroups include the following.
a. Technical discussions of various scientific and engineering and
philosophical topics.
b. Political and social controversy.
c. Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
drugs.
d. Material concerning users of particular kinds of computer and
particular programming languages.
e. Recipes and jokes.
f. Things for sale. Product announcements.
\noindent THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
Brad Templeton, who runs a small company in Waterloo, Canada
has operated as a hobby a moderated newsgroup for jokes called
rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for humorousness and
explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as a criterion.
Jokes that might be considered offensiveness are encrypted in
the C13 cipher, i.e. letters are displaced by 13 in the alphabet.
If a joke is classified as potentially offensive, the reader
can skip it without decrypting it. Templeton also maintains the
newsgroup rec.humor.d that anyone can use to comment on his selection
policy.
Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate student in civil
engineering. The attack first appeared in some other newsgroups,
and later in the newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered
by the following joke.
A Jew and a Scotsman had dinner in a restaurant. At the end, the
Scotsman was heard to say, ``I'll pay''. The next day there was
a newspaper headline, ``Jewish ventriloquist murdered''.
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended, but I haven't
had a chance to try Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally encrypt,
but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't satisfy his
critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes rec.humor.funny
through the University of Waterloo computer and the University only
receives G-rated jokes.
\noindent THE STANFORD FLAP
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sacks, apparently just as an item of gossip,
making no suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford
people from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control including
those operated by various research groups in the Engineering School,
the Computer Science Department and the Center for Studies in Language
and Information and the Music Department. None of these other
organizations have taken any action or seem inclined to do so as yet.
rec.humor.funny has been added to the gang-of-four computer operated
by the Qlisp research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A number of other newsgroups are often in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
man days of programmer time by people who have no personal taste
for this particular job. It may not have been entirely successful
for technical reasons. The costs are in purging the library---not in
maintaining it.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions.
\noindent OPINION
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. I believe they are one step
towards universal access through everyone's computer terminal to
the whole of world literature. AIR and SDC setting up an index
of prohibited newsgroups is in the same tradition as the Pope's
1599 Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the part of the tradition of academic
freedom in case of newsgroups.
Should Stanford persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of
a reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this.
One might regard this as another sign of a more general
censorious trend, but maybe it won't get worse.
∂30-Jan-89 1456 JMC Stanford Daily wrong quotation
To: "@CORREC.LIS[W89,JMC]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I wasn't planning to send you gentlemen a message until
later in the week about the censorship of rec.humor.funny. I
wanted to get more reactions from faculty and students first.
However, today's Stanford Daily quotes me wrongly. What they
quote me directly as saying was copied from the electronic
bulletin board su-etc. However, the Daily reporter blundered in
reading the computer bulletin board.
The first paragraph was from a computer science graduate student
Liam Peyton and the second was from another CS grad student
Joseph Jacobs. He also misquoted me as stating CS Department
policy. The Department hasn't met on the matter. I acted only
with respect to my own research computer, gang-of-four. Besides
that he gives a wrong view of the technology involved and the
phenomenon of newsgroups.
I did write the following statement and post it on the su-etc
electronic bulletin board. It has about 35 signatures
so far.
Besides the statement I will send to the same list a longer
explanation of the affair and of the technology.
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂30-Jan-89 1459 JMC Censoring rec.humor.funny
To: "@CORREC.LIS[W89,JMC]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
This is an explanation for people not familiar with newsgroups.
To understand the issue, you have to know something
about network newsgroups.
1. There are about 500 national ``newsgroups'' coming
into the Computer Science Department's VAX computer named Polya.
You may think of them as magazines to which the library aspect of
Polya subscribes, but they are all free. Many Stanford computers
receive about the same list.
2. A user of one of these computers can give the command
rn, and the computer will show him the first new item in the first
newsgroup to which he personally has ``subscribed''. He can read
items or skip them or move on to the next newgroup. One can spend
a lot of time at this. One can add or remove newsgroups from one's
personal list.
3. One can also send items to a newsgroup by electronic mail.
4. There are two kinds of newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
Electronic mail received by the computer program maintaining an
unmoderated newsgroup automatically remails it to all the subscribers.
Moderated newsgroups have human editors that select what will be
included. Both kinds flourish.
5. Because some of the newsgroups are received in batches,
it is doubtful that every newsgroup received on Stanford computers
has been selected by anybody. Maybe some of them are not read
by anybody.
6. The cost of receiving newsgroups is very low. The installation
sets a policy on how long the items are kept, and this is implemented
by a program that usually is automatically activated nightly.
7. The subjects of newsgroups include the following.
a. Technical discussions of various scientific and engineering and
philosophical topics.
b. Political and social controversy.
c. Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
drugs.
d. Material concerning users of particular kinds of computer and
particular programming languages.
e. Recipes and jokes.
f. Things for sale. Product announcements.
\noindent THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
Brad Templeton, who runs a small company in Waterloo, Canada
has operated as a hobby a moderated newsgroup for jokes called
rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for humorousness and
explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as a criterion.
Jokes that might be considered offensiveness are encrypted in
the C13 cipher, i.e. letters are displaced by 13 in the alphabet.
If a joke is classified as potentially offensive, the reader
can skip it without decrypting it. Templeton also maintains the
newsgroup rec.humor.d that anyone can use to comment on his selection
policy.
Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate student in civil
engineering. The attack first appeared in some other newsgroups,
and later in the newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered
by the following joke.
A Jew and a Scotsman had dinner in a restaurant. At the end, the
Scotsman was heard to say, ``I'll pay''. The next day there was
a newspaper headline, ``Jewish ventriloquist murdered''.
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended, but I haven't
had a chance to try Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally encrypt,
but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't satisfy his
critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes rec.humor.funny
through the University of Waterloo computer and the University only
receives G-rated jokes.
\noindent THE STANFORD FLAP
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sacks, apparently just as an item of gossip,
making no suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford
people from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control including
those operated by various research groups in the Engineering School,
the Computer Science Department and the Center for Studies in Language
and Information and the Music Department. None of these other
organizations have taken any action or seem inclined to do so as yet.
rec.humor.funny has been added to the gang-of-four computer operated
by the Qlisp research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A number of other newsgroups are often in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
man days of programmer time by people who have no personal taste
for this particular job. It may not have been entirely successful
for technical reasons. The costs are in purging the library---not in
maintaining it.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions.
\noindent OPINION
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. I believe they are one step
towards universal access through everyone's computer terminal to
the whole of world literature. AIR and SDC setting up an index
of prohibited newsgroups is in the same tradition as the Pope's
1599 Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the part of the tradition of academic
freedom in case of newsgroups.
Should Stanford persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of
a reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this.
One might regard this as another sign of a more general
censorious trend, but maybe it won't get worse.
∂30-Jan-89 1620 Mailer re: Gorbachev
To: vera@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, lma@Polya.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from vera@portia.stanford.edu sent 30 Jan 89 20:27:41 GMT.]
That would have been Dimitri Manuilsky (not Mauilisky), who was a Comintern
official of that time. However, the "quote" seems vaguely anachronistic
for 1931. I doubt that "peace movement" was then in current use.
Also there were various "schools", but I doubt "Lenin School of Political
Warfare". Vladimir Lifschitz suggests that "Lenin School of Political
Warfare" may be a book title. Is there a better reference?
I agree that you can't make too much out of almost 60 year old harangues.
∂30-Jan-89 1658 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Tom Philp, 415 940-4464, San Jose Mercury News
∂30-Jan-89 2106 JMC re: libraries
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 30 Jan 89 19:49:44-PST.]
I'll try. What I read was in magazines that I didn't keep. I think
I'll have to do some telephoning.
∂30-Jan-89 2113 JMC re: funny business
To: rustcat@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from rustcat@csli.stanford.edu sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 19:16:45 PST.]
One becomes the moderator of a particular newsgroup by starting
it. As I understand it, Templeton started rec.humor.funny
because of dissatisfaction with rec.humor. If you are
sufficiently dissatisfied with Templeton's decisions, and this
dissatisfaction might arise by comparing it with the unmoderated
rec.humor and deciding that Templeton chose the wrong jokes, then
there is nothing to prevent you from starting another one.
That's what happens in the world of print publications.
∂30-Jan-89 2324 JMC re: funny business
To: rustcat@CNC-SUN.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 30 Jan 89 22:59:16 PST.]
Though a Canadian, Templeton uses the American spelling of humor.
Thanks for clarifying his relation to rec.humor. I can't say
that much light is shed, although it improves the analogy
with a printed publication.
∂31-Jan-89 0828 Mailer mechanic wanted
To: su-market@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Can anyone recommend a mechanic to check out an
American car being considered for purchase?
∂31-Jan-89 1130 Mailer re: Anti-abortion
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 31-Jan-89 10:59-PT.]
The anti-abortionists are not inconsistent and neither is the other side.
It is much more interesting and helpful in the two cases to reconstruct
the state of mind that makes the apparently inconsistent views consistent.
Whoever finds them inconsistent has probably done a bit of default reasoning
that his subject has not.
For example, the anti-abortionists distinguish between the innocent and
the guilty and regard unborn babies as innocent human life. The writer
of the remarks quoted by RPG doesn't make this distinction. If one wants
to discuss the issue seriously with the anti-abortionists, one has to
argue that calling themselves "pro-life" fails to make a distinction
between a fetus and a living human, considering life to begin at birth.
Of course, if you have to fit your argument on a bumper sticker, you
have to use nonmonotonic reasoning quite aggressively.
Use of the phrase "support for the war in Central America" seems to
one who supports the Contras as failing to make a distinction between
support for one side in a war and support for war. This is another
bit of default reasoning. A true enthusiast for war would donate
weapons to both sides. There don't seem to be any.
∂31-Jan-89 1212 JMC Car Mechanic Wanted
To: CLT
∂31-Jan-89 0919 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Car Mechanic Wanted
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 09:19:17 PST
Date: Tue 31 Jan 89 09:16:09-PST
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Car Mechanic Wanted
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12466970832.84.C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Wesley, at M&R automotive, Menlo Park; Bob Helming, at Helming's Auto Repair,
Palo Alto. They're my regular mechanics on a repeat basis (over 7 years, so
it's not as bad as it sounds). They have helped a housemate buy a used car.
(Subsequently lost due to a freeway driver watching planes land at SFO).
-------
∂31-Jan-89 1212 JMC Re: mechanic wanted
To: CLT
∂31-Jan-89 1210 Mailer Re: mechanic wanted
Received: from Hamlet.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jan 89 12:10:39 PST
Date: Tue 31 Jan 89 12:07:29-PST
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: mechanic wanted
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-market@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <di7LM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12467002023.12.S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU>
AAA diagnostic station: since they don't perform any repairs, I think they
are very unbiased. Although I haven't had a chance to use them yet, so I'm
just mentioning them on principle (I like the idea of an independent
diagnostic place). For info: 408-247-5405 .
Alex
-------
∂31-Jan-89 1244 Mailer failed mail returned
To: JMC
In processing the following command:
MAIL maple/nohead
The following message was aborted because of a command error,
namely, nonexistent recipient(s):
maple
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
31-Jan-89 1244 JMC
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂31-Jan-89 2309 JMC soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
To: csd@Score.Stanford.EDU
The following statement has about 50 "signatures". To sign
mail to jmc@gang-of-four. To comment mail to jmc@sail.
About Monday Feb 6 it will go to whoever admits having
authority in the matter, e.g. Ralph Gorin, Robert Street
and/or Donald Kennedy.
%Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂01-Feb-89 0913 Mailer making rec.humor.funny unmoderated at Stanford
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Let's hold out for freedom to read computer publications
even if they have editors. However, should we lose,
we can always suggest putting a sign in Green and Meyer
libraries suggesting an analogous improvement in printed
media. The sign would say, "Readers are encouraged to
scribble comments in the margins of books and magazines".
∂01-Feb-89 0920 JMC re: Your statement of protest
To: jbn@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Feb 89 09:14:23 PST.]
The signers so far have varying relations with Stanford, and
alumni often comment on University affairs. If your message
were to contain (alumnus) as its body, I'd preserve that
in the listing. Should you decide to sign, mail to
jmc@gang-of-four.stanford.edu.
∂01-Feb-89 1640 JMC re: rec.humor.funny petition
To: oski@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Feb 89 14:22:50 PDT.]
%Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂01-Feb-89 1644 JMC re: israel
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 01-Feb-89 15:16-PT.]
It must be coach. They'll never pay 1st class.
It should even be a bargain rate if possible.
∂01-Feb-89 1649 JMC re: original correspondance
To: haddad@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 01 Feb 89 16:09:05 -0800.]
I would rather not send the original correspondence, because
there are messages from other people than Gorin. He mailed
it to me, but I don't want to allow anyone to confuse matters
with another issue. However, if you come by, I'll let you look
at it.
∂01-Feb-89 1651 JMC re: soliciting "Signatures" for statement of protest.
To: patel@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Feb 89 16:37:27 -0800.]
Here is the statement. If you want to "sign" it, please mail
to jmc@gang-of-four. I am currently using that address for
signatures only.
%Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂01-Feb-89 1711 Mailer re: A Trip to Meyer (was: rec.humor.funny)
To: paulf@DEFIANT.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from paulf@defiant.stanford.edu sent Wed, 1 Feb 89 15:19:03 PST.]
There are far more objectionable things than those Paul Flaherty cites
in the Green Library. I remember many years ago noticing The American
Mercury in the Periodical Room. This was the magazine used (perhaps founded)
by H. L. Mencken to attack all kinds of wowserism, especially censorship.
Mencken was long dead, but I hoped it would have some of his spirit.
However, the current issues of The American Mercury were included
the worst examples of racism and antisemitism I had seen in a magazine.
I remembered this recently and looked up The American Mercury in Socrates.
Stanford's subscription terminated in 1980, so I wondered whether its
content had given offense. A librarian checked for me and determined
that the magazine had ceased publication in 1980. Good riddance, and it
didn't even require a censor. If it still existed, I would oppose
removing it from Green Library.
I suspect a search of Green Library's periodical room could find some
very nasty material, e.g. explicitly racist. Don't censor it.
∂01-Feb-89 1743 JMC re: original correspondance
To: haddad@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 01 Feb 89 17:24:26 -0800.]
If I'm not here, Joe Weening will show it to you.
∂01-Feb-89 1836 JMC re: banning newspapers
To: brad@looking.uucp
[In reply to message sent Wed Feb 1 20:27:49 1989.]
Thanks for your message. The tack you suggest is essentially the one
we are taking, and we are doing better and better with the media
as they overcome their misconceptions. Their misconceptions take
the form of "where there's smoke, there must be some fire". Thus
we get things like, "a file of racist jokes". When corrected they
promise to do better in a follow-up story. I was called by an
editorial writer for the San Jose Mercury News, and they are going
to do an editorial comment piece on our side. At present we are
winning the comment battle, but it isn't clear what will happen
if President Kennedy weighs in on the other side. I still think
we'll win in the media, although he has great power at Stanford.
We'll keep you informed.
∂01-Feb-89 1837 JMC re: Newspaper reports
To: brad@looking.uucp
[In reply to message sent Wed Feb 1 20:19:17 1989.]
As you see from my previous message, I think we're winning.
I think I can emphasize praising the magazine a bit more.
∂01-Feb-89 1853 JMC I lost
To: MPS
the copy of my essays you gave me. Please put another
in my leather attache case in my office, so I'll be sure
and take it to class.
Also send a copy of the paper file to Professor Gerald
Gunther.
Also find out who is the Academic Secretary and when is
the next meeting of the Academic Senate.
∂01-Feb-89 2159 JMC re: rec.humor.funny petition
To: bothner@WSL.DEC.COM
[In reply to message sent Wed, 01 Feb 89 14:59:26 PST.]
You are right that this is the main point that the newspapers have
missed. It is in my explanatory writeup, but it isn't in the protest
document itself. I'll see if I can bring myself to put something
in that I can be sure to the more than 80 people who have already
signed. Maybe I can get back to them. Perhaps just the remark that
no-one at Stanford has personally taken offense at any of the jokes
that have appeared will do it.
∂01-Feb-89 2334 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
To: rhw@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rhw@sierra.stanford.edu sent Wed, 1 Feb 89 22:14:25 PST.]
Bill Workman of the Chronicle has agreed not to say again (if he
writes about it again) that the jokes were racist in the main.
When he called me the first time he only wanted answers to a few
specific questions and declined to listen to a fuller
explanation. We still have Mary Madison of the Penninsula
Times-Tribune to correct on this score.
The problem seems to be that they have difficulty imagining the
truly abstract nature of the Stanford objections to rec.humor.funny.
We'll win yet.
∂01-Feb-89 2335 JMC
To: ME
<n>ε is broken in E.
∂02-Feb-89 0751 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I need an email address for Templeton that works from SAIL.
∂02-Feb-89 0818 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I have meetings this morning.
∂02-Feb-89 1625 JMC re: AI
To: thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU, MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Feb 1989 14:32:39 EST.]
I'm asking Pat to send you a hard copy, so when you check the results
of your TEXing, you can be sure you have all the symbols and the
equation numbers. I know you won't send this hard copy to the publisher.
If she doesn't have it already, she needs an address.
∂02-Feb-89 1650 JMC re: Telephone Messages
To: S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 1 Feb 89 20:28:23-PST.]
As you know, I have been opposing the censorship of
rec.humor.funny as a sin against academic freedom. I would like
to discuss the issue with you and also get more information about
how the decision came about. I'd rather discuss it by phone or
in person. I've been in and out all week because of several
meetings, but matters will be more relaxed for me next week. If
you prefer we could discuss it by phone this weekend, any time
but 10-12 on Saturday, you name it.
∂03-Feb-89 0830 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: op@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Feb 1989 6:10:54 PST.]
I don't have certified liberal credentials - quite the reverse. However,
if you establish some preliminary interest in People for the American
Way, I would be glad to overcome my prejudices and co-operate with
them on this issue.
∂03-Feb-89 0832 JMC re: Telephone Messages
To: S.STREET@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 3 Feb 89 07:54:39-PST.]
Try both of 857-0672 and 723-4430, say at 3. I promise to be at
one of them and not in transit.
∂03-Feb-89 1126 Mailer re: capital punishment
To: davef@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from davef@jessica.stanford.edu sent 3 Feb
89 16:17:47 GMT.]
A modest proposal. Many of us who consider capital punishment necessary
in the present stage of American society would be agreeable to the
following compromise. The opponents of capital punishment should be
allowed to save however many condemned persons they are willing to
support in prison for life. They could even run the prison and conduct
it at whatever level of hardship or luxury they thought appropriate.
However, if a prisoner escapes their prison, one of these opponents
who has previously guaranteed the security of that prisoner goes to
an ordinary prison until the prisoner is recaptured or for five years,
whicheve is shorter. Except that if the escapee kills someone, then
the guarantor goes to prison for ten years. Most likely a constitutional
amendment would be required to fully implement the proposal.
Morover, any foreign country protesting the execution or
incarceration of a prisoner, as the Soviet Union has occasionally
done, should be offered the option of taking the prisoner. They
need only guarantee that he never returns to the U.S. This
wouldn't apply if the prisoner had been convicted of acting on
behalf of a foreign country. I think the Soviet Union would soon
learn not to do this.
Further, if detente goes much further, and the Soviet Union
continues to operate prison camps in which the prisoners do
enough work to pay their way, we could alleviate overcrowding in
American prisons by selling (say) murderers, repeat rapists, and
repeat armed robbers to the Gulag.
∂03-Feb-89 1335 JMC
To: CLT
Matt wants you to call.
∂03-Feb-89 1354 JMC censorship of rec.humor.funny
To: cr.apc@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
As you may know, there are many protests against the
decision to censor the usenet newsgroup rec.humor.funny
from AIR and SDC computers. We regard the censorship
as an offense against academic freedom, analogous to
removing books from the Library on the hypothesis that
someone might protest. Should the Academic Senate choose
to discuss the matter as an agenda item, I would like to
contribute some written matter to the discussion and
also request permission to take part in the discussion.
I think the Senate should discuss it.
∂03-Feb-89 1822 JMC re: "left wing" purges of libraries.
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 3 Feb 89 18:04:45-PST.]
Sorry. I even saw the man, Jack Bunzel, I intended to ask about it,
but I couldn't remember what it was I intended to ask him.
∂03-Feb-89 1824 Mailer re: capital punishment
To: singh@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from singh@glacier.stanford.edu sent 4 Feb 89 00:39:46 GMT.]
No.
∂03-Feb-89 2144 JMC re: Book Burning (this message may contain offensive material)
To: csli!cphoenix@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Feb 89 21:08:44 PST.]
I wouldn't do this, if I were you. If you do, make sure you have a
handout describing exactly what you are doing aimed at people who
have never heard of the issue before.
∂03-Feb-89 2334 Mailer rec.humor.funny signatures
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I now have 100 messages on gang-of-four. I assume they are
all signatures to the protest. If anyone sent me a message
on gang-of-four that is not a signature, please send a
message to jmc@sail telling me so. Messages to jmc@gang-of-four
will count as signatures until at least Monday, when I will attempt
to make an appointment with President Kennedy.
∂04-Feb-89 0120 JMC re: Admissions folders
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Feb 89 23:48:46 PST.]
Thanks, I saw them and plan to work on them.
∂04-Feb-89 0144 JMC clipping file
To: MPS
Please make a master copy of my clipping file about rec.humor.funny
and send a copy of it to Brad Templeton. Joe has the address.
∂04-Feb-89 1047 JMC re: rec.humor.funny
To: op@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 4 Feb 1989 7:33:03 PST.]
OK, we'll see what happens. However, some interest on the part of a
certified liberal group could be very helpful. Stanford in general,
and Kennedy in particular, have a burn-before-reading attitude to
criticism from any group that can be labelled right-wing.
∂04-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: Censorship battle
To: jbn@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 4 Feb 89 09:38:50 PST.]
Thanks. I'll keep those facts in mind.
∂04-Feb-89 1143 Mailer capital punishment
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
As usual I put too many ideas in one message, so no-one
commented on the main one. Let me put the essence of
my modest proposal as a question. Suppose the opponents
of the death penalty could save whichever condemned
criminals they were willing to support in life imprisonment.
How many, if any, would be saved? Which ones?
∂04-Feb-89 1237 JMC lunch Monday
To: VAL
I'm recovered from my meetings. How about having our
postponed lunch Monday and resuming the regular schedule
Friday. I have to be back at 1:15 Monday, so let's plan
for 1130. I suggest the Galleria in Town and Country,
which opens for lunch at that time.
∂04-Feb-89 1943 JMC Please get me a xerox of
To: MPS
H.R. Pulliam, "Sources, sinks, and population regulation,"
Am. Nat. 132, 652 (1988)
∂05-Feb-89 0059 Mailer re: More on K's & W's
To: 90.EJOHNSON@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from 90.EJOHNSON@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 4 Feb 89 23:51:53-PST.]
The requirement for stations operating on fixed frequencies and
on fixed schedules, to broadcast their call letters is 60 years
obsolete. It is a relic of the early 1920s when radio was
regarded as some thing especially suitable for spies. It seems
to me that when I first got my license to use a radio on an
airplane, there was a requirement of U.S. citizenship. I think
that license is no longer required. I think there are also
obsolete requirements to have an engineer present in broadcast
studios. It boosts the egos of people operating stations, and
that's probably why the don't fuss much about the nuisance.
∂05-Feb-89 0132 JMC
To: CLT
Apparently the long distance speed-dialing numbers needn't be changed.
∂05-Feb-89 1002 JMC
To: MPS
Please send a copy of soviet[f88 to Dimitri Lenkov.
∂05-Feb-89 1224 JMC
To: s.street@MACBETH.Stanford.EDU
If convenient, call now 723-4430.
∂05-Feb-89 1904 Mailer re: 2 Questions of form "Where does one find ..."
To: cohn@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from cohn@polya.stanford.edu sent 5 Feb 89 22:08:30 GMT.]
My guess is that for such tasks it is cheaper to use an
inexpensive microprocessor instead of a special purpose chip.
∂05-Feb-89 2231 JMC
To: DC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
My keyboard is down again.
∂06-Feb-89 0112 JMC
To: MPS
Deliver my admission folders to Sharon and get new batch.
∂06-Feb-89 1105 JMC Please send a copy of "Some philosophical problems ..." to
To: MPS
SSA, p.o. 1160, pa 94302
attn: Jeanie Treichel
∂06-Feb-89 1517 JMC
To: DC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Wiggling the contacts of the connector closest to the keyboard relieved the problem.
∂06-Feb-89 1845 JMC mail and appointment
To: hk.grh@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
I now have about 110 electronic "signers" of the protest statement
about rec.humor.funny. I will shortly pass on the list of names,
including students, faculty and others. However, some people don't
like my formulation, and I want to encourage them to express their
own opinions. Since they are likely to prefer to express themselves
electronically, I wonder if I should ask them to email directly
to President Kennedy. I hesitate to do that, because it might put
him in the habit of not reading his electronic mail. Perhaps he
already has that habit. Perhaps you would prefer to be the target
of this mail.
How is my request for an appointment coming?
∂06-Feb-89 2012 JMC fruit flies
To: VAL
I like your paper. You might add the remark that that Thomas Hunt Morgan
began breeding fruit flies in 1908 and that 80 years later, the geneticists
are still breeding fruit flies without having produced a useful fruit fly
yet.
∂07-Feb-89 1132 JMC re: The impossible
To: chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 7 Feb 1989 9:28:11 PST.]
Curiously enough, any of the above times will do for me provided promptly
scheduled.
∂07-Feb-89 1709 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect revisited
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@hanauma.stanford.edu sent 7 Feb 89 17:36:27 GMT.]
While the information about small quantities of chemicals affecting
the heat balance of the atmosphere isn't very solid, it seems to me
that we should take an optimistic view of it. Namely, it seems that
humanity can control the heat balance of the earth rather inexpensively.
We can first use it to avoid ice ages and then to adjust the temperature
in various latitudes for the benefit of humanity. This is not an idea
that people looking for ways of blaming others for hypthetical misfortunes
are likely to think of.
∂07-Feb-89 1801 Mailer rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Several developments:
Street seems adamant.
President Kennedy has agreed to see me on the 15th.
The upper levels of administration does not seem to
be unanimous in the matter. In particular, the library
analogy appeals to some.
The idea that it is a matter for faculty decision appeals to
some. I have asked that if it comes before the Academic
Senate, I be permitted to take part in the discussion and
suggested that it is an appropriate matter for Senate discussion.
I was asked for written material which I will supply.
I met one faculty member vehemently on the other side. He argued
that if a minority member doesn't object to a joke, it is
a symptom of internalized oppression. The argument appealed to
Freudian considerations.
I plan to print out the names and transmit the protest to Street
with copies to Gorin, Sack and Kennedy.
I am somewhat optimistic, but I see no reason to hold off any
protests that others contemplate.
∂07-Feb-89 2334 JMC re: Winning against your admins
To: brad@LOOKING.UU.NET
[In reply to message sent Wed Feb 8 01:26:31 1989.]
I need to think about this. Things are looking up a bit.
Two Administration officials have told me they agree with
my main points. The more influential says it is a matter
for the Faculty Senate of which I was formerly a member.
I asked the Secretary of the Faculty to ask the Executive
Committee of the Senate to invite me to take part in the
discussion if it becomes an agenda item, and I told him
that I thought it should be. I was asked to provide
written material for the Executive Committee meeting
and I will.
I have an appointment on the 15th with the President of the
University, Donald Kennedy.
There is no guarantee that we will win if it is taken up
by the Senate. It has shown itself to be rather knee-jerk
liberal in the past. However, it seems to me that many of
the Faculty may feel that "sensitivity" has gone too far.
Unfortunately, I may have activated one opponent - almost
the first. A professor of mechanical engineering with
Freudian inclinations got rather angry with me at lunch,
arguing that it makes no difference that a Jew claims he
is not offended by a joke; it merely means that he
is suffering from ``internalized oppression.'' My error
was making fun of ``internalized oppression''.
Has that one come up in your experience?
I was advised by a University lawyer to emphasize the
principle of non-censorship rather than the innocuousness
of the particular newsgroup. He said that someone will
surely come out of the woodwork and claim to be offended.
I need to figure out how to do this while still correcting
absurd statements about rec.humor.funny.
I guess I would like to hold off any avalanche of outside
letters until I see what is going to happen. After I see
Kennedy, I'll know more, but if the Senate is going to
take it up, I'll want to wait till that happens. Both
have had practice in dismissing criticism from outside
Stanford (as well as from inside) in connection with the dispute
about Western Civilization.
I promise to write it all up for the benefit of usenet.
Incidentally, Tom Philp of the San Jose Mercury-News is
writing a story about newsgroups in general and has reached
Spafford of Purdue. He is on our side, but I fear that
publicity about computers incurring costs relaying newsgroups
may cause difficulty, depending on how much the relayers'
managements already understand and accept.
∂08-Feb-89 0845 JMC re: Round 1 Meeting
To: Hemenway@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Feb 89 08:22:24-PST.]
Monday or Wednesday are ok any time. Tuesday at 3, I will be teaching,
but 4 is possible.
∂08-Feb-89 1152 JMC re: A Granularity Question
To: pehoushe@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 8 Feb 89 11:13:20 PST.]
Certainly you should say your system is useful for fine-grained
parallelism. In the first place, I have principles against asking
people working for me to accomodate their views to mine. In the
second place, Qlisp becomes even more feasible if it can do fine-grained
parallelism, although even your results are probably not fine-grained
enough for some people. My point was that Qlisp would be ok even if
fine-grained parallelism were not feasible. I have no special definition
of a fine-grained Lisp system.
∂08-Feb-89 1222 JMC Congratulations
To: HK.JJS@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, HK.IXB@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
on your report. I think its example will be very helpful in the
rec.humor.funny issue.
∂08-Feb-89 1246 JMC
To: MPS
Please send the rec.humor.funny packet to Professor Steve Kline.
∂08-Feb-89 1328 JMC re: free speech-campus report
To: griff@CASCADE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 8 Feb 89 13:18:54 PDT.]
I agree about the Schwartz report. I talked to Schwartz about the
rec.humor.funny issue, and he is on our side. However, he thinks
it's a matter the Academic Senate should decide, i.e. rather than
Street deciding. I got a similar reaction from David Weber, Director
of Libraries, who noted that part of his organization reports to
Street.
∂08-Feb-89 1341 JMC Please make a 10 copies of Measures of the Value of Information from
To: MPS
the binder in my out box. Send one campus mail to
Holly Jimison
MFOBX215
Medical Center
and put the rest in a folder in my reprint drawer.
∂08-Feb-89 1459 Mailer Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Here's more of it.
I'll begin with some ad hominem remarks.
Ehrlich has been a doomsayer long enough to have made predictions
that have turned out to be wrong. For example, he wrote a
favorable blurb (or review) of ``World Famine 1975'', agreeing
with the prediction in its title and advocating triage. The U.S.
should divide the countries of the world into three groups: those
that can feed themselves, those that cannot be saved, and those
where U.S. action could make the difference. There was no world
famine in 1975 or since, and the localized famines have all be in
countries afflicted with civil war.
Ehrlich was also a big promoter of ``nuclear winter'', a theory
that is not quite exploded.
Finally, he does not tolerate differing views. At a last week's
conference on demography sponsored by the Hoover Institution, he
had agreed to be a commentator in one session, and (as I recall it)
to take part in a final round table. However, he demanded that
Fred Singer, Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation,
be removed as a speaker on natural resources and that I be removed
as a discussant. When this was not done, he withdrew his participation.
The ``You Can Make a Difference'' conference was a rally, not a
conference, and the round table Don Cooley admired included, besides
Ehrlich himself, some of the speakers from the Hoover demography
conference with which Ehrlich agreed. This includes Daley and Raven
and maybe some of the others. John Holdren is Ehrlich's co-author
in his Population, Resources and Environment book. No dissenter from
the party line was invited.
It seems that the round table was quite successful. It got publicity
and the Hoover conference didn't. Moreover, it rallied people like
Don Cooley to label disagreement as ``wrong thinking''.
Incidentally, most of the speakers at the Hoover conference took
a line similar to Ehrlich's but some cited different estimates of
the earth's carrying capacity in addition to the one quoted by
Cooley from Ehrlich's round table.
It seems fair to say that Ehrlich is so sure of his views, in spite
of the failure of some past predictions, that he regards the presentation
of opposing views as merely harmful to rallying people to take the
right action.
Let me finish the ad hominem section with a quote from Ehrlich.
"...Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent
of giving an idiot child a machine gun." Paul Ehrlich, %2An Ecologist's
Perspective on Nuclear Power%1, May/June 1975 issue of
Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report
I don't know what the dots replaced, because I copied the quotation
from another anti-Ehrlich writer. However, there's enough reference
so that anyone can look it up.
Ehrlich was one of the extremists against nuclear power. However, when
I asked him for a recent book attacking nuclear power to match against
Bernard Cohen's pro-nuclear ``Before it is too Late'', he declined to
suggest one, remarking that nuclear power may have a role to play after
all. If the greenhouse effect turns out to be serious, Ehrlich's
previous anti-nuclear position will have contributed to the damage.
End of ad hominem remarks.
Discussion of issues in abstracts of talks.
Ehrlich
``The average American does 50 times as much environmental damage
as the average Indian''. This presumes that various activities are not
sustainable and result in environmental damage. Without details, it's
hard to argue. I and many others, e.g. Herman Kahn, Julian Simon, and
Fred Singer, have gone over many details and come to the conclusion
that an American standard of living can be extended to a ten or twenty
billion world population and maintained for millions of years. Naturally,
this involves new technology, but this technology is based on present
science.
The demographers discussed the slowing of population growth
that has accompanied increasing standards of living. There is a range
of predictions between 10 and 20 billion for the asymptotic level -
as I recall it.
Daly
Sooner or later we will reach a steady state. However, there
is no panic about reaching it soon. Moreover, attempts to reach a
steady state at a low standard of living will not be accepted for
good reasons and will be harmful, especially to poor countries.
Incidentally, Daly was the keynote speaker at the Hoover demography
conference. He mentioned that he was having a difficult time getting
the other officials at the World Bank to accept his views.
Holdren
What did Holdren say about ordinary nuclear fission that is
generating 75 percent of France's energy? I suppose he pulled some
estimates out of thin air about its environmental costs. I had
a controversy with him some years ago about a statement in Ehrlich's
Population, Resources and Environment to the effect that the second
law of thermodynamics shows that the mass of a prey population must
be greater than the mass of the predator population. This is usually
the case but not always, and the second law has nothing to do with
it. A correct statement might be that the energy flow through the
prey population must be greater than that through the predator
populatation, and the second law is relevant to this, although using
it is a bit like killing a fly with a sledge hammer. There was a
fashion, started by Barry Commoner, of using the second law of
thermodynamics as a magical incantation.
Raven
I didn't hear his talk at the Hoover conference on account
of classes and rec.humor.funny, but I'm skeptical that the estimates
of the present and past rates of species extinction are well founded.
The issue is secondary, anyway.
Schneider
There are other well informed opinions on the certainty of
the greenhouse warming. However, Schneider may be right, and there
are other good reasons for pushing nuclear power hard.
Vitousek
There are other estimates of the earth's ``carrying capacity''.
Mentioned at the Hoover conference were estimates from IIASA and some
others based on extensive studies. 30 to 50 billion using only present
agricultural methods is what I recall.
I have a bunch of papers from that conference that one can look
at for references. Books by Herman Kahn, Julian Simon and Max
Singer are also worth reading and give optimistic pictures.
Now let me defend my previous posting.
I didn't say that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere would help.
Incidentally, the CO2 amount isn't reasonably measured in tons but in
billions of tons. What I said was that if the upper atmosphere is
really affected by small amounts of certain gases, we might be
able to discover some substances whose injection would produce effects
that we might like. I remarked that this is not an idea that people
who regard Americans mainly as polluters are likely to think of or
even take seriously.
To put it plainly, Ehrlich and company are harming the
environment in many ways by their extremist statements. Their
previous opposition to nuclear energy is just one example. Their
denigration of the ``green revolution'' is another.
∂08-Feb-89 1657 JMC re: The new Malthuses (sssss I feel like Sylvester the cat)
To: P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Feb 89 16:42:28-PST.]
It was the Rev. Thomas Malthus.
∂08-Feb-89 1710 JMC
To: SJG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - As thousands of American teen-agers struggle
with the complexities of basic algebra, a 17-year-old English girl is
being wooed by Harvard and several other universities to lecture and
continue her mathematical research on such subjects as quantum groups
and statistical mechanics.
Ruth J. Lawrence, of Oxford, England, is manipulating some of the
most complex concepts in mathematics. Her work has taken her to the
outer fringes of theoretical physics and mathematics, such subjects
as knot and string theory, and the connections between the world of
particle physics and mathematics.
She entered Oxford University six years ago and by age 13 had her
degree. Today she is working on her doctorate and has long since
caught the attention of the world's top mathematicians.
Lawrence has already taught students at Oxford on a tutorial basis.
If she accepts a position at an American university it will be mainly
to conduct research. But she said she might lead a seminar or deliver
an occasional lecture. In addition to Harvard and Berkeley,
Princeton's Institute for Advance Study is interested in bringing
Lawrence in for a year.
∂08-Feb-89 1757 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect wrong thinking
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 08-Feb-89 17:23-PT.]
I agree that theory and laboratory experiments might have to be supplemented
by experiments in the atmosphere. Proposed experiments with the atmosphere
will have to be evaluated for safety. However, before experiments can be
proposed, someone has to think seriously about what chemicals not presently
in the atmosphere might have useful effects. Les, do you agree that the
chance of finding something useful is good enough to justify doing the
research?
∂08-Feb-89 2216 JMC
To: MPS
Pls send rec.humor.funny packet to David Weber, Director of Libraries.
∂08-Feb-89 2225 JMC newsgr[w89,jmc]
To: MPS
Please decorate and TeX this file. The last page is not included
in the present version. That's why \vfill\end precedes it.
Also please verify with Arthur Coladarci's secretary that the
Executive Committee of the Senate meets next week rather than
this week. If it meets this week, get the rec.humor.funny
packet to them right away. Otherwise, I'll tinker with it a
little and get it to him Monday.
∂08-Feb-89 2307 Mailer re: Censorship
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from siegman@sierra.stanford.edu sent Wed, 8 Feb 89 22:13:46 PST.]
It was Voltaire, and the usual English translation (found on Next) is
``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.''
∂09-Feb-89 0856 JMC re: DARPA IPTO HIλistory
To: WASPRAY@vx.acss.umn.edu
[In reply to message sent Thu, 9 Feb 89 07:48 CST.]
How about Thursday morning March 2 at 9:30 at my office, room 356,
Margaret Jacks Hall, alias bldg. 460?
∂09-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: meeting
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Feb-89 09:52-PT.]
Please Campus mail the rec.humor packet to Prof. Gerald Gunther,
Law School.
∂09-Feb-89 1244 JMC re: "left wing" purges of libraries.
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 3 Feb 89 18:04:45-PST.]
I tried John Bunzel and Sidney Hook at Hoover. Both said they had
heard of it in newspapers but hadn't kept clippings. The main example
that all of us remembered was an attack on Huckleberry Finn as racist,
because it used the word ``nigger''. Bunzel suggested trying the ACLU,
and Les Earnest agreed to ask them if they have any relevant records.
Of course, there is much more information about leftist purges of
libraries in communist countries. Hook also mentioned that his
anti-communist books of the 1930s and 1940s were often stolen from
libraries in New York by communists.
∂10-Feb-89 0939 JMC su-etc discussion of rec.humor.funny
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Would you program Pat to preserve it in a separate file?
∂10-Feb-89 1738 JMC statement
To: hk.rwb@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
The following as about 120 electronic signatures. I'll get the
names from the computer mail and send them to you by Monday.
I'll also send you the longer description by Monday.
%Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.
∂10-Feb-89 2127 Mailer rec.humor.funny
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
As you may have read, the issue is to be taken up by the Academic
Senate. I had proposed this to Arthur Coladarci, the Academic
Secretary, and requested Senate permission to take part in
the discussion. I don't know whether I will be allowed to do
so. It is also possible for interested people to request
permission to be present without the right to take part in
the discussion. Coladarci asked for material, and I sent
him quite a bit including the protest statement, Templeton's
policy statement and an improved version of the history
and issues description that I put on su-etc some time ago.
Today Robert Beyers of the Stanford News Service asked me for a copy of
the protest statement which I emailed to him. He will
include it in the next Campus Report. He may also include
an updated version of my description of newsgroups and the
controversy.
Beyers said that the Senate might take the matter up directly,
but the usual procedure is for the Senate Executive Committee to
refer it to a committee for recommendation and then have the
Senate debate the recommendation. He thought it might be either
the ACIS committee of which Street is an ex officio member,
though not chairman, or the committee on research.
The Executive Committee meets on Wednesdays. I'm not sure
whether it is every Wednesday. After they have decided on
a procedure, it will become more clear whom it is best to
lobby and when.
Letters to the Daily and Campus Report are a good idea at
any time.
∂11-Feb-89 0252 JMC re: Voltaire
To: tucker@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 10 Feb 89 02:28:51 GMT.]
Does Bartlett give a French source, guaranteed not to be a retranslation
from English?
∂11-Feb-89 0255 JMC book burning, etc.
To: heit@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU, cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
Did you get much response to your proposals for holding a
book burning? It seems to me that some dramatic but legal
action may be a good idea, especially after we see what
direction the Senate is tending to go. Adequate publicity
would have to be arranged for.
∂11-Feb-89 1331 JMC
To: DC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
My keyboard failed again. So did SAIL keyboard outside machine room.
∂11-Feb-89 1431 JMC re: book burning, etc.
To: cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, heit@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU sent Sat, 11 Feb 89 13:47:47 PST.]
I don't think the issue is one of allowing outsiders free speech. That
is the way Gorin likes to put it. The issue is more one of freedom
to read what one wants. There is also the issue of who shall decide.
Certainly Gorin has no special qualifications to decide what should be
in a library.
Schwartz is basically on our side, but he won't claim that his free speech
statement requires keeping rhf. He considers it a parallel issue, not
the same issue.
I'm dubious about threats.
The obvious place for a book burning would be at the end of a Senate
meeting that bans rhf. There will be reporters at the meeting, because
the issue has already attracted outside attention. You could set up
a wooden rack of books with kindling under it. Each book cculd be labelled:
potentially offensive to X, where X takes the values: blacks, women,
white men, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, gays, etc. If the meeting went
badly, various people could be invited to light the match - Street, Kennedy,
etc. Senate meetings are held in the Law School every other Thursday.
The next one is Feb 25, but there is no guarantee that it will be on
the agenda, because the Senate Steering Committee hasn't announced a
procedure. Prof. Arthur Coladarci can inform you about the procedure, and
it would be good if I weren't the only person inquiring. He is CR.APC@forsythe.
It is probably better not to wait for the Senate before starting some
student activity. Do you know enough people to campaign for an ASSU
resolution? A debate on KZSU would be good. I would be glad to be
one debater on our side. There should also be a student.
∂11-Feb-89 1736 JMC re: book burning, etc.
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Feb 89 15:26:38 PST.]
Isn't there a CSLI party tonight at Cordura? I plan to go to it for a
while.
Stanford got a fair amount of external flak on the Western Culture change,
and Kennedy has learned to ignore it. On the other hand, there was very
little internal protest. You won't get anything significant from the
alumni. The alumni were far more offended by Stanford actions in the
early 1970s, and the Administration learned how to mollify them without
significant concessions. They won't take any alumni remarks seriously.
This time I'd go the internal route.
The external media are interested, however, and it would be good if
students talked to them directly. Here are names and numbers.
Tom Philp, 415 940-4464, San Jose Mercury News
Bill Workman, sf chronicle, 365-5720 wants to be called
Mary Madison, Times-Tribune 853-5295
Phil Harper, 408 920-5476, fax 288-8060, Mercury-News editorial
J. A. Savage, Computerworld 347-0555, 549-1527
I wouldn't presume that anyone except Gorin and Street is
definitely committed against us. Kennedy hasn't given the matter
much attention. What Beyers quoted him as saying indicates that
he didn't read the email I sent him, because he didn't seem to
know about rhf remaining on other Stanford computers. He waffled
in the Senate meeting. He would be somewhat annoyed to have one
of his vice-presidents, i.e. Street, overruled by the Senate, but
he could live with that, since he hasn't committed his own
prestige. He apparently did approve the original purge, but he
didn't imagine then that anyone would raise it as an academic
freedom issue.
I don't see any way of accomplishing our goal without getting the
Senate to overrule Street and Gorin, but someone may come up with
a way to revoke the censorship without rebuking them. While I
think they deserve rebuke, I would probably go along with saving
their faces.
A person who can give good advice is Bill Evers, now at Hoover.
He was a student agitator at Stanford in the late 1960s or early
1970s and will have good ideas based on experience about how to
influence student institutions.
Tony Siegman's message to su-etc is a piece of good news. He
follows su-etc and is on the Senate Steering Committee and will
support my being allowed to speak at the relevant Senate meeting.
What you were supposed to ask is whether they intend to refer it to a
committee, if so what one, and when will it be asked to report. Also,
who are its members. Probably he will have some idea but won't be
able to give a definite answer until after the next Steering Committee
meeting.
The CS Department hasn't taken any action. rhf is still on CSD-CF
computers (csli too). I didn't ask for a CS resolution on the
subject, but I probably will, when it becomes clearer to whom the
resolution should be addressed - most likely the Senate. Several
CS faculty, including the Chairman, have signed the protest and
no-one has supported the censorship, but some may not want the
Department to take a stand. I plan to sound out opinion at the
Department lunch on Tuesday.
∂11-Feb-89 2023 Mailer re: Greenhouse effect revisited
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from karish@forel.stanford.edu sent Thu, 11 Feb 88 20:12:20 PST.]
This assumes that the proposed ``major changes in the structure of
our economy'' are for the good. Many of the proposals I have
seen for dealing with the ``emergency'' might kill millions in
the U.S. and elsewhere. Environmentalists never do impact studies
on their own proposals. In this respect they are morally backward
compared to the blindest operator of a zinc smelter.
∂11-Feb-89 2123 JMC re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Feb 89 07:59:54 PST.]
I'm still tinkering with my description which also contains
a description of the controversy so far and my opinions.
When would you like it?
∂11-Feb-89 2330 JMC re: Voltaire
To: tucker@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Feb 89 23:22:23 -0800.]
Books acquired by Stanford prior to 1973 are still not in Socrates -
only in the physical card catalog in Green Library.
∂12-Feb-89 0934 Mailer re: rec.humor.funny
To: J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from J.JBRENNER@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 12 Feb 89 05:07:48-PST.]
I hope you will put your metaphor of the janitors running the
library in a letter to the Daily.
∂12-Feb-89 1248 Mailer re: Club-of-Rome ecological systems studies were mathematically flawed
To: rick@TAAL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from rick@taal.stanford.edu sent Sun, 12 Feb 89 12:04:25 PST.]
The biggest problem with the Forrester type models used in the Club of
Rome study is that they don't provide for saturation effects, e.g.
saturation of demand. This is concealed the fact that the Club of
Rome aggregated all commodities, i.e. it projected total production
with exponential growth, not distinguishing different commodities.
The methodology applied (say) to American beef production with data
from the 1870s would have predicted that unless the Government acted
to prevent the catastrophe, by 1940 each American would have to eat
a cow a day and the country would be completely covered with manure.
The Club of Rome study is long dead, but it did its share of harm in
its day (1972).
∂12-Feb-89 1828 JMC
To: MPS
Send Susie the rhf stuff.
∂12-Feb-89 1859 Mailer re: Give America a chance.
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 12 Feb 89 16:36:15-PST.]
The standard economists answer to u.underdog is that a country benefits
on the average from low tariffs even if no other country has low
tariffs. The average American benefits from cheap Korean labor.
If the Koreans don't buy anything from us, they eventually accumulate
an awful lot of dollars, i.e. green paper. When countries get tired
of accumulating green paper, the value of the dollar goes down, and
the green paper previously accumulated becomes worth less than it
was worth when they got it.
However, the average isn't the only consideration, especially politically.
An industry that has previously had a monopoly on the American market
for a product suffers when it is exposed to competition, whether this
competition be foreign or domestic. It will use whatever political
strength it has to limit the competition. Here are some of the ways
this is done: complain about foreigners, establish health and safety
regulations and licensing rules as in medicine and law, get a closed
shop labor agreement, limit memberships on a stock exchange, limit
the number of taxi medallions, limit the width of paint brushes,
exclude competitive technologies using building codes. Many of
these monopolies involve extending legitimate health and safety
regulations in an illegitimate way.
Whether you should sympathize with the automobile workers might depend
on whether you make more or less than the average automobile worker.
Most Americans make less.
The manufacturing and working class monopolies get more press
attention, but the white collar monopolies may be an even larger
drag on the standard of living of the country.
It is probably not very harmful to slow the elimination of
certain monopolies in order to give people time to adjust.
The real lossage occurs when the monopolies are made permanent
and even extended.
As for the South Korean workers, they are indeed low paid by American
standards. However, they make a lot more than they used to make and
will make still more in the future. They will have to fight it out
with their own employers.
There are certainly arguments in favor of making South Korea pay more
of its defense costs, but this is a separate issue from tariffs.
I believe this is a rather standard professorial answer.
∂12-Feb-89 2144 JMC
To: hk.rwb@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU, siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
%newsgr[w89,jmc]
\magnification\magstephalf
\centerline{CENSORING REC.HUMOR.FUNNY}
\bigskip
This is an explanation of the Stanford University dispute
arising from the censorship of the ``newsgroup'' (or computer
bulletin board) rec.humor.funny by the Academic Information
Resources organization and the Stanford Data Center. We also
discuss the academic freedom issues involved, especially as
they relate to the older issues of removing books from
libraries.
This explanation is for people not familiar with newsgroups.
\medskip
\noindent NETWORK NEWSGROUPS
\medskip
To understand the issue, you have to know something
about network newsgroups and how they are analogous to
magazines.
1. There are about 500 national ``newsgroups'' coming
into the Stanford University Computer Science Department's VAX
computer named Polya. You may think of them as magazines to
which the library aspect of Polya subscribes, but they are all
free. Many Stanford computers receive about the same list.
Many other universities, laboratories and companies also get
them. Yet other newsgroups belong to computer ``utilities''
like the {\it Source} and {\it Compuserve} and cost money to
use. In these commercial environments, newsgroups are continuous
with databases, most of which cost money to use.
2. A user of one of these computers can give the command
rn, and the computer will show him the first new item in the
first newsgroup to which he personally has ``subscribed''. He
can read items or skip them or move on to the next newgroup. One
can add or remove newsgroups from one's personal list. Some
people spend a lot of time at this, but no-one can pay attention
to all the newsgroups any more than one could read all magazines.
3. One can also send items to a newsgroup by electronic
mail. Computer newsgroups enable many more people to contribute
their views to discussions than does any print medium. Moreover,
this actually occurs. The number of contributors to a newsgroup
is typically much larger than to any print magazine. This
represents an extension of democracy.
4. There are two kinds of newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
Electronic mail received by the computer program maintaining an
unmoderated newsgroup automatically remails it to all the subscribers.
Moderated newsgroups have human editors that select what will be
included. Both kinds flourish.
5. Because the newsgroups are received in batches, it is
doubtful that every newsgroup received on Stanford computers has
been selected by anybody. Maybe some of them are not read by
anybody.
6. The cost of receiving newsgroups is very low. The installation
sets a policy on how long the items are kept, and this is implemented
by a program that usually is automatically activated nightly.
7. The subjects of newsgroups include the following.
\itemitem{a.}Technical discussions of various scientific and engineering and
philosophical topics.
\itemitem{b.}Political and social controversy.
\itemitem{c.}Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
drugs.
\itemitem{d.}Material concerning users of particular kinds of computer and
particular programming languages.
\itemitem{e.}Recipes and jokes.
\itemitem{f.}Things for sale. Product announcements.
\medskip
\noindent THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
\medskip
Brad Templeton, who runs a small company in Waterloo,
Canada has operated as a hobby since 1986 a moderated newsgroup
for jokes called rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for
humorousness and explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as
a criterion. Jokes that might be considered offensive are
encrypted in the R13 cipher, i.e. letters are rotated by 13 in
the alphabet. If a joke is classified as potentially offensive,
the reader can skip it without decrypting it. There is also an
unmoderated humor newsgroup rec.humor, which often has jokes that
Templeton wouldn't include, and a newsgroup rec.humor.d that
anyone can use to comment on jokes in rec.humor or
rec.humor.funny. Templeton is not involved in operating either
of these.
My opinion is that Templeton has done well for someone
who has compiled 900 jokes from those submitted to him. There is
a book of them for sale.
Late in 1988 Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate
student in civil engineering named Jonathan Richmond. The attack
first appeared in some other newsgroups, and later in the
newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered by the
following joke.
{\narrower\medskip\noindent
A Scotsman and a Jew went to a restaurant. After a
hearty meal, the waitress came by with the inevitable
check. To the amazement of all, the Scotsman was heard
to say, ``I'll pay it!'', and he actually did.
The next morning's newspaper carried the news item:
``Jewish Ventriloquist Found Murdered in Blind Alley''.\medskip}
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended. Others have
verified that the joke doesn't offend Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally
encrypt, but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't
satisfy his critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes
rec.humor.funny through the University of Waterloo computer and
the University only receives G-rated jokes.
\medskip
\noindent THE STANFORD FLAP
\medskip
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sack, just as an item of gossip, making no
suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford people
from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
The announcement was made by replacing rec.humor.funny, so that
some innocent joke fans found the announcement the next time
they asked for a joke. Some of them thought the announcement
was a joke.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control
including those operated by various research groups in the
Engineering School, the Computer Science Department and the
Center for Studies in Language and Information and the Music
Department. None of these other organizations have taken any
action or seem inclined to do so as yet. rec.humor.funny has
been added to the gang-of-four computer operated by the Qlisp
research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A number of other newsgroups are often in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
hours of programmer time by people who have no personal taste for
this particular job. The costs are in purging the library---not
in maintaining it.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions. What it has a moral right
to do is limited by considerations of academic freedom. While the
Stanford officials concerned got a legal opinion on whether anyone
could sue them for doing this, they apparently didn't consult the
Academic Senate, the Director of Libraries or any faculty except
those who are also administrators on whether there was an academic
freedom issue.
\medskip
\noindent PRESS COVERAGE
\medskip
The quality of press coverage so far has depended on the
care taken by the reporter, how many sources he questioned and
his familiarity with computers. I shall list some errors made by
different reporters in the hope that future reports will contain
only different errors.
1. Supposing that the rec.humor.funny concentrates on
racist jokes. It doesn't, and jokes that anyone might consider
to have that character are a small proportion. A ``best-of''
book is available from Templeton for anyone who prefers to
sample the jokes on paper. He put the ethnic jokes in the
last chapter, so anyone who objects in general can skip them.
2. Supposing that the jokes constitute a fixed file.
New ones come in every day or so, and the old ones are purged
every few weeks to economize file space.
3. Supposing that Stanford computers ``broadcast'' the
jokes. They are available only to people who ask for them.
4. Supposing that there was a complaint at Stanford.
No-one complained. The woman who mentioned it at Stanford
cited the controversy as interesting, and has signed the
protest agains their suppression. Even later, no-one has
cited a specific joke as a candidate for censorship.
5. In Waterloo, some reporters at one paper launched
a campaign against Templeton as a racist. Nothing he could
say would budge them, and since then he refuses to talk to
journalists at all. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this hasn't
happened as yet. Reporters have done their best to be fair,
and their writing that the file consists of racist jokes, is
an honest error, apparently through supposing that where there
is smoke there must be fire. They have also mistakenly said there
were complaints. When informed about this, they promise to
correct the error should they do a follow-up story. All have
mentioned the protest.
\medskip
\noindent THE PROTEST
\medskip
There has been extensive discussion on the Stanford
University internal computer bulletin board su-etc. Many have attacked
the AIR decision, and no-one has fully supported it. The following
protest statement has been circulated through computer mail
within the su-etc community and the Computer Science Department.
It has somewhat more than 110 ``signatures'', i.e. I have received
electronic mail subscribing their names from that many people.
\medskip
\centerline{Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny}
{\narrower\medskip\noindent
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including
newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should
be identical to those for including books in or
removing books from libraries. For this reason, and
since the resource requirements for keeping newsgroups
available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of
newsgroups in University computers. We regard it as
analogous to removing a book from the library. To be
able to read anything subject only to cost limitations
is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.\medskip}
\vfill\eject
\noindent MY OPINION
\medskip
In this section, I may go beyond what some participants
in the above protest agree with.
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. They are an important step towards
universal access through everyone's computer terminal to the whole of
world literature. Moreover, they make expression of opinion to large
audiences accessible to many more people than any print media. AIR
and SDC setting up an index of prohibited newsgroups is in the same
tradition as the Pope's 1599 Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the library part of the
tradition of academic freedom in case of newsgroups.
Should Stanford persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of a
reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this. This
may be another sign of a more general censorious trend, but maybe it
won't get worse.
Perhaps this is part of a more general battle to
maintain freedom of expression in university communities.
The last two paragraphs express a somewhat gloomy view of
the situation. However, the statement by John Schwartz and Iris
Brest published on 1989 February 8 justifies a more optimistic
assessment. Applying the corresponding principles of academic
freedom to the present issue would lead to a reversal of the
rec.humor.funny decision.
\bigskip
- John McCarthy, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University
\vfill\end
!
Repressing rec.humor.funny is a part of a general
campaign against personal expression that are regarded by
university official opinion and much faculty opinion as
derogatory to blacks, women, homosexuals and other groups
regarded as victims. Universities have been drawing up
lists of proscribed statements, and denunciations for
violation have been solicited.
Here is my conjecture is how this has come about. The
educational establishment, especially high schools is dominated
by graduates of the 1960s counterculture. Many of them have
rubbed their charges' noses into their opinions on every issue.
This has produced a nonconformist reaction, most of it rather
ignorant. Naturally, this causes them to redouble their efforts.
Every ukase prescribing certain expressions carries with
it a statement saying that this doesn't mean that the University
wishes to interfere with people's rights of free speech.
However, such statements have not carried with them any examples
of speech with which the University disagrees but which they
don't claim any right to suppress.
∂12-Feb-89 2230 JMC
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Please merge in the names on signat[w89,jmc]. There are duplicates.
∂12-Feb-89 2238 JMC re: Faculty Senate Debate on rec.humor
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 12 Feb 89 19:18:37 PST.]
OK, in that case I'll tinker some more with the statement. I have already
``improved'' it some more from the version I sent you. Most likely some
version will appear in Campus Report. Assuming that some version goes
becomes Senate Document xxx, I would prefer to send a shiny new version.
I'll tell su-etc that it will take a while.
∂12-Feb-89 2238 Mailer
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Academic Senate consideration of rec.humor.funny
∂12-Feb-89 2314 JMC
To: hk.rwb@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
The next message is another (final) version.
∂12-Feb-89 2315 JMC
To: hk.rwb@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
%newsgr[w89,jmc]
\magnification\magstephalf
\centerline{CENSORING REC.HUMOR.FUNNY}
\bigskip
This is an explanation of the Stanford University dispute
arising from the censorship of the ``newsgroup'' (or computer
bulletin board) rec.humor.funny by the Academic Information
Resources organization and the Stanford Data Center. We also
discuss the academic freedom issues involved, especially as
they relate to the older issues of removing books from
libraries.
This explanation is for people not familiar with newsgroups.
\medskip
\noindent NETWORK NEWSGROUPS
\medskip
To understand the issue, you have to know something
about network newsgroups and how they are analogous to
magazines.
1. There are about 500 national ``newsgroups'' coming
into the Stanford University Computer Science Department's VAX
computer named Polya. You may think of them as magazines to
which the library aspect of Polya subscribes, but they are all
free. Many Stanford computers receive about the same list.
Many other universities, laboratories and companies also get
them. Yet other newsgroups belong to computer ``utilities''
like the {\it Source} and {\it Compuserve} and cost money to
use. In these commercial environments, newsgroups are continuous
with databases, most of which cost money to use.
2. A Unix user of one of these computers can give the command
{\it rn}, and the computer will show him the first new item in the
first newsgroup to which he personally has ``subscribed''. He
can read items or skip them or move on to the next newgroup. One
can add or remove newsgroups from one's personal list. Some
people spend a lot of time at this, but no-one can pay attention
to all the newsgroups any more than one could read all magazines.
3. One can also send items to a newsgroup by electronic
mail. Computer newsgroups enable many more people to contribute
their views to discussions than does any print medium. Moreover,
this actually occurs. The number of contributors to a newsgroup
is typically much larger than to any print magazine. This
represents an extension of democracy.
4. There are two kinds of newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
Electronic mail received by the computer program maintaining an
unmoderated newsgroup automatically remails it to all the subscribers.
Moderated newsgroups have human editors that select what will be
included. Both kinds flourish.
5. Because the newsgroups are received in batches, it is
doubtful that every newsgroup received on Stanford computers has
been selected by anybody. Maybe some of them are not read by
anybody.
6. The cost of receiving newsgroups is very low. The installation
sets a policy on how long the items are kept, and this is implemented
by a program that usually is automatically activated nightly.
7. The subjects of newsgroups include the following.
\itemitem{a.}Technical discussions of various scientific and engineering and
philosophical topics.
\itemitem{b.}Political and social controversy.
\itemitem{c.}Material of interest to subgroups: feminists, gays, Jews, sex,
drugs.
\itemitem{d.}Material concerning users of particular kinds of computer and
particular programming languages.
\itemitem{e.}Recipes and jokes.
\itemitem{f.}Things for sale. Product announcements.
\medskip
\noindent THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
\medskip
Brad Templeton, who run Looking Glass Software in Waterloo,
Canada, has operated as a hobby since 1986 a moderated newsgroup
for jokes called rec.humor.funny. Templeton selects jokes for
humor and explicitly abjures ``political correctness'' as
a criterion. Jokes that might be considered offensive are
encrypted in the R13 cipher, i.e. letters are rotated by 13 in
the alphabet. If a joke is classified as potentially offensive,
the reader can skip it without decrypting it. There is also an
unmoderated humor newsgroup rec.humor, which often has jokes that
Templeton wouldn't include, and a newsgroup rec.humor.d that
anyone can use to comment on jokes in rec.humor or
rec.humor.funny. Templeton is not involved in operating either
of these.
My opinion is that Templeton has done well for someone
who has compiled 900 jokes from those submitted to him. There is
a book of them for sale.
Late in 1988 Templeton was attacked by an M.I.T graduate
student in civil engineering named Jonathan Richmond. The attack
first appeared in some other newsgroups, and later in the
newspapers in Waterloo. The attack was triggered by the
following joke.
{\narrower\medskip\noindent
A Scotsman and a Jew went to a restaurant. After a
hearty meal, the waitress came by with the inevitable
check. To the amazement of all, the Scotsman was heard
to say, ``I'll pay it!'', and he actually did.
The next morning's newspaper carried the news item:
``Jewish Ventriloquist Found Murdered in Blind Alley''.\medskip}
No Jew to whom I have told this joke was offended. Others have
verified that the joke doesn't offend Scots.
According to Templeton, this is a joke he would normally
encrypt, but he forgot that time. His apology for this didn't
satisfy his critic(s).
The upshot in Waterloo was that he no longer distributes
rec.humor.funny through the University of Waterloo computer and
the University only receives G-rated jokes.
\medskip
\noindent THE STANFORD FLAP
\medskip
Early in December, a programmer at SDC pointed out the
controversy to John Sack, just as an item of gossip, making no
suggestion that Stanford do anything to prevent Stanford people
from reading rec.humor.funny.
However, the matter gurgled through the Stanford computer
bureaucracy, the upper reaches of the Stanford Administration and
Stanford legal counsel. The matter was kept confidential among
these officials for no reason that was ever made explicit. Perhaps
it was just habit. After a month and a half, Ralph Gorin, head
of AIR and John Sack, head of SDC, jointly announced that rec.humor.
funny was to be purged from the computers under their control.
The announcement was made by replacing rec.humor.funny, so that
some innocent joke fans found the announcement the next time
they asked for a joke. Some of them thought the announcement
was a joke.
Here are some related facts.
1. There are many computers not under their control
including those operated by various research groups in the
Engineering School, the Computer Science Department and the
Center for Studies in Language and Information and the Music
Department. None of these other organizations have taken any
action or seem inclined to do so as yet. rec.humor.funny has
been added to the gang-of-four computer operated by the Qlisp
research project.
2. This bit of censorship is a random thrust in the dark.
A number of other newsgroups are often in far worse taste than
rec.humor.funny ever is.
3. The effort to remove rec.humor.funny has taken several
hours of programmer time by people who have no personal taste for
this particular job. The costs are in purging the library---not
in maintaining it. It would be especially difficult to maintain
effective censorship except by cutting Stanford off entirely from
this new mode of communication. Material from banned newsgroups
would begin appearing on others.
4. Stanford has a legal right to do what its administration
pleases, just as it has a legal right to purge the library or
fire tenured faculty for their opinions. What it has a moral right
to do is limited by considerations of academic freedom. While the
Stanford officials concerned got a legal opinion on whether anyone
could sue them for doing this, they apparently didn't consult the
Academic Senate, the Director of Libraries or any faculty except
those who are also administrators about whether there was an academic
freedom issue.
\medskip
\noindent PRESS COVERAGE
\medskip
The quality of press coverage so far has depended on the
care taken by the reporter, how many sources he questioned and
his familiarity with computers. I shall list some errors made by
different reporters in the hope that future reports will contain
only different errors.
1. Supposing that the rec.humor.funny concentrates on
racist jokes. It doesn't, and jokes that anyone might consider
to have that character are a small proportion. A ``best-of''
book is available from Templeton for anyone who prefers to
sample the jokes on paper. He put the ethnic jokes in the
last chapter, so anyone who objects in general can skip them.
2. Supposing that the jokes constitute a fixed file.
New ones come in every day or so, and the old ones are purged
every few weeks to economize file space.
3. Supposing that Stanford computers ``broadcast'' the
jokes. They are available only to people who ask for them.
4. Supposing that there was a complaint at Stanford.
No-one complained. The woman who mentioned it at Stanford
cited the controversy as interesting, and has signed the
protest against their suppression. Even later, no-one has
cited a specific joke as a candidate for censorship.
5. In Waterloo, some reporters at one paper launched
a campaign against Templeton as a racist. Nothing he could
say would budge them, and since then he refuses to talk to
journalists at all. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this hasn't
happened. Reporters have done their best to be fair,
and their writing that the file consists of racist jokes, is
an honest error, apparently through supposing that where there
is smoke there must be fire. They have also mistakenly said there
were complaints. When informed about this, they promise to
correct the error should they do a follow-up story. All have
featured the protest against the censorship.
\medskip
\noindent THE PROTEST
\medskip
There has been extensive discussion on the Stanford
University internal computer bulletin board su-etc. Many have attacked
the AIR decision, and no-one has fully supported it. The following
protest statement has been circulated through computer mail
within the su-etc community and the Computer Science Department.
It has somewhat more than 110 ``signatures'', i.e. I have received
electronic mail subscribing their names from that many people.
\medskip
\centerline{Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny}
{\narrower\medskip\noindent
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including
newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should
be identical to those for including books in or
removing books from libraries. For this reason, and
since the resource requirements for keeping newsgroups
available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of
newsgroups in University computers. We regard it as
analogous to removing a book from the library. To be
able to read anything subject only to cost limitations
is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny.\medskip}
\vfill\eject
\noindent MY OPINION
\medskip
In this section, I may go beyond what some participants
in the above protest are committed to.
Newsgroups are a new communication medium just as printed
books were in the 15th century. They are an important step towards
universal access through everyone's computer terminal to the whole of
world literature. Moreover, they make expression of opinion to large
audiences accessible to many more people than any print media. AIR
and SDC setting up an index of prohibited newsgroups is in the same
tradition as the Pope's 1599 Index Liber Prohibitorum.
Stanford should consider the newsgroups received by its
various computers as analogous to books and magazines in its
library. Costs require a library to be selective in the books
and magazines in its library. Costs don't seem to be a factor
here as long as there are a mere 500 newsgroups.
Stanford should maintain the library part of the
tradition of academic freedom in case of newsgroups. The issue
is the rights of readers rather than, as was asserted in
justification of the censorship, the right of Templeton to have
his humor read. Even though censorship appeared early in the
history of printed books, it would be a bad idea to begin
the history of electronic communication with censorship.
Should Stanford persist in its foolish decision and even
attempt to enforce it Campus wide, it will acquire somewhat of a
reputation as a boobocracy, but doubtless it will survive this. This
may be another sign of a more general censorious trend, but maybe it
won't get worse.
Perhaps this is part of a more general battle to
maintain freedom of expression in university communities.
The last two paragraphs express a somewhat gloomy view of
the situation. However, the statement by John Schwartz and Iris
Brest published on 1989 February 8 justifies a more optimistic
assessment. Applying the corresponding principles of academic
freedom to the present issue would lead to a reversal of the
rec.humor.funny decision.
\bigskip
- John McCarthy, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University
\vfill\end
!
Repressing rec.humor.funny is a part of a general
campaign against personal expression that are regarded by
university official opinion and much faculty opinion as
derogatory to blacks, women, homosexuals and other groups
regarded as victims. Universities have been drawing up
lists of proscribed statements, and denunciations for
violation have been solicited.
Here is my conjecture is how this has come about. The
educational establishment, especially high schools is dominated
by graduates of the 1960s counterculture. Many of them have
rubbed their charges' noses into their opinions on every issue.
This has produced a nonconformist reaction, most of it rather
ignorant. Naturally, this causes them to redouble their efforts.
Every ukase prescribing certain expressions carries with
it a statement saying that this doesn't mean that the University
wishes to interfere with people's rights of free speech.
However, such statements have not carried with them any examples
of speech with which the University disagrees but which they
don't claim any right to suppress.
∂13-Feb-89 0020 JMC ``signers''
To: HK.RWB@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
∂12-Feb-89 2323 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Petition list
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Feb 89 23:23:52 PST
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00136; Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:25:14 PST
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 89 23:25:14 PST
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8902130725.AA00136@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Petition list
Here's the list. It has 120 names. Most people didn't list their
affiliations, but I knew a number of them and ran finger to find out
others. In cases where I wasn't sure, I left it blank. The people
with affiliations outside Stanford are all Stanford alumni.
Name Email Affiliation
Brian Roberts cymru@csli.stanford.edu CSLI
Dick Gabriel RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Lucid & Comp. Sci.
Luis F. Arean arean@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Paul Flaherty paulf@defiant.Stanford.EDU IR/Networking
Don Stark stark@bill-the-cat.Stanford.EDU Elec. Eng.
Joseph Brenner doom@Portia.stanford.edu
Anil R. Gangolli gangolli@wolvesden.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Chris Phoenix cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU
kathryn henniss henniss@csli.Stanford.EDU Linguistics
Ismail Dalgic dalgic@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
John Chapin jchapin@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Matthew Allen chicago@Portia.stanford.edu
Randall R. Brynsvold rrb@mrfrosty Applied Physics
Bill Poser poser@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Chris Alexander chrisa@jessica.stanford.edu AIR/Music Dept.
Mary Holstege holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Warren Redlich P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU GSB
Joe Pallas pallas@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Dave Hemker photon@Portia.stanford.edu Chem. Eng.
Greg Byrd byrd@sumex-aim.stanford.edu
Ramsey W Haddad haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Jens Christensen jens@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Harinder Singh singh@glacier.stanford.edu Elec. Eng.
Peter Karp karp@sumex-aim.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Mark Stantz stantz@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Comp. Sci.
Donald F. Geddis geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Peter Griffin griff@mer.Stanford.EDU
June Genis GA.JRG@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
Kelly Roach ROACH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Dave Combs combs@sumex-aim.stanford.edu SUMEX
Jonathan S. Shapiro bagels!shap@apple.com Bell Labs & Stanford
Andy Freeman andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Lance Berc lance@orc.olivetti.com Olivetti Research Ctr.
Steve Esterly esterly@cellbio.stanford.edu Neurobiology
Evan Heit heit@meme.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Per Bothner bothner@decwrl.dec.com DEC WSL
Deepak Jain jain@Portia.stanford.edu Civil Eng.
Will Equitz equitz@isl.Stanford.EDU
Morris Katz mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Peter Smith peter@orcas.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Scott D. Mainwaring sdm@psych.Stanford.EDU Psychology
Igor Vaysman P.VAYSMAN@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU GSB
Ramin Zabih rdz@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
Dan Pehoushek pehoushe@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
James R. Kennedy robert@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Christopher T. Dodd dodd@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Arul A. Menezes arul@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Robert D. Jackson jackson@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Tovar TVR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU CCRMA
Roger Crew crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Chris Lundin GP.CML@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
Michael E. Wolf wolf@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
castor fu foo@Portia.stanford.edu Physics
Ed Sznyter ews@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Eyal Mozes eyal@coyote.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Carl Schaefer carl@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Lou Galbiati galbiati@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Mary Jo Doherty doherty@decwrl.dec.com DECWRL & Comp. Sci.
Michael Wolverton mjw@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Gio Wiederhold WIEDERHOLD@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci., EE, Med.
David M. Alexander david@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Narinder P. Singh SINGH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
David E. Smith DE2SMITH@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Ron Nash NASH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Miriam Blatt blatt@eleebana.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Shashank Shekhar shashank@coyote.stanford.edu Mech. Eng.
William Lipa lipa@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Martin C. Rinard martin@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Russ Jucovics jucovics@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Michael Kharitonov misha@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Carl Witty cwitty@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Liam H. Peyton peyton@polya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Paul Asente asente@wsl.dec.com DEC WSL
David Kriegman kriegs@asp.stanford.edu
Tracy Larrabee larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Scott Seligman seligman@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Rajesh L. Patel patel@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
keith taylor taylor@Portia.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Constance Stillinger collie@Portia.stanford.edu
Jamison Gray jamison@Sun.COM Sun Micro.
Chuck Karish karish@forel.Stanford.EDU
John B. Nagle jbn@glacier.stanford.edu Ctr. for Design Res.
Andy C. Hung achung@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Roland Conybeare roland@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Arthur Keller ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Nita Goyal nita@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Andy Tucker tucker@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Hakan Jakobsson JAKOBSSON@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Leslie A. Gordon leslie@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Jonathan Yu valium@stud.stanford.edu Medical School
Walter Henry whenry@lindy.Stanford.EDU Univ. Libraries
Eric M. Berg A.Eric@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU Price Waterhouse
Jim Waters waters@umunhum.stanford.edu AIR/IRIS
Inderpal Singh Mumick mumick@cayuga.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
John Klemm GQ.JNK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU SDC
k sorhaindo s.sycho@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
Phil Stubblefield Phil@Score.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Barry Eynon eynon@lindy.Stanford.EDU
Joe Weening weening@Gang-of-Four Comp. Sci.
Larry M. Augustin lma@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Fred Harris COLAZAR@CSLI.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Leslie Kaelbling leslie@teleos.com Comp. Sci.
Alex Bronstein S.SALUT@Hamlet.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Sami Shaio sami@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Rob Caplan ovni@csli.Stanford.EDU CSLI
Mitchell A. Yee GA.MAY@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Steve Tjiang tjiang@goretex.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
RL Bob Morgan morgan@jessica.Stanford.EDU IR/Networking
Peter Rathmann PKR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Denise Chuk dino@Portia.stanford.edu
Stanislaw Krupowicz STK%CCRMA-F4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU CCRMA
Louis J Bookbinder GE.LJB@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Controller's Office
Jean-Francois Rit rit@coyote.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Robin King king@glacier.stanford.edu
Nils Nilsson nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Comp. Sci.
Oren Patashnik op@polya.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
Les Earnest les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
James S. Vera
L. Ravi Narasimhan oski@Portia.stanford.edu Chemistry
Ross Finlayson rsf@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU Comp. Sci.
∂13-Feb-89 0230 JMC re: well
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 12 Feb 89 23:33:16-PST.]
In this matter I agree with the conventional answer I gave.
∂13-Feb-89 0832 JMC re: Rec.Humor.Funny
To: GQ.JNK@FORSYTHE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Feb 89 03:09:46 PST.]
Thanks for your message. I presume I can use the facts
without your name.
∂13-Feb-89 1138 Mailer Kennedy remarks
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
∂13-Feb-89 1028 RH.ERW@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Forsythe.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Feb 89 10:28:40 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 10:27:30 PST
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
From: "Eileen Walsh" <RH.ERW@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
These are remarks prepared by University President Donald
Kennedy for delivery to the Faculty Senate Feb. 9, 1989
I want to talk to you today about two unrelated topics,
each of which concerns the general issues of freedom of
expression.
First, a few words about the Ujamaa incident, with
which most of you are no doubt familiar. Some weeks ago, a
full report of that episode was published in the Campus
Report and the Daily, and I hope you have read it or will
make a point of reading it. As you know, two freshmen put up
a poster in the black theme house, after changing a sketch
of Beethoven into a caricature of a black person. The report
describes the events up to the poster and those that
followed.
Yesterday's Campus Report and Daily contain an essay by
the University's general counsel and a member of his staff
giving the history of student disciplinary action in cases
centrally concerned with expression, and their veiws about
how such cases should be treatd. Perhaps I should mention
here that the judicial affairs officer has informed me of
her decision not to prosecute in the Ujamaa case.
The general counsel's paper ought to receive the
careful attention of our community. It discusses the primacy
of free expression of ideas in our society, particularly at
a university. But the point I want to make is that the
article is about discipline _ the behavior we prohibit and
punish through our student judicial system. More
particularly, it is not about opinions we personally hold on
particular issues, what books we choose to read or to have
in the University libraries, or what material we decide to
receive or retain in our computers.
That brings us to the second topic, which concerns a
quite different question. It was raised when it became known
that Stanford computer users were receiving a ``jokes
file,'' as part of a ``bulletin board'' sent by electronic
mail from an upstream computer. This bulletin board is the
vehicle for a variety of informal communications carried out
by a national users network in which we are included; thus
users can have access to restaurant reviews, travel hints
and all manner of innocent amusements when not busy with
their work. Although the computer facility is a Stanford
utility, built and maintained by the University for academic
purposes, there has been no objection to these forms of
frivolity. The jokes file, however, turns out to contain
racist and sexist material, some encrypted and some in plain
text. Within the limits of available technology, it has been
deleted.
You will perceive at once that the question whether
Stanford should restore the file has nothing to do with the
matter of punishment or prosecution, and thus does not
relate at all to the set of constitutional issues so
carefully discussed by Schwartz and Brest. I think you will
also feel, as I do, that is an issue that (1) involves
freedom of expression and (2) should be decided by the
faculty. One of your members has put it on the Senate's
agenda, which is just where it ought to be. I think it's a
tough issue. It is not one that is answered by the law _
neither the external law nor our internal commitment to
First Amendment principles dictates the outcome; I don't
think there is the slightest question of our legal right to
agree to accept, or to exclude, someone else's file on
Stanford computers.
I wanted to make ajl couple of points before you take up
the matter. First, I want to express my deep appreciation to
Ralph Gorin, director of Academic Information Resources, for
his handling of the issue. Ralph has taken a lot of heat,
and I'm particularly grateful because the decision to remove
the file pending full debate was not one he agreed with. It
was an administrative decision that fell to him to
implement, which he has done with grace.
Ralph's view was that the discussion should have
preceded any action; whether or not he was right, I think it
is very important to recognize that the status quo is not
some blessed state of being, and that the decision to leave
things as they are is no less a decision than the choice to
do otherwise. In this case, for instance, there was never an
advertent decision in favor of receiving each of the vast
number of files we do currently receive. So we did decide to
remove the file, and it will stay removed until the faculty
considers whether to replace it. This is the place for that
consideration to occur.
-30-
∂13-Feb-89 1707 JMC re: student question
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Feb 1989 17:03:38 PST.]
Think of a soft way of giving your answer to the second question.
∂13-Feb-89 1833 JMC re: student question
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Feb 1989 17:03:38 PST.]
"First order propositions and individual concepts" was also assigned.
∂13-Feb-89 1838 Mailer re: Troops in Korea
To: RTC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RTC rcvd 13-Feb-89 17:48-PT.]
The only foreign troops in Korea are U.S. The others bailed out
long ago. The reference to the U.N. is a holdover from the
Korean war. The U.N. force was created while the Soviets were
boycotting the Security Council to protest the Nationalist Chinese
being Chairman. Otherwise, they would have vetoed the resolution.
Any move to disestablish it would be vetoed by the U.S.
∂14-Feb-89 1015 JMC Pat Simmons
To: CLT
∂14-Feb-89 0900 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Feb 89 09:00:10 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA23609; Tue, 14 Feb 89 08:55:57 -0800
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1989 8:55:18 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: davis@score
Cc: rwf@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: Pat Simmons
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.603478518.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Pat called in this morning and told me she would not be in today...she still
isn't feeling great. She asked me to pass this information on to you. Also,
she said to tell John that is he needed anything done today, that he should
ask Rosemary.
∂14-Feb-89 1051 Mailer Kennedy statement
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I'm somewhat surprised that a day elapsed after Kennedy's
statement to the Academic Senate was put on su-etc without
comments by su-etc commentators. Has the cat got your tongues?
First, the statement tells something that wasn't absolutely clear
before. It was decided to remove rhf without notice or comment,
presumably in the hope that the action would go uncommented.
Gorin is praised for being a good soldier.
Second, Kennedy has not read or has chosen not to notice some
of the material he has received, e.g. the availability of rhf
on other computers at Stanford.
Third, he regards the issue as one of (Templeton's?) freedom of
expression rather than one of readers' rights. This is the point
on which we have to pound away. Can someone do cartoons, e.g.
of someone, e.g. Kennedy, putting a blindfold on Miss Liberty,
uttering words about protecting her from seeing evil. Something
less heavy-handed would be better, of course.
Now that the issue is before the Academic Senate, it is
appropriate for student and other groups to pass resolutions. It
still isn't clear when the issue will actually come before the
Senate.
It isn't whether Kennedy wants the matter finally resolved in
one particular way and which way. He's rather effective in getting
the Senate to democratically decide to do what he wants.
Finally, the rhf issue is less important than the freedom of
expression issue treated by Schwartz and Brest. Kennedy reserved
opinion on that one. However, unless the opponents of Stanford
adherence to First Amendment standards get organized, freedom will
win by default, at least temporarily. Doubtless some erosion will
be attempted from time to time. Today's Daily shows that complaints
about how people exercise their freedom of expression is still a
salient matter to many people.
∂15-Feb-89 1754 Mailer Kennedy and rhf
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: hk.dxk@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
%kenned[w89,jmc] Notes on conversation with President Kennedy
I had a 20 minute discussion about rhf with President Kennedy. Here
are some remarks about it.
1. He has referred the matter entirely to the Academic Senate. The
Senate's procedure will be decided by its Steering Committee.
2. Kennedy was not persuaded by what he called the metaphor of the
library, and didn't seem to be convinced by the argument that
the comparison wasn't a metaphor - that we were talking about
a small part of the library of the future. He didn't take a
position on whether rhf should ultimately be in or out.
3. When I asked how the decision came about, he said the first he
heard about the matter was at a President's Staff meeting just
before rhf was removed. At that time he concurred.
4. He didn't know that rhf is currently on other Stanford computers.
He advocates no further action before the Senate acts, i.e. neither
to restore it to AIR and SDC or remove it from others.
5. He didn't know that most of the content of usenet is technical.
He did know that there had been no complaint about any specific
joke at Stanford.
6. He regards the whole matter as minor and mentioned it to the
Senate only because of its relation to the much more important
free speech issue raised by the Schwartz-Brest statement.
7. Kennedy supposed that the Steering Committee might refer the
matter for recommendation to the Committee on Research. This
seemed strange to me and seemed strange to others. The idea
seemed to be that the network exists for research purposes
and is therefore under their jurisdiction. Perhaps he expects
this committee to say whether rhf has potential research value.
Of course, the network has educational, internal and external
communication, operational computing functions that entirely
dominate its function as an object of research. Indeed it also
has other library functions already, a point that I didn't think
to make to him.
Perhaps the Senate should refer the matter to a committee on
libraries if there is one.
∂16-Feb-89 1203 JMC
To: MPS
Call Thelma Birks at Inference 213 417-7997 to get Board meeting dates thii year.
∂16-Feb-89 1204 JMC Please send cbcl to
To: MPS
Dieter Gawlick
757 Paul Ave.
Palo Alto 94306
∂16-Feb-89 1206 JMC re: Ivanov
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Feb-89 11:54-PT.]
That would be fine.
∂16-Feb-89 1709 JMC
To: CLT
Cable Co-op
856-8181
18.95 + 3.95 + 8.95
where utilities come in or if underground where cold water is
quad shielded coax cable sold by Cable Co-op
Bob Green or Bob Beale, 830
The Disney channel is one of the $9.95 channels.
They have no provision for moving tvs without their coming out and
doing something. I suspect this is something we can arrange for Terry
to make possible. I suggest you discuss our goals with him and
have him call them, i.e. one of the Bobs, and use discretion.
∂16-Feb-89 1719 Mailer re: beware of "driveways" masquerading as parking spaces in "A" lot near chem/bio
To: TERP@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from TERP@score.stanford.edu sent Thu 16 Feb 89 15:20:02-PST.]
There is a certain probability, neither 0 nor 1, that if you and
the others claim to the Stanford police that the "driveway" isn't
properly marked as such, they will quash the ticket pending marking
it better. I don't know to whom one complains about destroying
parking places by creating unnecessary driveways. Maybe it is
also the police. Anyway they would know who it is.
∂16-Feb-89 1722 JMC re: Satanic Verses
To: RTC
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Feb-89 16:46-PT.]
I left the relevant issue of NYR on your desk.
∂16-Feb-89 1747 Mailer Could it actually damage relations?
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
a208 1052 16 Feb 89
BC-State-Rushdie,0230
State Department Denounces Death Threats as Irresponsible
WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department said Thursday it was appalled
by the Iranian death threats against Salman Rushdie, the author of
''The Satanic Verses'' and denounced such actions as ''completely
irresponsible.''
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for Rushdie's death, and Iranian
religious leaders on Wednesday offered $2.6 million to any Iranian
and $1 million to any foreigner who killed Rushdie, a Moslem born in
Bombay, India. The offer was doubled today to $5.2 million.
Rushdie, who lives in London, has canceled a planned U.S.
promotional tour and gone into hiding because of the threats.
''We are appalled by the death threats against Salman Rushdie by the
Ayatollah Khomeini, as well as a subsequent offer of a reward for his
murder,'' said department spokesman Charles E. Redman.
''Such threats are completely irresponsible and are incompatible
with basic standards of international conduct,'' he added.
Redman said he did not see how ''this in any way could improve the
prospects'' for U.S.-Iranian relations.
Six people died in Pakistan during a weekend riot over the book,
which has been banned in most Islamic nations as well as many
countries with large Moslem populations.
Moslem fundamentalist leaders in Iran said Thursday that suicide
squads were preparing to carry out the ''death sentence'' imposed on
Rushdie and his publishers.
∂16-Feb-89 1935 JMC rhf
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
What is the schedule for deciding the schedule of rhf getting
before the Senate. I would like to contribute a revised position
statement to the packet and might also like to make some remarks,
in person or in writing, to whatever body the Steering Committee
decides to ask for a recommendation. In particular, I would like
to elaborate the projection of computer media becoming important
but with different social and egalitarian characteristics than
print media.
Incidentally, if there is a library committee, it would be the
best one to be asked for a recommendation.
∂16-Feb-89 1956 JMC
To: VAL
How about 1pm for lunch tomorrow?
∂16-Feb-89 2305 JMC rhf
To: brad@LOOKING.UU.NET
CC: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Please acknowledge this, because I'm still not sure about addresses.
Also please email me telephone numbers and fax numbers. By the way
my home number is 415 857-0672.
The Senate is not going to act promptly; that's not its way. Maybe it will
act decisively. In fact, the Steering Committee of the Senate has
attempted to pass the buck back to the Administration at least
temporarily. Here's a quote, not for the press, from my source.
"I find myself actually a little unclear as to exactly what the Steering
Committee decided re rec.humor at its meeting this Wednesday -- the Academic
Secretary could tell you more precisely -- but the essence was to first
bump this back to the University administration, wherever the decision
actually was made (Street, or Kennedy, or whatever), and ask them to
clarify the situation, or reconsider it, or whatever they want to do,
and _then_ bring it back to the Steering Committee -- which will then
decide what to do with it.
"This sounds like stalling, or may sound like stalling, but it isn't. We
had no warning that Kennedy was going to dump this on the Senate -- I
don't believe he's yet done it in any written fashion, or said what it is
he wants the Senate to do. So, I guess we're saying, Don, what is it
you want the Senate to discuss, or consider or decide? Once we know
that, the Steering Committee can follow the usual route, of first asking
for advice from the relevant committees -- that's what these committees
are for -- then once the issues are defined and shaped, bringing them to
the Senate. This will be a matter, I'd guess, of at least 4, probably
6 or 8, weeks from now before anything comes to the Senate."
This long delay gives us at Stanford both problems and
opportunities. If there are enough people to do it, I plan a
continuous campaign to get departments to take positions. It may
be supplemented by a campaign of ridicule. That has worked
against censorship before.
In that connection do you have any collection of jokes
about censorship or are there any jokesmiths of your acquaintance
who can help us keep up pressure at minimal cost.
Canada seems to be worse than California, but we have had
reasonably good results from the press so far.
I was visited by Cable News Network (CNN) today. The
producer John McManus said that they were planning a story on
racism on campus. Naturally, this aroused my fears. I asked
Accuracy in Media in Washington about them and only got a
secretary(?). She said CNN tended to be fairer than the others.
I decided that my strategy was to ask them how much they intended
to show and give them precisely that amount, so there wouldn't be
much to edit. The interviewer remarked that this is what Edward
Teller does, and that encouraged me to believe I was on the right
track. I gave them what came to 32 seconds, and the interviewer
asked if I could cut it to 25, so I trimmed it a bit and it came
to 25. Here's about what I said.
"Censoring this jokes newsgroup is like starting an index of prohibited
newsgroups like the Vatican's 1599 Index of Prohibited Books.
Today only a few people do much reading through computers but someday
everyone will. Starting with censorship is a bad idea."
I don't think there is much bad they can do with that,
but maybe I have more to learn.
∂16-Feb-89 2352 Mailer re: Kennedy statement
To: mrc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mrc@sumex-aim.stanford.edu sent 15 Feb 89 02:27:01 GMT.]
Kennedy praised Gorin for taking the responsibility for a decision
that wasn't his. From the point of view of a high-level bureaucrat,
the noblest thing a low-level bureaucrat can do is cover the ass of
his boss and take the resulting heat. I don't see why the rest of
us have to take that point of view.
∂17-Feb-89 0827 JMC
To: CLT
That was the $3K speaking.
∂17-Feb-89 0907 JMC re: rhf
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Feb 89 08:58:49 PST.]
OK, I haven't posted it and won't. I assume I can tell people that
the process will take time. I only informed one person about
the part about passing the buck back to Kennedy, and I'll try
to call that off. He wouldn't have had any reason to publicize
it yet.
∂17-Feb-89 0909 JMC rhf
To: brad@LOOKING.UU.NET
My previous informant now feels he was both indiscreet and incorrect
in what he told me about the planned procedure. Please don't pass
that on any further.
∂17-Feb-89 1235 JMC re: $50K
To: nilsson@TENAYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Feb 89 08:38:48 PDT.]
I have an idea for universal keyboard that a small grant would
help with.
∂17-Feb-89 1244 Mailer re: Stanford's @#@$%$@↑#! parking tickets!
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from S.SALUT@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Fri 17 Feb 89 11:54:20-PST.]
There's always another windmill, and I plan to let this one pass,
since I've got enough of them right now.
However, the University has a committee on parking. It has always been
my impression that this committee believes that if only parking can
be made sufficiently inconvenient, we will all switch to modes of
transportation they consider preferable. The impression is based
on the observation that they always seem to take out the maximum
of parking spaces for other purposes.
Perhaps someone will find out who they are and find out their excuses
for deleting spaces unnecessarily, e.g. handicapped spaces far in
excess of demand, and the latest unnecessary "driveway".
∂17-Feb-89 1440 JMC test
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
Here's a test.
∂17-Feb-89 1525 JMC issues
To: c.crom@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
what scale is needed for usefulness
cost
acceptability to teachers
Colleen Crangle
colleen@csli
∂17-Feb-89 1533 JMC re: What's the best way to undo/break rivets?
To: S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 17 Feb 89 14:19:45-PST.]
I don't know the standard answer, but you could try drilling them out.
When you get a definitive answer, I'd like to know it.
∂17-Feb-89 1754 JMC re: Spelling reform joke
To: Z.Zenon@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@Score.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from Z.Zenon@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Fri 17 Feb 89 17:03:30-PST.]
How do you know it was original with O'Rourke? Doubtless people tell
him lots of jokes. Notice that jokes are one medium in which
few people feel it obligatory to credit the original source.
∂17-Feb-89 1800 JMC re: REC.HUMOR.FUNNY and the Faculty Senate
To: CR.RJT@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from CR.RJT@forsythe.stanford.edu sent 16 Feb 89 22:58:57 GMT.]
su-etc,cr.rjt@forsythe
rec.humor.funny and the Faculty Senate
I'm curious about why Rob Tanner thinks the library "analogy" not
applicable. In my view the comparison is more than an analogy.
The holdings of newsgroups in Stanford computers are a kind of
library - and the prototype of part of the library of the near
future. In fact I proposed that the Senate Steering Committee
refer the issue to the Committee on Libraries. Some librarians
regard the comparison as fair.
I'm particularly curious about this point because President
Kennedy also said he found the library "analogy" unconvincing.
∂17-Feb-89 1801 Mailer rec.humor.funny and the Faculty Senate
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, cr.rjt@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I'm curious about why Rob Tanner thinks the library "analogy" not
applicable. In my view the comparison is more than an analogy.
The holdings of newsgroups in Stanford computers are a kind of
library - and the prototype of part of the library of the near
future. In fact I proposed that the Senate Steering Committee
refer the issue to the Committee on Libraries. Some librarians
regard the comparison as fair.
I'm particularly curious about this point because President
Kennedy also said he found the library "analogy" unconvincing.
∂18-Feb-89 1701 JMC Please fax
To: MPS
a Campus map showing where to park and how to get to my office
to Linda McBride at the Hyatt Hotel on Union Square in SF.
∂19-Feb-89 1303 JMC
To: MPS
times.5 goes to the nyt magazine.
∂19-Feb-89 1308 JMC
To: VAL
I now agree with your treatment of ysp.
∂19-Feb-89 1411 Mailer tape recorder giveaway
To: su-market@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I have an Akai x100-d reel to reel tape recorder to give away.
I think it's about 15 years old.
∂19-Feb-89 1509 JMC re: the free tape recorderλ
To: tantek@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 19 Feb 89 15:05:08 PDT.]
You're first. It will be outside my door at 846 Lathrop Drive, Stanford.
∂19-Feb-89 1540 Mailer
To: misha@Polya.Stanford.EDU, su-market@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The free tape recorder has been taken.
∂19-Feb-89 2228 Mailer Satanic verses
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
1. By his murders and now incitement of murder, the Ayatollah
has made me regard him as an enemy. Therefore, if there is
any advantage to the U.S. or to civilization in killing him,
I'm all for it.
2. There is an argument against trying to kill him. He's very
old and will die soon anyway. Maybe he is sick enough so that
he only acts sporadically. It seems that other Iranian political
figures have made statements contrary to his ideas recently.
Maybe violent actions against him will nip the moderation some
leaders are beginning to show. I suspect that's the view the
State Department ``experts'' take.
3. However, the U.S. experts on Iran are not very expert; they
have been wrong too many times. The truth may be the reverse.
It wasn't anybody's conciliatory attitude that made Iran
finally agree to peace with Iraq but getting hit. Maybe
something like that would work better.
4. Anti-Americanism is an industry in the third world. Its
leaders can call out mobs at will. This is indicated by
the Pakistan anti-American riots over Satanic Verses.
Why weren't they anti-British? That's where Rushdie
lives and where is book was first published.
5. There are two bases for anti-Americanism. The first is
to have someone to blame for all troubles. This is especially
useful to all kinds of aspirants to power. The second is
Soviet propaganda and material support to anyone who will
take anti-American action. I don't know whether Gorbachev
is reducing or intends to reduce that kind of activity.
6. It does make sense to talk about 20th century standards
of international law, and they owe a lot to Christianity
but even more to the Enlightenment ideology. Before the
Enlightenment they wouldn't even have been stated. Now
they often influence policy.
7. Almost all of the indictment of the U.S. by Karish
is false. On the whole, the U.S. has been and continues
to be a force for good in the world.
∂20-Feb-89 1208 Mailer re: Satanic verses
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from karish@forel.stanford.edu sent 20 Feb 89 13:00:01 GMT.]
I have answered various charges against the U.S. explicitly in the past
to the point of boring myself and the su-etc readers. However, choose
one of those you listed, and I'll try again. Your point about getting
blame for supporting and "evil" regime even when the regime is less
evil than the alternative is a good one. Some of the blame is therefore
inevitable. If the Soviet Union does relax its support of anti-Western
activities, I would favor the U.S. greatly reducing its support of all
foreign regimes, good or bad. There is also a possibility (still remote)
that the U.N. can become an actual force for peace. It is remote, because
it depends on more than Soviet relaxation.
∂20-Feb-89 1219 JMC Please send
To: MPS
a copy of Ascribing ... to
John Anderson BITNET: <ANDERSJ@UOFMCC.BITNET>
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R3T 2N2
Tel. (204) 474-8828
================================================================================
∂20-Feb-89 1222 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
To: ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Feb 89 14:11 CST.]
A copy will be u.s. mailed to you. It was published in an obscure collection
*TITLE: Philosophical perspectives in artificial intelligence / edited by
> Martin Ringle.
*IMPRINT: Sussex, Eng. : Harvester Press ; Atlantic Highlands, N.J. :
* Humanities Press, 1979.
* 244 p. ; 23 cm.
*LOCATION: Q335.P47 1979:
∂20-Feb-89 1717 JMC Galbiati
To: CLT
If you want to lobby for him, you should promptly talk to Genesereth.
He will cast a deciding vote on whether he gets into round 2.
As it happens, the individual to whom you favorably compared G. is
on the committee (and spoke favorably). I could whiteball him later,
but it represents a substantial financial commitment, since it is
taken as a commitment to support the person as a student throughout
his graduate student career.
∂20-Feb-89 1920 JMC re: visit to Stanford
To: cdp!kpeters@LABREA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Feb 89 19:09:02 PST.]
I'm sorry but I won't be available. I have not found such meetings
with editors fruitful for me.
∂20-Feb-89 2010 JMC Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
To: faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
The characteristics of newsgroups distributed through
computer networks are in our area of expertise. If there is
any matter in which the technically competent people should
make statements about the use of the results of their technology,
this is it. Censorship of newsgroups is harmful, likely to
require an active bureaucracy unless the new technology is
to be given up entirely, and very likely to be evaded even
then. Therefore, the Computer Science Department should take
a position and transmit it to the Steering
Committee of the Academic Senate for retransmission to whatever
committee they refer the matter to and ultimately to the Senate
itself. The following is the statement of protest that has
been transmitted to the Administration with 120 signatures. I
have added a sentence referring to the Department's own computers.
I recommend that we adopt it or something like it.
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.
∂20-Feb-89 2019 JMC email address
To: aaai-office@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
My email address is JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU. Please fix it and make
sure it's correct in the next edition of the directory. I notice
that many email addresses are truncated in the directory. I'll
bet they won't actually work as published.
∂20-Feb-89 2103 JMC rabino.re1
To: MPS
I forget where I am to send it. Also it needs the date he
started here.
∂20-Feb-89 2113 JMC rabinov recommendation
To: MPS
I found the dates and put them in and found the addressee. The addressee
is
Dr. Sanjaya Addanki
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
IBM
P.O. Box 704
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
∂20-Feb-89 2222 JMC
To: MPS
weiss.1
∂20-Feb-89 2236 JMC re: RHF, AIR, Senate
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue Feb 21 00:52:24 1989.]
I guess one of my earlier messages must have failed to get through.
It will be four to eight weeks before the Senate takes the matter up,
because the Steering Committee will probably refer it to a committee
first. I don't think it will matter much if interest in the topic
wanes for a while. The arguments on our side have been published
and will be supplied to the Senate members by the Steering Committee
as part of their meeting package. The other side will have to get
busy if it is to have much chance unless Kennedy plays an active
role. I'm hoping there will be some departmental resolutions on
our side. It will come up in a CS Faculty meeting tomorrow.
I would like telephone numbers and a fax number for you.
∂20-Feb-89 2353 JMC check on book
To: MPS
Please call the bookstore and ask if the text by Dertouzos and Moses
I ordered for vtss 160 has come in.
∂21-Feb-89 0857 JMC re: ACM position on electronic journalism
To: LES
[In reply to message rcvd 21-Feb-89 01:54-PT.]
I'm sure such a statement would be useful. Think about companies
as well as universities. Perhaps public libraries should be urged
to include computer net media. Maybe it needs to be positive and
carry the anti-censorship point at the end. I'll be glad to read
drafts.
∂21-Feb-89 0900 JMC re: email address
To: aaai@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 21 Feb 1989 8:29:24 PST.]
Note that many members will have telefax addresses also.
Mine is (415) 725-7411.
∂21-Feb-89 0909 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
To: mkatz@SESAME.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu sent 21 Feb 89 16:58:11 GMT.]
Morry Katz says,
"There is a fine line between civil disobedience and violence, and
Operation Rescue has crossed it."
Is it Mr. Katz's position that Operation Rescue has permanently crossed
the line and should be legally indicted as an organization or just
that its demonstrations occasionally cross it, and their "chapters"
should be encouraged to maintain adherence to a policy of nonviolence?
∂21-Feb-89 0922 JMC re: Proposed CSD statement on censorship of rec.humor.funny
To: gio@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 21 Feb 1989 9:15:43 PST.]
Perhaps we should add that one of the virtues of computer media is
that there are discussion facilities, e.g. rec.humor.d,
in which it is always possible to respond to misinformation.
SAIL has a book mode that keeps one's place in books. The
only books we have are Wuthering Heights and Grimm's Fairy
Tales. If someone would get an on-line copy of Satanic Verses,
we could keep it.
∂21-Feb-89 0924 Mailer Satanic Verses
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
People and governments seem to be getting quite angry with Iran.
Here are some things that could be done. (1) Try to persuade
Gorbachev to co-operate. If the Soviets are now in a mood to
do it, Security Council action is possible. It would be a
good test. (2) The obvious military measure is a blockade.
A sea blockade is straightforward, but an air blockade might
also be possible. It would have the effect of making it difficult
for assassins or supplies for them to get out.
∂21-Feb-89 1314 JMC Answer call
To: MPS
When David Butler calls again, tell him that Peter Hart now handles
AAAI grants for workshops.
∂21-Feb-89 1820 JMC csd resolution
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
The Stanford Computer Science Faculty unanimously passed a
resolution opposing censorship of rhf. I have to add a sentence,
and I'll send you a copy when no-one has objeted to the sentence
for a day.
∂21-Feb-89 1935 JMC draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
To: faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
∂22-Feb-89 0055 JMC re: draft extra sentence to precede final paragraph
To: cheriton@PESCADERO.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 00:48:19 PDT.]
Fortunately, we don't have to define offensive behavior at all. We
only say that censorship isn't the right tool for dealing with it.
We don't even have to define censorship except by giving an example.
I say "fortunately", because surely the CS faculty has neither
interest nor qualifications to hold a quarter-long seminar on
these terms.
∂22-Feb-89 1014 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
To: mkatz@SESAME.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from mkatz@sesame.stanford.edu sent 22 Feb 89 17:11:47 GMT.]
There is one problem with treating Operation Rescue and its
members harshly. Namely, over the last 30 years, there has
developed a tradition of treating demonstrators for causes
supported by the left very mildly. The original civil rights
demonstrators were treated harshly in the South, but this
treatment was declared illegal by Federal courts. Hardly anyone
was punished for blocking entrances to buildings in ``anti-war''
demonstrations. Recent demonstrations against nuclear weapons
have involved blocking trains, smashing missiles, etc.
For many recent demonstrations, statutes of limitations haven't
expired yet. Therefore, if the Operation Rescue demonstrators
are to be severely punished and their organization attacked, e.g.
by having its funds confiscated, all sorts of other organizations,
even the Palo Alto Humane Society (taken over recently by animal
rights activists), could be legally attacked. Operation Rescue
lawyers would be quick to point out any discrepancies in
treatment.
Therefore, treating Operation Rescue as Morry Katz believes it
deserves, requires a bit of intellectual gerrymandering. If
the political climate is right, it can probably be done. For
example, you can argue that delaying a woman going for an
abortion is doing her an injury legally distinct from that
caused by delaying a man going to his job at Livermore in the
morning or preventing a Stanford Trustee from using his
car to go home after a meeting.
How does Mr. Katz propose to solve this trifling problem?
∂22-Feb-89 1450 JMC re: Admissions committee - round 2.
To: eswolf@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 12:53:13 -0800.]
Yes.
∂22-Feb-89 1559 JMC
To: LES
>Templeton, Brad
* brad%looking@waterloo.edu
* (work: 519-884-7473)
* (fax: 519 886 9495)
∂22-Feb-89 1600 JMC Please send a vita
To: MPS
to Dr. Cuthbert Hurd at his home address.
∂22-Feb-89 1739 Mailer candidates for non-patronage or even picketing
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
from a Feb 22 A.P. story
"Major U.S. bookselling chains such as Waldenbooks, B.
Dalton and Barnes & Noble and booksellers in Japan have
withdrawn the book from their shelves, leaving only
independent bookstores to continue to stock the novel."
∂22-Feb-89 1756 JMC re: More censorship--individual, this time.
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 17:23:18 PST.]
1. I think you should describe the problem on su-etc.
2. It would be worthwhile to know what was posted. I don't read alt.sex.
3. It would be worthwhile to know the names of the "postmaster" involved
and whoever else was involved.
4. For your information, the CS Faculty yesterday unanimously
passed a resolution against the censorship of rhf. However, a
sentence was to be added (by me) and if no-one disagreed, the
resolution will be published. I plan to publish it, i.e. inform
the Daily and Campus report and various people by email on Friday
if there is no dissent by then.
5. When I know more, and after the CS resolution is public, I may
communicate with CS faculty members at CMU. It seems we have
an epidemic of censorious fanaticism in the universities of this
country. The CSD action, and even more the Schwartz-Brest statement,
provide some counteraction.
∂22-Feb-89 1801 JMC E
To: ME
Is there a command for getting the current file name and position in
the file as a text, say into the attach buffer? If not, can you
provide it? It is necessary for a macro I want to write.
∂22-Feb-89 1901 Mailer re: operation rescue tactics
To: lma@POLYA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from lma@polya.stanford.edu sent 23 Feb 89 02:34:39 GMT.]
There is plenty of bias among reporters. There is also a taste
for sensationalism. However, there is another, more innocent,
explanation for many errors. It's just very hard to get a story
right. The people who speak to the reporter can't help assuming
he knows things he doesn't. For example, most reporters assumed
rhf consisted of racist jokes. When this was complained about,
all promised to correct it in follow-up stories. When
interviewed by the first batch of reporters, I forgot to say that
rhf consisted of an ordinary mixture of jokes.
There is only one thing that would help. The reporters should
read back the stories to their informants whenever possible. In
controversial matters, this would subject them to arguments about
the slant, but at least they would have more chance of getting
the uncontroversial facts right. If a reader of su-etc thinks he
would be better, he should try it. Inquire about a matter about
which you have no first hand knowledge, write it up and post it
on su-etc. Give yourself a fixed deadline of 5pm. If you get it
right consistently, consider changing your profession.
∂22-Feb-89 2154 Mailer re: take a cat home tonight
To: bryan@ASTERIX.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from bryan@asterix.stanford.edu sent Wed, 22 Feb 89 20:02:39 PST.]
I don't know anyone who has ever eaten a cat, but I am willing to bet
that a cat cannot be cooked in 3-5 minutes and be edible. I'd bet
that stewing for 3-5 hours is more like what it would take to make
a cat edible.
∂23-Feb-89 0857 JMC reply to message
To: CR.APC@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Feb 89 08:43:03 PST.]
I'm concerned about the "if". Kennedy stated that the rhf ban
would continue until the Senate acted. If the Senate is not
going to take up the matter, then we will have to start our
"campaign of ridicule" before everybody forgets about the issue.
Is there some possibility of your persuading Kennedy and Street
to reverse the ban without formal Senate action?
∂23-Feb-89 0911 JMC reply to message
To: CR.APC@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Feb 89 09:06:49 PST.]
Both messages were received. Thanks.
∂23-Feb-89 0921 JMC Not much luck at Waterloo
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu Feb 23 01:21:49 1989.]
I remember Alan George only vaguely. I'll ask who else remembers
him. The items that may have some weight are the CSD resolution,
text tonight, and the Schwartz-Brest statement on Stanford
adhering to the first amendment. I'm trying to get an on-line
version, but we could telefax it if you haven't got it.
I don't understand why you think a deadline of even a few months is
too long. I might pursue Omni even if you don't. Can you give me
names and co-ordinates at Omni.
Your impression from su-etc seems to be substantially correct.
No-one has come out strongly on the other side. As the matter
approaches Senate debate, someone may come forth.
∂23-Feb-89 0929 JMC on-line version of your statement
To: hk.jjs@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
Is there an on-line version of your statement with Iris Brest
that you could email to me? Issues to which it is relevant have
arisen on other campuses including U. Michigan, U. Waterloo
in Canada and Carnegie-Mellon U.
∂23-Feb-89 1128 JMC re: Not much luck at Waterloo
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Feb 89 12:56:46 EST.]
I would pursue omni with emphasis on the Stanford situation
and on the intrusion of censorship on what I consider to be
the library of the future. Your connection with the matter
could be minimized the extent of my not even mentioning your
name or company.
∂23-Feb-89 1137 JMC Please go
To: MPS
to these libraries and get the two copies of this book.
I ordered one too few for my class from the bookstore and
now I can't find my own copy.
1.3) THE COMPUTER AGE (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1979)
LOCATION: QA76.9.C66A34: Green Stacks; Math & Comp Sci
1.4) THE COMPUTER AGE (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1979)
LOCATION: QA76.9.C66C65: Jackson Business
∂23-Feb-89 1239 JMC re: take a cat home tonight
To: bryan@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Feb 89 12:32:17 PST.]
Actually, the recommendation for long stewing was related to my
father once trying to cook a jackrabbit that I shot. I think
Stanford cats are more comparable to the jackrabbit
than to rabbits raised for eating.
∂23-Feb-89 1249 JMC
To: faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
I plan to release our resolution on rhf to Daily, etc. tonight.
∂23-Feb-89 1620 JMC reply to message
To: bhayes@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Feb 89 14:26:14 -0800.]
So far as I know, the only mention of the issue in the Academic
Senate was Kennedy's announcement that he was referring the
matter to the Senate. Any Senate member could put in his two
cents worth at any meeting, e.g. as a question to the President,
but the Senate Steering Committee hasn't decided how to take it
up.
∂23-Feb-89 1655 JMC
To: bhayes@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.
∂24-Feb-89 0034 JMC
To: ME
Thanks. My macro for putting references to messages in calendar worked.
∂24-Feb-89 1506 JMC re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
To: W.WUWU@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from W.WUWU@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Fri 24 Feb 89 11:15:08-PST.]
Please let me know if the boycott materializes. As someone who opposes
boycotts of companies, based on the politics of the owners, I need to
know if I should start buying my pizzas from Domino's.
∂24-Feb-89 1518 JMC re: on-line version, minus footnote calls
To: HK.IXB@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:02:17 PST.]
Many thanks. Having the footnotes at the end is fine for
transmitting to people who will format differently if at
all.
∂24-Feb-89 1636 JMC re: are you sure?
To: HK.IXB@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Feb 89 16:32:06 PST.]
Oh. I guess I can get my secretary to put in references to them
using the Daily text.
∂24-Feb-89 1727 JMC re: Japan Workshop
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:30:36 PST.]
Yes.
∂24-Feb-89 1732 Mailer re: re: hello? any pro-choicers in this forum?
To: caron@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from caron@polya.stanford.edu sent 25 Feb 89 00:44:26 GMT.]
Glad you asked that question. The politics of the owners is one
thing. The actions of the companies is another.
∂24-Feb-89 1801 JMC re: Leftist purges of libraries
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 24 Feb 89 17:52:19-PST.]
They told me that all they recalled were the protests against Huckleberry
Finn, and this is what I remembered. They also said that they hadn't
kept clippings. It occurs to me that some of the purges of libraries
will have been done by librarians. I would be surprised if ``Little
Black Sambo'' were still in children's collections in libraries.
Sorry I can't help you further.
∂24-Feb-89 1826 JMC
To: ME
ns died shortly after 1250. I just tried tty exist 16.
∂25-Feb-89 1112 JMC
To: MPS
americ.2
∂25-Feb-89 1538 JMC
To: zalta@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
Dennett, Daniel Dept. of Philosophy, (univ. 617 381-3230), 381-3297 or (his 3261)
Tufts University, Medford, Mass. 02155,
(home: 508 475-7905) (Maine July-Sept: 207 374 2438)
∂26-Feb-89 1343 Mailer
To: "@CORREC.LIS[W89,JMC]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting
of the Computer Science Department faculty on Tuesday, Feb 21,
1989.
Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.
Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in
making information resources widely available since the 1960s.
Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups
available on various networks are the computer analog of
magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer
libraries. These libraries will make available the information
resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal
computer.
Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer
systems or removing them should be identical to those for
including books in or removing books from libraries. For this
reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping
newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to
the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in
University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a
book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only
to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom.
Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing
with offensive behavior.
We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of
rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided
not to censor Department Computers.
∂26-Feb-89 1420 JMC ysp
To: VAL
I don't much like your axiom 11 and have found a way to get rid
of it.
∂26-Feb-89 1431 JMC ysp
To: VAL
The previous was mailed by accident.
It's your (9) that I don't like. I propose replacing (7),(8) and
(9) by
holds(loaded,s) ⊃ (result(shoot,s) = result(shoot1,s))
¬holds(alive,result(shoot1,s))
noninertial(alive,shoot1).
Introducing shoot1 makes the treatment of shooting more parallel
to the treatment of loading.
I have read Baker's paper, and I think it has excellent new ideas.
However, I am tempted to modify them in various ways to achieve
greater elaboration tolerance.
∂26-Feb-89 1615 Mailer re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
To: Z.Zenon@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from Z.Zenon@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Sun 26 Feb 89 16:03:35-PST.]
You must be mistaken. Now that the faculty has voted it, the statement
is cast in concrete, and everyone knows that nits can't live on concrete.
∂26-Feb-89 1757 JMC re: Looking for book of profiles of scientists
To: prohaska@SUN.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Feb 89 17:51:49 PST.]
Scientific Temperaments by Phil Hilts
∂26-Feb-89 1818 JMC re: Rushton (the guy with the race paper)
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun Feb 26 17:41:27 1989.]
I'll pass on the debate. Maybe I'll read his paper. Did you have
a reference on that? Did you get the copy of the CS Department statement
opposing censoring rhf?
∂26-Feb-89 1918 JMC re: CSD Faculty statement of protest
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Feb 89 18:49:32 PST.]
Sorry, somehow I thought your message had been posted.
∂27-Feb-89 1048 JMC re: mechanic wanted
To: david@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 26 Feb 89 22:04:53 -0800.]
No-one did.
∂27-Feb-89 1055 JMC re: Possible RHF Senate Motion
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Feb 89 08:14:05 PST.]
It seems to me that your motion will achieve the main goals, and I think
"available to the Stanford Community" is the right phrase.
∂27-Feb-89 1154 JMC re: Baker's work on Yale shooting
To: ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Feb 89 11:46:39 -0800.]
I think Baker's paper has two good ideas in it. The first, varying
result, I had considered briefly, but the idea of making sure there
are enough situations, which seems to be needed to make the first
idea work, was entirely new to me. I would like the longer paper
and don't have any paper with his name on it in my files. What is
the current status of this approach?
∂27-Feb-89 1154 JMC
To: ME
A.P. is still broken.
∂27-Feb-89 1227 JMC
To: op@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
hk.dxk@forsythe.stanford.edu,;kennedy
HK.GRH@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU,; kennedy's assistant Hamyrdla
s.street@macbeth,;Street
gq.vvn@forsythe, ; John Sack
g.gorin@macbeth,; Gorin
hk.ixb@forsythe,;Iris Brest
hk.jjs@forsythe,; John Schwartz
hk.rwb@forsythe, ; Bob Beyers, Stanford News Service
siegman@sierra,; Tony Siegman (steering committee member)
cr.apc@forsythe,; Arthur Coladarci, Senate Secretary
faculty@score,
su-etc,
brad%looking@waterloo.edu; Brad Templeton
∂27-Feb-89 1305 JMC re: your home line
To: ME
[In reply to message rcvd 27-Feb-89 13:01-PT.]
It is almost certainly working properly. I phoned Timothy's
nanny, who pressed CALL a few times, getting Cs in response.
∂27-Feb-89 1318 JMC
To: VAL
AUTHOR: Ryle, Gilbert, 1900-1976.
TITLE: The concept of mind, by Gilbert Ryle.
IMPRINT: Barnes & Noble, 1962.
334 p.
LOCATION: BF161.R9: Meyer
TOPICS: Mind and body
Knowledge, Theory of
NOTES: Item CSUU842974-B (Books) Language: Year:
∂27-Feb-89 1408 JMC re: AP back up
To: ME, BH
[In reply to message from ME rcvd 27-Feb-89 14:00-PT.]
Maybe their technology is such that this is the best they could do,
but why did the bastards have to do their purification on Friday
afternoon? Can you find the name of someone at the phone company
on whom I can practice making irate phone calls?
∂27-Feb-89 1422 JMC re: CSD faculty letter
To: Z.Zenon@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 26 Feb 89 20:26:55-PST.]
Yes, I see your point and would have changed it to refer to
magazines if I had seen it soon enough.
∂27-Feb-89 1432 Mailer animal rights
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The next time there is an animal rights demonstration at the
Stanford hospital, I suggest that someone circulate a petition
with the following request.
Stanford Hospital should establish an "Animal Rights Children's
Surgery Service". The Hospital would certify that no surgeon
associated with the service had practiced on animals any
operation he or she would perform on child patients of the service.
It would also be certified that the surgeon had not and would not
read any book or article about the operation written by someone
who had practiced the operation on animals.
While all present surgeons have undoubtedly practiced on animals,
it shouldn't be hard to find doctors eager to become heart
surgeons who haven't practiced heart surgery on animals and who
haven't read articles on particular operations.
∂27-Feb-89 1626 JMC reply to message
To: CN.HUT@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 27 Feb 89 14:30:24 PST.]
It will be returned by tomorrow.
∂27-Feb-89 1631 JMC fax
To: MPS
The title and abstract are on your keyboard. The fax number is given
below. I assume you know that you need the country code for Britain
and to drop the 0 in 041.
Turing Institute
fax 041 552-1415
553-1304, Tanya Oliver
∂27-Feb-89 1718 JMC Przymusinski
To: VAL
∂24-Feb-89 1203 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Przymusinski
Received: from gyre.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Feb 89 12:03:07 PST
Received: from jacksun.cs.umd.edu by gyre.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA03753; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:00:05 EST
Received: by jacksun.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA14507; Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:03:25 EST
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 89 15:03:25 EST
From: minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu (Jack Minker)
Return-Path: <minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8902242003.AA14507@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Przymusinski
Dear John,
At my encouragement, Teodor Przymusinski has applied for a
faculty position in the Department of Computer Science and
the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Comuter
Studies (UMIACS). Professor Larry Davis, the Director of
UMIACS has sent you a letter requesting your comments on him.
Although he has received outstanding letters from key people,
it is important that we receive a letter from you. I would
greatly appreciate it if you could take some time out of
your schedule to send a letter.
I hope that all is well with you.
Best regards,
Jack
∂28-Feb-89 0028 JMC amnon shaashua
To: binford@COYOTE.Stanford.EDU
In his phd admission application, he says he sent you papers.
Do you have any impression?
∂28-Feb-89 0855 Mailer re: Defense spending as % GNP
To: holstege@POLYA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from holstege@polya.stanford.edu sent 28 Feb 89 15:54:53 GMT.]
Defense spending as a percentage of GNP is worth mentioning when the
argument concerns whether a country, e.g. the U.S., can afford its
defense spending or can increase it. For example, if someone
ascribes homelessness to the ``ever increasing defense spending'',
then it is relevant to cite the fact that defense spending as
a percent of GNP is less than in 1960.
∂28-Feb-89 1145 Mailer re: It's all in the name
To: ramsey@Polya.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from ramsey@polya.stanford.edu sent 28 Feb 89 19:27:13 GMT.]
The Pentagon could get ahead of Dellums by renaming the secret programs
African-American programs.
∂28-Feb-89 1734 JMC Here's a pretty kettle of fish. See my reply at the end.
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
∂28-Feb-89 1644 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 89 16:44:06 PST
Date: Tue 28 Feb 89 16:40:59-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: su-etc@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474391844.149.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
A friend who has closely monitored developments in Waterloo recently
sent me photocopies of several articles that came out in Waterloo. I
am typing excerpts from the various articles.
1. JOKE EDITOR AGREES TO UW's DEMANDS
by Luisa D'Amato
Kitchener-Waterloo Record staff
December 6, 1988
"The editor of a controversial computer joke exchange has agreed not
to post racial or sexist jokes through the University of Waterloo's
computer system, UW president doug Wright said today.
"Wright said the university has also received a written apology for
the embarassment the joke exchange has caused the university.
The UW math comuter system had been used by Templeton, who owns Looking
Glass Software in Waterloo, as part of a chain of communication
allowing the joke exchange to be transmitted across North America and as
far as Israel and Australia.
Templeton's access to the UW computer was suspended temorarily last
Friday afternoon, but will be reinstated now that his written assurances
have been accepted, Wright said.
He said a committee will also be formed to look into the use of
communications facilities at the university, adding that the member-
ship and terms of reference will be announced by Christmas.
"It is deplorable in this day and age when there are so many places
in the world in the grip of racial injustice that so-called jokes
such as these would be considered funny or worth repeating," Wright
said in a release.
"I will not stand by passively when offensive materials are transmitted
using our communications facilities" [Wright added]....
Item # 2
RIGHTS ACT COVERTS JOKE EXCHANGE,
COMMISSION HEAD SAYS
dated: December 2, 1988
Racial jokes that have been sent by computer from Waterloo
to 20000 readers of a computer joke exchange could be dealt with under
Canada's human rights act, the chief of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission said Thursday.
"It comes under our jurisdiction, I haven't any doubt" said
Max Yalden in a telephone interview from Ottawa.
Yalden described the jokes as "offensive" and "in extremely
bad taste" but said it was premature for him to speculate whether they
constitute discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Act, administered by the Commission,
outlaws discrimination based on race, sex, ethnic origin, religion,
disability and marital or family status.
Section 13 of the act says it's discriminnatory for people
to use the telecommunications network to communicate "any matter that
is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason
of the fat that {the persons} are identified on the basis of a prohibited
ground of discrimination."
Yalden said the joke exchange, edited by Brad Templeton of
Waterloo, falls under this law because the jokes are transmitted,
sometimes using telephone lines, from one computer to another.
...Yalden says he personally is concerned with the need for
freedom of speech. However, "there are limits to freedom of speech.
These limits are not easy to judge," he added. The commission must
consider the rights of those wwho feel insulted by racial jokes, he
said.
And finally, item # 3
'APPROPRIATE' ACTION
UNIVERSITY's CENSURE OF OFFENSIVE JOKES GREETED WITH SUPPORT
by Lucia D'Amato
Record Staff
Deember 7, 1988
"....UW president Doug Wright announced Tuesday that Templeton's access
is being reinstated after he promised in writing not to forward "any
racist or sexist material to Usenet through UW computers.'"
However, Wright said he doesn't think UW officials will monitor
the network to ensure the agreement is kept. "That would be an enormous
job," he said at a UW press conference to announce the university's
actions.
Instead, Wright said he expects he'll be notified if anyone
complains about offensive jokes.
Templeton could not be reached for comment.
Asked if there was anything to stop Templeton from sending
offensive jokes to Usenet through another computer, and the jokes then
getting back into the UW system, Wright said, "I think it would be
technically possible. I would think it would not be in the spirit of
the undertaking he gave us. But the issue that was raised was the use
of the university facilities.
***********
Well, these are the articles I have. I am sending copies of the
article to the University. I don't know if Brad Templeton ever sent
us a copy of the statement he signed to regain access to the U.W.
system. I would think that if he has apologized about posting offensive
messages and promised the University of Waterloo not to post these
anymore, it seems to me that rec.humor should be restored at Stanford
under similar conditions -- conditions he has agreed to with his host
university. What do you folks think?
-------
Replying-To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Also-to: su-etc
Reply-Subject: re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Reply-Text:
[In reply to message from 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 28 Feb 89 16:40:59-PST.]
I suspect the articles Ahmad excerpted distorted the situation.
They certainly distort Templeton's views as expressed to me and
others at Stanford. They represent bragging by one of the
leaders of the attack on Templeton. Waterloo indeed now receives
a G-rated version of rec.humor.funny.
I don't think that Stanford should ask for that. Enough people
have looked at the uncensored version to say that it is well within
American First Amendment standards. Remember that Canada doesn't have
a First Amendment, so when officials get excited, they can often
behave as the spirit moves them.
However, Ahmad's posting may give new tools to the Stanford censors,
so it may be necessary to increase efforts to defeat censorship.
∂28-Feb-89 1738 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 28 Feb 89 16:40:59-PST.]
I suspect the articles Ahmad excerpted distorted the situation.
They certainly distort Templeton's views as expressed to me and
others at Stanford. They represent bragging by one of the
leaders of the yellow press attack on Templeton. Waterloo indeed
now receives a G-rated version of rec.humor.funny. In particular
Templeton hopes to get Waterloo to reverse its decision to get
only the bowdlerized.
I don't think that Stanford should ask for that censorship.
Enough people have looked at the uncensored version to say that
it is well within American First Amendment standards and Stanford
library standards. Remember that Canada doesn't have a First
Amendment, so when officials get excited, they can often behave
as the spirit moves them.
However, Ahmad's posting may give new tools to the Stanford censors,
so it may be necessary to increase efforts to defeat censorship.
∂28-Feb-89 1800 JMC reply to message
To: op@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 1989 17:52:37 PST.]
I notice that Kennedy's electronic mail address is not in whois
or in the Faculty and Staff Directory. I was given it by his
assistant Hamyrdla, who perhaps hoped that I would confine my efforts
to message to Kennedy. Since I have got no reaction to anything
I emailed to Kennedy, maybe it's a black hole anyway. So give
Brown the works. Note the message by Ahmad on su-etc that may
complicate matters.
∂28-Feb-89 2145 Mailer Templeton Apologizes!!
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I hope everyone noticed that the newspaper articles had December
dates, i.e. before the Stanford flap got started.
∂28-Feb-89 2156 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 20:01:45 PST.]
So far as I know the only action taken by telephone companies are
against obscene telephone callers, and then only on the complaint
of the recipient.
brad%looking@waterloo.edu
[In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
I don't know who the friend is or the motive of either Ahmad or his
friend. Ahmad had not previously discussed rhf on su-etc. The
computer from which his message was sent is operated by the
Business School. I'd like to excerpt your message to explain
about the "apology" and what appears instead of the censored
jokes.
∂01-Mar-89 0736 JMC [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
To: brad@WATERLOO.EDU
I don't know who the friend is or the motive of either Ahmad or his
friend. Ahmad had not previously discussed rhf on su-etc. The
computer from which his message was sent is operated by the
Business School. I'd like to excerpt your message to explain
about the "apology" and what appears instead of the censored
jokes.
∂01-Mar-89 0737 JMC [In reply to message sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 21:40:36 EST.]
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
I don't know who the friend is or the motive of either Ahmad or his
friend. Ahmad had not previously discussed rhf on su-etc. The
computer from which his message was sent is operated by the
Business School. I'd like to excerpt your message to explain
about the "apology" and what appears instead of the censored
jokes.
∂01-Mar-89 1255 Mailer re: IMPORTANT: all car insurers, especially California Casualty !!!
To: P.BOUDOUKH@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, su-market@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.BOUDOUKH@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Wed 1 Mar 89 11:12:55-PST.]
It is very rude of California Casualty to mark down your driving
record with your roommates' offenses, and to make you prove that
someone is no longer your roommate. Surely, they must know that
this is likely to make you want to change insurance companies.
One would almost think they don't want your business.
In fact, that's just what I think. Moreover, you give no indication
that their objection is to you, personally, so therefore it is an
objection to some category to which you belong, e.g. young men.
Given that your computer is at the Graduate School of Business, you
ought to be able to connect your experience with recent events in
the State of California.
After all, it is abnormal for a company not to want all the business
it can get. How does this come about?
It has been argued on behalf of various categories of people,
including young men and people living in areas where there are
lots of claims (do you live in or near East Palo Alto?) that the
rates charged are too high, that the companies are discriminating
against certain people. In response to this, the State
commission that regulates insurance has forbidden certain
distinctions. They would like to make older types, like me, help
pay for accidents that people like you (in the sense of the
categories insurance companies are allowed to take into account)
are likely to have. Moreover, the People of California just
passed a price control law on insurance.
Never fear, however, help is at hand. The people who make
regulations that cause certain companies to want to avoid certain
customers, have a solution to business practices designed to turn
off these customers. The solution is more regulations.
Why don't you give up business school, go to law school instead,
and become a personal injury lawyer? A high selective capacity
for indignation is an essential character trait for a lawyer,
especially for a personal injury lawyer. Another possibility is
becoming a "public interest" lawyer. After all, you accused
Calfornia Casualty of being "bloodsuckers" without even checking
whether they are even profitable. As a GSB student, you should
know how to find out.
Please let the su-etc community know whether California Casualty
stock is presently considered a good buy. This is not a rhetorical
question; I don't know the answer.
∂01-Mar-89 1316 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Mar 89 12:21:30 PST.]
Who has expressed an interest in rhf? SCLC or the Committee for
First Amendment Rights?
∂01-Mar-89 1502 JMC BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: RPG
autobeb-89 1644 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 89 16:44:06 PST
Date: Tue 28 Feb 89 16:40:59-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: su-etc@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
cc: 89.ahmad@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474391844.149.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
A friend who has closely monitored developments in Waterloo recently
sent me photocopies of several articles that came out in Waterloo. I
am typing excerpts from the various articles.
1. JOKE EDITOR AGREES TO UW's DEMANDS
by Luisa D'Amato
Kitchener-Waterloo Record staff
December 6, 1988
"The editor of a controversial computer joke exchange has agreed not
to post racial or sexist jokes through the University of Waterloo's
computer system, UW president doug Wright said today.
"Wright said the university has also received a written apology for
the embarassment the joke exchange has caused the university.
The UW math comuter system had been used by Templeton, who owns Looking
Glass Software in Waterloo, as part of a chain of communication
allowing the joke exchange to be transmitted across North America and as
far as Israel and Australia.
Templeton's access to the UW computer was suspended temorarily last
Friday afternoon, but will be reinstated now that his written assurances
have been accepted, Wright said.
He said a committee will also be formed to look into the use of
communications facilities at the university, adding that the member-
ship and terms of reference will be announced by Christmas.
"It is deplorable in this day and age when there are so many places
in the world in the grip of racial injustice that so-called jokes
such as these would be considered funny or worth repeating," Wright
said in a release.
"I will not stand by passively when offensive materials are transmitted
using our communications facilities" [Wright added]....
Item # 2
RIGHTS ACT COVERTS JOKE EXCHANGE,
COMMISSION HEAD SAYS
dated: December 2, 1988
Racial jokes that have been sent by computer from Waterloo
to 20000 readers of a computer joke exchange could be dealt with under
Canada's human rights act, the chief of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission said Thursday.
"It comes under our jurisdiction, I haven't any doubt" said
Max Yalden in a telephone interview from Ottawa.
Yalden described the jokes as "offensive" and "in extremely
bad taste" but said it was premature for him to speculate whether they
constitute discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Act, administered by the Commission,
outlaws discrimination based on race, sex, ethnic origin, religion,
disability and marital or family status.
Section 13 of the act says it's discriminnatory for people
to use the telecommunications network to communicate "any matter that
is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason
of the fat that {the persons} are identified on the basis of a prohibited
ground of discrimination."
Yalden said the joke exchange, edited by Brad Templeton of
Waterloo, falls under this law because the jokes are transmitted,
sometimes using telephone lines, from one computer to another.
...Yalden says he personally is concerned with the need for
freedom of speech. However, "there are limits to freedom of speech.
These limits are not easy to judge," he added. The commission must
consider the rights of those wwho feel insulted by racial jokes, he
said.
And finally, item # 3
'APPROPRIATE' ACTION
UNIVERSITY's CENSURE OF OFFENSIVE JOKES GREETED WITH SUPPORT
by Lucia D'Amato
Record Staff
Deember 7, 1988
"....UW president Doug Wright announced Tuesday that Templeton's access
is being reinstated after he promised in writing not to forward "any
racist or sexist material to Usenet through UW computers.'"
However, Wright said he doesn't think UW officials will monitor
the network to ensure the agreement is kept. "That would be an enormous
job," he said at a UW press conference to announce the university's
actions.
Instead, Wright said he expects he'll be notified if anyone
complains about offensive jokes.
Templeton could not be reached for comment.
Asked if there was anything to stop Templeton from sending
offensive jokes to Usenet through another computer, and the jokes then
getting back into the UW system, Wright said, "I think it would be
technically possible. I would think it would not be in the spirit of
the undertaking he gave us. But the issue that was raised was the use
of the university facilities.
***********
Well, these are the articles I have. I am sending copies of the
article to the University. I don't know if Brad Templeton ever sent
us a copy of the statement he signed to regain access to the U.W.
system. I would think that if he has apologized about posting offensive
messages and promised the University of Waterloo not to post these
anymore, it seems to me that rec.humor should be restored at Stanford
under similar conditions -- conditions he has agreed to with his host
university. What do you folks think?
-------
∂28-Feb-89 1738 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from 89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 28 Feb 89 16:40:59-PST.]
I suspect the articles Ahmad excerpted distorted the situation.
They certainly distort Templeton's views as expressed to me and
others at Stanford. They represent bragging by one of the
leaders of the yellow press attack on Templeton. Waterloo indeed
now receives a G-rated version of rec.humor.funny. In particular
Templeton hopes to get Waterloo to reverse its decision to get
only the bowdlerized.
I don't think that Stanford should ask for that censorship.
Enough people have looked at the uncensored version to say that
it is well within American First Amendment standards and Stanford
library standards. Remember that Canada doesn't have a First
Amendment, so when officials get excited, they can often behave
as the spirit moves them.
However, Ahmad's posting may give new tools to the Stanford censors,
so it may be necessary to increase efforts to defeat censorship.
∂28-Feb-89 2005 @score.stanford.edu:cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU Re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 89 20:04:58 PST
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Tue, 28 Feb 89 20:02:03 PST
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 28 Feb 89 20:03:18-PST
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA19241; Tue, 28 Feb 89 20:01:45 PST
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 89 20:01:45 PST
From: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix)
Message-Id: <8903010401.AA19241@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Newsgroups: su.etc
Subject: Re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
Summary:
Expires:
References: <12474391844.149.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Sender:
Reply-To: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix)
Followup-To:
Distribution: su
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Keywords:
Apparently-To: su-etc@score
In article <12474391844.149.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU> 89.AHMAD@GSB-HOW.STANFORD.EDU (Nazir K. Ahmad) groovily writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>Templeton's access to the UW computer was suspended temorarily last
>Friday afternoon, but will be reinstated now that his written assurances
>have been accepted, Wright said.
Great... More censorship. Remember, just a few days ago, a private user
almost lost e-mail? Well, now they're threatening whole newsgroups.
> Racial jokes that have been sent by computer from Waterloo
>to 20000 readers of a computer joke exchange could be dealt with under
>Canada's human rights act, the chief of the Canadian Human Rights
>Commission said Thursday.
But at least we live in America, where such things can't happen...
Remember the Student Conduct Legislative Council? How would you like
to see speech on campus regulated according to "accepted community
standards?" At least it'll keep people from getting offended...
In feudal Germany, in the 1700s, it was a crime to insult the King or
the Church or whatever... EXCEPT at the universities! The professors
were given complete freedom of speech. Even back then, they realized
how vital this was.
This was about the same time people were dying over here for the same
right. And now, students and faculty are trying to take it away from us.
> The Canadian Human Rights Act, administered by the Commission,
>outlaws discrimination based on race, sex, ethnic origin, religion,
>disability and marital or family status.
>
> Section 13 of the act says it's discriminnatory for people
>to use the telecommunications network to communicate "any matter that
>is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason
>of the fat that {the persons} are identified on the basis of a prohibited
>ground of discrimination."
This is really bad. Does anyone know what the laws are like in America?
I thought that carriers were not allowed to refuse users service just based
on the content of their transmissions. This makes it sound like the
phone company itself can cut you off for sending offensive stuff. What
do they do, monitor private phone calls? Or just wait till someone
back-stabs someone else?
> Asked if there was anything to stop Templeton from sending
>offensive jokes to Usenet through another computer, and the jokes then
>getting back into the UW system, Wright said, "I think it would be
>technically possible. I would think it would not be in the spirit of
>the undertaking he gave us. But the issue that was raised was the use
>of the university facilities.
Wait a minute--does this mean that someone else re-posting rhf issues
on rec.humor.d could get Brad in more trouble? Or does it mean that
UW will censor all newsgroups that those jokes are reposted to?
> Well, these are the articles I have. I am sending copies of the
>article to the University. I don't know if Brad Templeton ever sent
>us a copy of the statement he signed to regain access to the U.W.
>system. I would think that if he has apologized about posting offensive
>messages and promised the University of Waterloo not to post these
>anymore, it seems to me that rec.humor should be restored at Stanford
>under similar conditions -- conditions he has agreed to with his host
>university. What do you folks think?
>-------
First, it's "rec.humor.funny", not "rec.humor". PLEASE learn the facts.
Rec.humor is an unmoderated joke group which is still received by AIR.
It is more offensive than rec.humor.
Second, NO, DAMMIT, I DON'T THINK RHF SHOULD BE RESTORED UNDER SIMILAR
CONDITIONS!
For one thing, if he doesn't post the offensive jokes, then we won't get
them. They just won't be there. So we could then receive RHF without
fear of offending anyone. But this SHOULD NOT HAPPEN! People should
NOT BE CENSORED! There are enough other safeguards. If you give anyone
the power to regulate your speech, you are giving them control over thought.
And this CANNOT BE TOLERATED.
Chris Phoenix
∂28-Feb-89 2145 Mailer Templeton Apologizes!!
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I hope everyone noticed that the newspaper articles had December
dates, i.e. before the Stanford flap got started.
∂28-Feb-89 2156 Mailer re: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES!!
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu sent Tue, 28 Feb 89 20:01:45 PST.]
So far as I know the only action taken by telephone companies are
against obscene telephone callers, and then only on the complaint
of the recipient.
∂01-Mar-89 1014 @macbeth.stanford.edu:89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 10:14:22 PST
Received: from Macbeth.Stanford.EDU by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Wed, 1 Mar 89 10:11:41 PST
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 1 Mar 89 10:10:13-PST
Date: Wed 1 Mar 89 10:10:19-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@gsb-how.stanford.edu>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
To: bstempleton%watmath.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
Cc: su-etc@macbeth.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <12474582871.174.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Mr. Templeton,
The question of apology simply does not arise. I have simply excerpted
articles that appeared in a newspaper about a relevant topic from your
home base of Waterloo, and have sent copies of the article to both the
University and to Professor McCarthy at Stanford. It is that simple.
You are, however, in a position to clarify your position by simply
forwarding to us all a true copy of the statement you signed and gave
to The University of Waterloo. A copy of that official document, that
seemed to have satisfied to The University of Waterloo, would certainly
be of relevance to all of us.
Finally, I am a bit perplexed that you are willing to edit the jokes for the
UW system simply because they allow you the use of their facilities. If you
pursue this argument, then it appears that other organizations that facilitatethe distribution of these jokes may demand the same "courtesy." Where do you draw the line.
Professor McCarthy:
I am sorry if you think the articles I excerpted were distorted. The only consideration behind my excerpts was to primarily provide information that to the best of my knowledge was not available to us before. I have, however, sent you a
copy of articles I received, and I invite you to type and post each of these articles in their entirety if you so choose.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Nazir Ahmad
-------
∂01-Mar-89 1021 Mailer BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
Received: from GSB-How.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 10:21:09 PST
Date: Wed 1 Mar 89 10:18:36-PST
From: Nazir K. Ahmad <89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: BRAD TEMPLETON APOLOGIZES
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12474584379.174.89.AHMAD@GSB-How.Stanford.EDU>
Oops. I over-reacted to your posting. On rereading your note, I realize
that you accused the newspaper and not me of distorting the story. Distortion,
of course, is a subjective opinion in these situations.
But to set the record straight, I do hope that you will join me in asking
Brad Templeton to disclose the contents of the statement he signed for The
University of Waterloo.
Also, please let me know if any of the quotes in the articles I excerpted
were inaccurate.
Thanks again.
-------
∂01-Mar-89 1510 JMC re: my Ms.C. thesis
To: eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Mar 89 15:12:04 PST.]
Thanks for reminding me. I haven't yet.
∂01-Mar-89 1512 JMC re: Your interview on 3rd
To: suzuki@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 01 Mar 89 14:32:30 PST.]
I had even suggested it to Linda McLaren as nicer than Margaret Jacks,
but she thought they would want it in my office. Cordura is ok with
me.
∂01-Mar-89 1552 JMC
To: MPS
Rob Morse, Examiner, 777-2525 fax, 777-8732
∂01-Mar-89 1747 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:33:30 PST.]
I dunno. Perry, who is one of the promoters of ``this thing'' is
against censoring rhf.
∂01-Mar-89 1751 JMC re: Committee for First Amendment Rights meeting
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 1 Mar 89 17:47:58 PST.]
I may come late.
∂01-Mar-89 2324 JMC
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
What happened at the Steering Committee meeting re rhf?
∂02-Mar-89 0028 JMC statement
To: cphoenix@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
The more clearly the statement defines the issue as whether Stanford
will continue to adhere to First Amendment standards, the better
the issue will be understood by the press and by the inattentive.
Judging from my experience with the press on rhf, we can get them
on our side, probably even the national press.
As to that, I am reminded of advice on how to give a cow a pill.
Roll some paper into a tube. Put the pill in the tube. Put one
end of the tube in your mouth and the other end in the cow's mouth.
Now break the symmetry. Be sure you blow first.
I think we should plan to have the first press conference on the
issue and have it rather soon. The question should be whether
Stanford will continue to adhere to the First Amendment rather
than (say) how Stanford will deal with racial harassment.
If you see them before I do, discuss it with the two guys
who ran the meetings. I think it is worthwhile keeping
the intention of holding a press conference confidential.
∂02-Mar-89 0043 JMC your statement
To: arean@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 2 Mar 89 08:21:51 GMT.]
Your statement is pretty good, and I'd sign it if it was the only
statement available. However, within a couple of days the
Committee for First Amendment Rights (CFAR) will release a
statement. It met Monday and today in room 202, History Corner,
and will meet there again tomorrow at 8pm, I think. I intended
to send this to su-etc also, but I'm not sure of the time of
the next meeting of CFAR. Unless you have some reason not to,
you should help draft their statement. We plan to solicit
electronic signatures for it as well as paper signatures.
Since messages are cheap, your prompt posting can only be helpful,
because it's easy enough to sign both. Chris Phoenix, cphoenix@csli,
is the chairman of the drafting committee.
∂02-Mar-89 0849 JMC reply to message
To: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Mar 89 08:11:53 PST.]
Thanks. May I post the fact, or will you, that it has been referred
to the Library Committee?
∂02-Mar-89 0859 JMC re: address
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu Mar 2 02:33:34 1989.]
I use neither Ataris nor PCs. SAIL is an ancient DEC-10 with
a home-grown operating system. I'm sure the occasional use
of a PC can be found, but I don't know about Ataris.
The ``community standards'' thing is indeed quite bad and
is being vigorously fought. The professor of philosophy
who is pushing it told me he opposes censoring rhf. I think
he is naive about the consequences of the measure he is
pushing. The Committee for First Amendment Rights (CFAR)
is leading the good fight. The Steering Committee of the
Senate just referred rhf to the Committee on Libraries
with a request for an expeditious statement of principles.
That's pretty good, though not as good as if they had
decided the matter themselves.
∂02-Mar-89 0908 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 02-Mar-89 08:59-PT.]
title: Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge and Reasoning
1. Situation calculus today
2. Nonmonotonic reasoning
3. Contexts as objects
∂02-Mar-89 0926 JMC OK to publicize?
To: cr.apc@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: siegman@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
Tony told me that you are referring rhf to the Library Committee.
Is it ok to post that fact on the su-etc computer bulletin board?
It wouldn't be a great hardship to wait till next Thursday, but
many people are interested, and I suppose referring it constitutes
a completed action.
∂02-Mar-89 1201 JMC re: press conference
To: cphoenix@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Mar 89 11:38:23 PST.]
The newspapers love a continuing story with a simple theme and
suspense. Suppose our press conference can put the question as
follows. ``Will Stanford maintain its adherence to the First
Amendment? Tune in next week for the next exciting
development.'' There will then be continuing psychological
pressure on the community. There will be interviews with Gerald
Gunther, etc. Maybe we can get statements from the big guns of
civil liberties like Dershowitz at Harvard.
∂02-Mar-89 1614 JMC re: Your interview on 3rd
To: suzuki@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 02 Mar 89 14:16:31 PST.]
That will be ok.
∂02-Mar-89 1635 JMC re: my apologies.
To: wab@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 2 Mar 1989 12:59:57 PST.]
This doesn't refer to the present message, but I suggest you limit
the number of your messages with copies to high officials. It's not
clear that Kennedy looks at his electronic mail at all, and he surely
won't if he is bombarded. I believe I only sent him two - my original
protest and the Computer Science Faculty version after the Faculty
endorsed it.
∂02-Mar-89 1739 JMC re: Folders
To: HEMENWAY@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 2 Mar 89 16:40:08-PST.]
Maybe I'll have them done by Sunday afternoon. If so I'll arrange
for you to get them.
∂02-Mar-89 2224 JMC terminal and Nafeh
To: CLT
Joe and I may have identified the trouble, and he has
sent a message to ME.
Nafeh has said he will get back to me Monday about what
they can do to pay up. (if he's in town, he said).
He mentioned that he still wants my help in closing
with his Japanese potential backers.
He has infuriated Jussi who will be more negative than
ever.
∂02-Mar-89 2234 JMC rhf does so have educational value
To: GQ.VVN@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, g.gorin@MACBETH.Stanford.EDU
∂01-Mar-89 1258 usenet@labrea.stanford.edu censored joke #75
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Mar 89 12:58:24 PST
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Wed, 1 Mar 89 12:55:08 PST
Date: 1 Mar 89 20:54:10 GMT
From: rec.humor.funny@polya.stanford.edu
Subject: censored joke #75
Message-Id: <7301@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@labrea.stanford.edu
To: su-etc@labrea.stanford.edu
)From: obrien@aero.UUCP
)Subject: VAXen, my children, just don't belong some places
)Keywords: long, funny
)Approved: funny@looking.UUCP
!
)
)
)( I've never heard of the "WAR_STORIES" notefile; if you want to get
)back to the original author you'll have to go through "haroldh@think.com".
)I'm enclosing everything just as it reached me.)
)
)Mike O'Brien
)The Aerospace Corporation
)=============
)Subj: Just extracted this from the WAR_STORIES notefile. Long but amusing.
)
) VAXen, my children, just don't belong some places. In
) my business, I am frequently called by small sites
) and startups having VAX problems. So when a friend of
) mine in an Extremely Large Financial Institution
) (ELFI) called me one day to ask for help, I was
) intrigued because this outfit is a really major VAX
) user - they have several large herds of VAXen - and
) plenty of sharp VAXherds to take care of them.
)
) So I went to see what sort of an ELFI mess they had
) gotten into. It seems they had shoved a small 750
) with two RA60's running a single application, PC
) style, into a data center with two IBM 3090's and
) just about all the rest of the disk drives in the
) world. The computer room was so big it had three
) street addresses. The operators had only IBM
) experience and, to quote my friend, they were having
) "a little trouble adjusting to the VAX", were a bit
) hostile towards it and probably needed some help with
) system management. Hmmm, Hostility... Sigh.
)
) Well, I thought it was pretty ridiculous for an
) outfit with all that VAX muscle elsewhere to isolate
) a dinky old 750 in their Big Blue Country, and said
) so bluntly. But my friend patiently explained that
) although small, it was an "extremely sensitive and
) confidential application." It seems that the 750 had
) originally been properly clustered with the rest of a
) herd and in the care of one of their best VAXherds.
) But the trouble started when the Chief User went to
) visit his computer and its VAXherd.
)
) He came away visibly disturbed and immediately
) complained to the ELFI's Director of Data Processing
) that, "There are some very strange people in there
) with the computers." Now since this user person was
) the Comptroller of this Extremely Large Financial
) Institution, the 750 had been promptly hustled over
) to the IBM data center which the Comptroller said,
) "was a more suitable place." The people there wore
) shirts and ties and didn't wear head bands or cowboy
) hats.
)
) So my friend introduced me to the Comptroller, who
) turned out to be five feet tall, 85 and a former
) gnome of Zurich. He had a young apprentice gnome who
) was about 65. The two gnomes interviewed me in
) whispers for about an hour before they decided my
) modes of dress and speech were suitable for managing
) their system and I got the assignment.
)
) There was some confusion, understandably, when I
) explained that I would immediately establish a
) procedure for nightly backups. The senior gnome
) seemed to think I was going to put the computer in
) reverse, but the apprentice's son had an IBM PC and
) he quickly whispered that "backup" meant making a
) copy of a program borrowed from a friend and why was
) I doing that? Sigh.
)
) I was shortly introduced to the manager of the IBM
) data center, who greeted me with joy and anything but
) hostility. And the operators really weren't hostile -
) it just seemed that way. It's like the driver of a
) Mack 18 wheeler, with a condo behind the cab, who was
) doing 75 when he ran over a moped doing it's best to
) get away at 45. He explained sadly, "I really warn't
) mad at mopeds but to keep from runnin' over that'n,
) I'da had to slow down or change lanes!"
)
) Now the only operation they had figured out how to do
) on the 750 was reboot it. This was their universal
) cure for any and all problems. After all it works on
) a PC, why not a VAX? Was there a difference? Sigh.
)
) But I smiled and said, "No sweat, I'll train you.
) The first command you learn is HELP" and proceeded to
) type it in on the console terminal. So the data
) center manager, the shift supervisor and the eight
) day operators watched the LA100 buzz out the usual
) introductory text. When it finished they turned to
) me with expectant faces and I said in an avuncular
) manner, "This is your most important command!"
)
) The shift supervisor stepped forward and studied the
) text for about a minute. He then turned with a very
) puzzled expression on his face and asked, "What do
) you use it for?" Sigh.
)
) Well, I tried everything. I trained and I put the
) doc set on shelves by the 750 and I wrote a special
) 40 page doc set and then a four page doc set. I
) designed all kinds of command files to make complex
) operations into simple foreign commands and I taped a
) list of these simplified commands to the top of the
) VAX. The most successful move was adding my home
) phone number.
)
) The cheat sheets taped on the top of the CPU cabinet
) needed continual maintenance, however. It seems the
) VAX was in the quietest part of the data center, over
) behind the scratch tape racks. The operators ate
) lunch on the CPU cabinet and the sheets quickly
) became coated with pizza drippings, etc.
)
) But still the most used solution to hangups was a
) reboot and I gradually got things organized so that
) during the day when the gnomes were using the system,
) the operators didn't have to touch it. This smoothed
) things out a lot.
)
) Meanwhile, the data center was getting new TV
) security cameras, a halon gas fire extinguisher
) system and an immortal power source. The data center
) manager apologized because the VAX had not been
) foreseen in the plan and so could not be connected to
) immortal power. The VAX and I felt a little rejected
) but I made sure that booting on power recovery was
) working right. At least it would get going again
) quickly when power came back.
)
) Anyway, as a consolation prize, the data center
) manager said he would have one of the security
) cameras adjusted to cover the VAX. I thought to
) myself, "Great, now we can have 24 hour video tapes
) of the operators eating Chinese takeout on the CPU."
) I resolved to get a piece of plastic to cover the
) cheat sheets.
)
) One day, the apprentice gnome called to whisper that
) the senior was going to give an extremely important
) demonstration. Now I must explain that what the 750
) was really doing was holding our National Debt. The
) Reagan administration had decided to privatize it and
) had quietly put it out for bid. My Extreme Large
) Financial Institution had won the bid for it and was,
) as ELFI's are wont to do, making an absolute bundle
) on the float.
)
) On Monday the Comptroller was going to demonstrate to
) the board of directors how he could move a trillion
) dollars from Switzerland to the Bahamas. The
) apprentice whispered, "Would you please look in on
) our computer? I'm sure everything will be fine, sir,
) but we will feel better if you are present. I'm sure
) you understand?" I did.
)
) Monday morning, I got there about five hours before
) the scheduled demo to check things over. Everything
) was cool. I was chatting with the shift supervisor
) and about to go upstairs to the Comptroller's office.
) Suddenly there was a power failure.
)
) The emergency lighting came on and the immortal power
) system took over the load of the IBM 3090's. They
) continued smoothly, but of course the VAX, still on
) city power, died. Everyone smiled and the dead 750
) was no big deal because it was 7 AM and gnomes don't
) work before 10 AM. I began worrying about whether I
) could beg some immortal power from the data center
) manager in case this was a long outage.
)
) Immortal power in this system comes from storage
) batteries for the first five minutes of an outage.
) Promptly at one minute into the outage we hear the
) gas turbine powered generator in the sub-basement
) under us automatically start up getting ready to take
) the load on the fifth minute. We all beam at each
) other.
)
) At two minutes into the outage we hear the whine of
) the backup gas turbine generator starting. The 3090's
) and all those disk drives are doing just fine.
) Business as usual. The VAX is dead as a door nail but
) what the hell.
)
) At precisely five minutes into the outage, just as
) the gas turbine is taking the load, city power comes
) back on and the immortal power source commits
) suicide. Actually it was a double murder and suicide
) because it took both 3090's with it.
)
) So now the whole data center was dead, sort of. The
) fire alarm system had it's own battery backup and was
) still alive. The lead acid storage batteries of the
) immortal power system had been discharging at a
) furious rate keeping all those big blue boxes running
) and there was a significant amount of sulfuric acid
) vapor. Nothing actually caught fire but the smoke
) detectors were convinced it had.
)
) The fire alarm klaxon went off and the siren warning
) of imminent halon gas release was screaming. We
) started to panic but the data center manager shouted
) over the din, "Don't worry, the halon system failed
) its acceptance test last week. It's disabled and
) nothing will happen."
)
) He was half right, the primary halon system indeed
) failed to discharge. But the secondary halon system
) observed that the primary had conked and instantly
) did its duty, which was to deal with Dire Disasters.
) It had twice the capacity and six times the discharge
) rate.
)
) Now the ear splitting gas discharge under the raised
) floor was so massive and fast, it blew about half of
) the floor tiles up out of their framework. It came up
) through the floor into a communications rack and blew
) the cover panels off, decking an operator. Looking
) out across that vast computer room, we could see the
) air shimmering as the halon mixed with it.
)
) We stampeded for exits to the dying whine of 175 IBM
) disks. As I was escaping I glanced back at the VAX,
) on city power, and noticed the usual flickering of
) the unit select light on its system disk indicating
) it was happily rebooting.
)
) Twelve firemen with air tanks and axes invaded. There
) were frantic phone calls to the local IBM Field
) Service office because both the live and backup
) 3090's were down. About twenty minutes later,
) seventeen IBM CEs arrived with dozens of boxes and,
) so help me, a barrel. It seems they knew what to
) expect when an immortal power source commits murder.
)
) In the midst of absolute pandemonium, I crept off to
) the gnome office and logged on. After extensive
) checking it was clear that everything was just fine
) with the VAX and I began to calm down. I called the
) data center manager's office to tell him the good
) news. His secretary answered with, "He isn't expected
) to be available for some time. May I take a
) message?" I left a slightly smug note to the effect
) that, unlike some other computers, the VAX was intact
) and functioning normally.
)
) Several hours later, the gnome was whispering his way
) into a demonstration of how to flick a trillion
) dollars from country 2 to country 5. He was just
) coming to the tricky part, where the money had been
) withdrawn from Switzerland but not yet deposited in
) the Bahamas. He was proceeding very slowly and the
) directors were spellbound. I decided I had better
) check up on the data center.
)
) Most of the floor tiles were back in place. IBM had
) resurrected one of the 3090's and was running tests.
) What looked like a bucket brigade was working on the
) other one. The communication rack was still naked and
) a fireman was standing guard over the immortal power
) corpse. Life was returning to normal, but the Big
) Blue Country crew was still pretty shaky.
)
) Smiling proudly, I headed back toward the triumphant
) VAX behind the tape racks where one of the operators
) was eating a plump jelly bun on the 750 CPU. He saw
) me coming, turned pale and screamed to the shift
) supervisor, "Oh my God, we forgot about the VAX!"
) Then, before I could open my mouth, he rebooted it.
) It was Monday, 19-Oct-1987. VAXen, my children, just
) don't belong some places.
)--
)Edited by Brad Templeton. MAIL, yes MAIL your jokes to funny@looking.UUCP
)Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. I will reply, mailers willing.
)I reply to all submissions, but about 30% of the replies bounce.
∂03-Mar-89 1423 Mailer re: One clean way of dealing with university censorship
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from karish@forel.stanford.edu sent 3 Mar 89 18:51:20 GMT.]
In my opinion Mosher was treated unjustly. I was told by both a Stanford
lawyer and by the chairman of the Anthropology Department that Mosher
would have been let off if he had been apologetic after he returned to
Stanford. Moreover, some Chinese scholars (in China) expressed shock that
Stanford kowtowed to the Chinese Government under threat of having
exchange programs reduced. Mosher's speech should have been protected.
∂03-Mar-89 1435 JMC CFAR Petition
To: JJW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
∂03-Mar-89 1420 nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU CFAR Petition
Received: from cive.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 89 14:20:17 PST
Received: by cive.STANFORD.EDU (1.2/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA26557; Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:19:26 pst
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:19:26 pst
From: nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU (Jared Nedzel)
Message-Id: <8903032219.AA26557@cive.STANFORD.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: CFAR Petition
Cc: nedzel@cive.STANFORD.EDU
Here's a copy of the CFAR petition. Can you post it to su.issues.sclc?
Also, I've figured out how to read the bboard from my account on portia,
but I still have not figured out how to post to the bboard [:-(]. Could
you tell me how to post to the bboard?
Thanks,
Jared Nedzel
PETITION FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH
The lifeblood of a University is the free expression of ideas.
However, the community cannot survive unless members treat each
other with respect and dignity. To limit either of these goals is
to jeopardize the purpose of the University Q the exploration of
ideas and the education of its members. We believe that the
interpretations of the Fundamental Standard need to be clarified
to explicitly state Stanford's commitment both to free speech and
to freedom from harassment. However, we feel that the SCLC's
proposed interpretation of the Fundamental Standard does not
strike an adequate balance between these two ideals.
Therefore, we petition that:
1) The Fundamental Standard should not be interpreted so as to
restrict the right to free speech as defined by current 1st
Amendment principles. Therefore,
a) Harassment of individuals will be considered a violation
of the Fundamental Standard,
b) Speech directed towards groups, as opposed to individuals,
will not be considered a violation of the Fundamental
Standard.
2) The Academic Senate consider these dual issues of free speech
and freedom from personal harassment.
∂03-Mar-89 1445 JMC
To: VAL
What is Arkady's phone number?
∂03-Mar-89 1619 JMC re: Letter to request DARPA approval for Japan trip
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Mar 89 16:02:36 PST.]
That looks ok.
∂03-Mar-89 1704 Mailer rhf referred to Library Committee
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
As predicted, the Steering Committee of the Academic Senate
referred the rhf issue to a committee. The committee chosen is
the committee on libraries, a good choice in principle, because
it is an issue about a ``library''. The Library Committee is
requrested to propose a ``statement of principle'', not
legislation and reply with all deliberate speed. Anyone wishing
to provide input should contact the Chair of that committee.
∂04-Mar-89 0952 JMC
To: ME
The terminal came back, but still works badly.
∂04-Mar-89 1659 JMC phd admissions
To: hemenway@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
I have finished mine. They are in Pat's office. Anyone in our
group can let you in.
If there's no-one around, including me, phone 857-0672.
∂05-Mar-89 1217 JMC
To: tom@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I badly need to get my home terminal working again.
∂05-Mar-89 1220 Mailer re: Withdraw the SCLC proposal!
To: gangolli@WOLVESDEN.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from gangolli@wolvesden.stanford.edu sent 5 Mar 89 19:54:12 GMT.]
Please post to su-etc also. The su-etc community has been
important in the rhf matter, and not everyone will get around
to reading su.issues.sclc.
∂05-Mar-89 1225 Mailer help wanted
To: su-jobs@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
packing and unpacking and moving books. No computer
skills required.
∂05-Mar-89 1805 Mailer grumble about aclu
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
People who criticize ACLU are criticized as against civil
liberties. We critics say that we criticize ACLU for activities
that have only a tenuous connection with civil liberties but
rather have a general left-wing character. An example is that
ACLU prepared the successful brief leading to New York State
being forbidden by a Federal Judge from using the SATs to
decide on scholarships. This is not a civil liberties issue,
but an egalitarian issue.
∂05-Mar-89 2330 JMC
To: MPS
The light above my desk is out.
∂06-Mar-89 1001 JMC re: a true story
To: H.HUSSEIN@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from H.HUSSEIN@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Mon 6 Mar 89 00:36:30-PST.]
The Stockton psycho was indeed white, but I believe the McDonald
psycho was black.
∂06-Mar-89 1010 Mailer re: grumble about aclu
To: les@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from les@gang-of-four.stanford.edu sent 6 Mar 89 09:38:19 GMT.]
As Les well knows, criticizing ACLU for some actions doesn't preclude
praising it for others. When criticizing the lawsuit against the SATs,
I should have also mentioned that its basis is scientifically unsound
as well. When the American Civil Liberities Union files lawsuits in
non-civil liberties causes, it jeopardizes some of its support for
its civil liberties activities, e.g. it causes people like Thornburgh
to resign and me not to join.
∂06-Mar-89 1030 JMC Pat Simmons......
To: CLT
∂06-Mar-89 0850 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Pat Simmons......
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Mar 89 08:50:48 PST
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.61/25-eef) id AA11241; Mon, 6 Mar 89 08:48:44 -0800
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1989 8:48:40 PST
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: davis@score, sloan@score
Cc: jmc@sail, rwf@sail
Subject: Pat Simmons......
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.605206120.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
just called. She isn't feeling well and won't be in today.
∂06-Mar-89 1137 JMC re: help wanted
To: BRATCHER@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 6 Mar 89 11:30:26-PST.]
$7.50 per hour. The hours would be more or less at his convenience.
∂06-Mar-89 1208 JMC re: help wanted
To: BRATCHER@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 6 Mar 89 12:00:58-PST.]
It's a two or three shot job. I have a few thousand books that
have to be boxed. Some of them will be moved (by regular movers)
to our new house. Then they will have to be unpacked and shelved.
However, most of them will have to be moved to my secretary's
office at Stanford (by you) for cataloging and then moved to the new
house later. A good time to start boxing would be Saturday. Moving
day is a week from Thursday according to the present schedule. We
will pay $7.50 per hour.
∂06-Mar-89 1400 JMC re: Nature's Sunshine Distributor
To: BRENDA@STAR2.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 3 Mar 89 08:41:21-PDT.]
Hi! It is not appropriate to post advertisements to su-etc.
∂06-Mar-89 1441 JMC re: help wanted
To: BRATCHER@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 6 Mar 89 12:00:58-PST.]
Are you still interested? Another person has asked.
∂06-Mar-89 1451 JMC re: help wanted
To: DAVIS@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 6 Mar 89 13:21:32-PST.]
It's a two or three shot job. I have a few thousand books that
have to be boxed. Some of them will be moved (by regular movers)
to our new house. Then they will have to be unpacked and
shelved. However, most of them will have to be moved to my
secretary's office at Stanford (by you) for cataloging and then
moved to the new house later. A good time to start boxing would
be Friday or Saturday. Moving day is a week from Thursday
according to the present schedule. We will pay $7.50 per hour.
∂06-Mar-89 1505 JMC
To: CLT
I hired Thea's nephew. I haven't yet got Cable on the phone.
∂06-Mar-89 1644 JMC re: [searle@cogsci.berkeley.edu (John R. Searle): Re: times]
To: HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU, searle@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU
[In reply to message from HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU sent Mon 6 Mar 89 15:43:18-PST.]
April 21 and 28 are ok. I will be abroad for the first half of April.
∂07-Mar-89 1158 Mailer
To: su-computers@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
From: UAMIS::JMS "The Satanic VAXes. Ken Olsen must die!" 7-MAR-1989 12:01:54.54
∂07-Mar-89 1206 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Mar-89 12:03-PT.]
That will be fine; what time?
∂07-Mar-89 2243 Mailer re: I'm an Agnostic and proud of it . . . I think.
To: gilham@PORTIA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 7 Mar 89 22:00:02-PST.]
Living a fraction of your life as if God existed equal to the
probability you assign to God existing is the probability
matching strategy. It describes a behavior often used by rats
and college sophomores in psychological experiments. It is
irrational compared to maximizing expected reward. Pascal used
expected reward as an argument for acting as if God exists if you
give it any finite probability. This is on the grounds that the
reward is infinite if God exists and you acknowledge it.
Unfortunately for his argument, it depended on the candidate God
being that of the 17th century French Catholic Church. If he assigned
finite probability to some God who offers infinite
punishment for behaving as a French catholic, e.g. the French
Huguenot God, the expected reward becomes indeterminate no matter
what he did.
∂08-Mar-89 1215 JMC re: Deep Knowledge Meeting - Sunderland Polytechnic
To: JWS%IB.RL.AC.UK@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 8 Mar 89 18:19:40 GMT.]
My present intention is to fly to Edinburgh from California
on March 25 arriving March 26. My host there will be
Chris Mellish <chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>.
I will go from there to Sunderland according to the best local advice.
I suppose the evening of the 28th will be a good time to arrive. I
still don't know when they plan to schedule my presentation, however,
and I don't have a program yet.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message. I'm uncertain about the
reliability of networks.
∂08-Mar-89 1220 JMC re: Visit to Edinburgh?
To: chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Fri, 3 Mar 89 14:17:13 GMT.]
Thank you much for the invitation. I propose to arrive in Edinburgh from
London on the evening of the 26th of March according to the following.
>03-25 to Edinburgh, paa 124 6pm 1305 London, BA 4792 1500-1610
I plan to go to Sunderland on the evening of the 28th. I am at your
disposal in the interim.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
∂08-Mar-89 1231 JMC re: Story for Campus Report
To: S.SHURKIN@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Mar 89 11:05:35-PST.]
That will be ok. When you refer to "comments on the bulletin
board" do you mean "about rhf" or "appearing on su-etc"? Its
users generally consider su-etc to be a public medium and
therefore quotable without further permission.
∂08-Mar-89 1232 Mailer schedule on rhf consideration
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. Gerald Gillespie, Chairman of the Faculty Committee on Libraries,
told me that his committee will meet next at the beginning of the next
quarter to consider general Stanford policy toward newsgroups and
make a recommendation as requested by the Academic Senate Steering
Committee. He has a large amount of the documentation already but
will welcome further comments. I suppose they would be most welcome
in the unlikely event that they involve additional considerations.
I am optimistic about the rhf issue, less optimistic about Stanford
adhering to the First Amendment.
Gillespie has no email address, but Campus Mail works - more or less.
∂08-Mar-89 1240 JMC re: Final Exams
To: STAGER@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Mar 89 10:17:15-PST.]
cs323 will not have a final.
∂08-Mar-89 1629 JMC re: dinner?
To: HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Mar 89 16:21:20-PST.]
Yes, if it can be early enough to finish in time to get to csli
by 7:40. Say meeting at 6pm. I wanted to discuss some
incomplete ideas with you.
∂08-Mar-89 1634 JMC re: dinner?
To: HDEUTSCH@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Mar 89 16:30:23-PST.]
See you there.
∂08-Mar-89 1800 JMC re: 1962 IFIP article
To: BURKE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 8 Mar 89 17:28:30-PST.]
You are the third person to claim that something doesn't exist, because
it isn't listed in Socrates. Socrates starts with 1973 publications.
Call the Math Library and have them see if it's in the catalog.
∂09-Mar-89 1242 JMC re: Visit to Edinburgh?
To: chrism%aipna.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK
[In reply to message sent Thu, 9 Mar 89 10:03:06 GMT.]
Yes, please book accomodation. The title will be Formalizing Context.
∂09-Mar-89 1802 JMC re: my SAIL account
To: mrc@TOMOBIKI-CHO.CAC.WASHINGTON.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 9 Mar 1989 17:56:06 PST.]
No chance. My projects are all broke.
∂10-Mar-89 1046 JMC re: my M.Sc. thesis
To: eyal@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 9 Mar 89 19:57:34 PST.]
I'm not sure when I will get to it. I forgot; does something depend
on our reading it promptly. Vladimir is away this week.
∂10-Mar-89 1047 JMC re: censorship
To: anderson@june.cs.washington.edu
[In reply to message sent Thu, 09 Mar 89 20:59:15 PST.]
Thanks for your support.
∂10-Mar-89 1057 Mailer re: slaves
To: S.ST@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from S.ST@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Thu 9 Mar 89 23:30:36-PST.]
Observation often gives the illusion that an oppressed group is
happy with their lot. People make the best of their situations,
and there are even stories are told of groups of people condemned
to be executed sitting around playing cards and joking while the
gallows are being set up. As to the slaves, there was widespread
public rejoicing among them when they were freed, and many
volunteered to serve in the Union Army. A modern similar illusion
was that the inhabitants of the Soviet Union had no grievances with
the Soviet system. "Experts" on the Soviet Union told us that the
Armenians, Ukrainians and Balts had long ago accepted their situation.
∂10-Mar-89 1255 JMC re: Alliant meeting
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 10 Mar 89 12:24:42 PST.]
One day of that week is as good as another.
∂10-Mar-89 1301 Mailer re: hey, bud ...
To: RTC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RTC rcvd 10-Mar-89 12:41-PT.]
The U.S. Civil War was fought about a number of issues, one
of which was the right to secede. It was won by the Union
side. Even today, there is a great inhibition against
bringing up again an issue that cost 500,000 lives to settle.
By the way Texas doesn't have the right to secede; it has
the right to divide itself into five states.
∂10-Mar-89 1355 Mailer The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The Daily today has a congratulatory article on the retirement
of Lorenz Eitner, Director of the Stanford Museum. Before
Eitner came, the museum had some individual character. For example,
it had the locomotive associated with the completion of the
transcontinental railroad by Stanford and colleagues. Eitner's
first act was the banishment of the locomotive. I believe he
wanted to scrap it, but it survived and is around Sacramento
somewhere. Eitner wanted a small art museum just like every
other small art museum in the country.
I first thought about writing the Daily about this, but my
success in getting letters printed by the Daily is slightly
less than my success with the New York Times.
While I'm grumbling to this somewhat captive audience, I'll
mention the KZSU panel I was on with John Perry and Mike
Laris of CFAR. The panel discussed SCLC and freedom of
speech. My grumble is that the KZSU introduction and
conclusion and choice of questions excessively expressed
the opinions on the issue of the KZSU staff. It's a bad
format.
∂10-Mar-89 1356 Mailer Ujaama
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I have reached the following tentative conclusion about the
Ujaama incident itself. There is no evidence that the two
who put up the modified poster were motivated by racism at
all. Caricaturing the other side's contention in an argument
is a very common form of reply, whether the caricature be
pictorial, as in this case, or verbal or written. One sees
it occasionally on su-etc, and it generates no special
reaction. It has been applied to my writings on su-etc,
and I think I've used it occasionally, although no instance
comes to mind. If it were possible to reproduce pictures
on su-etc, there would be occasional pictorial caricatures
offered as counter-arguments. It isn't usually very
effective in changing people's minds, but it often pleases
people who already agree with the contention made by the
caricature.
I'm afraid most white Stanford students will draw the
conclusion that it is a bad idea to be drawn into any
heated argument with a black Stanford student unless
one's lawyer is present.
∂10-Mar-89 1418 JMC reference
To: AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In answering a call about you from Joan Springer, I said you
were creative and worked well independently. I'm not absolutely
sure that was helpful. If you want to give me hints as to which
of your capabilities should be emphasized, let me know.
∂10-Mar-89 1719 JMC re: Religion. Who was it who said...
To: RLM@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 10 Mar 89 13:10:31-PST.]
It was two physicists, perhaps Bohr and Wigner. One said the
universe is queerer than we imagine, and the second said in
response that it is probably queerer than we can imagine.
∂10-Mar-89 2006 JMC re: Religion. Who was it who said...
To: RLM@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 10 Mar 89 17:46:21-PST.]
It's Ralph Gorin who doesn't read his email.
∂10-Mar-89 2008 JMC re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:40:45 PST.]
My problem was, as stated in my previous message, that the opinions of
the interviewers were too heavily represented in the initial statement,
the questions asked and the final statement. It wasn't the worst I've
heard along that line by a large margin.
∂10-Mar-89 2011 JMC re: The Stanford Museum and other minor tragedies
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 10 Mar 89 18:40:45 PST.]
Well, maybe I should try to be actually helpful. What would help would
be a preliminary discussion with the panel in which what questions were
to be raised would be discussed.
∂10-Mar-89 2148 JMC Timothy probably innocent
To: CLT
When the telephone technician said that the problem was that the
line was badly out of adjustment, I asked him if this was
something a three year old with a screwdriver could do. He said,
"Only if he could get into the central office."
∂11-Mar-89 1405 JMC PhD Admissions
To: genesereth@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, nilsson@TENAYA.Stanford.EDU
I'm quite unhappy about what seems to me to be a bias
toward steady mediocrity, specifically not taking chances
on the young. I would certainly never have been admitted.
∂11-Mar-89 1559 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
To: dash@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Mar 1989 15:52:33 PST.]
How about Monday at 11?
∂11-Mar-89 1605 JMC Formal reasoning budget
To: CLT
How am I fixed for picking up a phd student interested in common
sense reasoning starting - Spring, Summer or Fall?
∂11-Mar-89 1617 JMC re: Commonsense Reasoning
To: dash@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Mar 1989 15:52:33 PST.]
I have some questions that I might forget to ask, so I'll ask
them now.
How long have you been at Stanford? What have you studied? What
mathematical logic have you studied? How do you stand with the
comps? What faculty if any have you worked with? Have you had a
Research Assistantship and will you want one?
∂11-Mar-89 1757 JMC re: Thomas Sowell (was Re: Discrimination)
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 12 Mar 89 01:09:46 GMT.]
You don't happen to have saved the offensive Sowell column, have you?
∂11-Mar-89 1929 JMC re: `Help
To: hhughes@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat, 11 Mar 89 19:19:48 PDT.]
Just mail to su.market will work, but there are fancier
ways, which I don't know, for using usenet. I'm not a
regular user of unix.
∂11-Mar-89 2202 Mailer re: secession and new admissions policy
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sat 11 Mar 89 17:53:16-PST.]
u.underdog writes: "But I'd like to see them multiple-guess their
way on the achievement tests ... "
Ed Fredkin once told me that when he was in the Air Force, he won
a bet by proving that he could pass a multiple choice Air Force
exam looking only at the choices for the answers, not at the questions.
I said that he couldn't do it when the offered answers were numerical,
and he said he could, giving the following example. The possible answers
are 3000, 6000, 6250 and 12,000. Which of them is the right answer and
why?
∂11-Mar-89 2319 JMC
To: MPS
Please TEX a new version of the paper for Bernstam.
∂12-Mar-89 1419 JMC re: secession and new admissions policy
To: S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 12 Mar 89 13:56:34-PST.]
If I remember correctly, that was what I said, but he convinced me
that 6000 would be the right answer.
∂12-Mar-89 1426 Mailer re: Blabs dodging admissions issue?
To: P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Sun 12 Mar 89 01:07:36-PST.]
The biggest objection to Swahili might be its effect in diverting blacks
from taking business and engineering. However, a Swahili course might
well cost a lot to set up. It is necessary to hire an extra person,
and depending on what else he can do and whether he gets tenure,
it may cost a lot.
∂12-Mar-89 1430 Mailer re: redlich---a side note.
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sat 11 Mar 89 23:55:15-PST.]
It was once said that the British chose the young men who were best at
composing Latin verses and sent them off to govern India.
∂12-Mar-89 1513 Mailer re: john maccarthy
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 12 Mar 89 00:00:58-PST.]
You over-interpreted my anecdote. My actual opinion is that
objective tests are the best tool we've got. Fredkin only passed
the Air Force exam just looking at the proposed answers. He's
smart enough to have gotten close to a perfect score looking at
the questions. To pass an exam without looking at the questions
you may have to know the subject as well as the people who make up
the exam.
Here are some examples from an exam for police lieutenant or captain.
I give only the possible answers, not the questions.
(A) analysis of fluctuation in voice intensity as a suspect makes his
statement
(B) word associations made by a criminal in answer to key questions
(C) the inability of most individuals to give a consistent story under
cross questioning
(D) physiological changes in the individual during emotional stress
(A) increase the speed of the bullet
(B) decrease the amount of recoil
(C) prevent the bullet from turning end over end in the air
(D) mark the bullet for purpose of identification
(A) fingerprints are often left on tools used for cracking safes
(B) few safe-crackers leave positive clues
(C) methods employed by safe-crackers are often as identifying
as fingerprints
(D) fingerprints are rarely a method of positive identification
of safe-crackers
(A) the markings on the neck are similar to the markings
produced by hanging
(B) self-strangulation with the hands is impossible
(C) the markings made by hanging are deeper than those
made by strangulation
(D) the markings show interruptions around the neck
from the exam for a State Trooper
(A) right; it was the most effective way of capturing the
criminals
(B) wrong; extreme measures should not be taken in apprehending
petty offenders
(C) right; provided that there was no danger of shooting
innocent bystanders
(D) wrong; this is usually ineffective when more than one offender
is involved
(E) right; it is particularly important to teach juvenile
delinquents respect for the law
from the exam for Sunday school teacher
(A) compassionate
(B) firm and strong
(C) consistent
(D) broad-minded
(A) select the public schools their children will attend
(B) inspect and review their children's educational records
(C) withold information about their children from school officials
(D) attend classes with their children to monitor progress
U.S. History
(A) desire to counter Republican charges that the Democrats
were the party of appeasement and defeat
(B) desire to avoid the large number of casualties that would
occur in a United States invasion of Japan
(C) desire to prod the Soviet Union to be more cooperative as it
began to formulate its postwar plans
(D) difficulty of devising a test demonstration of the atomic bomb
that would unfailingly impress the Japanese government
∂12-Mar-89 1518 JMC re: secession and new admissions policy
To: S.SALUT@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 12 Mar 89 14:19:30-PST.]
The reason for 6000 is that the test maker makes up the problem first
and then solves it. In order to make wrong answers he modifies the
right answers, best by thinking of plausible mistakes, and faut de mieux
by modifying the right answer arbitrarily. 6250 is related to 6000
by an additive change and to the others by multiplicative changes.
Therefore, 6000 was probably the right answer. Let's see if anyone
gets it.
∂12-Mar-89 1829 JMC phone line
To: tom@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Carolyn reports that it isn't working again. She is trying calling
811-8081. It was working when I logged out this afternoon.
∂12-Mar-89 2043 JMC meeting about Soviet visitors
To: VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, suppes@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
Is Tuesday March 21 ok for lunch discussing Soviet visitors,
e.g. Mints and Tyugu?
∂12-Mar-89 2234 Mailer personal exchanges
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Please keep them off su-etc. Most people find them boring,
not remembering what the target did to deserve it.
If there is sufficient general interest in following chains
of mutual accusations and recriminations, perhaps a special
bboard could be created for that purpose.
∂12-Mar-89 2244 JMC re: Sowell
To: op@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 12 Mar 1989 22:33:12 PST.]
I have found many of Sowell's remarks to be quite well-taken. Both
of you found something Sowell said sufficiently bad to discount him
completely. Do you find anything good in him at all? I saw one
of his articles on the California judges that persuaded me to take
his advice and vote against all but two or three. Oren, was it your
opinion that there were arguments in favor of Rose Bird that ought
to have convinced a conservative?
∂13-Mar-89 0035 JMC
To: ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, tom@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
The line started working again.
∂13-Mar-89 1046 JMC re: Sowell
To: op@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 13 Mar 1989 6:57:36 PST.]
I suppose the Sowell column on the judges is long gone. Much of
what you called intellectually dishonest may have struck me
merely as skipping steps in the argument, especially skipping
over opposing points that struck him as trivial. Here's the
reason I'm interested. A large contribution to my becoming
conservative was disgust with leftist and liberal arguments that
I read or heard. It seems to me that many people become liberal
because of disgust with conservative writings, sometimes only as
mirrored in liberal writings but often directly. Moreover,
people often use particular points they disagree with as reasons
not to read further writings by the individual or side they
disagree with. (I claim some personal exemption from this last
matter. I read the Nation regularly and subscribe to the New
York Review of Books. Also about half of the New Republic
material is too liberal for my taste.)
Anyway I'm interested in what kinds of flags in conservative
writings strike liberals as dishonest. It would also be
interesting to understand which of the things conservatives find
dishonest, liberals find as ok or just minor errors. For
example, my indignation was aroused by an A.P. story about New
York in which Goetz's shooting the four young thugs was given as
an example of the crime subway goers fear. Since Goetz was
acquitted of attempted murder, the jury didn't agree. However,
as far as I can tell, my indignation was not shared by su-etc
readers. My daughter, Susan, who is liberal, discussed it with
her professor of journalism at Berkeley. They seemed to regard
it as a minor slip.
If you would be willing to take the time, I will bring in an
issue of the American Spectator. Since it jeers at liberal
writings, conservatives are often roused by it, and liberals
find much of it unfunny and even offensive. My objective isn't
to convince you of anything, but to understand what it is about
the writings of one side that people of the opposite opinion
find dishonest.
A.P. 1986 August 7
Joseph Rauh, speaking for the Americans For Democratic Action, said
Scalia could shift the high court to the right.
''Judge Scalia has ice water in his veins, when the Supreme Court
really ought to have a feeling of compassion,'' Rauh said. ''He makes
jokes about things that we believe in deeply. He laughs at
affirmative action.''
See, E86.IN[LET,JMC]/533P/33L
∂13-Mar-89 1117 JMC re: I'm flaming blabs. Sorry to bore everyone.
To: P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 13 Mar 89 01:07:06-PST.]
If you're sorry to bore everyone, please don't.
∂13-Mar-89 1121 JMC low on reprints
To: MPS
I'm down to the last copy of Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence.
Please make some more and check over the other reprints in the drawer.
∂13-Mar-89 1410 JMC
To: MPS
Nat Hentoff
Village Voice
842 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
∂13-Mar-89 1411 JMC
To: MPS
csd.2[w89,jmc] CSD statement opposing censorship of rhf, rec.humor.funny
∂13-Mar-89 1427 JMC Here's my part of the telegram.
To: VAL
Do you think I should mention the Institute in Pereslavl-Zalessky?
%moscow[w89,jmc] Telegram to Moscow
Vladimir Lifschitz and I are happy to accept your invitations.
I plan to arrive in Moscow on April 2 on SU242 from London at 1925.
I plan to leave Moscow on Saturday April 15 on Pan American 31 for
New York leaving at 1245. If it is possible to decide on a hotel
in advance, I would be grateful to learn its name and telephone number.
During that time I am agreeable to any schedule of visits to
people and institutions with whom I might have common scientific
interests. I suggest that I give two lectures at the Institute
of Philosophy. First: What Philosophy should be built into
robots? Second: Formalization of common sense knowledge and
reasoning.
∂14-Mar-89 1002 JMC re: Reminder/Council Mtg
To: aaai@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 14 Mar 1989 9:04:17 PST.]
I will be abroad.
∂14-Mar-89 1006 JMC re: preacher outside of the bookstore
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 13 Mar 89 18:41:45-PST.]
I agree about harassing the preacher, although he surely is used
to it. In some places there is a tradition of heckling speakers.
I don't know what anyone told you about the "accepted unofficial
rules for su-etc", but expression of views on issues is what
su-etc is for. What should be avoided is just name-calling exchanges.
∂14-Mar-89 1032 JMC house seeker
To: CLT
I have made an appointment for Kevin Campbell 319 335-7867, who will
be staying at the Hyatt Fri. night to see the house at 9am Saturday.
∂14-Mar-89 1634 Mailer re: a story (a true story) giving Christianity a more favorable light
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Tue 14 Mar 89 14:35:28-PST.]
Quite apart from any virtues that may be more common in
Christians than in some others, a Japanese Christian soldier in
World War II doubtless had many points of difference with World
War II Japanese ideology, which probably was specifically
negative about Christianity. Besides he may have considered the
American prisoners to be fellow Christians. Some better examples
would be religious Christians in Europe who helped protect Jews.
∂14-Mar-89 1837 JMC re: [Irwin E. Welker <welker> : homework ]
To: alex@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 14 Mar 1989 18:31:59 PST.]
A student came by, and although I didn't get his name, I suppose it's the
same one. I told him to leave the homework for you with Pat, and I
suppose he did. You can get from her tomorrow, or we can look for it
now.
∂16-Mar-89 1251 JMC re: circumscription language : reality check
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue, 14 Mar 1989 19:35:24 PST.]
That seems correct.
∂16-Mar-89 1258 JMC re: two things
To: HOFFMAN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 15 Mar 89 21:11:03-PST.]
I would be glad to "debate" with Dreyfus this Spring. I'll be
back about April 15. However, I have somewhat greater interest
in debating with Searle in the Fall if necessary, because I would
like to get his reaction to certain ideas. In that respect I wonder
if they would be agreeable to the following addition to the format.
Each speaker gives (say) 3 issues he would like the other to address,
and the audience gets copies of the list of issues in advance. The
statement of the proposed issues should be kept to a single page.
∂16-Mar-89 1623 JMC re: CSD Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 15 Mar 1989 13:42:59 PST.]
I forgot; what are the dates of the retreat.
∂16-Mar-89 1728 JMC freedom of speech
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
The SCLC draft was attacked by former President Lyman,
President Kennedy (mildly) and two professors of
consitutional law, Gerald Gunther and William Cohen and
in a petition signed by more than 800 students. The
chairman of SCLC said no-one supported it in a letter
and has agreed to scrap the draft and start over.
While something bad is still conceivable, the opponents
of freedom of speech have been thoroughly routed.
Of course, this bodes well for rhf, when the Committee on
Libraries decides on its recommendations.
∂17-Mar-89 0908 JMC re: CBCL
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Mar-89 17:31-PT.]
ok
∂17-Mar-89 0917 JMC re: freedom of speech
To: brad@looking.uucp
[In reply to message sent Thu, 16 Mar 89 21:33:26 EST.]
I agree. Probably the Rushdie affair was even more significant,
but rhf provided a bridge between the issues here. I'm undecided
how to suggest using the Stanford results in the larger scale.
One option is to wait for the result of the Committee on
Libraries - Academic Senate process. It is reasonable to hope for
a declaration that computer media deserve the same respect as
printed books. On the other hand, the fact that Stanford
referred the matter to the Committee on Libraries is usable in
itself as a suggestion that others do likewise.
On the general freedom of expression issue, the statements by
Lyman, Gunther and Cohen provide a powerful package. I'll send
them to you, U.S. mail or fax, if you like. Where else is rhf
an issue.
∂17-Mar-89 0919 JMC re: CSD Faculty Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Mar 1989 8:49:35 PST.]
Include me.
∂17-Mar-89 0932 JMC freedom of expression
To: brad%looking@WATERLOO.EDU
I agree. Probably the Rushdie affair was even more significant,
but rhf provided a bridge between the issues here. I'm undecided
how to suggest using the Stanford results in the larger scale.
One option is to wait for the result of the Committee on
Libraries - Academic Senate process. It is reasonable to hope for
a declaration that computer media deserve the same respect as
printed books. On the other hand, the fact that Stanford
referred the matter to the Committee on Libraries is usable in
itself as a suggestion that others do likewise.
On the general freedom of expression issue, the statements by
Lyman, Gunther and Cohen provide a powerful package. I'll send
them to you, U.S. mail or fax, if you like. Where else is rhf
an issue?
∂17-Mar-89 0936 JMC re: CSD Faculty Retreat
To: chandler@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Mar 1989 9:22:06 PST.]
Single. I'll pay it out of my Piggott professorship money. If
this is not allowable, I'll pay it myself.
∂17-Mar-89 1019 Mailer re: nationalized health care.
To: jacobs@POLYA.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from jacobs@polya.stanford.edu sent 17 Mar 89 18:01:21 GMT.]
In the two cases cited by Jacobs, speed limit and drinking age, it isn't
"bureaucrats' penchant for running things", but Congress's penchant for
running things. The bureaucrats have this penchant, but in these cases
it was Congress.
∂17-Mar-89 1029 JMC visas
To: VAL
It occurred to me that you might not know or might not have told the
Consulate or Styopin that I plan to leave the U.S. on Saturday March 25.
∂17-Mar-89 1052 JMC
To: MPS
∂17-Mar-89 1049 VAL re: visas
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Mar-89 10:29-PT.]
I didn't know that you plan to leave early. I would suggest that Pat
call the Consulate right away and give them this date, and maybe pick up
your visa at the Consulate when it's ready, instead of having them mail it
to us.
∂17-Mar-89 1412 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Mar-89 13:58-PT.]
Well, ok, but I hope you don't become too fascinated with the legal
system.
∂17-Mar-89 1419 JMC re: Appointment with prospective Ph.D. Student
To: anderson@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Mar 89 12:31:24 -0800.]
Make it Thursday at 2pm for Greiner. Is he any relation to our
(former?) student Russ Greiner? If he is interested in proving
programs correct, and I remember he had a strong recommendation
from Felleisen, then he should also talk (on Friday) to Carolyn
Talcott (CLT@SAIL). Also please send me a copy of the statement
of purpose in his application.
∂17-Mar-89 1423 JMC re: Meeting with Professor McCarthy
To: levy@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 17 Mar 1989 12:22:08 PST.]
My email address is not in the Department database, because it
can't distinguish between my preferred junk mail electronic
address and my preferred human mail address. Monday is ok for
Virginia Peck, say 2pm. Please confirm this by email. Also
please bring me a copy of the statement of purpose from her
application.
∂17-Mar-89 1453 Mailer ignorance of geography
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
As for the people who cannot name a single South American country,
there are three possibilities.
1. Their school didn't teach it. I went to a perfectly ordinary
American grade school, and as I remember it, I was expected to
learn the names of most of these countries, but I'm pretty sure
I was not expected to learn the names of the European colonies
on the Northeast coast. Geography went out of fashion at some
point (1950s I think), but a real blank started in the late 60s
and the early 70s when the teachers replaced geography with their
views on the Vietnam war.
2. The students were expected to learn it but didn't.
3. They learned it but forgot. Some people, myself included,
remember even trival facts learned in grade school. Others
quickly forget information they don't use.
Unless policy makers conduct as study to determine which is
the case most of the time, their remedies may turn out pointless.
∂17-Mar-89 1718 Mailer re: ignorance, American education, Japan
To: U.UNDERDOG@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Fri 17 Mar 89 16:52:59-PST.]
I will mention two theories about ignorance more gloomy than those
proposed by u.underdog.
1. The eugenicists were right. The reason why the number of students
getting above 700 on SAT verbal went from 35,000 to 14,000 between
1965 and 1985 is that smart people didn't have enough children.
2. The descendants of my teachers have jobs as programmers and
as businesswomen. Smart women have better opportunities these
days than becoming school teachers.
They are gloomy theories, because, to the extent that either is
correct, it's not easy to see what to do to improve the situation.
Moreover, either possibility is so unpalatable to the educational
establishment that no attempt is likely to be made to find out
if either effect is partly responsible for our troubles.
∂17-Mar-89 1834 Mailer Again Sweden is in advance of the U.S.
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
a208 1129 17 Mar 89
AM-BRF--Inheritance,0137
Man Inherits Parents' Estate After Killing Them
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - A 21-year-old man who killed his parents is
inheriting their estate worth more than $160,000 after a court ruled
he had been temporarily insane, a court official said Friday.
The official said the man, who cannot be identified under Swedish
press regulations, would get almost $50,000 in life insurance in
addition to the family home, two cars and corporate investments. The
court official spoke on condition of anonymity.
The man from Ystad in southern Sweden acknowleged that he beat his
parents to death on Sept. 15. The district court ruled he had
committed the killings but could not be held responsible for his
actions.
The court said he was entitled to inherit the estate, which was
assessed earlier this week.
∂19-Mar-89 1626 JMC possible whiteball
To: genesereth@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, hemenway@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: RDZ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
We turned down yet another young applicant, Larry Hostetler from
Johns Hopkins. I don't remember him but would like to see his
folder. Since he has been awarded a Hertz Fellowship, I can
afford to whiteball him if it seems appropriate.
∂19-Mar-89 1643 Mailer re: bill bennett
To: T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from T.TEDEBEAR@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 19 Mar 89 01:26:58-PST.]
Calling Bennett an "elitist, paternalistic, insenstive moron" is a mere
tribal yell. The "moron" part shows it. The question is what tribe?
Is it Stanford administration, teachers' lobby, anti-Reagan, democrats,
"progressives" in general, readers of Mother Jones?
∂19-Mar-89 1702 JMC re: possible whiteball
To: GENESERETH@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun 19 Mar 89 16:49:57-PST.]
What about him?
∂19-Mar-89 1722 JMC elaboration
To: genesereth@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Does anything depend on whether and when I decide on
whiteballing Galbiati, except as it concerns himself,
myself and Carolyn?
I find my views sufficiently at variance with what I consider
the prejudices of the Admissions Committee that I will probably
avoid future participation in the process.
∂19-Mar-89 2104 JMC re: Homework # 3: done - epsilon
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 19 Mar 1989 20:57:35 PST.]
Please make a copy and put the original under the door of my office.
∂19-Mar-89 2301 JMC news
To: CLT
1. My Visa card arrived.
2. Caspian is deceased
3. Susie and Dan are moving to a house near Ocean Ave.
New home phone 584-2313
New address:
* 445 Grafton Ave.
* San Francisco, CA 94112
They'll be at both addresses for a week or so.
∂20-Mar-89 0824 JMC re: "mother jones"
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 20 Mar 89 03:46:50-PST.]
A left wing magazine named after a turn-of-the-century labor leader.
∂20-Mar-89 0848 JMC
To: CLT
Frank phoned, said he would be here.
∂20-Mar-89 1109 Mailer re: bill bennett
To: T.TEDEBEAR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from T.TEDEBEAR@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Sun 19 Mar 89 23:11:54-PST.]
Mr. Theodore Chen's (t.tedebear@macbeth) conjectures about me are
entirely, correct so that I can hope that at least one of mine
about him is correct. I'm surprised, however, that he is
offended by the conjecture that he reads Mother Jones; I read it
myself sometimes. Returning to Bennett, the charge that he is
"insensitive" is irrefutable. I don't believe that it has ever
been proved that someone is not insensitive. It is one of the
vague charges that many liberals love, because there is nothing
concrete that can be discussed. (Some conservatives love
different vague charges).
Presumably, the accusation refers to Bennett, or possibly just
Reagan, opposing some measure that Mr. Chen supports, or possibly
Mr. Chen merely conjectures that Bennett would oppose some
measure that Mr. Chen would have supported if he could only
remember what it was. If an actual measure was mentioned, one
could argue about whether Bennett did oppose it, whether he was
right in doing so, and (relevant to insensitivity) whether his
motives in opposing it was intellectual or something else.
I don't know what position of Mr. Bennett's Mr. Chen has in mind.
Would he inform us?
∂20-Mar-89 1420 JMC re: Export restrictions?
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 13:55:23 PST.]
I have no real idea. However, it seems to me that the code is of
basic research interest only. No-one is going to incorporate it
in a product. No-one would object to your including the code
in a report. Therefore, it seems to me that you should send it.
If DARPA scolds us for it, we'll agree not to do it again.
∂20-Mar-89 1429 Mailer re: Ross Casley, ignorance, American education, Japan
To: RTC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RTC rcvd 20-Mar-89 12:16-PT.]
So far as I have read, the Japanese ``examination hell'' refers to
entrance to the most prestigious universities, especially the University
of Tokyo. It seems that if one can only get into U. Tokyo, one is
virtually guaranteed a prosperous career. Perhaps some Japanese can
inform us about whether high school is so stressful for all students.
The U.S. is remarkable in the number of successful people whose
undergraduate and even graduate education was at rather ordinary
colleges and universities. Harvard helps, but not so much.
∂20-Mar-89 1432 JMC re: education, ignorance and intelligence
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 12:05:45 PST.]
Was your message sent to su-etc? I see Newsgroups: su.etc in the
header, but I don't see it in our su-etc. I hope you will send
it there, because I would like to answer it for that audience.
∂20-Mar-89 1600 JMC re: your home system
To: tom@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 15:53:50 -0800.]
10am is ok. Earlier up to 845 would be better.
∂20-Mar-89 1610 JMC re: ignorance, American education, Japan
To: shashank@COYOTE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from shashank@coyote.stanford.edu sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 16:07:27 PST.]
In all the discussions I have seen, this hypothesis hasn't even been
mentioned. I think commentators are afraid to mention it for fear of
being attacked, and social scientists are even more afraid to study
it.
∂20-Mar-89 1744 JMC re: Frameproblem workshop
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 17:34:30 PST.]
Well, I have forgotten about it if I ever knew. When is it? What
kinds of participation is wanted? A talk, a paper?
∂20-Mar-89 1824 Mailer re: SAT scores over time (was Re: education, ignorance and intelligence)
To: bone@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from bone@sierra.stanford.edu sent 21 Mar 89 01:42:04 GMT.]
There seems to be sufficient interest so that I will try to track down
more exactly what the decline from 35,000 to 14,000 is by telephoning
ETS in Princeton. Unfortunately, what I read was a letter to the NYT
in Fall 1987 with the title given by the NYT "Reading the SATleaves."
The letter was in response to a previous Op-Ed on the subject, and
I hadn't seen the latter. Also the clipping disappeared after my
return from Austin to Stanford.
∂20-Mar-89 2128 JMC re: education, ignorance and intelligence
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 20 Mar 89 20:19:11 PST.]
Thank you. I'll do it - at some leisure.
∂22-Mar-89 1053 JMC
To: CLT
Jerry Harris, 3-0496, 497-0282
∂22-Mar-89 1516 JMC re: Alliant
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU sent Wed, 22 Mar 89 15:13:34 PST.]
My opinion is that Joe should go ahead and talk to Pullen unless
either Carolyn or Dick as a different idea.
∂22-Mar-89 1531 JMC re: ps
To: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@GO, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message from CLT rcvd 22-Mar-89 15:25-PT.]
OK, negotiate.
∂22-Mar-89 1651 JMC
To: CLT
777-8380 Steve Lawrence
∂22-Mar-89 2301 JMC
To: MPS
In putting labels on books, try to avoid covering author or title.
∂23-Mar-89 0959 Mailer Fusion
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
a084 0823 23 Mar 89
PM-Fusion,0525
Breakthrough Claimed in Nuclear Fusion
LONDON (AP) - Two scientists claim to have carried controlled
nuclear fusion in a test tube, using a ''ridiculously simple''
technique that could transform the world's energy resources, it was
reported today.
''If their discovery is confirmed, they will have gone a long way
toward taming the forces powering the sun and the hydrogen bomb,''
The Financial Times said. ''These could provide virtually unlimited,
clean and inexpensive energy.''
The paper identified the scientists as Martin Fleischmann of
Southampton University in England and Stan Pons of the University of
Utah. A formal announcement will be made in Salt Lake City later
today.
Nuclear fusion is regarded as science's next great frontier in
developing new sources of energy, but has generally been considered
to be years away from commercial exploitation. It differs from
conventional processes in that it fuses atoms, rather than splits
them.
The Financial Times said the two scientists ''have apparently done
in a simple laboratory what has not been achieved by gigantic
projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.''
The Fleischmann-Pons experiments technically ''are no more complex
than the practical work done by chemistry undergraduates. They use
electrochemical techniques to achieve fusion of deuterium nuclei
trapped inside an electrode made from palladium, a metal similar to
platinum,'' The Financial Times said.
Dr. Mick Lomer, head of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority's fusion
laboratory, told the newspaper: ''We're approaching it with a
skeptical but open mind. We shall be doing our utmost to reproduce
the experiment.''
Fusion produces little radioactive waste; its material, deuterium,
is abundant in seawater; and fusion reactors are expected to be safer
than fission reactors because the fusion process would shut down if
anything went wrong. One past problem has been safely containing the
reaction.
The newspaper quoted Fleischmann as saying: ''What we have done is
open the door to a new area of research. Our indications are that the
discovery will be reasonably easy to make into a usable technology
for generating heat and power, but a lot more work is needed to prove
its validity further and then to develop practical generating
devices.''
He was quoted as saying: ''The nature of the experiment is
ridiculously simple, yet in a way so far-fetched, that we decided not
to raise money from external sources but to finance the early work
ourselves.''
The paper said physicists ''find it hard to believe the deuterium
nuclei could be squeezed together enough for fusion to occur.''
In a separate report, The Financial Times said the discovery could
''transform the outlook for the world's energy supplies in the next
century.''
It said the idea for the experiment originated in the 1960s, and
Pons and Fleischmann began discussing possible test methods while
working together at Southhampton and then at Salt Lake City.
''Stan and I often talk of doing insane experiments,'' said
Fleischmann, 61. ''We each have a good track record of getting
impossible experiments to work. In this case, the stakes were so high
that we just had to try out the idea.''
AP-NY-03-23-89 1111EST
***************
∂23-Mar-89 1103 Mailer Modern world culture and civilization
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There is a close parallel between modern culture and civilization on
the one hand and modern technology on the other.
1. Between (say) 1450 and 1950, technology might well have been called
Western technology. All the major developments in science and
technology occurred in countries with European culture. Before
1450 this wasn't so, and European technology was substantially
based on technology first developed in other cultures. Since
1950, non-Western countries have contributed an increasing
fraction of scientific and technological novelties. There is no
doubt that both science and technology can flourish in non-Western
countries, even though modern science and technology are based
on the 500 year development in the West.
2. The situation with regard to culture and civilization is similar
though different in many respects. Today there is a world culture
and civilization that has mostly Western roots but which can
flourish everywhere. The Western political dominance of the world,
which existed between 1450 and 1950 has its roots in Western culture
and civilization as much as in Western technology. The end of
Western political dominance is mainly associated with the adoption
of modern cultural and civilization ideas by the world as a whole,
as well as the adoption of modern technology.
3. These developments include
(1) business organization including the corporation
outlasting its founding person or family
(2) representative democracy
(3) humanitarianism, organized human welfare, the concept
of universal human rights, e.g. the idea that slavery is wrong
(4) Western music
(5) religion with humanitarian aspects and missionary capability
(6) Marxism, not a good idea, but it's Western all right
(7) the idea that continual progress is to be expected and
worked for
(8) the ideas that science and technology are the main basis
of progress
There are others. Each requires a discussion of its relation to
ideas and developments prevalent in other cultures.
4. To the extent that non-Western countries have adopted these ideas,
they have shown themselves capable of progress and of making contributions
to world culture, technology and civilization. For example, it appears
that a free press is just as necessary for progress as using trucks
to transport goods.
5. Naturally Western economic, scientific, technological, political
and military success resulted in swelled heads manifested in numerous
ways. Naturally, there was a reaction against this on the part of
people, especially intellectuals, in non-Western countries. Naturally,
this reaction went to far and led in some countries to the rejection
of important ideas that originated in the West, e.g. the afore-mentioned
free press and economic freedom. This rejection was abetted by
Western opponents of these important aspects of civilization. In the
1980s, it has become clear to people all over the world, e.g. the
Soviet Union, China and Iran, that many of the developments of Western
culture and civilization are essential to all people, i.e. that they
are now aspects of world culture and civilization.
6. My opinion is that the outside criticism of Stanford's
decision to require inclusion of certain extraneous material in
the Cultures, Ideas and Values tracks is essentially correct.
Probably, the results won't be as bad as the critics fear; some
of the material is worthwhile, and the rest will most likely be
only a waste of time. There is some chance, however, that some
kind of ideological conformity will be enforced. Suppose,
someone proposed to include works by Margaret Thatcher, Golda
Meier and Ayn Rand to satisfy the requirement to include works by
women and Tom Sowell among the works by blacks and V.S. Naipaul
among the works of people of non-Western culture. What if it
took the view of Yukio Mishima and his famous seppuku expressed
by Marguerite Yourcenar and considered it more derived from 19th
century German romanticism than from anything Japanese? All
these might be bitterly resented as not being the works the
sponsors of the requirements had in mind.
7. Basing the CIV requirement on tracks allows in principle allows
faculty of a variety of views to present tracks. I am considering
trying to initiate a track guided by the views expressed in this
message. It would study the world-wide influences of Western
cultural and civilization developments as well as the Western
origins of these developments. In principle, this is possible,
but it would require developing new material, e.g. accounts
of Sun Yat-Sen's efforts to bring political democracy to China
and the Meiji revolutionists' efforts to modernize Japan and
of Kemal Attaturk's efforts to modernize Turkey. Moreover,
it would be attacked as politically incorrect, and the Stanford
bureaucracy might stifle it. However, the main question is
whether there are faculty interested in doing the work of
developing such a CIV track. Naturally, I would welcome any
reactions to these ideas.
∂23-Mar-89 1143 Mailer re: rehash of an old post for harper's benefit.
To: L.LILITH@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, U.UNDERDOG@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LILITH@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Thu 23 Mar 89 10:37:27-PST.]
Pilar Ossorio, like many others, seems to confuse lapses from Western
civilization with defects in the ideas of Western civilization.
She admires Sitting Bull's informal authority, but tribal military
organization has always been beaten by the armies of modern states.
The Romans beat the Frankish, Germanic and British tribes, the
British beat the Scots and Irish, and the Americans beat the Indians.
I agree that military success is not in itself a measure of virtue.
The Cherokee and Choctaw cultures she admires were based on
taking ideas from Western culture, i.e. settled farming with
Western farm implements, literacy and political democracy. It's
a pity that the idea of one or more Indian states in the U.S. was
never raised, even by the Indians or their advocates, starting
with the Quakers in the 17th century.
As my previous posting says, representative democracy and an independent
judiciary are essential to assure prosperity and freedom. The Indian
reservation tribes today are in internal controversy between democracy
and traditional tribal government. The precipitating issue is that
traditional tribal government is based on influence peddling and leads
to privileged rulers stifling the rights of others. The head of the
Navajo tribe is being sued by tribe members about this.
U.S. Grant in 1869 was the first President to appoint an Indian
as head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tension between assimilation
and preserving the culture has been controversial since long before
that time, both among Indians and among their white friends and
enemies. The pioneer desire to take land away from the Indians
has been an important force, but it has never been the only force
among whites.
Remember that an Indian knowing English has always had the option of
moving into the white culture and many have done so, sometimes as
the result of intermarriage. From the point of view of the individual,
this is often a success, but from the point of view of preserving
the tribe it is a loss. Pilar Ossorio, do you know of any study of the
extent of Indian emigration?
∂23-Mar-89 1151 Mailer re: rehash of an old post for harper's benefit.
To: L.LILITH@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, U.UNDERDOG@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from L.LILITH@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Thu 23 Mar 89 10:37:27-PST.]
Pilar Ossorio writes:
In my opinion, private ownership of property, land in
particular, was one of the worst ideas in history.
That's what the Soviets and Chinese thought, and they abandoned it in
1917 and 1949 respectively. Now they are reviving it, because state
ownership led to low agricultural production and required food imports
from the U.S. This is in spite of the fact that the U.S. has 2
percent of its population working on farms, the Soviet Uniona has 30
percent and China has 80 percent.
Would Pilar Ossorio please explain why this experience is irrelevant?
∂23-Mar-89 1602 Mailer re: Modern world culture and civilization
To: gangolli@WOLVESDEN.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from gangolli@wolvesden.stanford.edu sent 23 Mar 89 20:30:01 GMT.]
In science and technology I have taken 1450 as the time when Western
civilization moved ahead of the others. I didn't say the ideas had
no earlier roots. In culture and civilization, I also don't say
that the ideas don't have earlier precursors, and some of the main
ideas which distinguish Western culture, e.g. mathematical proof,
go back to the B.C. Greeks. However, of the examples cited by
Mr. Gangolli, let's take the idea of continual progress and the
idea that science and technology is the basis thereof. I don't know
of a clear statement of this preceding Francis Bacon. Of course,
progress occurred elsewhere and previously, but it wasn't the basis
of an ideology. I'm not even convinced that Leonardo da Vinci, who
made many inventions (mostly impractical) had a formulation of the
ideology. The ideology was important, because it led to the
creation of institutions, e.g. the French Academy, the Academi
dei Lincei (sp?) and the Royal Society, whose explicit function
was to promote progress.
What precursors, especially non-Western precursors can anyone name?
∂23-Mar-89 1625 JMC re: coordinating cs 323 final/grades & your trip
To: alex@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 22 Mar 1989 13:27:23 PST.]
I would like to make a big push to finish the finals tomorrow and
assign the grades. I'll be in by 9am.
∂23-Mar-89 2034 JMC re: CS323 final
To: gilham@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 23 Mar 89 17:51:57 PDT.]
Alex and I will discuss it and compensate. Thanks for telling me.
∂24-Mar-89 1143 JMC re: Modern world culture and civilization
To: davidson@PSYCH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 24 Mar 89 11:29:45 PST.]
It reached SAIL's su-etc, so it probably got to the others.
I don't have time for a substantive reply to your comments,
because of a 3 week trip starting tomorrow.
∂24-Mar-89 1155 JMC
To: MPS
Please mail me VAL's schedule.
∂24-Mar-89 1157 JMC lock
To: CLT
Acme Security Systems, 483-6584, Bob
called back. His system looks even better than what we have
previously considered and isn't more expensive. Since there is
already the pushbutton unlocker that controls the door strike,
we only need to put it in parallel. With it we can create
Essex co. ke 250, slimline digital access keyboard
163.80, transformer 9.65,
∂24-Mar-89 1220 Mailer re: Does the Univ of Tokyo guarantee success? (was "Re: Ross Casley...")
To: kawai@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from kawai@csli.stanford.edu sent 24 Mar 89 20:04:07 GMT.]
Oh well, just another illusion about the mysterious East shot to hell.
∂24-Mar-89 1301 JMC
To: MPS
I'll need blank transparencies.
∂24-Mar-89 1511 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 24-Mar-89 13:14-PT.]
The others will probably suffice.
∂25-Mar-89 0805 Mailer re: cold fusion and its interesting applications
To: U.UNDERDOG@HAMLET.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from U.UNDERDOG@hamlet.stanford.edu sent Sat 25 Mar 89 00:59:33-PST.]
Kosta Tsipis is the professor of physics you are referring to.
While doubtless for defense in general, he seems to be against
actually proposed particular defense system. I would suspect
him of exaggerating the difficulties of anything connected with
SDI and of constructing SDI strawmen which he then proceeds
to destroy. If large amounts of energy are needed in space,
one should not give in to the propaganda against ordinary
fission.
Rockets powered by ordinary nuclear reactors can reach the nearer
stars in low thousands of years, i.e. using multi-generation
voyages. The time required is t = 2 p↑(- 1/3) s↑(2/3) where s is
the distance and p is a figure of merit of the system in
watts/kg. The computation is non-relativistic, assumes that a
source of energy is used to expel matter at an optimized
velocity. The formula is approximate and is based on certain
assumptions. It needs significant relativistic corrections for
journeys beyond about 600 light years.
People will explore our galaxy and occupy suitable stars
in times small compared to evolution, i.e. in a few hundred
thousand years.
The velocity of light, if present physics is correct, prevents
Star Trek adventures. The more pleasant alternative to
multi-generation voyages is to extend life to tens of
thousands of years.
As for cold fusion, besides whether it will work at all, for
space travel applications, we need to know what kind of power
densities it permits, i.e. how many watts/kg.
∂25-Mar-89 1228 JMC My grade sheets are in my out box. Turn them in. Make copies for
To: MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: alex@JESSICA.Stanford.EDU
me. Please make copies and post them on my door with names
deleted. Give Alex a copy of the cs323 grades to see if he
thinks any changes (by change slip) are warranted. Alex should
take a final look at the exams before returning them.
The vtss essays are on my refrigerator and should be put outside
my door. Sort them by student first.
∂25-Mar-89 1230 JMC
To: MPS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: alex@JESSICA.Stanford.EDU
The cs323 exams are also on the refrigerator.
∂25-Mar-89 1251 Mailer re: cold fusion and its interesting applications
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from karish@forel.stanford.edu sent 25 Mar 89 18:58:32 GMT.]
Yes, it's basically another straw man.
1. I read the articles by Parnas and also by Nelson and Redell.
They point out some difficulties and say they can't be solved.
They appeal to no known principle of computer science to say they
can't be overcome. The SDI people say, "Yes, those are difficulties
and we expect to overcome them."
2. The discussion has to remain rather abstract, because the computer
system required depends on the physical system used, and many
alternatives are still being explored. This also applies to the
question of how many megawatts are required. Several hundred
megawatts on short notice seems feasible to me without using bombs.
3. As for "staking our survival on such a system", it would certainly
be better if some other alternative would guarantee survival. As far
as I know there is no guarantee with any policy. "several billion
dollars" isn't much.
4. That the programs will have no bugs left is unlikely. That a particular
attack will excite the remaining bug that intensive debugging efforts
missed is also unlikely.
5. There is a large range between our having a guarantee the system
will stop the missiles and the Soviets having a guaranteee that it
wouldn't.
6. The current changes in the Soviet Union make substantial arms
reduction more likely to be negotiable. Under these conditions,
SDI may look even better.
7. Remember that the opponents of SDI, including Tsipis, were also
opponents of almost every other defense system. Their hostility
to the defense establishment, especially that of a Republican
administration, is more constant than their advocacy or opposition
to any particular measure. In short, arms control is mostly a form
of American internal politics. Political power is more at stake
than defense policy. This also applies, but somewhat less, to the other
side.
Goodbye, until April 17, when I will return from the UK and the USSR.
∂25-Mar-89 1251 JMC (→22026 17-Apr-89)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I will be in Britain and the Soviet Union till April 17.
My secretary Pat Simmons, mps@sail.stanford.edu, 415 723-6321
has my schedule.
∂25-Mar-89 1256 JMC paper
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
I have tinkered some more, but haven't made fundamental
improvements in the context section. The next message
will be a new TEX source. I don't know if you have
sent it off or not. Let me know if you have. Since
context is a continuing research topic, I'm taking a
copy with me on my trip to UK and SU from which I'll
return April 17.
∂25-Mar-89 1300 JMC
To: rich.thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
%thomas[f88,jmc] Another try at AI and logic for Thomason
%see thomas[e88,jmc] for some dropped material
\input memo.tex[let,jmc]
\title{Artificial Intelligence, Logic and Formalizing Common Sense}
!\section{Introduction}
%thomason comments in f88.in[let,jmc]/575p
This is a position paper about the relations among
artificial intelligence (AI), mathematical logic and the
formalization of common sense knowledge and reasoning. It also
treats problems of concern to both AI and philosophy. I thank
the editor for inviting it. The position advocated is that
philosophy can contribute to AI if it treats some of its
traditional subject matter in more detail and that this will
advance the philosophical goals also. Actual formalisms (mostly
first order languages) for expressing common sense facts are
described in the references.
Common sense knowledge includes the basic facts about events
occurring in time and their effects, facts about knowledge and how
it is obtained, facts about beliefs and desires. It also includes
the basic facts about material objects and their properties.
One path to human-level AI uses mathematical logic to
formalize common sense
knowledge in such a way that common sense problems can be
solved by logical reasoning. This methodology requires
understanding the common sense world well enough to formalize
facts about it and ways of achieving goals in it. Basing AI on
understanding the common sense world is different from basing it
on understanding human psychology or neurophysiology.
This approach
to AI, based on logic and computer science, is complementary to
approaches that start from the fact that humans exhibit intelligence,
and that explore human psychology or human neurophysiology.
This article discusses the problems and difficulties, the
results so far, and some improvements in logic and logical languages
that may be required to formalize common sense. Fundamental
conceptual advances are almost certainly required. The object of the
paper is to get more help for AI from philosophical logicians. Some
of the requested help will be mostly philosophical and some will be
logical. Likewise the concrete AI approach may fertilize
philosophical logic as physics has repeatedly fertilized mathematics.
There are three reasons for AI to emphasize common sense
knowledge rather than the knowledge contained in scientific
theories.
(1) Scientific theories represent compartmentalized
knowledge. In presenting a scientific theory, as well as in
developing it, there is a commonsense pre-scientific stage. In
this stage, it is decided or just taken for granted what
phenomena are to be covered and what is the relation between
certain formal terms of the theory and the commonsense world.
Thus in classical mechanics it is decided what kinds of bodies
and forces are to be used before the differential equations are
written down. In probabilistic theories, the sample space is
determined. In theories expressed in first order logic, the
predicate and function symbols are decided upon. The axiomatic
reasoning techniques used in mathematical and logical theories
depend on this having been done. However, a robot or computer
program with human-level intelligence will have to do this for
itself. To use science, common sense is required.
Once developed, a scientific theory remains imbedded
in common sense. To apply the theory to a specific problem,
commonsense descriptions must be matched to the terms of the theory.
As an example, a formalization of
the relation between the formula $s = {1\over 2} gt↑2$
and the facts of specific situations in which bodies fall
is discussed in (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). It uses the ``situation
calculus'' introduced in that paper.
(2) Commonsense reasoning is required
for solving problems in the common sense world. From the problem
solving or goal-achieving point of view, the commonsense world is
characterized by a different {\it informatic situation} than that
{\it within} any formal scientific theory. In the typical common
sense informatic
situation, the reasoner doesn't know what facts are relevant to
solving his problem. Unanticipated obstacles may arise that involve
using parts of his knowledge not previously thought to be relevant.
(3) Finally, the informal metatheory of any scientific
theory has a commonsense informatic character. By this I mean
the thinking about the structure of the theory in general and the
research problems it presents. Mathematicians invented the
concept of a group in order to make previously vague parallels
between different domains into a precise notion. The thinking
about how to do this had a commonsense character.
It might be supposed that the common sense world would admit a
conventional scientific theory, e.g. a probabilistic theory. But no
one has yet developed such a theory, and AI has taken a somewhat
different course that
involves nonmonotonic extensions to the kind of reasoning used in
formal scientific theories. This seems to us likely to work better.
Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole and Frege all included common sense
knowledge when they discussed formal logic. However,
formalizing much of common sense knowledge and reasoning proved
elusive, and the twentieth century emphasis has been on formalizing
mathematics. Some important philosophers, e.g. Wittgenstein, have
claimed that common sense knowledge is unformalizable or mathematical
logic is inappropriate for doing it. Though it is possible to give a
kind of plausibility to views of this sort, it is much less easy to
make a case for them that is well supported and carefully worked out.
If a common sense reasoning problem is well presented, one is well on
the way to formalizing it. The examples that are presented for this
negative view borrow much of their plausibility from the inadequacy of
the specific collections of predicates and functions they take into
consideration. Some of their force comes from not formalizing
nonmonotonic reasoning, and some may be due to lack of logical tools
still to be discovered. While I acknowledge this opinion, I haven't
the time or the scholarship to deal with the full range of such
arguments. Instead I will present the positive case, the problems that
have arisen, what has been done and the problems that can be foreseen.
These problems are often more interesting than the ones suggested by
philosophers trying to show the futility of formalizing common sense, and
they suggest productive research programs for both AI and philosophy.
In so far as the arguments against the formalizability of
common sense attempt to make precise intuitions of their authors,
they can be helpful in identifying problems that have to be solved.
For example, Hubert Dreyfus (1972) said that computers couldn't have
``ambiguity tolerance'' but didn't offer much explanation of the
concept. With the development of nonmonotonic reasoning, it became
possible to define some forms of {\it ambiguity tolerance} and show
how they can and must be incorporated in computer systems. For
example, it is possible to make a system that doesn't know about
possible {\it de re}/{\it de dicto} ambiguities and has a
default assumption that amounts to saying that a reference holds
both {\it de re} and {\it de dicto}. When this assumption is
leads to inconsistency, the ambiguity can be discovered and
treated, usually by splitting a concept into two or more.
If a computer is to store facts about the world and reason
with them, it needs a precise language, and the program has to embody
a precise idea of what reasoning is allowed, i.e. of how new formulas
may be derived from old. Therefore, it was natural to try to use
mathematical logical languages to express what an intelligent computer
program knows that is relevant to the problems we want it to solve and
to make the program use logical inference in order to decide what to
do. (McCarthy 1959) contains the first proposals to use logic in AI
for expressing what a program knows and and how it should reason.
(Proving logical formulas as a domain for AI had already been
studied by several authors).
The 1959 paper said:
\begingroup\narrower\narrower
% COMMON.TEX[E80,JMC] TeX version Programs with Common Sense
%
The {\it advice taker} is a proposed program for solving problems by
manipulating sentences in formal languages. The main difference
between it and other programs or proposed programs for manipulating
formal languages (the {\it Logic Theory Machine} of Newell, Simon and
Shaw and the Geometry Program of Gelernter) is that in the previous
programs the formal system was the subject matter but the heuristics
were all embodied in the program. In this program the procedures will
be described as much as possible in the language itself and, in
particular, the heuristics are all so described.
The main advantages we expect the {\it advice taker} to have
is that its behavior will be improvable merely by making statements to
it, telling it about its symbolic environment and what is wanted from
it. To make these statements will require little if any knowledge of
the program or the previous knowledge of the {\it advice taker}. One
will be able to assume that the {\it advice taker} will have available
to it a fairly wide class of immediate logical consequences of anything
it is told and its previous knowledge. This property is expected to
have much in common with what makes us describe certain humans as
having {\it common sense}. We shall therefore say that {\it a program
has common sense if it automatically deduces for itself a sufficiently
wide class of immediate consequences of anything it is told and what
it already knows.}
\par\endgroup
The main reasons for using logical sentences extensively in AI
are better understood by researchers today than in 1959. Expressing
information in declarative sentences is far more modular than
expressing it in segments of computer program or in tables. Sentences
can be true in much wider contexts than specific programs can be
useful. The supplier of a fact does not have to understand much about
how the receiver functions, or how or whether the receiver will use it.
The same fact can be used for many purposes, because the logical
consequences of collections of facts can be available.
The {\it advice taker} prospectus was ambitious in 1959, would
be considered ambitious today and is still far from being immediately
realizable. This is especially true of the goal of expressing the the
heuristics guiding the search for a way to achieve the goal in the
language itself. The rest of this paper is largely concerned with
describing what progress has been made, what the obstacles are, and
how the prospectus has been modified in the light of what has been
discovered.
The formalisms of logic have been used to differing
extents in AI. Most of the uses are much less ambitious than
the proposals of (McCarthy 1959). We can distinguish four
levels of use of logic.
1. A machine may use no logical sentences---all its
``beliefs'' being implicit in its state. Nevertheless, it is often
appropriate to ascribe beliefs and goals to the program, i.e. to
remove the above sanitary quotes, and to use a principle of
rationality---{\it It does what it thinks will achieve its goals}.
Such ascription is discussed from somewhat different points of view
in (Dennett 1971), (McCarthy 1979a) and
(Newell 1981). The advantage is that the intent of the machine's
designers and the way it can be expected to behave may be more readily
described {\it intentionally} than by a purely physical description.
The relation between the physical and the {\it intentional}
descriptions is most readily understood in simple systems that admit
readily understood descriptions of both kinds, e.g. thermostats. Some
finicky philosophers object to this, contending that unless a system
has a full human mind, it shouldn't be regarded as having any mental
qualities at all. This is like omitting the numbers 0 and 1 from the
number system on the grounds that numbers aren't required to count
sets with no elements or one element.
Indeed if your main interest is the null set or unit sets, numbers
{\it are} irrelevant. However, if your interest is the number system
you lose clarity and uniformity
if you omit 0 and 1. Likewise, when one studies phenomena like belief,
e.g. because one wants a machine with beliefs and which reasons about
beliefs, it works better not to exclude simple cases from the formalism.
One battle has been over whether it should be forbdden to ascribe to a simple
thermostat the belief that the room is too cold.
(McCarthy 1979a) says much more about ascribing mental qualities
to machines, but that's not where the main action is in AI.
2. The next level of use of logic involves computer programs
that use sentences in machine memory to represent their beliefs but
use other rules than ordinary logical inference to reach conclusions.
New sentences are often obtained from the old ones by ad hoc programs.
Moreover, the sentences that appear in memory belong to a
program-dependent subset of the logical language being used. Adding
certain true sentences in the language may even spoil the functioning
of the program. The languages used are often rather unexpressive
compared to first order logic, for example they may not admit
quantified sentences, or they may use a
different notation from that used for ordinary facts to represent
``rules'', i.e. certain universally quantified implication sentences.
Most often, conditional rules are used in just one
direction, i.e. contrapositive reasoning is not used.
Usually the program cannot infer new rules; rules
must have all been put in by the ``knowledge engineer''. Sometimes
programs have this form through mere ignorance, but the usual
reason for the restriction is the practical desire to make the program
run fast and deduce just the kinds of conclusions its designer
anticipates.
We
believe the need for such specialized inference will turn out to be
temporary and will be reduced or eliminated by improved ways of
controlling general inference, e.g. by allowing the heuristic rules to
be also expressed as sentences as promised in the above extract from
the 1959 paper.
3. The third level uses first order logic and also logical
deduction. Typically the sentences are represented as clauses, and the
deduction methods are based on J. Allen Robinson's (1965) method of
resolution. It is common to use a theorem prover as a problem solver,
i.e. to determine an $x$ such that $P(x)$ as a byproduct of a proof of
the formula $\exists xP(x)$.
This level is less used for practical
purposes than level two, because techniques for controlling the
reasoning are still insufficiently developed, and it is common for the
program to generate many useless conclusions before reaching the desired
solution. Indeed, unsuccessful experience (Green 1969) with this method
led to more restricted uses of logic, e.g. the STRIPS system of (Nilsson
and Fikes 1971).
%The promise of (McCarthy 1959) to express the
%heuristic facts that should be used to guide the search as logical
%sentences has not yet been realized by anyone.
The commercial ``expert system shells'', e.g. ART, KEE and
OPS-5, use logical representation of facts, usually ground facts only,
and separate facts from rules. They provide elaborate but not always
adequate ways of controlling inference.
In this connection it is important to mention logic programming,
first introduced in Microplanner (Sussman et al., 1971)
and from different points of view by Robert Kowalski (1979) and Alain
Colmerauer in the early 1970s.
A recent text is (Sterling and Shapiro 1986). Microplanner
was a rather unsystematic collection of tools, whereas Prolog relies
almost entirely on one kind of logic programming, but the main idea
is the same. If one uses a restricted class of sentences, the so-called
Horn clauses, then it is possible to use a restricted form of logical
deduction. The control problem is then much eased, and it is possible
for the programmer to anticipate the course the deduction will take.
The price paid is that only certain kinds of facts are conveniently
expressed as Horn clauses, and the depth first search built into
Prolog is not always appropriate for the problem.
Even when the relevant facts can be expressed as Horn clauses,
the reasoning carried out by a Prolog program may not be appropriate.
For example, the fact that a sealed container is sterile if all the
bacteria in it are dead and the fact that heating a can kills a
bacterium in the can are both expressible as Prolog clauses. However,
the resulting program for sterilizing a container
will kill each bacterium individually, because it will have to
index over the bacteria. It won't reason that heating the
can kills all the bacteria at once, because it doesn't do
universal generalization.
Expressibility in Horn clauses is an important property
of a set of facts and logic programming has been successfully
used for many applications. However, it seems unlikely to
dominate AI programming as some of its advocates hope.
Although third level systems express both facts and rules
as logical sentences, they are still rather specialized. The axioms
with which the programs begin are not general truths about the world
but are sentences whose meaning and truth is limited to the narrow
domain in which the program has to act. For this reason, the ``facts''
of one program usually cannot be used in a database for other programs.
4. The fourth level is still a goal. It involves representing
general facts about the world as logical sentences. Once put in
a database, the facts can be used by any program. The facts would
have the neutrality of purpose characteristic of much human information.
The supplier of information would not have to understand
the goals of the potential user or how his mind works. The present
ways of ``teaching'' computer programs by modifying them or
directly modifying their databases amount to ``education
by brain surgery''.
A key problem for achieving the fourth level is to develop
a language for a general common sense database. This is difficult,
because the {\it common sense informatic situation} is complex.
Here is a preliminary list of features and
considerations.
1. Entities of interest are known only partially, and the
information about entities and their relations that may be relevant
to achieving goals cannot be permanently separated from irrelevant
information.
%
(Contrast this with the situation in gravitational
astronomy in which it is stated in the informal introduction to
a lecture or textbook that
the chemical composition and shape of a body are irrelevant to the
theory; all that counts is the body's mass, and its initial position
and velocity).
Even within gravitational astronomy, non-equational theories arise
and relevant information may be difficult to determine. For example, it was
recently proposed that periodic extinctions discovered in the
paleontological record are caused by showers of comets induced by a
companion star to the sun that encounters and disrupts the Oort cloud of
comets every time it comes to perihelion. This theory is qualitative
because neither the orbit of the hypothetical star nor those of the comets
is available.
2. The formalism has to be {\it epistemologically adequate},
a notion introduced in (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). This means that
the formalism must be capable of representing the information that
is actually available, not merely capable of representing actual
complete states of affairs.
For example, it is insufficient to have a formalism that
can represent the positions and velocities of the particles in a
gas. We can't obtain that information, our largest computers don't
have the memory to store it even if it were available, and our
fastest computers couldn't use the information to make predictions even
if we could store it.
As a second example, suppose we need to be able to predict
someone's behavior. The simplest example is a clerk in a store.
The clerk is a complex individual about whom a customer may know
little. However, the clerk can usually be counted on to accept
money for articles brought to the counter, wrap them as appropriate
and not protest when the customer then takes the articles from the store.
The clerk can also be counted on to object if the customer attempts
to take the articles without paying the appropriate price. Describing
this requires a formalism capable of representing information about
human social institutions. Moreover, the formalism must be capable
of representing partial information about the institution, such as
a three year old's knowledge of store clerks. For example, a three
year old doesn't know the clerk is an employee or even what that
means. He doesn't require detailed information about the clerk's
psychology, and anyway this information is not ordinarily available.
The following sections deal mainly with the advances we see
as required to achieve the fourth level of use of logic in AI.
!\section{Formalized Nonmonotonic Reasoning}
It seems that fourth level systems require extensions
to mathematical logic. One kind of extension is formalized {\it nonmonotonic
reasoning}, first proposed in the late 1970s (McCarthy 1977, 1980, 1986),
(Reiter 1980), (McDermott and Doyle 1980), (Lifschitz 1988a).
Mathematical logic has been monotonic
in the following sense. If we have $A \vdash p$ and $A ⊂ B$, then we also
have $B \vdash p$.
If the inference is logical deduction, then exactly the same
proof that proves $p$ from $A$ will serve as a proof from $B$. If the
inference is model-theoretic, i.e. $p$ is true in all models of $A$,
then $p$ will be true in all models of $B$, because the models of $B$
will be a subset of the models of $A$. So we see that the monotonic
character of traditional logic doesn't depend on the details of the
logical system but is quite fundamental.
While much human reasoning is monotonic,
some important human common sense reasoning is not. We
reach conclusions from certain premisses that we would not reach if
certain other sentences were included in our premisses. For example,
if I hire you to build me a bird cage, you conclude that it is appropriate
to put a top on it, but when you learn the further
fact that my bird is a penguin you no longer draw that
conclusion. Some people think it is possible to try to save
monotonicity by saying that what was in your mind was not a general rule
about asking birds flying but a probabilistic rule. So
far these people have not worked out any detailed
epistemology for this approach, i.e. exactly what probabilistic
sentences should be used. Instead AI has moved to directly formalizing
nonmonotonic logical reasoning. Indeed it seems to me that
when probabilistic reasoning (and not just the axiomatic
basis of probability theory) has been fully formalized, it will
be formally nonmonotonic.
Nonmonotonic reasoning is an active field of study.
Progress is often driven by examples, e.g. the Yale shooting
problem (Hanks and McDermott 1986), in which obvious
axiomatizations used with the available reasoning formalisms
don't seem to give the answers intuition suggests. One direction
being explored (Moore 1985, Gelfond 1987, Lifschitz 1988a)
involves putting facts about belief and knowledge explicitly in
the axioms---even when the axioms concern nonmental domains.
Moore's classical example (now 4 years old) is ``If I had an elder
brother I'd know it.''
Kraus and Perlis (1988) have proposed to divide much nonmonotonic
reasoning into two steps. The first step uses Perlis's (1988)
autocircumscription to get a second order formula characterizing
what is possible. The second step involves default reasoning to
choose what is normally to be expected out of the previously established
possibilities. This seems to be a promising approach.
(Ginsberg 1987) collects the main papers up to 1986. Lifschitz (1988c)
summarizes some outstanding research problems of nonmonotonic reasoning.
!\section{Some Formalizations and their Problems}
(McCarthy 1986) discusses several formalizations, proposing
those based on nonmonotonic reasoning as improvements of earlier
ones. Here are some.
1. Inheritance with exceptions. Birds normally fly, but there
are exceptions, e.g. ostriches and birds whose feet are encased in
concrete. The first exception might be listed in advance, but the
second has to be derived or verified when mentioned on the basis of
information about the mechanism of flying and the properties of
concrete.
There are many ways of nonmonotonically axiomatizing the
facts about which birds can fly. The following axioms using
a predicate $ab$ standing for ``abnormal'' seem
to me quite straightforward.
%\leql{a4a:}
$$(\forall x)(\neg ab(aspect1(x)) \supset \neg flies(x)).\leql{aiva}$$
%
Unless an object is abnormal in $aspect1$, it can't fly.
It wouldn't work to write $ab(x)$ instead of $ab(aspect1(x))$,
because we don't want a bird that is abnormal with respect to its ability
to fly to be automatically abnormal in other respects. Using aspects limits
the effects of proofs of abnormality.
%leql{a5:}
$$(\forall x)(bird(x) \supset ab(aspect1(x))).\leql{av}$$
%leql{a6:}
$$(\forall x)(bird(x) \wedge \neg ab(aspect2(x)) \supset flies(x))\leql{avi}$$
%
Unless a bird is abnormal in $aspect2$, it can fly.
When these axioms are combined with other facts about the
problem, the predicate $ab$ is then to be {\it circumscribed}, i.e.
given its minimal extent compatible with the facts being taken
into account. This has the effect that a bird will be considered
to fly unless other axioms imply that it is abnormal in
$aspect2$. (\eqref{av}) is called a cancellation of inheritance
axiom, because it explicitly cancels the general presumption that
objects don't fly. This approach works fine when the inheritance
hierarchy is given explicitly. More elaborate approaches, some
of which are introduced in (McCarthy 1986) and improved in (Haugh
1988), are required when hierarchies with indefinite numbers of
sorts are considered.
2. (McCarthy 1986) contains a similar treatment of the effects
of moving and painting blocks using the situation calculus. Moving
and painting are axiomatized entirely separately, and there are no
axioms saying that moving a block doesn't affect the positions of other
blocks or the colors of blocks. A general ``common sense law of inertia''
%
$$(\forall p e s)(holds(p,s) \wedge \neg ab(aspect1(p,e,s)) \supset holds(p,result(e,s))),$$
%
asserts that a fact $p$ that holds in a situation $s$ is presumed
to hold in the situation $result(e,s)$ that results from an event
$e$ unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, Lifschitz
(1985 personal communication) and Hanks and McDermott (1986)
showed that simple treatments of the common sense law of inertia
admit unintended models. Several
authors have given more elaborate
treatments, but in my opinion, the results are not yet entirely
satisfactory.
!\section{Ability, Practical Reason and Free Will}
An AI system capable of achieving goals in the common
sense world will have to reason about what it and other actors
can and cannot do.
For concreteness, consider a robot that must act in the same
world as people and perform tasks that people give it. Its need
to reason about its abilities puts the traditional philosophical
problem of free will in the following form. What view shall we
build into the robot about its own abilities, i.e. how shall we
make it reason about what it can and cannot do? (Wishing to
avoid begging any questions, by {\it reason} we mean {\it
compute} using axioms, observation sentences, rules of inference
and nonmonotonic rules of conjecture.)
Let $A$ be a task we want the robot to perform, and let $B$
and $C$ be alternate intermediate goals either of which would
allow the accomplishment of $A$. We want the robot to be able
to choose between attempting $B$ and attempting $C$. It would be
silly to program it to reason: ``I'm a robot and a deterministic
device. Therefore, I have no choice between $B$ and $C$. What
I will do is determined by my construction.'' Instead it must
decide in some way which of $B$ and $C$ it can accomplish. It
should be able to conclude in some cases that it can accomplish
$B$ and not $C$, and therefore it should take $B$ as a subgoal
on the way to achieving $A$. In other cases it should conclude
that it {\it can} accomplish either $B$ or $C$ and should choose
whichever is evaluated as better according to the criteria we
provide it.
(McCarthy and Hayes 1969) proposes conditions on the
semantics of any formalism within which the robot should reason.
The essential idea is that what the robot can do is determined by
the place the robot occupies in the world---not by its internal
structure. For example, if a certain sequence of outputs from
the robot will achieve $B$, then we conclude or it concludes that
the robot can achieve $B$ without reasoning about whether the
robot will actually produce that sequence of outputs.
Our contention is that this is approximately how any
system, whether human or robot, must reason about its ability to
achieve goals. The basic formalism will be the same, regardless
of whether the system is reasoning about its own abilities
or about those of other systems including people.
The above-mentioned paper also discusses the complexities
that come up when a strategy is required to achieve the goal and
when internal inhibitions or lack of knowledge have to be taken
into account.
!\section{Three Approaches to Knowledge and Belief}
Our robot will also have to reason about its own knowledge
and that of other robots and people.
This section contrasts the approaches to knowledge and
belief characteristic of philosophy, philosophical logic and
artificial intelligence. Knowledge and belief have long been
studied in epistemology, philosophy of mind and in philosophical
logic. Since about 1960, knowledge and belief have also been
studied in AI. (Halpern 1986) and (Vardi 1988) contain recent
work, mostly oriented to computer science including AI.
It seems to me that philosophers have generally treated
knowledge and belief as {\it complete natural kinds}. According
to this view there is a fact to be discovered about what
beliefs are. Moreover, once it is decided what the objects of
belief are (e.g. sentences or propositions), the definitions of
belief ought to determine for each such object $p$ whether the
person believes it or not. This last is the completeness mentioned
above. Of course, only human and sometimes animal beliefs have
mainly been considered. Philosophers have differed about whether
machines can ever be said to have beliefs, but even those who admit
the possibility of machine belief consider that what beliefs are
is to be determined by examining human belief.
The formalization of knowledge and belief has been studied
as part of philosophical logic, certainly since Hintikka's book (1964),
but much of the earlier work in modal logic can be seen as applicable.
Different logics and axioms systems sometimes correspond to the
distinctions that less formal philosophers make, but sometimes the
mathematics dictates different distinctions.
AI takes a different course because of its different objectives,
but I'm inclined to recommend this course to philosophers also, partly
because we want their help but also because I think it has
philosophical advantages.
The first question AI asks is: Why study knowledge and belief
at all? Does a computer program solving problems and achieving goals
in the common sense world require beliefs, and must it use sentences
about beliefs? The answer to both questions is approximately yes. At
least there have to be data structures whose usage corresponds closely
to human usage in some cases. For example, a robot that could use
the American air transportation system has to know that travel agents
know airline schedules, that there is a book (and now a computer
accessible database) called the OAG that contains this information.
If it is to be able to plan a trip with intermediate stops it has
to have the general information that the departure gate from an
intermediate stop is not to be discovered when the trip is first
planned but will be available on arrival at the intermediate stop.
If the robot has to keep secrets, it has to know about how information
can be obtained by inference from other information, i.e. it has
to have some kind of information model of the people from whom
it is to keep the secrets.
However, none of this tells us that the notions of
knowledge and belief to be built into our computer programs must
correspond to the the goals philosophers have been trying to
achieve. For example, the difficulties involved in building a
system that knows what travel agents know about airline schedules
are not substantially connected with questions about how the
travel agents can be absolutely certain. Its notion of knowledge
doesn't have to be complete; i.e. it doesn't have to determine
in all cases whether a person is to be regarded as knowing a
given proposition. For many tasks it doesn't have to have
opinions about when true belief doesn't constitute knowledge.
The designers of AI systems can try to evade philosophical
puzzles rather than solve them.
Maybe some people would suppose that if the question of
certainty is avoided, the problems formalizing knowledge and
belief become straightforward. That has not been our experience.
As soon as we try to formalize the simplest puzzles involving
knowledge, we encounter difficulties that philosophers have rarely
if ever attacked.
Consider the following puzzle of Mr.~S and Mr.~P.
{\it Two numbers $m$ and $n$ are chosen such that $2 \leq m \leq n \leq 99$.
Mr.~S is told their sum and Mr.~P is told their product. The following
dialogue ensues:}
{\obeylines\it
Mr.~P: I don't know the numbers.
Mr.~S: I knew you didn't know them. I don't know them either.
Mr.~P: Now I know the numbers.
Mr.~S: Now I know them too.
In view of the above dialogue, what are the numbers?}
Formalizing the puzzle is discussed in (McCarthy 1989).
For the present we mention only the following aspects.
1. We need to formalize {\it knowing what}, i.e. knowing what
the numbers are, and not just {\it knowing that}.
2. We need to be able to express and prove non-knowledge as well as
knowledge. Specifically we need to be able to express the fact that as
far as Mr.~P knows, the numbers might be any pair of factors of the known
product.
3. We need to express the joint knowledge of Mr.~S and Mr.~P of
the conditions of the problem.
4. We need to express the change of knowledge with time, e.g.
how Mr.~P's knowledge changes when he hears Mr.~S say that he knew that
Mr.~P didn't know the numbers and doesn't know them himself.
This includes inferring what Mr.~S and Mr.~P still won't know.
The first order language used to express the facts of this
problem involves an accessibility relation $A(w1,w2,p,t)$,
modeled on Kripke's semantics for modal logic. However, the
accessibility relation here is in the language itself rather than
in a metalanguage. Here $w1$ and $w2$ are possible worlds, $p$
is a person and $t$ is an integer time. The use of possible
worlds makes it convenient to express non-knowledge. Assertions
of non-knowledge are expressed as the existence of accessible
worlds satisfying appropriate conditions.
The problem was successfully expressed in the language
in the sense that an arithmetic condition determining the values
of the two numbers can be deduced from the statement. However, this
is not good enough for AI. Namely, we would like to include facts
about knowledge in a general purpose common sense database. Instead
of an {\it ad hoc} formalization of Mr.~S and Mr.~P, the problem
should be solvable from the same general facts about knowledge that
might be used to reason about the knowledge possessed by travel agents
supplemented only by the facts about the dialogue. Moreover, the
language of the general purpose database should accommodate all
the modalities that might be wanted and not just knowledge. This
suggests using ordinary logic, e.g. first order logic, rather than
modal logic, so that the modalities can be ordinary functions or
predicates rather than modal operators.
Suppose we are successful in developing a ``knowledge formalism''
for our common sense database that enables the program controlling
a robot to solve puzzles and plan trips and do the other tasks that
arise in the common sense environment requiring reasoning about knowledge.
It will surely be asked whether it is really {\it knowledge} that
has been formalized. I doubt that the question has an answer.
This is perhaps the question of whether knowledge is a natural kind.
I suppose some philosophers would say that such problems are
not of philosophical interest. It would be unfortunate, however, if
philosophers were to abandon such a substantial part of epistemology
to computer science. This is because the analytic skills that
philosophers have acquired are relevant to the problems.
!\section{Reifying Context}
%contex[w89,jmc] Reifying context - for paper for Thomason
We propose the formula $holds(p,c)$ to assert that the
proposition $p$ holds in context $c$. It expresses explicitly
how the truth of an assertion depends on context. The relation
$c1 \leq c2$ asserts that the context $c2$ is more general than
the context $c1$.
Formalizing common sense reasoning needs contexts as objects,
in order to match human ability to consider context
explicitly. The proposed database of general common sense knowledge
will make assertions in a general context called $C0$. However, $C0$
cannot be maximally general, because it will surely involve unstated
presuppositions. Indeed we claim that there can be no
maximally general context. Every context involves unstated presuppositions,
both linguistic and factual.
Sometimes the reasoning system will
have to transcend $C0$, and tools will have to be provided to do
this. For example, if Boyle's law of the dependence of the volume
of a sample of gas on pressure were built into $C0$, discovery of
its dependence on temperature would have to trigger a process of
generalization
that might lead to the perfect gas law.
The following ideas about how the formalization might
proceed are tentative. Moreover, they appeal to recent logical
innovations in the formalization of nonmonotonic reasoning. In
particular, there
will be nonmonotonic ``inheritance rules'' that allow default
inference from $holds(p,c)$ to $holds(p,c')$, where $c'$ is
either more general or less general than $c$.
Almost all previous discussion of context has been in
connection with natural language, and the present paper
relies heavily on examples from natural language. However, I
believe the main AI uses of formalized context will not be in
connection with communication but in connection with reasoning
about the effects of actions directed to achieving goals. It's
just that natural language examples come to mind more readily.
As an example of intended usage, consider
%
$$holds(at(he,inside(car)),c17).$$
%
Suppose that this sentence is intended to assert that a
particular person is in a particular car on a particular occasion,
i.e. the sentence is not just being used as a
linguistic example but is meant seriously. A corresponding
English sentence is ``He's in the car'' where who he is and which
car and when is determined by the context in which the sentence
is uttered. Suppose, for simplicity, that the sentence is said
by one person to another in a situation in which the car is
visible to the speaker but not to the hearer and the time at
which the the subject is asserted to be in the car is the same
time at which the sentence is uttered.
In our formal language $c17$ has to carry the information about
who he is, which car and when.
Now suppose that the same fact is to be conveyed as in
example 1, but the context is a certain Stanford Computer Science
Department 1980s context. Thus familiarity with cars is
presupposed, but no particular person, car or occasion is
presupposed. The meanings of certain names is presupposed, however.
We can call that context (say) $c5$. This more general context requires
a more explicit proposition; thus, we would have
%
$$holds(at(``Timothy McCarthy'',inside((\iota x)(iscar(x)\wedge
belongs(x,``John McCarthy'')))),c5).$$
%
A yet more general context might not identify a
specific John McCarthy, so that even this more explicit sentence would need
more information. What would constitute an adequate identification
might also be context dependent.
Here are some of the properties formalized contexts might have.
1. In the above example, we will have $c17 \leq c5$, i.e. $c5$ is
more general than $c17$.
There will be nonmonotonic rules like
%
$$(\forall c1\ c2\ p)(c1 \leq c2) \wedge holds(p,c1) \wedge \neg ab1(p,c1,c2) \supset holds(p,c2)$$
%
and
%
$$(\forall c1\ c2\ p)(c1 \leq c2) \wedge holds(p,c2) \wedge \neg ab2(p,c1,c2) \supset holds(p,c1).$$
%
Thus there is nonmonotonic inheritance both up and down in the generality
hierarchy.
2. There are functions forming new contexts by specialization.
We could have something like
%
$$c19 = specialize({he = Timothy McCarthy, belongs(car, John McCarthy)},c5).$$
We will have $c19 \leq c5$.
3. Besides $holds(p,c)$, we may have $value(term,c)$, where
$term$ is a term. The domain in which $term$ takes values is defined
in some outer context.
4. Some presuppositions of a context are linguistic and some
are factual. In the above example, it is a linguistic matter who the
names refer to. The properties of people and cars are factual, e.g.
it is presumed that people fit into cars.
5. We may want meanings as abstract objects. Thus we might
have
%
$$meaning(he,c17) = meaning(``Timothy McCarthy'',c5).$$
6. Contexts are ``rich'' entities not to be fully described.
Thus the ``normal English language context'' contains factual assumptions
and linguistic conventions that a particular English speaker may not
know. Moreover, even assumptions and conventions in a context that
may individually accessible cannot be exhaustively listed. A person
or machine may know facts about a context without ``knowing the context''.
7. Contexts should not be confused with the situations of the
situation calculus of (McCarthy and Hayes 1969). Propositions about
situations can hold in a context. For example, we may have
%
$$holds(Holds1(at(I,airport),result(drive-to(airport,result(walk-to(car),S0))),c1).$$
%
This can be interpreted as asserting that under the assumptions embodied
in context $c1$, a plan of walking to the car and then driving to the airport
would get the robot to the airport starting in situation $S0$.
8. The context language can be made more like natural
language and more extensible if we introduce notions of entering
and leaving a context. These will be analogous to the notions
of making and discharging assumptions in natural deduction systems,
but the notion seems to be more general. Suppose we have $holds(p,c)$.
We then write
\noindent $enter c$.
\noindent This enables us to write $p$ instead of $holds(p,c)$.
If we subsequently infer $q$, we can replace it by $holds(q,c)$
and leave the context $c$. Then $holds(q,c)$ will itself hold in
the outer context in which $holds(p,c)$ holds. When a context
is entered, there need to be restrictions analogous to those
that apply in natural deduction when an assumption is made.
One way in which this notion of entering and leaving
contexts is more general than natural deduction is that formulas like
$holds(p,c1)$ and (say) $holds(not\ p,c2)$ behave differently
from $c1 \supset p$ and $c2 \supset \neg p$ which are their natural deduction
analogs. For example, if $c1$ is associated with the time 5pm
and $c2$ is associated with the time 6pm and $p$ is $at(I, office)$,
then $holds(p,c1) \wedge holds(not\ p,c2)$ might be used to infer that
I left the office between 5pm and 6pm. $(c1 \supset p) \wedge (c2 \supset \neg p)$
cannot be used in this way; in fact it is equivalent to
$\neg c1 \vee \neg c2$.
9. The expession $Holds(p,c)$ (note the caps) represents
the proposition that $p$ holds in $c$. Since it is a proposition,
we can assert $holds(Holds(p,c),c')$.
10. Propositions will be combined by functional analogs of
the Boolean operators as discussed in (McCarthy 1979b). As discussed
in that paper, treating propositions involving quantification is
necessary, but it is difficult to determine the right formalization.
11. The major goals of research into formalizing context
should be to determine the rules that relate contexts to their
generalizations and specializations. Many of these rules will
involve nonmonotonic reasoning.
!\section{Remarks}
The project of formalizing common sense knowledge and
reasoning raises many new considerations in epistemology and
also in extending logic. The role that the following ideas
might play is not clear yet.
\noindent Epistemological Adequacy often Requires Approximate Partial Theories
(McCarthy and Hayes 1969) introduces the notion of epistemological
adequacy of a formalism. The idea is that the formalism used by
an AI system must be adequate to represent the information that
a person or program with given opportunities to observe can actually
obtain. Often an epistemologically adequate formalism for some
phenomenon cannot take the form of a classical scientific theory.
I suspect that some people's demand for a classical scientific
theory of certain phenomena leads them to despair about formalization.
Consider a theory of a dynamic phenomenon, i.e. one that changes
in time. A classical scientific theory represents the state of
the phenomenon in some way and describes how it evolves with time, most
classically by differential equations.
What can be known about commonsense phenomena usually doesn't
permit such complete theories. Only certain states permit prediction
of the future. The phenomenon arises in science and engineering
theories also, but I suspect that philosophy of science sweeps these
cases under the rug. Here are some examples.
(1) The theory of linear electrical circuits is complete
within its model of the phenomena. The theory gives the response
of the circuit to any time varying voltage. Of course, the theory
may not describe the actual physics, e.g. the current may overheat
the resistors. However, the theory of sequential digital circuits
is incomplete from the beginning. Consider a circuit built from
NAND-gates and D flipflops and timed synchronously by an appropriate
clock. The behavior of a D flipflop is defined by the theory
when one of its inputs is 0 and the other is 1 when the inputs
are appropriately clocked. However, the behavior is not defined
by the theory when both inputs are 0 or both are 1. Moreover,
one can easily make circuits in such a way that both
inputs of some flipflop get 0 at some time.
This lack of definition is not an oversight. The actual
signals in a digital circuit are not ideal square waves but have
finite rise times and often overshoot their nominal values.
However, the circuit will behave as though the signals were
ideal provided the design rules are obeyed. Making both
inputs to a flipflop nominally 0 creates a situation in
which no digital theory can describe what happens, because
the behavior then depends on the actual time-varying signals
and on manufacturing variations in the flipflops.
(2) Thermodynamics is also a partial theory. It tells
about equilibria and it tells which directions reactions go, but
it says nothing about how fast they go.
(3) The commonsense database needs a theory of the
behavior of clerks in stores. This theory should cover
what a clerk will do in response to bringing items to the
counter and in response to a certain class of inquiries.
How he will respond to other behaviors is not defined by
the theory.
(4) (McCarthy 1979a) refers to a theory of skiing that
might be used by ski instructors. This theory regards the skier
as a stick figure with movable joints. It gives the consequences
of moving the joints as it interacts with the shape of the ski
slope, but it says nothing about what causes the joints to be
moved in a particular way. Its partial character corresponds
to what experience teaches ski instructors. It often assigns
truth values to counterfactual conditional assertions like, ``If
he had bent his knees more, he wouldn't have fallen''.
\noindent Meta-epistemology
% meta[s88,jmc] Message to AILIST on metaepistemology
% meta[e85,jmc] Meta-epistemology
% metaep[f82,jmc] A proposal for meta-epistemology
If we are to program a computer to think about its own
methods for gathering information about the world, then it needs
a language for expressing assertions about the relation between
the world, the information gathering methods available to an
information seeker and what it can learn. This leads to a subject
I like to call meta-epistemology. Besides its potential applications
to AI, I believe it has applications to philosophy considered in
the traditional sense.
Meta-epistemology is proposed as a mathematical theory
in analogy to metamathematics. Metamathematics considers the
mathematical properties of mathematical theories as objects.
In particular model theory as a branch of metamathematics deals
with the relation between theories in a language and interpretations
of the non-logical symbols of the language. These interpretations
are considered as mathematical objects, and we are only sometimes
interested in a preferred or true interpretation.
Meta-epistemology considers the relation between the world,
languages for making assertions about the world, notions of what
assertions are considered meaningful, what are accepted as rules
of evidence and what a knowledge seeker can discover about the
world. All these entities are considered as mathematical objects.
In particular the world is considered as a parameter.
Thus meta-epistemology has the following characteristics.
1. It is a purely mathematical theory. Therefore, its
controversies, assuming there are any, will be mathematical
controversies rather than controversies about what the real world
is like. Indeed metamathematics gave many philosophical issues
in the foundations of mathematics a technical content. For
example, the theorem that intuitionist arithmetic and Peano
arithmetic are equi-consistent removed at least one area of
controversy between those whose mathematical intuitions support
one view of arithmetic or the other.
2. While many modern philosophies of science assume some
relation between what is meaningful and what can be verified or
refuted, only special meta-\hfill\break
epistemological systems will have the
corresponding mathematical property that all aspects of the world
relate to the experience of the knowledge seeker.
This has several important consequences for the task of
programming a knowledge seeker.
A knowledge seeker should not have a priori prejudices
(principles) about what concepts might be meaningful. Whether
and how a proposed concept about the world might ever connect
with observation may remain in suspense for a very long time
while the concept is investigated and related to other concepts.
We illustrate this by a literary example. Moli\'ere's
play {\it La Malade Imaginaire} includes a doctor who explains
sleeping powders by saying that they contain a ``dormitive
virtue''. In the play, the doctor is considered a pompous fool
for offering a concept that explains nothing. However, suppose
the doctor had some intuition that the dormitive virtue might be
extracted and concentrated, say by shaking the powder in a
mixture of ether and water. Suppose he thought that he would get
the same concentrate from all substances with soporific effect.
He would certainly have a fragment of scientific theory subject
to later verification. Now suppose less---namely, he only
believes that a common component is behind all substances whose
consumption makes one sleepy but has no idea that he should try
to invent a way of verifying the conjecture. He still has
something that, if communicated to someone more scientifically
minded, might be useful. In the play, the doctor obviously sins
intellectually by claiming a hypothesis as certain. Thus a
knowledge seeker must be able to form new concepts that have only
extremely tenuous relations with their previous linguistic
structure.
\noindent Rich and poor entities
Consider my next trip to Japan. Considered as a plan it is
a discrete object with limited detail. I do not yet even plan to
take a specific flight or to fly on a specific day. Considered as
a future event, lots of questions may be asked about it. For example,
it may be asked whether the flight will depart on time and what precisely
I will eat on the airplane. We propose characterizing the actual trip
as a rich entity and the plan as a poor entity. Originally, I thought
that rich events referred to the past and poor ones to the future, but
this seems to be wrong. It's only that when one refers to the past
one is usually referring to a rich entity, while the future entities
one refers to are more often poor. However, there is no intrinsic
association of this kind. It seems that planning requires reasoning
about the plan (poor entity) and the event of its execution (rich
entity) and their relations.
(McCarthy and Hayes 1969) defines situations as rich entities.
However, the actual programs that have been written to reason in
situation calculus might as well regard them as taken from a
finite or countable set of discrete states.
Possible worlds are also examples of rich entities as
ordinarily used in philosophy. One never prescribes a possible
world but only describes classes of possible worlds.
Rich entities are open ended in that we can always introduce
more properties of them into our discussion. Poor entities can often
be enumerated, e.g. we can often enumerate all the events that we
consider reasonably likely in a situation. The passage from considering
rich entities in a given discussion to considering poor entities is
a step of nonmonotonic reasoning.
It seems to me that it is important to get a good formalization
of the relations between corresponding rich and poor entities.
This can be regarded as formalizing the relation between the world
and a formal model of some aspect of the world, e.g. between the
world and a scientific theory.
!\section{References}
\noindent
{\bf Dennett, D.C. (1971)}: ``Intentional Systems'', {\it Journal of Philosophy}
vol. 68, No. 4, Feb. 25.
\noindent
{\bf Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1972):} {\it What Computers Can't Do:
the Limits of Artificial Intelligence}, revised edition 1979,
New York : Harper \& Row.
\noindent
{\bf Fikes, R, and Nils Nilsson, (1971)}:
``STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of
Theorem Proving to Problem Solving,'' {\it Artificial Intelligence}, Volume 2,
Numbers 3,4, January,
pp. 189-208.
\noindent
{\bf Gelfond, M. (1987)}: ``On Stratified Autoepistemic Theories'',
{\it AAAI-87} {\bf 1}, 207-211.
\noindent
{\bf Ginsberg, M. (ed.) (1987)}: {\it Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning},
Morgan Kaufmann, 481 p.
\noindent
{\bf Green, C., (1969)}:
``Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving.'' In IJCAI-1, pp. 219-239.
\noindent
{\bf Halpern, J. (ed.) (1986):}
{\it Reasoning about Knowledge}, Morgan Kaufmann,
Los Altos, CA.
\noindent
{\bf Hanks, S. and D. McDermott (1986)}: ``Default Reasoning, Nonmonotonic
Logics, and the Frame Problem'', in AAAI-86, pp. 328-333.
\noindent
{\bf Haugh, Brian A. (1988)}: ``Tractable Theories of Multiple Defeasible
Inheritance in Ordinary Nonmonotonic Logics'' in {\it Proceedings of the Seventh
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88)}, Morgan-Kaufman.
\noindent
{\bf Hintikka, Jaakko (1964)}: {\it Knowledge and Belief; an Introduction
to the Logic of the Two Notions}, Cornell Univ. Press, 179 p.
\noindent
{\bf Kowalski, Robert (1979)}: {\it Logic for Problem Solving},
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
\noindent
{\bf Kraus, Sarit and Donald Perlis (1988)}: ``Names and Non-Monotonicity'',
UMIACS-TR-88-84, CS-TR-2140, Computer Science Technical Report Series,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988a)}: {\it Between Circumscription and
Autoepistemic Logic}, to appear.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988b)}: {\it Circumscriptive Theories: A
Logic-based Framework for Knowledge Representation}, this collection.
\noindent
{\bf Lifschitz, Vladimir (1988c)}: {\it Benchmark Problems for Formal
Nonmonotonic Reasoning}, unpublished.
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1959)}: ``Programs with Common Sense'', in {\it
Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of
Thought Processes}, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
% common[e80,jmc],
% common.tex[e80,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John and P.J. Hayes (1969)}: ``Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence'', in D. Michie (ed), {\it Machine
Intelligence 4}, American Elsevier, New York, NY.
% phil.tex[ess,jmc] with slight modifications
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1977)}:
``On The Model Theory of Knowledge'' (with M. Sato, S. Igarashi, and
T. Hayashi), {\it Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence}, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1977)}:
``Epistemological Problems of Artificial Intelligence'', {\it Proceedings
of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence}, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.
% ijcai.c[e77,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1979a)}:
``Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines'' in {\it Philosophical Perspectives
in Artificial Intelligence}, Ringle, Martin (ed.), Harvester Press, July 1979.
% .<<aim 326, MENTAL[F76,JMC],
% mental.tex[f76,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1979b)}:
``First Order Theories of Individual Concepts and Propositions'',
in Michie, Donald (ed.) {\it Machine Intelligence 9}, (University of
Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh).
% .<<aim 325, concep.tex[e76,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1980)}:
``Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning'', {\it Artificial
Intelligence}, Volume 13, Numbers 1,2, April.
% .<<aim 334, circum.new[s79,jmc], cirnew.tex[s79,jmc]>>
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1983)}: ``Some Expert Systems Need Common Sense'',
in {\it Computer Culture: The Scientific, Intellectual and Social Impact
of the Computer}, Heinz Pagels, ed.
vol. 426, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
%paper
%presented at New York Academy of Sciences Symposium.
% common[e83,jmc]
%common.tex[e83,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1986)}:
``Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge''
{\it Artificial Intelligence}, April 1986
% circum.tex[f83,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1987)}:
``Generality in Artificial Intelligence'', {\it Communications of the ACM}.
Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 1030-1035
% genera[w86,jmc]
\noindent
{\bf McCarthy, John (1989)}: ``Two Puzzles Involving Knowledge'' in
{\it Formalizing Common Sense} Ablex 1989.
\noindent
{\bf Moore, R. (1985)}: ``Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic'',
{\it Artificial Intelligence} {\bf 25} (1), 75-94.
\noindent
{\bf Perlis, D. (1988)}: ``Autocircumscription'', {\it Artificial Intelligence},
{\bf 36} pp. 223-236.
\noindent
{\bf Reiter, Raymond (1980)}: ``A Logic for Default Reasoning'', {\it Artificial
Intelligence}, Volume 13, Numbers 1,2, April.
\noindent
{\bf Russell, Bertrand (1913)}: ``On the Notion of Cause'',
{\it Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society}, 13, pp. 1-26.
\noindent
{\bf McDermott, D. and J. Doyle, (1980)}:
``Non-Monotonic Logic I,'' {\it Artificial Intelligence\/},
Vol. 13, N. 1
\noindent
{\bf Newell, Allen (1981)}: ``The Knowledge Level,'' {\it AI Magazine\/},
Vol. 2, No. 2
\noindent
{\bf Robinson, J. Allen (1965)}: ``A Machine-oriented Logic Based
on the Resolution Principle''. {\it JACM}, 12(1), 23-41.
\noindent
{\bf Sterling, Leon and Ehud Shapiro (1986)}: {\it The Art of Prolog}, MIT Press.
\noindent
{\bf Sussman, Gerald J., Terry Winograd, and
Eugene Charniak (1971)}: ``Micro-planner Reference Manual,'' Report AIM-203A,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge.
\noindent
{\bf Vardi, Moshe (1988)}:
{\it Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge},
Morgan-Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
!\smallskip\centerline{Copyright \copyright\ 1989 by John McCarthy}
\smallskip\noindent{This draft of thomas[f88,jmc]\ TEXed on \jmcdate\ at \theTime}
\vfill\eject\end
We begin with a simpler example than the rule for using
boats. Suppose that the sentence ``The library has the book''
is being used for communication, i.e. not just being considered
as a sample sentence. It is being used in a context that
has a time associated with it and which refers to a particular
book under discussion and a particular library. We propose to
formalize the assertion by
%
$$holds(has(library,book),c17),$$
%
where $has$ is conceptually a predicate, but if we are using
first order logic, $has$ is a function whose value is a term
suitable to be the first argument of $holds$. The context
constant $c17$ should give further specification of the meaning
of $has$, since the sentence could mean either that the book is
in the library at the present moment or that the book is one of
those owned by that library. This ambiguity may be resolvable in
a language with predicate functions $has1$ and $has2$, but it
isn't obvious that there won't be additional ambiguities within
$has1$ and $has2$ that have to be resolved by context.
Consider a general 1980s American academic common sense
context. Call it $c1$. In $c1$, the phenomena of books and libraries
are ``sufficiently definite''. The context is not necessarily associated
with the English language. You could imagine a discussion in which
one person is speaking English and another is speaking Russian and
they are both communicating with a machine in a suitable first order
logical language. We won't try to define ``sufficiently definite'',
but the condition would be violated if the hearer went to the wrong
library or returned with the wrong book.
We might now have the sentence
%
$$holds(time(1988.dec.14.pst.1540,
physically(has)(spec(``Stanford_Mathematics'',library),
book(Author: Hintikka,Title: Knowledge and Belief))),c1).$$
%
Context $c17$ is a specialization of $c1$, and the two
sentences are equivalent.
dec 29 Discuss what happens when a flip-flop has to be used outside
of its specified regime.
meaning(scalpel,c19) = meaning(give(scalpel),c7)
!yet to do
jan 7
discuss at some point elaboration tolerance, epistemological adequacy
and ambiguity tolerance - note ref to dreyfus
probably under remarks
discuss reification in general
analogy with resonances in physics - weak entities
\noindent Reification in general
A previous section discussed reification of context. However,
natural language uses many more reifications than that, and it seems
that many of them will be useful in AI. Here are some examples.
1. (McCarthy 1980) mentions the missionaries-and-cannibals
problem and discusses the possibility that there is something wrong
with the boat. In ordinary language, it is sometimes useful to say
that there are two things wrong with the boat, i.e. ``things wrong
with the boat'' can be identified and counted. It appears that in
ordinary language a broken motor and a leak are two different things,
while the people who fix boats do not regard the boat having a leak
and having a hole as two different things.
2.
Some entities used in common sense thought and language seem
to be {\it weak entities}. They are used, but attempts to make them
precise fail. It is common to propose abandoning them for that reason.
I don't think AI can let itself do that. Weak entities are useful,
and we need to understand how to treat them theoretically.
∂25-Mar-89 1600 JMC hi fi connector cables
To: CLT
When I took my hi fi I forgot them. Don't let them be
thrown away.
∂25-Mar-89 1623 JMC
To: VAL
Please bring Kovalev Moscow address and phone.