perm filename OUTGO.MSG[1,JMC]29 blob
sn#876171 filedate 1989-08-20 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00237 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00024 00002 ∂02-Jul-89 1539 JMC re: frames
C00025 00003 ∂02-Jul-89 2012 Mailer re: "physically desescrating the flag"
C00026 00004 ∂03-Jul-89 1305 JMC re: thanks very much for the interview!
C00027 00005 ∂03-Jul-89 1640 Mailer flag
C00029 00006 ∂03-Jul-89 1658 Mailer re: Operations Research and Sub Hunting in WW II
C00031 00007 ∂03-Jul-89 1700 JMC
C00032 00008 ∂03-Jul-89 1948 JMC proofs
C00033 00009 ∂03-Jul-89 1954 JMC papers
C00034 00010 ∂04-Jul-89 1041 Mailer re: flag
C00037 00011 ∂08-Jul-89 1216 JMC re: 480 million digits of pi
C00039 00012 ∂08-Jul-89 1218 JMC re: equality circumscription
C00040 00013 ∂08-Jul-89 1221 JMC re: [Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM: T.L. Popejoy: The Culture and Polotics of AI]
C00041 00014 ∂08-Jul-89 1222 JMC
C00042 00015 ∂08-Jul-89 1305 JMC
C00043 00016 ∂08-Jul-89 1338 JMC
C00044 00017 ∂08-Jul-89 1645 Mailer re: Fifth Generation Computing
C00045 00018 ∂08-Jul-89 1648 Mailer re: Abortion
C00046 00019 ∂08-Jul-89 1651 Mailer re: Text of Flag Amendment
C00047 00020 ∂08-Jul-89 1655 Mailer re: Constitutional Ideals
C00048 00021 ∂08-Jul-89 1705 Mailer abortion
C00050 00022 ∂08-Jul-89 1709 Mailer re: Nicaragua: Economic Confrontation
C00051 00023 ∂08-Jul-89 2123 JMC re: Nicaragua: Economic Confrontation
C00052 00024 ∂09-Jul-89 1906 Mailer re: Once upon a flag
C00054 00025 ∂09-Jul-89 2236 Mailer re: Once upon a flag
C00056 00026 ∂09-Jul-89 2332 Mailer gloomy thought about the flag amendment
C00058 00027 ∂09-Jul-89 2342 JMC re: [Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM: T.L. Popejoy: The Culture and Polotics of AI]
C00059 00028 ∂10-Jul-89 1713 JMC
C00060 00029 ∂10-Jul-89 2021 Mailer re: Disease
C00061 00030 ∂11-Jul-89 0600 JMC parsing the past
C00062 00031 ∂11-Jul-89 1513 JMC re: Arkady Blinov
C00063 00032 ∂12-Jul-89 0928 JMC re: Meeting
C00064 00033 ∂12-Jul-89 0933 Mailer re: Offshore Oil Drilling Ban
C00065 00034 ∂12-Jul-89 1420 JMC re: task: DD
C00066 00035 ∂13-Jul-89 0055 Mailer re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
C00069 00036 ∂13-Jul-89 1018 JMC re: Your vote on Karp
C00070 00037 ∂13-Jul-89 1136 Mailer re: police brutality and OR
C00071 00038 ∂13-Jul-89 1145 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
C00073 00039 ∂13-Jul-89 1204 Mailer re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
C00077 00040 ∂13-Jul-89 1259 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
C00080 00041 ∂13-Jul-89 1336 Mailer re: Democracy & Flag Burning
C00082 00042 ∂13-Jul-89 1350 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
C00085 00043 ∂13-Jul-89 1355 JMC
C00086 00044 ∂13-Jul-89 1453 JMC re: meeting on equality circumscription
C00087 00045 ∂13-Jul-89 1538 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
C00089 00046 ∂13-Jul-89 1540 JMC re: Nuclear energy
C00090 00047 ∂14-Jul-89 1141 JMC
C00091 00048 ∂14-Jul-89 1433 JMC
C00092 00049 ∂14-Jul-89 1500 JMC
C00094 00050 ∂14-Jul-89 1511 JMC Consider this when you return.
C00108 00051 ∂14-Jul-89 2036 JMC In case you didn't get it.
C00122 00052 ∂14-Jul-89 2043 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
C00123 00053 ∂14-Jul-89 2047 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
C00125 00054 ∂14-Jul-89 2104 JMC re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
C00126 00055 ∂14-Jul-89 2108 Mailer re: Racism in the U.S.
C00128 00056 ∂14-Jul-89 2113 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
C00130 00057 ∂14-Jul-89 2116 Mailer re: Nuke Japan Now!
C00131 00058 ∂14-Jul-89 2130 Mailer re: a woman as President
C00133 00059 ∂15-Jul-89 1026 Mailer re: a woman for President (by JMC)
C00135 00060 ∂15-Jul-89 1236 JMC discrepancy
C00136 00061 ∂15-Jul-89 1318 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
C00139 00062 ∂15-Jul-89 1746 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
C00141 00063 ∂15-Jul-89 2142 Mailer re: Racism
C00143 00064 ∂16-Jul-89 0048 Mailer re: rain forests
C00149 00065 ∂17-Jul-89 0053 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
C00150 00066 ∂17-Jul-89 0111 Mailer re: US homocide rate
C00153 00067 ∂17-Jul-89 1410 JMC
C00154 00068 ∂17-Jul-89 1415 JMC re: [none]
C00155 00069 ∂17-Jul-89 1429 JMC re: [none]
C00157 00070 ∂17-Jul-89 1502 JMC call from Mike Almeida
C00158 00071 ∂17-Jul-89 2205 Mailer re: "What can the white man say to the black woman?"
C00159 00072 ∂18-Jul-89 0900 JMC Proposal for collaboration with Japanese
C00160 00073 ∂18-Jul-89 0903 JMC re: meeting
C00161 00074 ∂18-Jul-89 1044 JMC reply to message
C00162 00075 ∂18-Jul-89 1127 Mailer re: missing the point
C00168 00076 ∂18-Jul-89 1130 Mailer forests for removing CO2
C00169 00077 ∂18-Jul-89 1142 Mailer black doctors
C00171 00078 ∂18-Jul-89 1545 Mailer re: greenhouse trees
C00175 00079 ∂18-Jul-89 1559 JMC re: Scientific American global environment issue
C00176 00080 ∂18-Jul-89 2347 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
C00178 00081 ∂18-Jul-89 2351 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
C00179 00082 ∂18-Jul-89 2357 Mailer re: White Man
C00181 00083 ∂19-Jul-89 0005 Mailer re: Protecting JMC [was Re: missing the point]
C00183 00084 ∂19-Jul-89 0010 Mailer re: question for those who favor de-forestation
C00184 00085 ∂19-Jul-89 0011 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
C00185 00086 ∂19-Jul-89 1055 JMC re: TESTING
C00186 00087 ∂19-Jul-89 1319 JMC
C00187 00088 ∂19-Jul-89 1427 JMC re: White Man
C00188 00089 ∂19-Jul-89 1602 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
C00190 00090 ∂19-Jul-89 1614 JMC re: Nuclear waste disposal
C00192 00091 ∂19-Jul-89 1807 JMC re: Nuclear waste disposal
C00195 00092 ∂19-Jul-89 1922 JMC re: Appointment
C00196 00093 ∂20-Jul-89 0838 JMC
C00197 00094 ∂20-Jul-89 1459 JMC re: speech acts
C00198 00095 ∂20-Jul-89 1844 Mailer re: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
C00206 00096 ∂20-Jul-89 2138 Mailer re: Blacks and Jews
C00207 00097 ∂20-Jul-89 2145 Mailer re: Re↑2: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
C00209 00098 ∂20-Jul-89 2210 Mailer re: Porkbarrelling Poverty
C00216 00099 ∂20-Jul-89 2223 Mailer re: Prof. McCarthy's third-world problem [was Re: When should I call JMC racist?]
C00219 00100 ∂21-Jul-89 0039 Mailer re: Re↑4: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
C00223 00101 ∂21-Jul-89 0309 JMC delta-v to Mars
C00229 00102 ∂21-Jul-89 1022 JMC re: speech acts
C00230 00103 ∂21-Jul-89 1048 Mailer re: Shockley's error
C00234 00104 ∂21-Jul-89 1433 JMC re: Scherlis
C00235 00105 ∂21-Jul-89 1439 JMC re: Scherlis
C00236 00106 ∂21-Jul-89 1501 JMC
C00237 00107 ∂21-Jul-89 1505 JMC Lisp macros, theory thereof
C00238 00108 ∂21-Jul-89 1638 Mailer re: Shockley's error
C00239 00109 ∂21-Jul-89 1754 Mailer re: Shockely's errors..
C00241 00110 ∂21-Jul-89 1821 Mailer re: Is racism recursive?
C00244 00111 ∂21-Jul-89 1835 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00246 00112 ∂21-Jul-89 2230 JMC Note part about going around Venus.
C00252 00113 ∂22-Jul-89 1452 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00255 00114 ∂22-Jul-89 1510 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00260 00115 ∂22-Jul-89 1514 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00261 00116 ∂22-Jul-89 1533 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00262 00117 ∂22-Jul-89 1632 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
C00263 00118 ∂22-Jul-89 2158 Mailer re: Abortion (what else?)
C00264 00119 ∂22-Jul-89 2254 Mailer IQ
C00272 00120 ∂23-Jul-89 0018 Mailer re: Abortion/Death Penalty
C00274 00121 ∂23-Jul-89 1713 Mailer re: Abortion (what else?)
C00275 00122 ∂23-Jul-89 2355 JMC
C00276 00123 ∂24-Jul-89 0932 JMC re: Recomendation
C00277 00124 ∂24-Jul-89 1619 JMC electronic reviewing
C00278 00125 ∂24-Jul-89 2002 JMC meeting on Elephant
C00279 00126 ∂24-Jul-89 2043 Mailer re: Shockley's error
C00280 00127 ∂25-Jul-89 1458 JMC Matyasevich
C00281 00128 ∂26-Jul-89 0036 JMC
C00282 00129 ∂26-Jul-89 0048 JMC
C00283 00130 ∂26-Jul-89 0106 JMC re: Counterfactuals
C00284 00131 ∂26-Jul-89 1000 JMC reply to message
C00285 00132 ∂26-Jul-89 1203 JMC
C00286 00133 ∂26-Jul-89 1213 JMC re: Alexander Gorbis
C00288 00134 ∂26-Jul-89 1529 JMC Lifschitz
C00291 00135 ∂26-Jul-89 1753 JMC re: Matyasevitch visit
C00292 00136 ∂26-Jul-89 1754 JMC re: Golub's nomination to NAE
C00293 00137 ∂27-Jul-89 0106 Mailer Shockley
C00305 00138 ∂27-Jul-89 1743 JMC
C00306 00139 ∂27-Jul-89 1751 JMC
C00307 00140 ∂27-Jul-89 1916 JMC
C00308 00141 ∂27-Jul-89 2055 JMC
C00309 00142 ∂28-Jul-89 0918 JMC
C00310 00143 ∂28-Jul-89 1514 JMC re: what we will do
C00311 00144 ∂28-Jul-89 1518 JMC for Suppes
C00313 00145 ∂28-Jul-89 1602 JMC re: Design stance
C00314 00146 ∂28-Jul-89 1630 JMC re: Design stance
C00315 00147 ∂29-Jul-89 0709 Mailer Eskimos vs. environmentalists
C00320 00148 ∂29-Jul-89 1030 JMC padding Library of Congress numbers
C00321 00149 ∂29-Jul-89 1033 JMC
C00322 00150 ∂31-Jul-89 1049 JMC DARPA Project Summary
C00324 00151 ∂31-Jul-89 1053 JMC re: Rescheduling of meeting
C00325 00152 ∂31-Jul-89 1109 Mailer re: federal funding for the arts
C00327 00153 ∂31-Jul-89 1136 JMC re: DARPA Project Summary
C00328 00154 ∂31-Jul-89 1507 Mailer Higgins
C00332 00155 ∂31-Jul-89 1545 Mailer Higgins
C00333 00156 ∂31-Jul-89 1902 JMC re: summer pay
C00334 00157 ∂31-Jul-89 1915 Mailer Higgins
C00348 00158 ∂31-Jul-89 2323 Mailer re: Higgins and US policy against terrorism
C00351 00159 ∂01-Aug-89 0013 Mailer re: Higgins and US policy against terrorism
C00352 00160 ∂01-Aug-89 1737 JMC re: Your submission to CACM.
C00353 00161 ∂02-Aug-89 0057 Mailer re: Higgins
C00358 00162 ∂02-Aug-89 0923 JMC re: Pat Simmons......
C00359 00163 ∂02-Aug-89 1224 Mailer The Office of Technology Assassination at it Again
C00369 00164 ∂02-Aug-89 1456 JMC cs306
C00370 00165 ∂02-Aug-89 1508 JMC
C00371 00166 ∂02-Aug-89 1532 JMC
C00372 00167 ∂02-Aug-89 1722 JMC answer to question
C00373 00168 ∂02-Aug-89 1724 JMC re: hoover press paper
C00374 00169 ∂02-Aug-89 1812 JMC re: Foyles in London
C00375 00170 ∂02-Aug-89 1825 JMC bad not
C00376 00171 ∂02-Aug-89 1836 JMC
C00377 00172 ∂03-Aug-89 1204 Mailer world government
C00384 00173 ∂03-Aug-89 1420 JMC
C00385 00174 ∂03-Aug-89 1525 JMC
C00386 00175 ∂03-Aug-89 1717 JMC reply to message
C00387 00176 ∂04-Aug-89 1334 JMC
C00388 00177 ∂04-Aug-89 1430 JMC exam
C00389 00178 ∂04-Aug-89 1434 JMC abstract
C00390 00179 ∂04-Aug-89 1708 JMC re: Blacks and Jews
C00391 00180 ∂04-Aug-89 2032 Mailer re: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
C00392 00181 ∂04-Aug-89 2120 JMC
C00393 00182 ∂05-Aug-89 1813 JMC (on TTY63, at TV-140) display losing
C00394 00183 ∂06-Aug-89 1059 JMC re: Offices
C00395 00184 ∂06-Aug-89 1612 JMC re: Meet
C00396 00185 ∂06-Aug-89 1630 JMC Bing form
C00397 00186 ∂07-Aug-89 0935 JMC
C00398 00187 ∂07-Aug-89 1536 Mailer suggestions solicited
C00413 00188 ∂07-Aug-89 1547 JMC re: researchers in logical reasoning
C00415 00189 ∂07-Aug-89 1633 JMC re: Email, Email, wherefor art thou, Email?
C00416 00190 ∂07-Aug-89 1648 JMC re: suggestions solicited
C00417 00191 ∂07-Aug-89 1741 Mailer when life begins
C00418 00192 ∂07-Aug-89 2203 JMC electronic mail
C00419 00193 ∂08-Aug-89 0220 Mailer quake
C00422 00194 ∂08-Aug-89 0942 Mailer re: quake
C00423 00195 ∂08-Aug-89 1056 JMC re: How do you . . .
C00425 00196 ∂08-Aug-89 1057 JMC re: your su.computer message
C00426 00197 ∂08-Aug-89 1107 Mailer re: Need opinions on company names.
C00427 00198 ∂08-Aug-89 1129 JMC problem with permission to hire someone
C00429 00199 ∂08-Aug-89 1306 JMC re: Decommissioning of SCORE ***PLEASE READ***
C00430 00200 ∂08-Aug-89 2003 JMC re: I forgot to mention this
C00431 00201 ∂08-Aug-89 2004 JMC re: kinds
C00432 00202 ∂08-Aug-89 2005 JMC re: abstract
C00433 00203 ∂08-Aug-89 2108 JMC re: Need opinions on company names.
C00434 00204 ∂09-Aug-89 0904 JMC reply to message
C00435 00205 ∂09-Aug-89 0911 JMC re: reply to message
C00436 00206 ∂09-Aug-89 0932 JMC problem with permission to hire someone
C00438 00207 ∂09-Aug-89 1200 JMC
C00439 00208 ∂09-Aug-89 1521 JMC re: Gelfond
C00440 00209 ∂09-Aug-89 1523 JMC re: re: researchers in logical reasoning
C00441 00210 ∂09-Aug-89 1618 JMC Levinthal
C00442 00211 ∂10-Aug-89 1101 JMC re: response to your netmail article
C00444 00212 ∂10-Aug-89 1131 JMC re: O.T.A. message to Su-etc
C00449 00213 ∂11-Aug-89 1659 JMC
C00450 00214 ∂11-Aug-89 1751 JMC Dependence of counterfactuals on context
C00452 00215 ∂11-Aug-89 1808 JMC re: reply from jmc
C00453 00216 ∂12-Aug-89 1334 Mailer re: mathematical maturity in our youth
C00456 00217 ∂13-Aug-89 2207 JMC re: Inquiry about the ELIS again
C00457 00218 ∂14-Aug-89 0029 JMC re: Inquiry about the ELIS again
C00458 00219 ∂14-Aug-89 1131 JMC re: Appointment
C00459 00220 ∂14-Aug-89 1136 JMC re: Appointment
C00460 00221 ∂14-Aug-89 1225 JMC
C00461 00222 ∂14-Aug-89 1315 JMC re: Your submission to CACM.
C00462 00223 ∂14-Aug-89 1317 JMC re: Text of signed Viewpoint
C00477 00224 ∂14-Aug-89 1745 JMC re: Appointment
C00478 00225 ∂14-Aug-89 2023 JMC re: state of the universe
C00479 00226 ∂14-Aug-89 2222 Mailer re: Freedom of the press??
C00480 00227 ∂15-Aug-89 1000 JMC re: research interests
C00481 00228 ∂15-Aug-89 1132 JMC Please send
C00482 00229 ∂15-Aug-89 1149 JMC
C00483 00230 ∂16-Aug-89 0920 JMC re: labrea account
C00484 00231 ∂16-Aug-89 1930 JMC re: labrea account
C00485 00232 ∂17-Aug-89 1548 JMC re: Electronic Mail on Networks
C00486 00233 ∂17-Aug-89 1604 JMC your comments
C00494 00234 jimm%acmvm.bitnet@forsythe.stanford.edu
C00509 00235 ∂17-Aug-89 1619 JMC NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL - FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL
C00524 00236 ∂17-Aug-89 1623 Mailer Final version of Networks considered harmful.
C00539 00237 ∂17-Aug-89 1758 JMC re: failed mail returned
C00540 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂02-Jul-89 1539 JMC re: frames
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 01-Jul-89 21:49-PT.]
I don't really have any better idea, except that we might make
the unchanging character of the others nonmonotonic. I don't
see how to get by without frames of some kind. Distinguishing
primitive fluents seems to be essentially the designation of a frame.
∂02-Jul-89 2012 Mailer re: "physically desescrating the flag"
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 3 Jul 89 01:09:10 GMT.]
Remember that the proposed Amendment won't itself be a law. It
merely enables Congress and states to pass laws defining physical
desecration and providing penalties. Presumably inserting the
word "physical" enables the Supreme Court to prevent the
protection of mere images, e.g. pictures in magazines.
∂03-Jul-89 1305 JMC re: thanks very much for the interview!
To: HOFFMAN@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 3 Jul 89 13:01:40-PDT.]
You must have run back. From my point of view the questions were more
than adequate - better than usual.
∂03-Jul-89 1640 Mailer flag
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The direct consequences of the flag issue are minor, whether
Bush gets his amendment or not. However, I hope he does.
1. It will indicate that an important way of limiting the Supreme
Court's reinterpretation of the Constitution is to amend it to
force the interpretation desired by the Congress and 3/4 of the
state legislatures.
2. It will inevitably limit the extent to which the court system
effectively amends the Constitution.
3. It might mitigate and slow the intellectuals' war against
traditional American culture. That's doubtful, however. It
seems to me that this war has a tribal character. I notice
this on su-etc, where so many of the countercultural expressions
take the form of jeering at the enemy rather than arguing about
issues. I don't mainly refer to the flag issue, which, I suppose,
mainly lends itself to ad hominem arguments.
∂03-Jul-89 1658 Mailer re: Operations Research and Sub Hunting in WW II
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 Mon, 3 Jul 89 15:59:20 PDT.]
The physicist you have in mind is probably Philip Morse of M.I.T. I
believe the subhunting success of operations research is discussed
both in his textbook of OR and in his autobiography. Most probably
it is discussed in the Festschrift also.
*4.2) IN HONOR OF PHILIP M. MORSE (Cambridge, M.I.T. Press [1969])
* LOCATION: QC71.M67I5: Green Stacks
*4.4) Morse, Philip McCord, 1903-. IN AT THE BEGINNINGS (MIT Press, c1977)
* LOCATION: QC16.M66A34: Meyer
*4.10) Morse, Philip McCord. METHODS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH. 1st ed., rev.
* ([Cambridge] Published jointly by the Technology Press of Massachusetts
* Institute of Technology, and Wiley, New York, [1963, c1951])
* LOCATION: 380.56.M886: Earth Sciences
∂03-Jul-89 1700 JMC
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
I think it's also in World of Mathematics by James R. Newman.
∂03-Jul-89 1948 JMC proofs
To: MPS
I suspect that the paper I have put in my out box constitutes
the proofs mentioned in the letter you referred to. However,
I can't find any computer file that might have been the original.
From whom was the letter? Anyway I read the article, and it looks
ok, though a trifle repetitious. I'll deal with it when I return
on the 8th (or maybe the 12th if Japan looks interesting).
∂03-Jul-89 1954 JMC papers
To: lm@CS.BROWN.EDU
I seem to have mislaid or misfiled your papers. Could you
mail me some? I'm looking forward to seeing you again at IJCAI,
and I hope not to be suffering from so much jet lag then.
John McCarthy
Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
∂04-Jul-89 1041 Mailer re: flag
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM, LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM sent Tue, 4 Jul 89 10:22:34 PDT.]
I'm sorry I don't have time before my trip to Japan to explain
fully the questions raised by Les Earnest and Ric Steinberger.
Here are some remarks.
1. The issue of whether people can "desecrate" the flag as a means
of expression is, after all, minor. There are plenty of other
ways of expressing opinion.
2. In my opinion, the core of the first amendment is the ability
to express opinions verbally and in print and to hold parades.
Demonstrative forms of expression are a frill. Intimidative
forms of expression, e.g. sit-ins, must be limited in order to
preserve other people's rights. This can be seen by the
situation in China. To keep control, it is speech and writing
and parades in a public place that the communists must suppress.
3. By "tribal" I was referring to the fact that much political
sentiment is directed at the other side as people. We are we,
and they are they. This is a lower form of political sentiment
than expressing opinions about policy.
Let me cite the fact that su-etc has seen much more personal
criticism of Reagan, Bush and Quayle than arguments about their
policies.
When I make this remark, I am sometimes accused of ad hominem
remarks. I'll point out that the remarks aren't directed at
specific individuals.
I'll be back Sunday or possibly next Thursday.
∂08-Jul-89 1216 JMC re: 480 million digits of pi
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.SYMBOLICS.COM,
vanMeule@ALLEGHENY.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM
CC: MLB@WHITE.SWW.SYMBOLICS.COM,
cwr@WHITE.SWW.SYMBOLICS.COM
[In reply to message from rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM sent Sat, 8 Jul 89 01:22 PDT.]
The spelling is Chudnovsky, because that's the way the Chudnovsky's,
U.S. citizens, spell it.
There are three criteria for a transliteration, usually incompatible.
1. The pronunciation should approximate that of the original language.
This criterion means that English, French and German use different
systems of transliterating Russian.
2. It should be possible to get the correct spelling in the original
alphabet from the transliteration. This is why the library of
Congress and Mathematical Reviews use rather fancy systems.
3. If the name is foreign to Russia in origin, it may have a
traditional spelling in the latin alphabet. This is true of
Baltic names and Jewish names of German origin. The Estonians
spell their capital Tallinn, but if you tranliterate the Russian
spelling to the latin alphabet you get Tallin, to the annoyance
of the Estonians.
∂08-Jul-89 1218 JMC re: equality circumscription
To: PKR
[In reply to message rcvd 06-Jul-89 17:26-PT.]
Sure. I plan to be in all next week. Pls phone 723-4430, but
you might get better understanding from Vladimir.
∂08-Jul-89 1221 JMC re: [Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM: T.L. Popejoy: The Culture and Polotics of AI]
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Fri, 7 Jul 89 09:47:31 PDT.]
That's amusing. However, I have been mean to such people. I'll
send you a copy of a review I wrote of Bloomfield's "The Question
of Artificial Intelligence". The review appeared in Annals of the
History of Computing. It will be interesting if this guy is less
of an ax grinder than the contributors to the Bloomfield book.
∂08-Jul-89 1222 JMC
To: MPS
Please send Bloomfield review to Pat Hayes at Xerox PARC.
∂08-Jul-89 1305 JMC
To: MPS
Remind me to send an issue of Los Alamos Science to Chudnovsky.
∂08-Jul-89 1338 JMC
To: CLT
6pm
∂08-Jul-89 1645 Mailer re: Fifth Generation Computing
To: ramsey@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from ramsey@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 6 Jul 89 02:27:01 GMT.]
The Howard Ullman article is typical journalist's hype. It is long
on conjectures on people's motives and short on precisely what the
their technical or even political goals were. It finds bad motives
in everyone but journalists. Just try criticizing a journalist
in a letter, and there will be five articles accusing you of attacking
freedom of the press.
∂08-Jul-89 1648 Mailer re: Abortion
To: cjh@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 6 Jul 89 05:32:12 GMT.]
The average woman getting an abortion isn't white, although most likely
the modal woman is white. The average is somewhat off-white, unless
there are some whiter than white in order to balance the blacks.
∂08-Jul-89 1651 Mailer re: Text of Flag Amendment
To: cjh@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from cjh@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 6 Jul 89 05:24:37 GMT.]
On the contrary, the vagueness of the term "physical desecration" is
a merit of the amendment. It gives the state legislatures some leeway
in deciding what to prohibit, and the courts some leeway in deciding
whether what they prohibit falls within the purview of the amendment.
∂08-Jul-89 1655 Mailer re: Constitutional Ideals
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF sent 06 Jul 89 1446 PDT.]
RWF, please explain what you believe about El Salvador.
∂08-Jul-89 1705 Mailer abortion
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
How would pro-choice and pro-life people feel about the following?
Suppose an artificial uterus were developed to an extent that
an embryo could be ejected from a pregnant woman and then
supported to term. Any woman would have a right to eject
an embryo at any time.
I leave it open how the costs of supporting the child would be divided
among the mother, the father, the state and the pro-life people, except
to specify that the supplier of the sperm would have equal responsibility
to the supplier of the ovum.
Would this be an acceptable technological solution to the legal
problem of abortion?
Would it be an acceptable solution to the moral problem?
∂08-Jul-89 1709 Mailer re: Nicaragua: Economic Confrontation
To: gscott@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from gscott@portia.Stanford.EDU sent 7 Jul 89 19:30:10 GMT.]
I see no mention of the fact that Nicaragua, like all
communist ruled countries, has a higher ratio of armed
forces to population than democratic countries.
Perhaps the coffee growers think that's where the
money is going.
∂08-Jul-89 2123 JMC re: Nicaragua: Economic Confrontation
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 9 Jul 89 04:01:39 GMT.]
Communist countries have high "force ratios" whether under attack or
not, and Nicaragua built up large armed forces while the Carter
Administration was still giving them money. Anyway my point was that
this tax on the coffee growers was justified as paying for something
social. It's equally reasonable for the coffee growers to consider
it as paying for the large armed forces and secret police.
∂09-Jul-89 1906 Mailer re: Once upon a flag
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 09-Jul-89 14:39-PT.]
I remarked that I considered it a minor free speech issue,
because restrictions on "physically desecrating" the flag
don't prevent anyone from saying or printing what he thinks
about the flag or anything else.
1. While I support the proposed amendment, I would vote
against (say) a California initiative implementing it. This
will seem paradoxical to people who think that anything they
want is required by the Constitution.
2. California and Stanford could make regulations against
physically descrating their flags, and perhaps the proposed
amendment would make them constitutional also. A Stanford rule
might even be legal anyway. I would oppose both.
3. My main reason for supporting the amendment is that
it would provide a precedent for overruling the Supreme Court
when it manufactures law.
∂09-Jul-89 2236 Mailer re: Once upon a flag
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 10 Jul 89 04:47:57 GMT.]
1. I read the amendment. It explicitly gives power to forbid
"physical desecration" to both Congress and the states.
Here it is again.
"The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States."
2. The Supreme Court frequently extends (by analogy) to state
entities Constitutional provisions that explicitly apply to U.S.
entities. That was why I thought an indirect effect of the
amendment might be to allow states to protect their own physical
symbols. Maybe it will, and maybe it won't.
∂09-Jul-89 2332 Mailer gloomy thought about the flag amendment
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I pressed the wrong button, and the previous message
got away unfinished. I suppose you all guessed my gloomy
thought.
Mr. Karish wrote,
"The proposed amendment would give power only to Congress, not
to the states."
I imagined I was refuting him by quoting the proposed amendment.
"The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States."
But maybe this is just my overliteral right wing mind unfamiliar
with modern Constitutional interpretation. Maybe when President
Jesse Jackson makes Lawrence Tribe Chief Justice, my overliteral
interpretation of the amendment will be overthrown. It's
happened before.
Say it ain't so, Chuck.
∂09-Jul-89 2342 JMC re: [Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM: T.L. Popejoy: The Culture and Polotics of AI]
To: hayes@ARISIA.XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent Fri, 7 Jul 89 09:47:31 PDT.]
The July 20 issue of New York Review of Books has a review by Frederick
Crews of two books about Mark Twain. The first book is written
from the constructionist point of view. If a constructionist can
do what that book does to Mark Twain, think what one can do to AI.
Needless to say, I'll cheerfully talk to the fellow.
∂10-Jul-89 1713 JMC
To: MPS
remind me about japan expenses
∂10-Jul-89 2021 Mailer re: Disease
To: STACH@KL.SRI.COM, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STACH@KL.SRI.COM sent Mon, 10 Jul 89 18:58:57 PDT.]
Ascribing to a state setting pi = 3 provides a nice projective test
of an amateur intellectual's prejudices.
∂11-Jul-89 0600 JMC parsing the past
To: VAL
As you remember, I decided that Elephant requires regarding the
past as a sequence of events and that referring to the past
involves parsing this sequence, i.e. doing pattern matching on
it. However, if we have continuous time, this isn't quite right,
because between any two events there are as many clock ticks as
you like. This introduces the idea of pattern matching
continuous pasts. Maybe the patterns should allow for
overlapping. Have you heard of continuous pattern matching?
It should keep the mathematicians cheerfully occupied for
a while.
∂11-Jul-89 1513 JMC re: Arkady Blinov
To: BETSY@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 11 Jul 89 14:58:21-PDT.]
I don't have a date, and Soviets are always uncertain. Suppes might
have something more definite. Otherwise, I suggest you schedule him
for the second week but stuff October with local people who can swap
if necessary.
∂12-Jul-89 0928 JMC re: Meeting
To: PERRAULT@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Wed 12 Jul 89 08:53:06-PDT.]
OK, let's make it Monday at 4.
∂12-Jul-89 0933 Mailer re: Offshore Oil Drilling Ban
To: DON@RML2.SRI.COM, comments@KL.SRI.COM,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: don@RML2.SRI.COM
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from DON@RML2.SRI.COM sent Wed 12 Jul 89 08:30:31-PST.]
Let the bastards freeze in the dark, but what about me?
∂12-Jul-89 1420 JMC re: task: DD
To: NJACOBS@VAX.DARPA.MIL
[In reply to message sent Wed 12 Jul 89 14:40:02-EDT.]
The two addresses (clt@sail.stanford.edu and jmc.stanford.edu)
are correct and should continue to be used.
∂13-Jul-89 0055 Mailer re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
To: DON@RML2.SRI.COM, comments@KL.SRI.COM,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from DON@RML2.SRI.COM sent Wed 12 Jul 89 15:06:43-PST.]
I don't consider Lovins an authority on anything. He's a
propagandist, not a scientist. Who knows where he gets
his trillion dollars - a suspiciously round number.
Energy obtained from saving cannot readily be estimated
and is readily exaggerated. He can say anything he likes
about what energy might have been consumed.
Here's an old quote.
"If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for
us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy
because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking
for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't
give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could
do mischief to the earth or to each other."
- Amory Lovins in %2The Mother Earth%1 - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22
It tells us that Lovins doesn't trust his fellow earthmen to use
technology to their own advantage. Such people will cheerfully
lie to us for our own good.
In fact the ``renewable sources'' have generated little energy
in spite of vast research investment since 1973. There are no
even plausible ideas.
Someone's stated that the nuclear industry won't admit its
full costs. No matter what costs they admit, Lovins and Udall
will claim the real costs are greater.
France gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy,
and Japan has just passed the U.S. in percentage. France has
the best estimates of the cost.
It is disappointing that the Sierra Club is still publishing
those old lies. Blind opposition to progress, I guess.
∂13-Jul-89 1018 JMC re: Your vote on Karp
To: chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 13 Jul 1989 10:09:12 PDT.]
My vote is no.
∂13-Jul-89 1136 Mailer re: police brutality and OR
To: davef@Jessica.UUCP, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from davef@Jessica.UUCP sent 13 Jul 89 16:18:15 GMT.]
What should be done to Earth First is the same as what was done
to the Ku Klux Klan. A civil suit established that the Klan's
activities had caused a murder, and the judgment was large
enough to put the Klan out of business in a certain state.
∂13-Jul-89 1145 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
To: COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM, jester@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from COOLEY@KL.SRI.COM sent Thu, 13 Jul 89 11:09:04 PDT.]
Jester's jest about Kennedy's car seems intelligent enough to me.
Many people need to be reminded that nuclear energy in the U.S.
hasn't killed even one person in an accident. Polls show that
college students are misinformed on this point. People have lied
to them about this - including Ted Kennedy.
Some people put Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the same
sentence, ignoring (often intentionally) the fact that Chernobyl
released 15 million times the radiation. That's like putting
World War II and a car accident in the same sentence. However,
there have been enough reactor years so that even if one imagined
that Chernobyl scale accidents (releasing 40 percent of the
radiation of that reactor to the atmosphere) would occur every
ten years, nuclear energy would still be safer than most other
forms of energy, in particular coal and oil.
∂13-Jul-89 1204 Mailer re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM
CC: DON@RML2.SRI.COM, comments@KL.SRI.COM,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM sent Thu, 13 Jul 89 07:55:26 PDT.]
1. It is intentionally confusing to regard conservation as a
source of energy. It involves using less, but it doesn't supply
energy.
2. When I say that alternate energy has generated very little, I
am referring to solar electricity, to windmills, to biomass,
to tides, etc. As for solar water heaters, I recently bought
a house that has one. It doesn't work, and the company that
sold it is out of business. Maybe it can be fixed, but since
it has a natural gas backup, there's no urgency.
I'll bet a large fraction of solar hot water systems no longer
work.
3. Yes, France and Japan have figured out how to store the waste.
All the proposals will work, but implementation needs to be
delayed to allow further decay of heat generating radioactivity.
After 500 years the radioactivity will be less than that of the
original uranium ore, so throwing the waste into uranium mines is
a workable, if far from optimal, solution. The anti-nukes have
succeeded in delaying U.S. decisions on waste disposal by their
usual dishonest tactics of exaggerating hypothetical dangers.
4. It is wrong, and usually dishonest, to say or imply that
there is substantial scientific controversy about the overall
safety of nuclear energy. The major scientific organizations
that have made studies of relevant issues, e.g. the American
Physical Society and the National Research Council, have
all determined that the problems they studied were solvable
and that American reactors were reasonably safe.
5. I'll be back on the Sierra Club later. It has done immense
harm, and it and its ideological allies have a major
responsibility for the fact that while my generation could
purchase homes out of current income, most of the current
generation of young people cannot but must wait for their parents
to die.
∂13-Jul-89 1259 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM, jester@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM sent Thu, 13 Jul 89 11:31:11 PDT.]
Steinberger implies that the damage to humans from radiation releases
associated with nuclear energy has not been estimated and might be
very large. On the contrary, it has been estimated accurately, and
rather low upper bounds can be given. The reason is that we are
bombarded with ionizing radiation all the time from cosmic rays,
from natural radioactivity and from medical x-rays. The latest
estimates come from comparing high radon regions with low radon
regions.
No increases in cancer associated with high natural
radioactivity have been found. For example, Denver with
increased cosmic rays associated with high altitude and with high
radioactivity in rocks has been compared with low altitude
cities. Bernard Cohen has compared high radon regions with low;
the result was that extrapolating to low exposures from high
exposure seems to exaggerate radiation produced cancer by at
least four. Cohen is Professor of Physics at the University of
Pittsburgh, former head of the department and former President of
the health physics society. Estimates of several thousand deaths
over 30 years from Chernobyl were based on afore-mentioned
extrapolation. Even taking these estimates, which is still
standard practice, nuclear energy wins.
This is an entirely different statistical result
than was obtained when smoking and cancer were related.
∂13-Jul-89 1336 Mailer re: Democracy & Flag Burning
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 Fri 7 Jul 89 04:02:26-PDT.]
This is to elaborate a hint of Joe Brenner's. Here are the problems
with government by poll.
1. There are two many issues for even the largest ballot. Congress
takes several votes a day.
2. The results of polls are strongly influenced by the people who
determine the propositions to be voted on.
3. It is common that in two sided voting that a majority will prefer
A to B, B to C and C to A when propositions A, B, and C have the
right relations.
4. Even with committees to iron out the differences, Congress often
comes up with inconsistent laws. The most common case is that
income + borrowing doesn't equal outgo.
∂13-Jul-89 1350 Mailer re: Nuclear Power
To: DON@RML2.SRI.COM, comments@KL.SRI.COM,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from DON@RML2.SRI.COM sent Thu 13 Jul 89 13:21:41-PST.]
A nuclear plant could not be built on the campus by regulations dating
from the 1950s. Nevertheless, judging by the results of several thousand
reactor years of operation, it would be reasonably safe, i.e. its
contribution to the expected death rate would be far less than that
of traffic accidents. If it reduced housing prices as much as Don
hypothesizes, it would probably cause a net reduction in the death
rate, because more prosperous people take better care of themselves
and their children.
When I wrote ``reasonably safe'' in a previous message, I expected
the demagogic reply I got. Reasonably safe refers to the above
criteria of comparison with other hazards and with the prosperity
bonus.
Alfven, note spelling, is not a nuclear physicist but an
astrophysicist. The Union of Concerned Scientists is an
organization formed to oppose nuclear energy; naturally it does,
although it has moderated its oppposition in the last few years
because of the CO2 problem. It isn't a counterpart of the
American Physical Society.
∂13-Jul-89 1355 JMC
To: PKR
What's it about? If you told me, I forgot.
∂13-Jul-89 1453 JMC re: meeting on equality circumscription
To: PKR
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Jul-89 14:43-PT.]
OK, please make it 10am tomorrow.
∂13-Jul-89 1538 Mailer re: Nuclear energy
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, 13 Jul 89 15:31:07 PDT.]
Please cite at least one study published in a refereed scientific
journal asserting that significant numbers are likely to die as a
result of Three Mile Island. I don't assert that there are none
at all, but I don't remember the Union of Concerned Scientists'
literature I have seen referring to any.
No way of storing wastes will be ``universally accepted and
praised'' as long as opposition to nuclear energy is a matter of
ideology.
∂13-Jul-89 1540 JMC re: Nuclear energy
To: gscott@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SHELBY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from gscott@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 13 Jul 89 20:55:07 GMT.]
The usual phrase is "accident in a commercial nuclear reactor".
∂14-Jul-89 1141 JMC
To: VAL
See thatch.ns[e89,jmc]
∂14-Jul-89 1433 JMC
To: VAL
See also vendee.ns[e89,jmc]
∂14-Jul-89 1500 JMC
To: PKR, VAL
Peter Rathman mentioned combining databases, and we discussed
localizing inconsistencies. VAL and I later discussed the matter
at lunch. I proposed that nonmonotonicity replaces inconsistencies
with abnormalities. The example PKR and I discussed was where
one db lists retired(Smith) and another says current(Smith) and
there is a general axiom ∀x¬(retired(x) ∧ current(x)). I
proposed replacing the first two sentences by
says(A,retired Smith) and says(B,current Smith). VAL suggested
that this is unnecesarily complicated. Using ¬abA(Smith) ⊃ retired(Smith)
and ¬abB(Smith) ⊃ current(Smith) works even better.
He seems to be right, but it's a good problem.
We humans are good at localizing inconsistencies. The problem is:
How much reification and nonmonotonic reasoning is required to localize
inconsistencies, e.g. by replacing them with disjunctions?
∂14-Jul-89 1511 JMC Consider this when you return.
To: VAL
∂14-Jul-89 1430 cross@vax.darpa.mil DARPA Program Summaries
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 89 14:29:46 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA20159; Fri, 14 Jul 89 17:20:01 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 14 Jul 89 17:28:41-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (4.1/5.51)
id AA03528; Fri, 14 Jul 89 17:28:44 EDT
Date: Fri 14 Jul 89 17:28:41-EDT
From: Steve Cross <CROSS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: DARPA Program Summaries
To: cross-pi-addresses@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <616454921.0.CROSS@SUN35.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@SUN35.DARPA.MIL>
=====================================================================
TO: Principal Investigators Whom I Support
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
This is an important message.
Please acknowledge receipt immediately to:
cross@vax.darpa.mil
AND
sully@vax.darpa.mil
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Greetings! I've finally arrived at DARPA and I will be taking over the
management of the KBS, Planning, and Math Modeling work. The
following request is a necessary "evil" this time of year.
The current budget and leadership uncertainties are additional complicating
factors. I am a WILLING advocate for the AI community within this agency,
but to be an EFFECTIVE advocate I need your utmost cooperation. Any additional
information you can provide me to help me get smart on your project (tech reports
or copies of recent papers) would also be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Stephen (Steve) E. Cross
Program Manager, Machine Intelligence
*********************************************************************
In the next two weeks, I need two sets of data about each of your
current or anticipated contracts:
a. A 1-2 page program summary -- to educate the new Director of
ISTO (not yet named) among others.
b. Certain administrative data -- to help me allocate FY-90 funds
wisely.
Instructions and templates are given below.
The due date for submissions is Friday, 28 July. If some data are not
available by that date, please send what you have and indicate when
the rest will follow.
Please send your submission(s) by e-mail to both of the following:
wayne@vax.darpa.mil
sully@vax.darpa.mil
Please direct any questions to Mary Sullivan at 703/276-3532.
To help us sort submissions, please use one of the following
capitalized titles as the subject line of your message:
SUMMARY IC4 for Knowledge-Based Systems
SUMMARY IC4 for Math Modeling
SUMMARY IC5 for Planning
In the near future you may receive an ISTO-wide request for financial
data in a format suitable for updating a database. The fiscal data
that you will be collecting for me may help you answer that request
also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A separate program summary with associated administrative data is
needed for each current or anticipated contract. The instructions
below are designed to make your submissions consistent and effective.
Your program summary will be an important vehicle for explaining and
defending your program. It should be compact and technically
interesting, drafted so as to be understood by the new Director of
ISTO or by other DARPA program managers. It is worth writing well.
A well-written portfolio of program summaries will help us defend
current budgets in a time of contraction and possibly argue for
increased funding.
Your summary should be strong and positive, but without hyperbole.
Give a clear, top-level view. Leave out minutiae. Avoid jargon.
Write in the third person.
To help us quickly put many such summaries into Interleaf format,
please be sure to:
a. Include the capitalized titles used below, substituting your
words for the lower case instructions.
b. Use plain ASCII with no markup commands from a text processor.
c. Do not use leading indentation or any extraneous embedded
whitespace (but do leave blank lines between paragraphs).
d. Keep lines to a maximum of 70 characters.
e. Limit each program summary to a maximum of 7000 characters.
(This will let us reformat your text to fit within 2 pages.
Summaries for small efforts should be even shorter. These
limits do not apply to the separate administrative data.)
==========================================================================
=== PROGRAM SUMMARY ===
ORGANIZATION
University or company name
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Name, Phone, email address, US Mail Address
TITLE OF EFFORT
Use the title of the contract and the ARPA order number.
OBJECTIVE
A concise statement of what you are attempting to accomplish and why.
At most a few sentences.
APPROACH
A high-level description of your approach, both technical and
procedural. Give enough context to make sense, but keep it brief, as
the emphasis should be on what you are doing. Indicate what is
innovative and why it is promising. Break into paragraphs if
appropriate.
PROGRESS
A brief discussion of how far you have come and where you are headed
in the total contract. Include quantitative results (here and below)
if appropriate. Perhaps a few sentences overall.
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For existing contracts only: A crisp list of your most significant
accomplishments in the last 12-18 months; one sentence per item.
The list may include important new ideas.
FY-90 PLANS
A crisp list of the most significant new items that you expect to
accomplish in FY-90; one sentence per item.
Note: Under both RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS and FY-90 PLANS, please
phrase your sentences like the two examples below and insert a
blank line between each sentence:
Developed a message understanding system (PUNDIT) to extract key
data (e.g., who did what to whom) from telegraphic military messages.
Ported PUNDIT to several Navy domains (CASPREPS, RAINFORMS, OPREPS),
to maintenance reports, to natural language database queries, to
medical abstracts, and to air traffic control transmissions.
==========================================================================
=== ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ===
a. ARPA ORDER NUMBER: This is a 4-digit number
b. CONTRACT NUMBER:
c. AGENT: The agency that administers your contract (e.g. ONR).
d. CONTRACT TITLE: If you proposed a new title in your program
summary, put it here and also include the
official title.
e. ORGANIZATION: University or company name
f. PI:
g. ACTUAL OR EXPECTED START DATE:
h. EXPECTED END DATE IF OPTIONS NOT EXERCISED:
The "options" referred to here and below are official options
for additional work negotiated at the time of award, but not yet
exercised by the government. Options which have already been
exercised are considered part of the contract. (Many contracts
do not have options.)
i. EXPECTED END DATE IF OPTIONS EXERCISED:
j. TOTAL PRICE IF OPTIONS NOT EXERCISED:
k. SPENDING AUTHORITY PROVIDED SO FAR:
l. DATE WHEN THESE FUNDS WILL BE FULLY EXPENDED:
m. ADDITIONAL FUNDS EXPECTED PER CONTRACT (by FY):
n. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE ADDITIONAL FUNDS (by FY):
o. ADDITIONAL FUNDS EXPECTED (by FY) IF OPTIONS EXERCISED:
p. ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED (date and item):
q. OTHER REMARKS:
==========================================================================
-------
-------
-------
-------
∂14-Jul-89 2036 JMC In case you didn't get it.
To: CLT
∂14-Jul-89 1430 cross@vax.darpa.mil DARPA Program Summaries
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 89 14:29:46 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA20159; Fri, 14 Jul 89 17:20:01 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 14 Jul 89 17:28:41-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (4.1/5.51)
id AA03528; Fri, 14 Jul 89 17:28:44 EDT
Date: Fri 14 Jul 89 17:28:41-EDT
From: Steve Cross <CROSS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: DARPA Program Summaries
To: cross-pi-addresses@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <616454921.0.CROSS@SUN35.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@SUN35.DARPA.MIL>
=====================================================================
TO: Principal Investigators Whom I Support
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
This is an important message.
Please acknowledge receipt immediately to:
cross@vax.darpa.mil
AND
sully@vax.darpa.mil
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Greetings! I've finally arrived at DARPA and I will be taking over the
management of the KBS, Planning, and Math Modeling work. The
following request is a necessary "evil" this time of year.
The current budget and leadership uncertainties are additional complicating
factors. I am a WILLING advocate for the AI community within this agency,
but to be an EFFECTIVE advocate I need your utmost cooperation. Any additional
information you can provide me to help me get smart on your project (tech reports
or copies of recent papers) would also be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Stephen (Steve) E. Cross
Program Manager, Machine Intelligence
*********************************************************************
In the next two weeks, I need two sets of data about each of your
current or anticipated contracts:
a. A 1-2 page program summary -- to educate the new Director of
ISTO (not yet named) among others.
b. Certain administrative data -- to help me allocate FY-90 funds
wisely.
Instructions and templates are given below.
The due date for submissions is Friday, 28 July. If some data are not
available by that date, please send what you have and indicate when
the rest will follow.
Please send your submission(s) by e-mail to both of the following:
wayne@vax.darpa.mil
sully@vax.darpa.mil
Please direct any questions to Mary Sullivan at 703/276-3532.
To help us sort submissions, please use one of the following
capitalized titles as the subject line of your message:
SUMMARY IC4 for Knowledge-Based Systems
SUMMARY IC4 for Math Modeling
SUMMARY IC5 for Planning
In the near future you may receive an ISTO-wide request for financial
data in a format suitable for updating a database. The fiscal data
that you will be collecting for me may help you answer that request
also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A separate program summary with associated administrative data is
needed for each current or anticipated contract. The instructions
below are designed to make your submissions consistent and effective.
Your program summary will be an important vehicle for explaining and
defending your program. It should be compact and technically
interesting, drafted so as to be understood by the new Director of
ISTO or by other DARPA program managers. It is worth writing well.
A well-written portfolio of program summaries will help us defend
current budgets in a time of contraction and possibly argue for
increased funding.
Your summary should be strong and positive, but without hyperbole.
Give a clear, top-level view. Leave out minutiae. Avoid jargon.
Write in the third person.
To help us quickly put many such summaries into Interleaf format,
please be sure to:
a. Include the capitalized titles used below, substituting your
words for the lower case instructions.
b. Use plain ASCII with no markup commands from a text processor.
c. Do not use leading indentation or any extraneous embedded
whitespace (but do leave blank lines between paragraphs).
d. Keep lines to a maximum of 70 characters.
e. Limit each program summary to a maximum of 7000 characters.
(This will let us reformat your text to fit within 2 pages.
Summaries for small efforts should be even shorter. These
limits do not apply to the separate administrative data.)
==========================================================================
=== PROGRAM SUMMARY ===
ORGANIZATION
University or company name
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Name, Phone, email address, US Mail Address
TITLE OF EFFORT
Use the title of the contract and the ARPA order number.
OBJECTIVE
A concise statement of what you are attempting to accomplish and why.
At most a few sentences.
APPROACH
A high-level description of your approach, both technical and
procedural. Give enough context to make sense, but keep it brief, as
the emphasis should be on what you are doing. Indicate what is
innovative and why it is promising. Break into paragraphs if
appropriate.
PROGRESS
A brief discussion of how far you have come and where you are headed
in the total contract. Include quantitative results (here and below)
if appropriate. Perhaps a few sentences overall.
RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For existing contracts only: A crisp list of your most significant
accomplishments in the last 12-18 months; one sentence per item.
The list may include important new ideas.
FY-90 PLANS
A crisp list of the most significant new items that you expect to
accomplish in FY-90; one sentence per item.
Note: Under both RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS and FY-90 PLANS, please
phrase your sentences like the two examples below and insert a
blank line between each sentence:
Developed a message understanding system (PUNDIT) to extract key
data (e.g., who did what to whom) from telegraphic military messages.
Ported PUNDIT to several Navy domains (CASPREPS, RAINFORMS, OPREPS),
to maintenance reports, to natural language database queries, to
medical abstracts, and to air traffic control transmissions.
==========================================================================
=== ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ===
a. ARPA ORDER NUMBER: This is a 4-digit number
b. CONTRACT NUMBER:
c. AGENT: The agency that administers your contract (e.g. ONR).
d. CONTRACT TITLE: If you proposed a new title in your program
summary, put it here and also include the
official title.
e. ORGANIZATION: University or company name
f. PI:
g. ACTUAL OR EXPECTED START DATE:
h. EXPECTED END DATE IF OPTIONS NOT EXERCISED:
The "options" referred to here and below are official options
for additional work negotiated at the time of award, but not yet
exercised by the government. Options which have already been
exercised are considered part of the contract. (Many contracts
do not have options.)
i. EXPECTED END DATE IF OPTIONS EXERCISED:
j. TOTAL PRICE IF OPTIONS NOT EXERCISED:
k. SPENDING AUTHORITY PROVIDED SO FAR:
l. DATE WHEN THESE FUNDS WILL BE FULLY EXPENDED:
m. ADDITIONAL FUNDS EXPECTED PER CONTRACT (by FY):
n. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE ADDITIONAL FUNDS (by FY):
o. ADDITIONAL FUNDS EXPECTED (by FY) IF OPTIONS EXERCISED:
p. ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED (date and item):
q. OTHER REMARKS:
==========================================================================
-------
-------
-------
-------
∂14-Jul-89 2043 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
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 14 Jul 89 07:38:52 GMT.]
California has been successful in avoiding its share of risk
in energy generation and transportation. Guess what's going
to happen when the Texas Railroad Commission has to decide
between continued natural gas transmission to California
and a full supply for Texas.
∂14-Jul-89 2047 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
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 14 Jul 89 08:37:11 GMT.]
I think Karish is wrong about the big accident risk. There has
now been enough energy generated by nuclear energy so that even
if it were to suffer a Chernobyl every 20 years, the world would
still be ahead in safety compared to coal and oil. Natural gas
is probably not that expandable, and there's the greenhouse
effect. Chernobyl involved an RBMK reactor without a containment
shield, and it had more radioactive material in it than any other
kind of commercial reactor. Besides even the Soviets learn from
experience.
∂14-Jul-89 2104 JMC re: Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
To: karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SHELBY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from karish@forel.stanford.edu sent 14 Jul 89 08:25:47 GMT.]
The people generating the accusations against the operators
of the nuclear power plants have ideological reasons for
exaggerating. The newspapers and especially the TV
networks like CBS have been particularly dishonest.
∂14-Jul-89 2108 Mailer re: Racism in the U.S.
To: P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Fri 14 Jul 89 07:08:02-PDT.]
Ajay Dravid has no right to find racism in criticism of Jesse
Jackson or any other politician. If he does, let him say what
criticisms of Jackson are permissible and what are not. My
criticism of Jackson was based on the political positions
he has taken.
As to black doctors at the Palo Alto Clinic, the correct question
is whether black doctors have difficulty getting good jobs.
∂14-Jul-89 2113 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
To: STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM, jester@JESSICA.Stanford.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from STEINBERGER@KL.SRI.COM sent Fri, 14 Jul 89 07:37:51 PDT.]
You are correct that no official body has endorsed shooting the
waste into the sun, because there are cheaper ways of doing it.
The proposal was made by naive rocket engineers who imagined
that this would surely satisfy the people who are afraid of
radiation. The naivete was to suppose that anything would
satisfy them.
However, the proposals were well worked out in two major respects.
First, the energy and cost-benefit calculations were correct.
Second, they provided for carriers stout enough that an occasional
rocket malfunction would not release radiation.
∂14-Jul-89 2116 Mailer re: Nuke Japan Now!
To: Phil@SCORE.Stanford.EDU, SU-ETC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from Phil@score.stanford.edu sent Fri 14 Jul 89 10:47:11-PDT.]
I note that racism that would get a severe reaction were it
aimed at blacks seems to be ok when aimed at Japanese.
∂14-Jul-89 2130 Mailer re: a woman as President
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 Fri 14 Jul 89 15:40:31-PDT.]
I missed that attack. Let me point out, however, that no-one
not even a Conservative would have predicted in 1970 that there
would be a woman Prime Minister from the Conservative Party in
the 20th century. Five years later Margaret Thatcher convinced
the Conservative parliamentarians that she was more suitable
(more conservative) than Edward Heath and was elected party
leader. In 1979 she became Prime Minister. There was no
affirmative action.
A woman politician of Thatcher's political talent could be
chosen Republican candidate for President, again without
affirmative action. Elizabeth Dole and Jeane Kirkpatrick
have been possibilities, but neither has Thatcher's ability.
∂15-Jul-89 1026 Mailer re: a woman for President (by JMC)
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 15 Jul 89 01:14:55-PDT.]
BEING a good prime minister, in the sense of having good policies,
calls for one set of talents.
BECOMING a prime minister and REMAINING a prime minister
and keeping enough political clout to get some of one's policies
enacted and executed is another. The limitations of this task
make prime ministers long to be benevolent dictators. However,
that system is far worse.
Keeping good relations with the U.S. is only one of Thatcher's
minor accomplishments. Curbing British statism in various ways
was far more difficult and important.
∂15-Jul-89 1236 JMC discrepancy
To: ME
I note that WHO says the system has been up for 3 days, while there
are five sails. Curious!
∂15-Jul-89 1318 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
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 15 Jul 89 11:58:46-PDT.]
Journalists' science is unreliable. The problem with the simple greenhouse
theories is that there are other processes that affect CO2 of large but
unknown magnitude. There was an article in Scientific American in the
last year discussing the deposition on the sea floor of calcium carbonate
from the shells of plankton, the CO2 for which comes from the air, and the
release of CO2 from volcanoes. The author thought that these processes were
of equal or larger magnitude than land biological processes.
It isn't the destruction of the rain forests that counts, but their burning.
If the Brazilians were to cut down the rain forests and dump them in their
plentiful swamps (wetlands to adherents of the eco-religion) and replant
the areas, they would increase the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The rain forests are presumably in equilibrium, although I suppose no-one
knows for sure. The CO2 they remove from the atmosphere is balanced by
the rotting vegetation that puts CO2 back in the atmosphere.
One of the false tenets of the eco-religion is that nature is benign -
that all would be well if only man/woman didn't interfere with nature.
∂15-Jul-89 1746 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
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 15 Jul 89 23:12:10 GMT.]
When I was in grade school, we were told that coal came from plant
life that fell into swamps and got covered by sediments, and that
peat was the initial stage of the process. That's my prima facie
reason for expecting dumping the rain forest into the swamps to
remove carbon from the atmosphere. I suppose the Brazilians
fertilize the crops they grow in the former rain forest. The main
fertilizers contain nitrogen (obtained from the air), phosphates
(apparently in plentiful supply) and potassium. I believe other
elements are required but in much smaller amounts and maybe aren't
explicitly supplied.
∂15-Jul-89 2142 Mailer re: Racism
To: P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, SU-ETC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 15 Jul 89 20:30:24-PDT.]
Of all the candidates, Jackson was the most consistently leftist.
Who are these voters who would vote for the most left candidate
if only he weren't black?
There is a shortage of black doctors, just as there is a shortage
of black computer scientists. All of them get jobs in accordance
with their qualifications, but there aren't enough to fill the
affirmative action "goals" of various organizations.
∂16-Jul-89 0048 Mailer re: rain forests
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 16 Jul 89 05:11:08 GMT.]
1. The statement "we are being hypocritical" is an example of a
currently popular evasive rhetorical device. In this usage "we"
doesn't mean we; it means "they". Ottolini isn't really
confessing that he is hypocritical. However, the rhetorical
device avoids accusing anyone specific and it avoids having to
provide evidence, since a confession normally doesn't require
evidence. We could ask whether Ottolini is accusing u.underdog
of being hypocritical. That's doubtful. Unless he knows more
about u.underdog than the rest of us do, he probably doesn't think
u.underdog as a large influence on how much CO2 the U.S. puts into
the atmosphere. Well, I don't really expect to succeed in my campaign
against the false "we" form of verbal pollution, but one can try.
2. Since it is agreed that nature isn't benign, it should be agreed
that the long term comfort of humanity probably requires some large
scale action. The trouble with the environmentalists, however, is
that they only consider negative action, i.e. forbidding something.
That isn't going to work. Humanity, especially the poor countries,
aren't going to cut their consumption and we aren't either. The
solution lies in positive action. This requires research and
eventually politics.
3. Here are some problems and opportunities. If humanity doesn't do
something about it, there will almost certainly be another ice age.
All right, it's at least hundreds of years off, but let's consider it
a paradigm case. Fortunately, it has been recently discovered, or
at least plausibly conjectured, that small amounts of various substances
in the upper atmosphere can affect the heat balance of the Earth.
This means that we can control the heat balance of the earth if we
can figure out what substances have what effects. Instead of thinking
about this, however, the eco-theologists only think about bad efects
and how to forbid them.
As I remarked we can probably control the CO2 balance if need be by
cutting down forests, not burning the wood, and replanting them with
quick growing trees that will remove CO2. It could be done several
times if necessary. Canada and the Soviet Union have enormous
forests of softwood of no special value in their present form.
4. The regulatory ethic assumes (not even argues) that the best
way to improve the world is to forbid something. Well, that's
better than the revolutionary ethic that assumes that the best
way to improve the world is to kill somebody. The engineering
ethic argues that the best way to improve the world is to invent
something and put it to use. It argues this both generally and
with specific proposals. Of course, regulation is sometimes
useful, but it doesn't make major improvements in human life. It
is even sometimes necessary to kill people.
5. Here comes an ad hominem remark directed at the whole liberal
and environmental movement. Why do they think so exclusively in
terms of regulation? This is because they have firmer beliefs
about whose fault the world's troubles are than about what's
wrong and what to do about it. Throughout history hostility of
one kind or another has motivated people. It has never led to
improvement; only invention, technological, social and cultural,
has done that.
Conservatives are sometimes motivated by hostility
also but somewhat less, because they are often people who are
doing something in society.
∂17-Jul-89 0053 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
To: GA.MAY@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from GA.MAY@forsythe.stanford.edu sent 17 Jul 89 05:56:47 GMT.]
Launching nuclear waste into the sun was a serious proposal and
is indeed feasible, and it wouldn't double the cost of energy even
though it's more expensive than other proposals. It wouldn't
come back.
∂17-Jul-89 0111 Mailer re: US homocide rate
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 17 Jul 89 04:24:05 GMT.]
The Time article's emphasis is on the availability of guns, but that
isn't the main thing their pictures and individual stories tell us.
1. Almost twice as many blacks are killed by guns than are whites
although blacks are only 10 percent of the population. I counted
only the people whose pictures were shown. Naturally some of my
identifications are wrong and some I wasn't confident enough to
classify.
2. The suicide rate for blacks is somewhat higher than that for
whites but not a lot.
3. A major part of white suicides are old, sick people. However,
there is a substantial number of young people with no apparent
problems.
4. Spanish surname people seem to be intermediate, but since I don't
remember their proportion in the population, I can't estimate
rates.
5. Surely the black death rate from killing must be much higher
in certain communities, because I suppose black middle class
people aren't so different from whites in murder rate.
If people are serious about reducing the murder rate, then they
have to concentrate attention on the communities where it is high.
Maybe the writers for Time were guilt-stricken liberals who
felt it would be invidious to mention the high black murder
rate. Well, if they won't face the facts, they won't
contribute to solving the problem.
Very likely some white communities have much higher murder rates
than others, and this needs to be understood also. Taking
averages over the country merely makes some people feel good,
because they are "concerned".
∂17-Jul-89 1410 JMC
To: dai@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
What's your work telephone number?
∂17-Jul-89 1415 JMC re: [none]
To: dai@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 17 Jul 89 14:15:32 PDT.]
Please call me at 723-4430 or home later 857-0672.
∂17-Jul-89 1429 JMC re: [none]
To: dai@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 17 Jul 89 14:18:40 PDT.]
In the meantime let me explain what it is about. My daughter, Susan
McCarthy, is a journalism student at UCB and has the possibility of
writing for the New York Times Magazine an article about networks,
newsgroups, and the use of networks and newsgroups by Chinese students
in the U.S. to exchange opinions and co-ordinate their activities
in connection with democracy movement in China and its suppression
by the CCP. We got your name as a Stanford co-ordinator of this
activity, and she would like to talk to you about it and get names
of other people she should call. Naturally, no-one's real name would
be used without permission.
She has read some of the soc.culture.china files on gang-of-four,
but they cover only recent activity, and some files have been
restored on LaBrea for her, but they omit May, perhaps the most
interesting month.
Her numbers are
(h: 584-2313)(summer work: 923-5656 x6687 at Sierra news)
However, I would like to talk to you also about this.
∂17-Jul-89 1502 JMC call from Mike Almeida
To: CLT
underpinning with concrete piers, waterproofing back wall, reinforcing
driveway with drilled piers and wall, and engineering costs but not
inspection by Michelucci, $33K
omitting deck piers, and reconsolidating driveway
∂17-Jul-89 2205 Mailer re: "What can the white man say to the black woman?"
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 18 Jul 89 04:41:42 GMT.]
What are the life expectancies at birth today of white men
and black women?
∂18-Jul-89 0900 JMC Proposal for collaboration with Japanese
To: CLT
Please phone Don DeHaven of NSF 202 357-9558 about this
proposal on Friday. He needs some modifications to keep
the proposal "within the current funding cycle". Specifically,
they don't like the word "workshop", and they want a budget
in the $30K-$35K range.
∂18-Jul-89 0903 JMC re: meeting
To: PERRAULT@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Tue 18 Jul 89 08:22:03-PDT.]
We agree (two person speech act) on tomorrow at 4.
∂18-Jul-89 1044 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 18-Jul-89 10:12-PT.]
4044 0045 0077 5335 expires 11/90
∂18-Jul-89 1127 Mailer re: missing the point
To: singh@sierra.UUCP, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
davidson@PSYCH.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from singh@sierra.UUCP sent 18 Jul 89 16:26:19 GMT.]
Mr. Singh is correct that my response to the Walker article was
dismissive. This was intentional. Here are some further comments.
1. It isn't clear whether the article is addressed to a black audience
or to a white audience. If the former it is destructive for two
reasons. First, it generates hostility. Second, it puts the
responsibility for reducing black infant mortality entirely on
white men. While white men (e.g. doctors) are doing something about
reducing black infant mortality, much more can be done by black
women avoiding behavior destructive of themselves and their
children. Alice Walker's article diverts black political
resources from productive activities to unproductive ones.
If the latter it is one more harangue of a kind of which we
have all seen many. Imagine, however, that someone, say
u.underdog, hasn't seen the like before and is bowled over
by it into great feelings of guilt. The behavior it would
excuse would be some expression of anti-establishment rage,
also not likely to improve the situation.
2. Am I included in the white men Alice Walker is attacking?
Both my parents immigrated to the U.S. after 1900.
I suspect I am not supposed to escape - being of the
wrong color.
3. How about Mr. Singh? I haven't met him, but I imagine him
to be of an intermediate color and an even more recent
immigrant. However, I suppose he is launched on a normal
American scientific or engineering career. But maybe the
fact that he comes from a country that has many people
even poorer than the poorer black Americans and with
higher infant mortality excuses hem. Perhaps the fact
that his country has a basically anti-U.S. foreign
policy would help excuse him in the eyes of Alice
Walker.
4. To answer my original question, according to a recent
Statistical Abstract of the U.S., the life expectancy of
a black female at birth is three years longer than that
of a white male. I assume this represents a change.
5. Mr. Davidson accuses me of insensitivity to this factual and
emotional article. He is right; I don't belong to his liberal
religion, and the insensitivity is intentional. The sentiment
expressed in the article has killed millions of people. It can
serve as a mobilizing call to a totalitarian movement. I suppose
the National Council of Churches staff people who helped Puerto
Rican nationalist terrorists make bombs and plan bombings were
motivated by emotions like those the article is supposed to
arouse.
The "facts" cited are selective in support of the emotion.
Many of them aren't facts.
6. Perhaps I am missing some of the "point" of the article,
having dismissed it for its tone. Let Mr. Singh and Mr.
Davidson say who is being urged to do what and to what
extent they agree with whatever specifics they can find
or imagine.
In the meantime I award Mr. Singh 3 points of Third World
solidarity and Mr. Davidson 2 points of liberal guilt. They can
earn more points by elaborating their positions.
7. Part of the reason for my aggressive response is that
I think one of the effects of the article is to intimidate
people into giving at least lip service to bad
politics.
8. I'll finish by again urging Mr Singh and Mr. Davidson
to elaborate.
∂18-Jul-89 1130 Mailer forests for removing CO2
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Today's New York Times has a long article on the idea
of combatting CO2 by planting forests. Towards the
end, it comes close to my position by advocating that
cut down trees be put into houses, etc. to avoid putting
the CO2 back inthe atmosphere. My proposal was dismissed
by Mr. Karish, but he didn't say why nor did he have
any constructive idea of his own.
∂18-Jul-89 1142 Mailer black doctors
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, wab@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I don't have any direct knowledge of the difficulties of black
doctors in getting jobs in accordance with their qualifications.
Our son was once treated by a black doctor at Kaiser in Redwood City
and by a Chicano doctor in Austin, Texas.
I do know about the shortage of black computer scientists. I
even tried to get one to apply for our faculty, but he said he
wasn't ready to be affirmed yet. He has a good job.
I assume Mr. Brown has substantial direct knowledge. However,
I suppose the crux of the matter with regard to the Palo Alto
Medical Clinic is whether they have turned down black applicants for
M.D. positions that were more qualified than whites they hired
about the same time. I suppose, like almost all other
institutions, they have inserted the usual clauses in
their recruiting ads and have placed some ads in publications
that black doctors and medical students are claimed to
read.
∂18-Jul-89 1545 Mailer re: greenhouse trees
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 18 Jul 89 21:27:13 GMT.]
1 lb/mile of driving looks plausible. However, the 48 lb of CO2/yr for
a tree looks much too low. Is this a growing tree, or is it the net
fixation per tree per yar in a mature forest? I'll bet you have to chop
down the trees and NOT burn the wood if you want to win big.
If you plant rice, you can get 6 tons per acre of rice, but maybe only
a quarter of the plant is rice, so that makes 50,000 pounds of plant/acre/yr.
However, maybe 75 percent of the plant is water, so we're fixing
only about 10,000 lbs/acre/yr of CO2. This means that we need an acre
for every three cars, assuming 10 miles/day. 100 million cars means
30 million acres or about 70 thousand square miles. The country has
3 million square miles. It looks quite feasible provided you don't
burn, eat or otherwise biodegrade the carbon thereby fixed. Somewhere,
I read that rapidly growing young trees fix carbon at a higher rate
than crop plants do, but I don't know how many trees you get on an acre.
For this calculation, I didn't even use an
envelope, so it would be good if someone would undertake an
accurate calculation.
Drat, maybe that was 6 tons/hectare. A hectare is 2.5 acres. If so
you'd need 2.5 times as much land.
I don't think the U.S. can count on being a "light to the world" unless
following our example actually benefits the foreigners.
Incidentally, the U.S. is essentially self-sufficient in soft
wood, i.e. that used for paper and cardboard. There are more
forests than at the turn of the century. We are still mining
hardwood and redwood.
Moreover, in so far as we dispose of carbon containing materials in
landfills rather than biodegrading them, we are easing the CO2 problem.
There is plenty of land for landfills. It's just that we have to
pile the junk a lot higher, say 500 feet. At present our junk is
not piled even as high as the the ancient tumuli and possibly not
as high as the Indians of the SF Bay Area piled their clam shells.
∂18-Jul-89 1559 JMC re: Scientific American global environment issue
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SHELBY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from rick@hanauma.stanford.edu sent 18 Jul 89 21:43:06 GMT.]
I'm pleased to agree entirely with Rick Hanauma's characterization of
Scientific American.
∂18-Jul-89 2347 Mailer re: Nuclear waste disposal
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, jester@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF sent 18 Jul 89 1841 PDT.]
There is a way of getting to the sun with far less delta-v than
is required to kill of the earth's 17 mile/sec orbital velocity.
It involves changing the velocity enough to go by Mars or Venus
(whichever is cheaper, but I forget which it is), and then using
the gravitational field of Mars or Venus to deflect the
spacecraft towards the sun. It was used by a recent spacecraft
that explored the vicinity of the sun.
∂18-Jul-89 2351 Mailer re: Nuclear Energy Arguments
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, karish@FOREL.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF sent 18 Jul 89 1851 PDT.]
That was Petr Beckmann's "The Health Hazards of not Going
Nuclear" published by Golem Press
P.O. Box 2298, Boulder, CO 80306
∂18-Jul-89 2357 Mailer re: White Man
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 Tue, 18 Jul 1989 17:04:56 PDT.]
Liam Peyton assumes too much about my position and that
of the other critics of the Walker piece. I agree
that keeping slaves was a crime, but it isn't a heritable
crime. Enforcing Jim Crow laws is a somewhat lesser crime,
but also not heritable. Everyone is responsible only for
his own misbehavior. We atheists don't agree with the idea
of "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons".
∂19-Jul-89 0005 Mailer re: Protecting JMC [was Re: missing the point]
To: H.HARRY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU,
U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from H.HARRY@macbeth.stanford.edu sent Tue 18 Jul 89 18:44:29-PDT.]
Let me remind Inder that while I answered the questions he
put to me, he hasn't answered the questions I put to him.
As for Underdog, his comment on my response was reasonable.
He didn't claim that the response expressed all my opinions
on the subject.
Moreover, a person should be allowed to comment favorably,
if that what it was, on another person's contribution
to su-etc without being accused of sycophancy. The ratio
of mutual denunciation to mutual praise on su-etc is
unlikely to drop much below its normal 20-1.
***** Arrow at Line 1 of 49 ***** Page 431 of 438 ***** 3R +134C *****
∂19-Jul-89 0010 Mailer re: question for those who favor de-forestation
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF sent 18 Jul 89 1900 PDT.]
The carbon held in living vegetation is only about a tenth
of that held by organic material from dead vegetation in
the same area. If the carbon fixed by vegetation is not
returned to the atmosphere, then the rate of fixation
is the important quantity.
∂19-Jul-89 0011 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF rcvd 18-Jul-89 18:56-PT.]
Fertilizer can be used.
∂19-Jul-89 1055 JMC re: TESTING
To: cliff%unix.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
[In reply to message sent Wed, 19 Jul 89 18:08:24.]
That was fast. Please acknowledge to check my address.
∂19-Jul-89 1319 JMC
To: MPS
Please phone me at 3-0345.
∂19-Jul-89 1427 JMC re: White Man
To: MRC@CAC.WASHINGTON.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 19 Jul 1989 14:22:11 PDT.]
You and what nine other people?
∂19-Jul-89 1602 Mailer re: greenhouse effect
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF rcvd 19-Jul-89 15:26-PT.]
Fertilizer is cost-effective in Asian countries poorer than
Brazil. There might be some feature of lateritic soils that
makes conventional fertilization ineffective, but all I
have read about it was written by people out to prove that
the Brazilians shouldn't develop the Amazon agriculturally.
As the well-known proverb goes, "When there is a will to fail,
obstacles can always be found." When there is a will for
others to fail, then hypothetical obstacles can be found.
∂19-Jul-89 1614 JMC re: Nuclear waste disposal
To: RWF
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jul-89 15:36-PT.]
I think an energy problem would arise only if the mass of the
planet weren't enormously greater than that of the spacecraft.
There is another limitation related to the ratio of the
relative velocity of the spacecraft and the planet to the
escape velocity from the planet. If this ratio is small
any desired angular change in the spacecraft's direction (in a
co-ordinate system moving with the planet) can be achieved.
up to reversal of the spacecraft's direction. If the
spacecraft is moving rapidly w/r escape velocity, then
its direction can't be changed much even going just above
the surface of the planet. A black hole would be the
ideal deflector of spacecraft. Goldstine's Classical
Mechanics contains all the information required to make
such calculations.
∂19-Jul-89 1807 JMC re: Nuclear waste disposal
To: RWF
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jul-89 16:17-PT.]
It's not so bad. The inner planets rotate in the same direction
in similar planes. The Earth's orbital velocity is 17 miles/sec,
and its escape velocity is 7 miles/sec. Both numbers for Mars
are smaller, but I don't have them here. To get to Mars requires
a small delta-v in the direction the Earth is moving into an
elliptical orbit. One arrives at the orbital distance of Mars
with a velocity only somewhat greater than the Mars orbital
velocity. Therefore, the relative velocity to Mars may be
considerably smaller than the Mars escape velocity.
The matter is complicated by the fact that you want to arrive
at Mars orbit at a time when Mars is there. This gives rise
to the famous launch windows, i.e. you have to leave Earth
at the right time. The fact that the orbits are not actually
planar mean that some windows are better than others.
The Voyager spacecraft have used these "slingshot effects" at
each of their planetary encounters. The key is that small
changes in velocity, long before a planet is reached, make large
changes in where and when you enter the gravitational field of
the planet, which satellites you approach, and in which direction
you leave. I believe the original Grand Tour of the solar system
plan included Pluto, but when the launch window for that was
missed, they could only get in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune. I believe that Mars or Venus was used in the early part
of the trip, maybe even both.
I'll try to do some math based on circular coplanar planetary
orbits.
∂19-Jul-89 1922 JMC re: Appointment
To: cloutier@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from cloutier@sierra.STANFORD.EDU sent Wed 19 Jul 89 19:19:56-PDT.]
10am on Friday will be fine. Probably a half hour will suffice.
∂20-Jul-89 0838 JMC
To: CLT
Bing needs enrollment card and deposit by Friday.
∂20-Jul-89 1459 JMC re: speech acts
To: pcohen@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Thu 20 Jul 89 14:49:03-PDT.]
Please send me your paper, and let's get together. How about late next
week, say Thursday or Friday but not Friday lunch.
∂20-Jul-89 1844 Mailer re: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
To: kanakia@Polya.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from kanakia@Polya.Stanford.EDU sent 20 Jul 89 22:37:48 GMT.]
According to Henant Kanakia's notion of racist, I am certainly a
racist. I have certainly failed to fight for some causes he supports.
But I'll bet he is too - and also a sexist. I quote
A racist is defined not only from what he (and she, I
am not sexist!) says but also what he/she chooses not
to say and fight for.
I do not recognize the right of other people to draft me as soldiers
for their causes. The U.S. Government has a right to draft me, which
it once exercised, but it didn't try to draft my opinions.
Mr. Kanakia's type of criterion has a history going back at least to the
French revolution, when members of the Convention were guillotined
for being secretly aristocrats, because they didn't support sufficiently
enthusiastically guillotining other people judged to be pro-aristocrat.
(I just read Simon Schama's book Citizens, which I highly recommend).
The criterion was used by the Stalinists in the 1930s, wherein they
referred to people as objectively counter-revolutionary, it was used
in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and it was used by the
New Left in America. If Mr. Kanakia is a member of some vigorously
"anti-racist" organization, he may be accused of being racist for
being insufficiently vigorous in supporting some extreme measure or
he may find himself accusing other people of the same thing.
Doubtless, Mr. Kanakia isn't contemplating any strong measures against
me, but if a group with his criteria for racism, sexism, or any other
ism gained power, history suggests that they would egg each other on
(again see Schama's book) to abusing their power. In the present-day
America, accusations of racism based on little more than failure
to support measures supported by others, have led to denials of tenure.
Moreover, many New Left groups tore themselves apart with mutual
accusations of racism, sexism and bourgeois ideology. Good riddance.
Let me give my definition of a racist. "Someone who discriminates on the
basis of race in employment, sale of property, admission of students,
etc.. It also includes people who actively advocate that companies,
university departments or governments undertake discriminatory actions."
Notice that this definition does not allow characterizing a person
as racist by his expression of opinion on matters of fact, much less
requiring a person to have or express correct opinions on these
subjects. In particular, Shockley hasn't been shown to be a racist
just because he expressed the opinion that black IQs average less than
those of whites. Shockley has advocated sterilization bonuses
for people with low IQs, but his proposal is not limited to one race.
I suppose this can be called IQism.
According to my criteria I am not and never have been a racist.
I didn't say that PAMC shouldn't hire black doctors. I intended to
suggest that the fact, if it is a fact, that they don't have any
isn't evidence that they haven't tried to recruit any. Unless they
are unusual, they have made some effort, though doubtless some people
would accuse them of racism for not having made a greater effort.
I was silent about the question of admitting black students to medical
schools, because I have no current information on that subject. However,
I remember the Bakke case in which the University of California Medical
School was successfully sued for accepting black students with lower
scores than white students they rejected. Therefore, I doubt that
medical schools discriminate against black students. In that connection,
the fact that Mr. Brown was asked to be interviewed in Boston, when
presented by itself, gave a different impression than it gave when he
subsequently stated that Stanford flew him to California. I assume
the phrase means that Stanford paid for the trip.
My remark that black females have a higher life expectancy than white
males was intended to make the following point. If we regard white
males as occupying the most favorable position in American society
and black females the lowest, it is worth remarking that the difference
isn't sufficient to overcome the fact that females live longer than
males. The remark has similar anti-feminist connotations.
It is painful to be asked to spell out one's ironies.
I should remark that I favor equal opportunity and oppose those
forms of affirmative action that are incompatible with equal opportunity.
This specifically includes hiring preferences.
Well, it seems that Mr. Kanakia has incited me into an act of racism,
i.e. expressing certain opinions. Perhaps this makes him objectively
a racist.
And so I've come to the end of my song,
And if you think it was too long,
You should never have let me begin.
∂20-Jul-89 2138 Mailer re: Blacks and Jews
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 21 Jul 89 04:08:42 GMT.]
Since some blacks stayed in the South and some didn't, the
question of which was the better decision seems to be an
empirical one. In fact it depends on the individual, since
today there is movement by blacks in both directions.
∂20-Jul-89 2145 Mailer re: Re↑2: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU sent 21 Jul 89 02:17:32 GMT.]
I deliberately didn't say whether I agreed with Shockley's proposal
in order to attract the kind of dishonest flack I got from Daniel
Rosenberg. Rosenberg may be personally honest, but doubtless he
has seen enough of the kind of argument he made so that he thinks
it's ok. It may be politically effective in contexts, like
TV, where it can't be answered, but it isn't ok on bboards.
He has no right to infer anything about whether I agree with
Shockley either about whether blacks average lower in IQ
or about whether sterilization bonuses should be offered
to people with low IQs. He also considered it ok to misrepresent
Shockley's proposal and to drag in the Aryan Brotherhood.
I still haven't given my own opinion, although I will in
a few days.
∂20-Jul-89 2210 Mailer re: Porkbarrelling Poverty
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 Thu, 20 Jul 1989 16:41:50 PDT.]
Peyton's idea is a variant of ideas that have been tried since the
1960s in many Great Society programs. I believe that more than
$500 billion has already been spent. The HHS budget is been
larger than the defense budget for some time, and a reasonable
fraction has been spent on "ghetto" programs, and the situation
has apparently gotten worse. The conservatives claim the
programs have helped make the situation worse, and the liberals
claim that not enough has been spent.
One good idea that has been proposed many times is to spend money
experimentally. Saturate the cities that make the best proposals
and then see if the program works when it has as much money as
its advocates claim is needed. If it works it can be expanded
and maybe made more cost effective. The Model Cities program
was intended to have that character. The problem is with
Congress. Each Congressman considers himself obliged to get
as much money as possible for his own district with as few
restrictions as possible. Jim Wright was good at getting for
Fort Worth, Texas both defense programs and social programs.
The result of the Congressional pulling and tugging is that
whatever money is appropriated is divided up into too small
pieces. The pieces are too small both from the point of view
of money and from the point of view of getting suitable
dedicated and competent people to operate the programs and
sufficient social science attention to determine whether
they worked. Congress also frustrates objective evaluation
of what worked and what didn't.
The 1960s programs emphasized participation and control by
representatives of the communities to be benefitted. The result
in many cases was corruption at a level so high that
very little money was spent on the announced objectives.
Peyton's proposal in its pure form is what conservatives call
throwing money at a problem. Perceptions of the kind I have
advanced contributed substantially to the Reagan 1980 landslide
and the Republican capture of the Senate.
It seems to me that experiments are still worthwhile, and both
Congress and private foundations should fund some.
How much money would it take to have a good try at solving the
problems of East Palo Alto only? Maybe someone would claim
that a program limited to East Palo Alto wouldn't work, because
it is too closely connected with other Bay Area communities.
In that case one should look for the smallest relatively
isolated community in which the problems exist to an extent
that would make a valid experiment possible.
As for Stealth, it is still being advocated and opposed by the
usual suspects. However, it seems to me that there is a good
chance that the Gorbachev regime will be willing to negotiate
a degree of Soviet disarmament that will permit a substantial
reduction in American defense expenditures. In that case,
conservatives will claim that the best use of the money to
increase prosperity for everyone is to reduce the deficit and
reduce taxes. Liberals will claim that the money should
be used for the next program on the liberal agenda.
Of course, people involved in the Stealth program will think
of arguments for continuing it just as people involved in
social programs will think of reasons for continuing them
independently of the continued need or their success or
failure in meeting their objectives.
The Defense Department has been better at meeting the objectives
of its programs than HHS has been in meeting its objectives.
However, there is surely no reason to believe that people
successful at running defense programs will succeed in managing
social programs. Come to think of it, this has also been tried
from time to time.
I second Bob Floyd's recommendation of Policy Review. Its
authors really do follow up the results of social problems.
∂20-Jul-89 2223 Mailer re: Prof. McCarthy's third-world problem [was Re: When should I call JMC racist?]
To: H.HARRY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
CC: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from H.HARRY@Macbeth.Stanford.EDU sent Thu 20 Jul 89 17:04:46-PDT.]
I normally feel obligated to answer people's questions about
what I advocate. I expect the same in return. However,
Inder Singh considers answering my questions a distraction
from his "smoking me out". For this reason, my replies
to his remarks in the future will be based solely on rhetorical
considerations and addressed. I only remark now that my
memory of "the apology" is different from his.
I will refer to the ideological biases of liberals and those
common among Third World students when it seems relevant to me,
but I will also answer their specific arguments as I have tried
to do all along.
Incidentally, I fear that some people who agree with me
on some of the points I have made will find themselves
intimidated by what they think (perhaps correctly)
is public opinion in the Stanford community. I recognize
that I can flout public opinion with more safety
than they can.
However, remember that su-etc is a rather safe place to
express views unpopular with people who say those who aren't
helping with the solution are part of the problem.
The electronic equivalent of keeping meetings going till
3am or of shouting down speakers has not yet been developed.
∂21-Jul-89 0039 Mailer re: Re↑4: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU sent 21 Jul 89 05:39:32 GMT.]
Maybe dmr and I are converging, though perhaps slowly, to what
the issues are. According to my definition of racist, which involves
discriminatory actions, having Shockley's opinions doesn't make him
racist. If he refused a student enrollment in his class because
of his race or graded someone down because of his race, that
would be a racist action. There is also advocacy of racist
action. Racist action is immoral and so is advocacy thereof,
although to a lesser degree.
Now maybe my use of the term racist is too narrow.
Perhaps there are racist beliefs as well as racist actions.
The trouble with using such terminology is that the moral
opprobrium attached to actions gets transferred to beliefs.
Are there immoral beliefs? Are there illegal beliefs, or
should there be? Perhaps holding the beliefs should not
be considered illegal, but advocating the beliefs should
be.
I don't agree that there are immoral beliefs. What about
erroneous beliefs that immediately suggest immoral actions,
even to an otherwise moral person? Examples include
the belief that blacks are happier as slaves and
the beliefs expressed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
that the Jews are plotting to conquer the world? What
about the belief that AIDS was developed by the Pentagon?
I guess I don't regard holding such beliefs as immoral,
although propagating such beliefs for some ulterior
purpose is certainly immoral as is acting on them.
Returning to the personal, dmr said that he mentioned me
only at the end. I accept that and misunderstood his
point. However, the misunderstanding was perhaps natural
given that the message was headed "When should I call
JMC racist?"
I will state my reactions to Shockley in a few days.
∂21-Jul-89 0309 JMC delta-v to Mars
To: RWF
Suppose we have an elliptical transfer orbit between Earth orbit
and Mars orbit. We assume both circular with the Earth at
93 million miles and Mars at 140 million miles from the sun.
Let r1 be the radius of the Earth's orbit and r2 that of Mars.
Let v1 and v2 be the velocities of the spacecraft at
Earth distance and Mars distance respectively. Since, according
to Kepler, angular momentum is preserved and at both points
the velocities are perpendicular to the radius vector from the
sun, we have
r1 v1 = r2 v2.
We get another equation from conservatin of energy, namely
(1/2)v1↑2 - GM/r1 = (1/2)v2↑2 - GM/r2,
where GM is the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of
the sun. Fortunately, remembering the Earth's orbital velocity
allows us to eventually eliminate GM from the equations.
With these we can solve for the velocities. We get
v1↑2 = (2GM)/(r1↑2 (1/r1 + 1/r2).
This gives us the velocity with which the spacecraft must
leave Earth orbit in order to reach Mars orbit. This must
be compared with
v↑2 = GM/r1
for the velocity of the Earth in its orbit. We then get
v1/v = sqrt(2/(1 + r1/r2))
for the ratio of the Mars transfer velocity to the Earth's
velocity. Plugging in r1 = 93 and r2 = 140 gives
v1/v = 1.096,
where v= 17 miles/sec. This tells us that to get to Mars
we need less than 2 miles/sec more than the escape velocity
from Earth of 7 miles/sec. Whoops, that's an exaggeration.
We need the extra 2 miles per second after we have escaped.
Because of conservation of energy again, we need a smaller
increment of velocity if it is supplied in low Earth orbit,
as it is. In fact in order to leave the Earth's gravitational
field with a velocity a, we require a velocity v in low
earth orbit, where
v↑2 = ve↑2 + a↑2.
where ve is escape velocity, i.e. 7 miles/sec. Since we need
only a = 2 miles/sec, we end up with
v = sqrt(7↑2 + 2↑2) = 7.28 miles/sec.
Thus only 0.3 miles/sec more than escape velocity gets the
spacecraft to Mars. Since the mass-ratio of the rocket is
exponential in the delta-v required, the smallness of the
difference is very fortunate.
If you calculate v2, it gives the velocity with which
the space craft approaches Mars orbit. This will be less
than the velocity of Mars in orbit, which is
vM = sqrt(GM/r2).
It seems to me that the relative velocity will be small enough
so that the spacecraft can be deflected in an arbitrary direction
in the co-ordinate system that moves with Mars. It seems to me
that its velocity will be increased by the encounter, so it
will need another deflection, e.g. by the Earth again or
by Venus in order to fall into the sun.
Of course, the whole idea of throwing all those lovely fission
products away, when someone will surely find a use for them
is silly. It is merely a panic reaction.
If your curiosity about this matter should lead you to
consult a celestial mechanic and find a reference in
which all this is worked out, let me know.
Of course, the assumption of coplanar circular orbits is
not merely simplifying. The coplanar part is a bit
of unjustified optimism. Some delta-v has to be expended
in adjusting planes, although I suppose you could
plan to reach Mars at a point where the Mars orbit plane
interesects the Earth orbit plane. Come to think of it,
the amount of plane adjustment required may give the
difference between more and less favorable windows.
∂21-Jul-89 1022 JMC re: speech acts
To: pcohen@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Fri 21 Jul 89 09:45:50-PDT.]
Make it MJH. VAL may join us.
∂21-Jul-89 1048 Mailer re: Shockley's error
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 21 Jul 89 15:40:30 GMT.]
Have you read Shockley or Herrenstein or Jensen? I have to confess
that I haven't. He may have controlled for other variables.
I have read mainly attacks on these people and conservative
writings convincingly (to me) arguing political motivation
for the attacks.
My opinion is that the liberal viewpoint on hereditability of
intelligence has a substantial component of wishful thinking.
I don't see why intelligence, like other characteristics of
humans and animals, shouldn't have substantial hereditability.
There is also the question of burden of proof. When Shockley
advocates a social measure, e.g. sterilization bonuses for
very low IQ people, the burden of proof is on him. He must
prove that IQ is important and sufficiently hereditable.
Of course, no proposition about distribution of intelligence
justifies treating people other than as individuals.
Moreover, what is presently known provides good evidence
that good environment promotes intellectual accomplishment.
What isn't shown is that the presently popular ideas
about what social measures imporve intellectual environment
actually do so.
When people argue that difference in accomplishment is
entirely environmental, and that evidence of difference
in accomplishment constitutes proof of discrimination,
then they have the burden of proof.
If someone argues that the lack of black doctors at PAMC
proves that they have rejected black applicants or have
never tried to recruit any, he has the burden of proof.
By the way, it occurs to me that whoever raised the
issue in the first place ought to telephone the office
that hires doctors at PAMC and ask them what they have
done and what their policies are.
Mary Holstege, what is your own opinion about the
hereditability of intelligence?
By the way, according to what I read, there are some puzzles about
height. There have been increases in height in groups that
have always had good nutrition, as nutrition is currently
understood.
∂21-Jul-89 1433 JMC re: Scherlis
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 21-Jul-89 14:29-PT.]
You should have let me know. I have new results that should
interest him. They should also interest you.
∂21-Jul-89 1439 JMC re: Scherlis
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 21-Jul-89 14:38-PT.]
ok.
∂21-Jul-89 1501 JMC
To: MPS
lifsch.re4
∂21-Jul-89 1505 JMC Lisp macros, theory thereof
To: RPG
My new language involves, among other things, pattern matching
on the past, i.e. on the history list of events. Who, besides
you, is an expert on Lisp macros, especially on possible
generalizations, e.g. to matching to a history of continuous
events?
∂21-Jul-89 1638 Mailer re: Shockley's error
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU sent 21 Jul 89 19:54:54 GMT.]
I haven't looked into Shockley's statistical methods. It would take a lot
of study for me to get into a position that would permit an independent
opinion. A former chairman of the Stanford Statistics Department told me
that he considered Shockley a very competent applied statistician. I
assume he had looked into it.
∂21-Jul-89 1754 Mailer re: Shockely's errors..
To: kanakia@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from kanakia@Polya.Stanford.EDU sent 22 Jul 89 00:14:16 GMT.]
What about a sterilization bonus of, say, $5,000 available to
anyone, no need to take any kind of test? It would get people
with short time spans, which it is said that criminals and low IQ
people tend to be. Think of the crack they could buy for $5K.
It would also get some pessimists, people who say it's a crime to
bring children into this world. It might also get some
feminists. It would save some of the money now spent on schools.
You could have a new control-over-one's-own-body issue by
debating whether teen-agers could get sterilized without their
parents' consent - or even with their parents' consent.
I would be particularly interested in its effect on declared
pessimists. I suspect many would reject it and go through some
kind of ideological contortion in order to do it.
∂21-Jul-89 1821 Mailer re: Is racism recursive?
To: kanakia@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from kanakia@Polya.Stanford.EDU sent 21 Jul 89 20:19:47 GMT.]
I didn't make clear the basis on which Mr. Kanakia might be
called a racist. When he said that to be a non-racist, one must
fight racism, then I suggested that someone would classify him
objectively a racist if he declined to take part in some action
this other person demanded as a criterion for anti-racism, i.e.
if he declined to be drafted in this other guy's anti-racist
army.
However, I'd like to elaborate this point and end with a question to him.
Given that in order to avoid being a racist, one must accept an
obligation to fight racism, there seems to be a vortex of racism
into which people can be sucked, just as there was a vortex of
pro-aristocracy into which the Girondists in the French revolutionary
Convention were sucked and beheaded. If a person who refuses or merely
neglects to fight racists is a racist, what about someone who neglects
to fight him?
Would Mr. Kanakia care to say something about what the limits
of an anti-racist's obligations are?
I don't know if Mr. Kanakia is a Prolog fan, but what about the
following Prolog program?
racist(shockley).
racist(X) :- racist(Y),notfights(X,Y).
Assuming a suitable datebase containing the ground instances of
the predicate notfights, containing, of course,
notfights(mccarthy,shockley).
What would be the result of the following query?
? racist(kanakia).
∂21-Jul-89 1835 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
To: dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU sent 21 Jul 89 21:48:30 GMT.]
Messrs Rosenberg and Underdog (if I understand the latter's position)
are sure that IQ tests are invalid as measures of intelligence.
Can they give references? I read two books making this point,
"Not in our Genes" by Richard Lewontin and "The Mismeasure of Man"
by Stephen Jay Gould. I found neither convincing, mainly because the
arguments were so contaminated by politics. A reference on the other
side might be "Straight Talk about Mental Tests" by Arthur Jensen,
but curiously enough, I haven't read it. I have read magazine articles
taking the pro-test side.
I haven't heard of anyone taking the position, "Current IQ tests are
defective in the following way. If you want to measure intelligence
properly, you should do it as follows. Our experiments show ..."
My guess is that any assistant professor of psychology taking this
view would seriously risk his reappointment, let alone chances of tenure.
∂21-Jul-89 2230 JMC Note part about going around Venus.
To: RWF
a003 2130 21 Jul 89
AM-Space Shuttle-Plutonium,0498
NASA Denies Nuclear-Powered Space Probe a Danger
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA on Friday denied claims it will
endanger the public by launching a nuclear-powered space probe aboard
the shuttle in October.
''The mission as designed, analyzed and tested, is safe. Reports to
the contrary that have been circulating in the press are not true,''
said John Casani, a deputy manager of flight projects at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
Managers of the Galileo project showed the spacecraft to reporters
in a hangar at the Kennedy Space Center where it is being prepared
for flight. At the same time, nuclear power opponents in Washington,
D.C., urged NASA to re-evaluate the potential hazards.
The Christic Institute, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group which
opposes nuclear power on satellites, told reporters Friday it plans
to file a petition with NASA asking the agency to revise its
environmental impact statement on Galileo.
''The issue is that the hazards of the Galileo launch have not been
explored sufficiently,'' said Robert Richie, a spokesman for the
Christic Institute. Richie said NASA is relying on hazard estimates
from the Department of Energy which ''have been shown in a number of
cases to be flawed.''
Galileo is scheduled for launch from the Kennedy Space Center Oct.
12 aboard the shuttle Atlantis. The crew of Atlantis will deploy
Galileo on an eight-year mission to explore Jupiter.
Technicians have been assembling the spacecraft since May. They will
attach Galileo to the booster on Wednesday.
Galileo will be powered by 131 single-watt radioisotopic
thermoelectric generators - RTGs for short - that convert heat
created by decaying radioactive fuel into electricity. The 50 pounds
of plutonium-238 that will power Galileo has raised fears of
widespread contamination from radioactive fallout in the event of an
accident.
RTGs have been an accepted source of power for spacecraft since the
early 1960s. The intense criticism started when the 1986 explosion of
space shuttle Challenger heightened public awareness about the risks
of space flight.
To critics, an explosion like the one that destroyed Challenger
during liftoff is not the only danger. They are also afraid Galileo
will re-enter the atmosphere and break apart as it loops Earth on its
way to Jupiter.
Atlantis commander Don Williams is undaunted by the safety debate.
''We really have looked into this a lot, and I'm convinced it is
absolutely safe to fly,'' he said.
Galileo will perform ''celestial gymnastics'' on its way to Jupiter,
said Spehalski. It will swing around Venus and then loop Earth and
the asteroid belt twice in the early 1990s, using their gravity
fields to gain speed before heading toward an encounter with Jupiter
in December 1995.
About five months before reaching Jupiter, Galileo will release a
probe toward the planet. The probe will study the atmosphere and the
weather as it parachutes to the surface.
Launching a payload containing radioactive material requires special
approval from the federal government, which NASA officials expect to
receive for Galileo by Sept. 1.
AP-NY-07-22-89 0021EDT
***************
∂22-Jul-89 1452 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
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 22 Jul 89 20:10:08 GMT.]
That intelligence was essentially multi-dimensional was the
original hypothesis underlying the development of tests around
1900. One of the major motivations for the development of factor
analysis was to determine the independent components of
intelligence. That there should be many factors corresponds to
the common sense observation that people develop intellectual
capabilities in different areas.
That intelligence (apart from what has been learned) as measured
by tests was substantially one-dimensional was a surprise,
discovered maybe around 1910. The point was that the different
proposed factors were very highly correlated with each other.
Someone came up with the g (for general) factor.
More recently, certainly by the 1950s, it was decided that you
could somewhat get more information using two factors, verbal and
mathematical. That's why the SAT has two parts.
Attempts to get more useful factors have been unsuccessful.
As far as I can see, the attempts to denigrate IQ have usually
been based on wishful thinking. "Since IQ doesn't give the
results we consider socially desirable, let's think of something
that might be wrong with IQ. Aha, here's something. The test
results might depend on family environment. That must be it, and
the people who claim that their own and older studies show otherwise
must be motivated by a desire to elevate prosperous white males."
Does anyone want to cite a source?
∂22-Jul-89 1510 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
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 22 Jul 89 21:00:25 GMT.]
IQ tests were originally calibrated according to their ability to
predict success in school. I doubt that "bleeding heart" tests or
"conservatism" tests would do that. IQ tests predict success in
school in a wide variety of cultures moderately well. However, it
has always (i.e. since tests were first developed around 1900) been
understood that motivational factors are also important, so no-one
expected complete success.
There is one important change in American society since 1900 that
substantially changes what policies the facts about IQ should lead to.
Suppose you can educate highly only a few people, because the country
is poor. Suppose further that the motivation for higher education is
to produce leaders. Then you want to choose the people who will give
the greatest expected return for the limited money that is available
to spend on higher education. If you read what was written about
the founding of Stanford, you can see that producing leaders was on
the Stanfords' minds. The concentration on producing leaders affects
the whole educational system. It is important to identify the potential
leaders as early as possible. The cost of a highly selective policy
is that the people who aren't selected get half an education.
However, now American society is rich enough to give a higher
education to everyone who can benefit from it. Moreover, people
who are unmotivated in their early years can be given second,
third and fourth chances.
Nevertheless, educating leaders (in science, technology, business,
government, etc.) is still considered important. Moreover, it
is thought that substantial educational segregation according to
ability and accomplishment is desireable at the higher levels.
That's the rationalization for institutions like Stanford that
are highly selective both for students and faculty.
The selection processes are good enough so that if someone who
is far below the normal cutoff for selection gets in for some
reason, he usually has a very hard time and drops out. This
happens often enough for a variety of reasons.
Let me confess that the remarks about the history of IQ testing is
from memory about a field in which I have never worked. What's
the current textbook, or do psychologists study the problem at all
these days?
∂22-Jul-89 1514 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
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 22 Jul 89 21:00:25 GMT.]
I see that I didn't get to the question of discouragement from
reproduction. Contrary to what some people assume from my defense
of Shockley from charges of racism, I haven't taken a position on
that. Defending a person from false charges does not require or
imply agreeing with him.
∂22-Jul-89 1533 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 22-Jul-89 15:19-PT.]
The examples you cite were known in 1900. Perhaps you could figure
out why they might not be relevant for the purposes for which IQ
tests were designed. Anyway, as Oliver Cromwell wrote to the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on August 3, 1650
"I beeseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it
possible you may be mistaken."
∂22-Jul-89 1632 Mailer re: IQ (USA vs Japan)
To: LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from LES rcvd 22-Jul-89 15:53-PT.]
It seems to me that the ability to find instant refutations of
the results of scientists' work without reading it or any
exposition of it and on the basis of presumptions about what all
these individuals must have believed is a good start towards
becoming a religious fanatic.
Were Binet or Thurstone or Lewis Terman religious at all?
Did they believe in the "Chain of Life"?
∂22-Jul-89 2158 Mailer re: Abortion (what else?)
To: P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, SU-ETC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 22 Jul 89 21:49:01-PDT.]
The usual answer is that the fetus is innocent of crime,
and the death penalty is being inflicted on the guilty.
That argument is independent of religion.
∂22-Jul-89 2254 Mailer IQ
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The most important person in the development of intelligence
tests was Lewis M. Terman (1877-1956) who did his work at Stanford.
One is entitled to express opinions about what IQ does and doesn't
measure without consulting any of his works. However, in drawing
conclusions about what Terman must have believed in order to work
on IQ tests, it might help to look. Perhaps the case against IQ
could be enhanced by selective quotation.
The following citations from Socrates include Terman as an author
and also as a subject. Most likely there is other material not
in the electronic catalog. There is both his major book on
measuring intelligence and a biography, which should tell one
what the Establishment thinks his ideas were. Even his personal
papers are available.
After reading at least one book, someone could start a
campaign to have his professorship posthumously withdrawn and
have Stanford apologize for ever harboring such a person.
I would oppose such a campaign, because I think he was
a great man and a great scientist.
Heading 1) Author: Terman, Lewis Madison, 1877-1956 (3 citations)
1.1) Terman, Lewis Madison. STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALE (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin, 1960)
LOCATION: LB1131.T49: Education
1.2) Terman, Lewis Madison. MEASURING INTELLIGENCE (Boston, Houghton Mifflin
company [c1937])
LOCATION: LB1131.T43: Green Stacks; Education
1.3) Terman, Lewis Madison. PAPERS, 1910-1959.
LOCATION: RG10.41.1: University Archives
Heading 2) Author: Terman, Lewis Madison, 1877- (6 citations)
2.1) GENETIC STUDIES OF GENIUS .. ([Stanford, Calif.] Stanford University
Press, 1925-)
LOCATION: BF412.G39 v.1-4: Green Stacks; Education (v.1-3;v.4 with
suppl.;v.5)
2.2) McNemar, Quinn. THE REVISION OF THE STANFORD BINET SCALE (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin company [1942])
LOCATION: LB1131.M312: Education
2.3) Terman, Lewis Madison. THE MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin [c1916])
LOCATION: LB1131.T4: Green Stacks; Education
2.4) Terman, Lewis Madison, 1877-. CHILDREN'S READING (New York, D. Appleton
and Company. 1926)
LOCATION: Item CSUG15854388-B not yet cataloged; type HELP STATUS
2.5) GENETIC STUDIES OF GENIUS .. ([Stanford, Calif.] Stanford University
Press, 1925-)
LOCATION: Item CSUG13252747-B not yet cataloged; type HELP STATUS
2.6) GENETIC STUDIES OF GENIUS ([Stanford, Calif.] Stanford University Press).
1925-
LOCATION: Lane Medical (P499.G32 1-2, 1925-26)
3.1) Terman, Lewis M. SEX AND PERSONALITY (McGraw-Hill, 1936)
LOCATION: BF692.T4: Meyer
3.2) Terman, Lewis M. THE GIFTED GROUP AT MID-LIFE (Stanford Univ. Press, 1967,
c1959)
LOCATION: BF412.T4: Meyer
3.3) STUDIES IN PERSONALITY (McGraw-Hill, 1942)
LOCATION: BF698.S75: Meyer
3.4) Terman, Lewis M. STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALE (Houghton Mifflin,
1960)
LOCATION: LB1131.T53: Meyer
3.5) Terman, Lewis M. MEASURING INTELLIGENCE (Houghton Mifflin, 1937)
LOCATION: LB1131.T43: Meyer
3.6) Binet, Alfred. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN. Limited ed.
(Nashville, Tenn. : Williams Printing Co., 1980)
LOCATION: BF431.B5: Green Stacks
3.7) Terman, Lewis M. MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS, 1941-1974.
LOCATION: Hoover Institution Archives
Heading 2) Title: Lewis M Terman Pioneer in Psychological Testing (1 citation)
2.1) Minton, Henry L. LEWIS M. TERMAN (New York : New York University Press,
1988)
LOCATION: BF109.T39M56 1988: Green Stacks
Heading 3) Title: Frederick Emmons Terman 1900 1982 Some Recoll... (1 citation)
3.1) Bourquin, Burnice. FREDERICK EMMONS TERMAN, 1900-1982: 1983.
LOCATION: M 2: University Archives
Heading 4) Title: Terman Life Cycle Study of Children with High... (1 citation)
4.1) TERMAN LIFE CYCLE STUDY OF CHILDREN WITH HIGH ABILITY, 1922-1982 (Ann
Arbor : Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research,
1983)
LOCATION: BF412.T4 1983: Green Stacks; Education
6.1) Seagoe, May Violet, 1906-. TERMAN AND THE GIFTED (Los Altos, Calif. : W.
Kaufmann, c1975)
LOCATION: BF109.T39.S4 1975: Lane Medical
8.1) Chapman, Paul Davis. SCHOOLS AS SORTERS (1979, c1980)
LOCATION: 3781 1980 C: Education
∂23-Jul-89 0018 Mailer re: Abortion/Death Penalty
To: P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Sat 22 Jul 89 23:41:16-PDT.]
The opponents of abortion usually don't make the "extension of logic"
you suggest that you make.
The proponents of the death penalty include many non-religious people.
As you suggest earlier, there isn't an obvious religious answer to
whether a fetus is a person. Maybe there is a Roman Catholic
answer to that precise question. Does anyone know?
The article Limbo discusses limbus infantum where, in medieval theology,
infants who die unbaptized were supposed to go. The article doesn't
mention the unborn.
∂23-Jul-89 1713 Mailer re: Abortion (what else?)
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, SU-ETC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RPG rcvd 23-Jul-89 14:07-PT.]
Address the question to the pro-life groups. I only pointed
out argument they make. Abortion is not one of my issues.
∂23-Jul-89 2355 JMC
To: MPS
beckma.5
∂24-Jul-89 0932 JMC re: Recomendation
To: ortiz@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM
[In reply to message sent Mon, 24 Jul 89 08:57:37 PDT.]
ok
∂24-Jul-89 1619 JMC electronic reviewing
To: reviewer@NOTE.NSF.GOV
JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
QB0136026
558-30-4793
∂24-Jul-89 2002 JMC meeting on Elephant
To: VAL
Phil Cohen from SRI, a speech act expert, is coming by to talk
and hear about Elephant at 1:30 pm on Thursday. Would you like
to come?
∂24-Jul-89 2043 Mailer re: Shockley's error
To: RWF@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, dmr@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU,
su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from RWF sent 24 Jul 89 1945 PDT.]
I would not be surprised if RWF were right about Shockley. He
might be what is sometimes called an "injustice collector".
∂25-Jul-89 1458 JMC Matyasevich
To: suppes@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
I expect to be away Sept 25-27. Otherwise, I'll be here.
Please acknowledge to verify that you do get email at this address.
∂26-Jul-89 0036 JMC
To: MPS
leith.1
∂26-Jul-89 0048 JMC
To: MPS
Did we ever get an answer about the copier?
∂26-Jul-89 0106 JMC re: Counterfactuals
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jul-89 00:55-PT.]
I'm beginning to understand, and the last paragraph makes matters more
clear. The value of the counterfactual would be even better if
it was used to justify some more complex plan for getting rid
of B1. However, counterfactuals often have the habit of being
replacable by ordinary conditionals. For example, in this
case a critic will suggest replacing the cf by "If I can
get rid of B1, then B2 will be clear. I'm not sure which
we want in this case.
∂26-Jul-89 1000 JMC reply to message
To: MPS
[In reply to message rcvd 26-Jul-89 08:29-PT.]
Yes, it is operated only from the battery. The question is one
of whether I can safely charge the battery from our electricity.
That is, will the battery overheat?
∂26-Jul-89 1203 JMC
To: MPS
cacm.1
∂26-Jul-89 1213 JMC re: Alexander Gorbis
To: BEASLEY@IBM.COM
[In reply to message from BEASLEY@ibm.com sent 26 Jul 89 10:44:01 PDT.]
Gorbis came here from the Soviet Union after having written a
paper in collaboration with Gregory Mints, who is a very strong
mathematical logician. I think Gorbis has good knowledge. We
admitted him promptly on the strength of that, but he seemed to
run out of motivation, at least to pursue research and study in
computer science as we understand it here. Of course, this
happens to lots of students and not merely immigrants. If he has
regained his motivation, I think he's a good bet, otherwise not.
Vladimir Lifschitz, VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, might know more.
∂26-Jul-89 1529 JMC Lifschitz
To: nilsson@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
Lifschitz now has a letter from Manchester. The position is
Professor of Artificial Intelligence. It isn't quite the offer;
they don't have the letters of recommendation yet. However, the
letter goes into detail about their willingness to support a
Senior Lecturer and some research assistants. I think Stanford
should try to keep him, and I have an appointment Friday morning
at 10am with Jim Gibbons to talk about it.
I talked with Jeff Ullman, whom you mentioned as having some negative
views. He has the foolish idea that people like van Gelder and
Kolaitis are better. This is a consequence of his narrow view of
what theory is. If he gets his way Stanford will become the
Department of NP-completeness.
Anyway, getting letters of comparison would show that Vladimir is
much more highly regarded than the people Jeff talks about.
One idea is to get Vladimir to apply for the position of Research
Professor mentioned in connection with a successor to Bruce
Buchanan - or just to open up a Research Professor position he
can apply for.
I am unhappy about the prospect of losing the best person in
formalizing common sense knowledge and reasoning we have ever had.
When would it be convenient to discuss this? By phone if necessary.
∂26-Jul-89 1753 JMC re: Matyasevitch visit
To: SF@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed 26 Jul 89 16:55:07-PDT.]
I shall be away Sept 25-27, but since he'll be here for a couple weeks,
I won't miss him even if those dates are part of his visit.
I don't think Carolyn has any plans to be away then.
∂26-Jul-89 1754 JMC re: Golub's nomination to NAE
To: eaf@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 26 Jul 1989 16:49:25 PDT.]
I sent it in already.
∂27-Jul-89 0106 Mailer Shockley
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
U.underdog reminds me that I promised to say what I thought
of Shockley's ideas. The reason for delay was to separate
my opinion of how Shockley should be regarded from the
extent to which I agreed with his ideas.
There are four questions:
1. The scientific question. What if anything is human
intelligence, and to what extent is it inherited? To what extent
is it improvable by education.
2. The "if this goes on question". Are we going to be
overwhelmed by the stupid?
3. The policy question. What to do about it?
4. The ideological question. What is the role of the
question in life and politics?
In none of these questions have I taken a professional
interest. It might be supposed that studying artificial
intelligence would lead to opinions about natural intelligence,
but I have only the following to say. The difference between
smart people and stupid people is not a matter that
the smart have better basic algorithms.
This is the difference between people and current programs.
People have algorithms that people have not yet understood
well enough to program.
The difference between smart and dumb people seems much more
to be a matter of being able to keep a number of things in
mind simultaneously, power of concentration and the ability
to put things in memory easily and keep them there. All these
qualities computers have in abundance.
It might be that I'm mistaken about this, and smart children
somehow develop at the age of one or so better algorithms
than others develop. It just doesn't seem plausible.
1. Is there such a thing as intelligence? I regard Terman and
his co-workers as honest scientists who did their best. I
don't accept the argument that they were blinded by some
white male bourgeois ideology. Of course, their results
are subject to improvement and maybe even revolution.
However, such improvement or revolution can only come
by studying the phenomena and not by ideological argument.
The latter is worthless - Gould and Lewontin and Kamin
have just produced junk.
Terman and colleagues started with the hypothesis that
intelligence was a multi-component affair, where the
separate abilities were distributed independently. Different
people just had different innate talents. The results of
their research was that if there were different talents,
within the populations they studied, Californians in
Terman's case, the different abilities were highly
correlated. Indeed they were correlated with physical
vigor also, so Terman's "genius" group (IQ > 140) were
also stronger and healthier than average.
I don't know what estimates Terman made about hereditability
of intelligence. He was interested in the question, so
he doubtless made some.
Shockley estimates that intelligence is 80 percent hereditary,
using definitions he gives, but which I haven't studied.
My arguments are vulnerable to anyone who will take the
trouble to read his papers, cite his definitions and attack
them, but so far no-one has bothered to do that.
He's one of the few people who have worked in this field
since it became tabu. More work could probably produce
better estimates. I am not impressed by the arguments
I have read here or elsewhere that intelligence is
inherently undefined or unmeasurable or that the
difficulties in determining its hereditability are
intrinsic. Still less am I impressed by the arguments
that Shockley is a bad guy.
It also seems to me that it is unlikely that intelligence isn't
subject to the general laws of heredity that apply to other
characteristics of humans, animals and plants. There is one
question. Maybe intelligence is like size in dogs, greatly
modifiable by breeding. On the other hand it might be like
size in cats, apparently not much modifiable by breeding.
My guess is the former, and doubtless there have been
the equivalent of such experiments in human society. For
example, making the smartest people into celibate priests
can't have been good for European intelligence, although
the effect might have been small.
Shockley further claims that there is a substantial difference
between the average intelligence of American blacks and
American whites. Maybe this is so, but it can't justify
any kind of racial discrimination because of the enormous
overlap. I have had personal experience with blacks whose
mathematical talents of certain kinds were better than mine.
However, unless the opposite could be proved, inequality of
result in some area can't be taken as complete proof of
unfairness and used to cast blame on individuals or institutions.
As to the current situation, I think the pathologies of the
"ghetto" underclass are social, not intellectual. The
evidence is that they are recent. However, there are
two possibilities that call for quite different
remedies. One possibility is that the pathology, e.g.
drugs, crime and school dropout, is caused by bad
schools, roads and employment offered, e.g. is caused
by racial discrimination and that if only the
discrimination were removed, the pathology would
disappear. That's the straight liberal idea. It
could be checked by experiment. If money will cure
the problems, this can be verified by spending the
money to cure the problems of one community. It
seems to me that the articles in a recent issue
of the Nation make this claim, although I didn't
see any detail.
The other possibility is that this community has got
itself into a socially pathological situation, where drug dealers
and pimps can make more money than can be obtained by any
legitimate occupation. This is a predatory part of the society,
and it preys on other parts of both the black and the white
community. One can consider the German and English robber barons
as having formed such a society in the past. They were crushed.
If this is the case, then the solution is law enforcement
and the protection of potential victims from crime.
Most likely some of each is true.
Well, that was a digression.
Shockley's "if this goes on scenario" envisages continued
decline of black intelligence, if I interpret correctly a remark
he made to me. I asked why he didn't give up on his
sterilization bonuses for low IQ people and go instead to child
support for smart people. His immediate reply was that that
would be a good idea; did I know that the lowest fertility was
among black women college graduates? I drew my conclusion
from the fact that the fertility of black women college
graduates was something he had investigated and was on
his mind.
I don't think much of his remedy in present American
society. The large number of low IQ people doesn't worry me
as much as the small number of high IQ people. If the decline
from 35,000 people with SAT scores greater than 700 in 1965
to 14,000 in 1985 is due to low fertility of smart people,
that is a real disaster. Naturally, the newspaper discussions
of possible reasons didn't even mention the genetic possibility.
Therefore, I urge su-etc readers of all races and
colors to have more children.
∂27-Jul-89 1743 JMC
To: nilsson@SCORE.Stanford.EDU
I misinformed you. My appointment with Gibbons is Aug. 4.
∂27-Jul-89 1751 JMC
To: VAL
How much will it cost to get Kowalski right. Algorithm=logic+control.
∂27-Jul-89 1916 JMC
To: CLT
That's (2 4)(1 5) for Lathrop.
∂27-Jul-89 2055 JMC
To: MPS
We need to get book list ready for sorting by tomorrow.
∂28-Jul-89 0918 JMC
To: VAL
Noon at faculty club?
∂28-Jul-89 1514 JMC re: what we will do
To: hoffman.pa@XEROX.COM
[In reply to message sent 28 Jul 89 13:25 PDT.]
Please call.
∂28-Jul-89 1518 JMC for Suppes
To: laura@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
∂28-Jul-89 1509 Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU Message of 25-Jul-89 14:58:01
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Jul 89 15:09:09 PDT
Date: Fri 28 Jul 89 15:08:08-PDT
From: The Mailer Daemon <Mailer@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Message of 25-Jul-89 14:58:01
Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days:
pat@IMSSS.#Pup: Cannot connect to host
------------
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 25 Jul 89 14:58:02-PDT
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/inc-1.0)
id AA00574; Tue, 25 Jul 89 14:59:22 PDT
Message-Id: <1NCsp0@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 25 Jul 89 1458 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Matyasevich
To: suppes@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
I expect to be away Sept 25-27. Otherwise, I'll be here.
Please acknowledge to verify that you do get email at this address.
-------
∂28-Jul-89 1602 JMC re: Design stance
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 28-Jul-89 15:57-PT.]
It seems to me that the design stance and the black box stance often
coincide. I haven't seen them mentioned in the same paragraph. In
fact I hadn't seen the phrase "black box stance".
∂28-Jul-89 1630 JMC re: Design stance
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 28-Jul-89 16:12-PT.]
I think taking the card away isn't the same thing as losing its temper.
Probably losing one's temper is part of a mechanism developed to prepare
for fighting.
∂29-Jul-89 0709 Mailer Eskimos vs. environmentalists
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
a028 0104 29 Jul 89
PM-Eskimo Rights,0405
Arctic Groups Plan Defense of Traditional Ways of Life
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) - Eskimos from four nations, guarding a
tradition of hunting and fur trading, criticized animal
conservationists for threatening the culture of Arctic people.
Rosemarie Kuptana, vice president of the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference, urged delegates to force environmentalists and animal
conservationists ''to answer our arguments,'' the Greenland newspaper
Information reported Friday.
''Our opponents are much weeker when it is we who set the agenda,''
Ms. Kuptana, a Canadian, told the 500 Inuit delegates at a
conference's meeting in Sisimuit, West Greenland.
It was the first time a Soviet delegation attended a general
assembly of the conference, a non-governmental organization for Inuit
from Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Soviet Union.
Anger is growing among Arctic natives toward conservationist groups
such as Greenpeace, whose campaigns the Eskimos say have damaged
hunting and the fur trade.
''It never ceases to amaze me how people can react so strongly
against traditional hunting on the part of a little group of
indigenous people - people who during thousands of years of hunting
never have threatened a single animal species - while at the same
time industrialized society has polluted the planet to such a degree
that there is no way back,'' Ms. Kuptana said.
Greenpeace's Kirsten Sander, who attended the conference as an
observer, admitted that the group's campaign against seal skins in
recent years had done unintended harm to Inuit hunters.
To counter future anti-harvesting campaigns, the conference unveiled
a far-reaching Inuit conservation strategy.
This policy, largely the initiative of conference members from
Canada and Greenland, embraces all aspects of environmental concern
in the Arctic.
Peter Jull, a former Inuit adviser to the Canadian government, said
the document calls for detailed research on the environment and
wildlife, including all species that Inuits depend on for food and
clothing.
He said the plan was partly ''an expression that the environment is
our interest and not just for the benefit of companies down south
somewhere.''
The conference also compiled a guide of policy principles on issues
including nuclear power, education and self-government for use at the
regional and local levels.
''What we're basically saying is that we live in the Arctic and we
know what happens when you mess it up,'' Jull said.
About 40,000 Inuit live in Greenland, 28,000 in Alaska and 11,000 in
Canada. The Soviet Inuit comprise a small part of the 150,000 natives
of the Siberian north.
AP-NY-07-29-89 0355EDT
***************
∂29-Jul-89 1030 JMC padding Library of Congress numbers
To: ME
I've been looking through the numbers, and it's slightly more complicated
than I thought. I need to talk to Rebecca to determine the exact
order. Let's wait till Monday.
∂29-Jul-89 1033 JMC
To: ME
The current file is librar.2[1,mps].
∂31-Jul-89 1049 JMC DARPA Project Summary
To: CLT
∂31-Jul-89 0906 cross@vax.darpa.mil DARPA Project Summary
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 89 09:06:04 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.61/5.61+local)
id <AA15296>; Mon, 31 Jul 89 11:57:05 -0400
Posted-Date: Mon 31 Jul 89 12:06:56-EDT
Received: by sun46.darpa.mil (4.1/5.51)
id AA06569; Mon, 31 Jul 89 12:06:57 EDT
Date: Mon 31 Jul 89 12:06:56-EDT
From: Steve Cross <CROSS@DARPA.MIL>
Subject: DARPA Project Summary
To: englemore@sumex-aim.stanford.edu, lesser@cs.umass.edu,
mcgregor@vaxa.isi.edu, rolf%lockheed.com@relay.cs.net,
msf@isl1.ri.cmu.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, mcdermott-drew@yale.edu,
gjs@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: cross@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <617904416.0.CROSS@SUN46.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@SUN46.DARPA.MIL>
During the next two weeks this office will engage in its annual budget
blood bath. The only ammunition I will have will be the project summary
you indicated you would sned me by Jul 28th. I need your help and would
appreciate your immediate support. Thanks in advance. Steve Cross
-------
∂31-Jul-89 1053 JMC re: Rescheduling of meeting
To: cloutier@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 31 Jul 89 10:11:05-PDT.]
10am on the 16th is best. A big part of the matter involves
time, so I hope to see him as soon as his schedule permits.
∂31-Jul-89 1109 Mailer re: federal funding for the arts
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 31 Jul 89 15:50:29 GMT.]
If, on seeing some of the new paintings, sculpture,
dances or films, you are bored, probably you were
intended to be. Boring the public is one way of
testing its commitment. - Barbara Rose quoted by
Hilton Kramer quoted by Nathan Glazer in a 1985 Nov 4
NYT review of Kramer's Revenge of the Philistines.
It wasn't clear to me whether Barbara Rose intended her statement ironically.
Offending the public is another way of ``testing its commitment''.
Making the public pay for something that offends it is an ``art form'' in
itself. The greater the offense, the more the complaint and the more
the public has to pay, the more famous the artist and his sponsors
become. The official establishment critics call the work ``disturbing''
and praise it for its countercultural value.
We see this at Stanford. The Albers wall should have a plaque in front
of it saying, ``This wall with its lines reminiscent of the I Ching
is entitled `Superstition Confronting Physics.' ''
∂31-Jul-89 1136 JMC re: DARPA Project Summary
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 31-Jul-89 10:53-PT.]
Send him a message telling him you will send it Wednesday unless
you get a message asking for it urgently.
∂31-Jul-89 1507 Mailer Higgins
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
There are several possible responses to the hanging of Col.
Higgins by the Party of God.
1. Blame the Israelis for kidnapping Obeid. Taking
sufficient action against the Israelis might get our other
hostages released.
2. Complaining but not doing anything in particular other
than keeping Americans out of Lebanon. There will be occasional
other hostages, and maybe the situation will change for some
other reason and they'll be released eventually. Vague threats
could be made to outmaneuver Americans who might propose
something else.
3. Retaliation. Something violent would be planned
secretly with no advance threats. Perhaps the Marines would
welcome a chance to get even. It would have to be very violent
indeed and succesful to change the general opinion that the U.S.
can be attacked with impunity. When some Russian was kidnapped
and killed in Lebanon, all the Soviets had to do was to dismember
the brother of one of the alleged kidnappers and they weren't
further bothered. We would have to do much more to change our
reputation.
Maybe it would be enough to eliminate the headquarters,
leadership and equipment of the Party of God. Naturally, we
should expect claims that we killed the wrong people, that it
wasn't the Party of God or that the people killed were only
sympathizers. Two months should be time enough to prepare
something, God willing.
Of course, the retaliation might be bungled as the Marines
bungled their share of the hostage rescue mission in Iran and as
they bungled protecting their men from truck bombing in Lebanon.
Normal casualties even if high wouldn't count as bungling. In
case of bungling it would be necessary to court-martial the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and let them try again till they
get it right. Even if several tries were required, it would be a
relatively inexpensive way of restoring the Marine Corp's
effectiveness and reputation for effectiveness.
∂31-Jul-89 1545 Mailer Higgins
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Addendum to the third option of the previous message:
a. Any operation would have to be overt, since a covert action
would require informing at least some people whose careers
within the left would be advanced by exposing it. I assume it
could be prepared secretly without violating law. Maybe vague
threats would help, since they wouldn't be believed.
b. Doubtless retaliation would require the sacrifice of some
foreign policy objectives the State Department has been pursuing
and values highly.
∂31-Jul-89 1902 JMC re: summer pay
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 31-Jul-89 16:12-PT.]
Yes.
∂31-Jul-89 1915 Mailer Higgins
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
In response to a request, here are two of today's stories about Higgins.
a204 1004 31 Jul 89
AM-Hostages-Higgins,0825
Lebanon Was Off-limits to Americans When Higgins Went There in UN
Post
By The Associated Press
When Lt. Col. William R. Higgins was abducted in February 1988, the
U.S. Marine was on duty for the United Nations in a land so dangerous
for Americans that the State Department had declared it off-limits.
Higgins, 44, commanded an international group monitoring cease-fire
violations on the Lebanon-Israel border. He was kidnapped while
returning from talks with a moderate Shiite Moslem militia leader,
who said their conversation touched on the subject of foreigners held
hostage in Lebanon.
A statement from the kidnappers issued Dec. 12, 1988, said they had
sentenced Higgins to death as a spy for Israel.
''We have issued the irrevocable sentence to execute this American
spy,'' said the statement signed by a group calling itself the
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth. It did not set a date for
killing him.
On Monday, his pro-Iranian Shiite Moslem captors said they had
hanged the American in retaliation for Israel's abduction of Sheik
Abdul Karim Obeid, a Shiite cleric in south Lebanon.
They released a videotape in which a man said to be Higgins dangled
from a gallows, his hands and feet bound with rope. There was no way
to verify whether the victim was Higgins or when the hanging had
occurred.
A diplomatic source told The Associated Press the United Nations had
received unconfirmed reports Higgins was killed after the USS
Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf on July
3, 1988.
On Monday, Israeli analysts questioned whether Higgins was alive
before Obeid was captured Friday.
Higgins, born Jan. 15, 1945, in Danville, Ky., had been an aide to
Caspar W. Weinberger, secretary of defense in the Reagan
administration. When he was abducted Feb. 17, 1987, he led a
75-member observer group assigned to the U.N. peacekeeping force in
south Lebanon.
In January 1987, the State Department declared Lebanon off-limits to
U.S. citizens, except for the families of kidnap victims, journalists
and others with special permission.
The Pentagon has said American officers chosen for duty with the
United Nations are under U.N. command and the Pentagon has no control
over where they serve.
Higgins was kidnapped while returning from a meeting in Tyre with
Abdel Majid Saleh, a political leader in the area of the moderate
Shiite militia Amal, Saleh told reporters. He said the topics of
discussion included efforts to free foreign hostages.
U.N. officials said Higgins was driving a marked U.N. station wagon,
following a similar vehicle carrying two other members of the
observer force. The first car lost sight of Higgins around a bend,
returned to look for him and found his vehicle abandoned.
Security sources in Tyre said two gunmen in a brown Volvo passed
Higgins' station wagon, blocked the road, forced him into their car
and drove north toward Tyre.
They said the abduction occurred between Ras el-Ein and Deir Qanoun,
villages controlled by Amal, and that members of the militia helped
with the search search for Higgins.
Reporters in Tyre said at the time the influence of the
fundamentalist Shiite militia Hezbollah, or Party of God, had been
growing in the villages. Hezbollah, allied with Iran, is believed to
be the umbrella group for radical factions holding most foreign
hostages in Lebanon.
Higgins' uncle, Delbert Eagle of Lancaster, Ky., said of his nephew
soon after the kidnapping: ''He loves his country. 'He is capable of
standing up as well as an ordinary man will under the circumstances.
... I don't think they could bring enough pressure or pain to cause
him to betray his country in any way.''
Higgins grew up in Jefferson County, Ky., and won appointment to
West Point, but chose instead to attend Miami University in Oxford,
Ohio, on a Navy ROTC scholarship.
He was commissioned a second lieutenant when he graduated in 1967
with a business degree, and later earned master's degrees in human
resources management at Pepperdine University and political science
at Auburn University.
Higgins served in Vietnam in 1968 and 1972. He later was a rifle
company commander in Okinawa, Japan, an instructor at the academy for
non-commissioned officers at Quantico, Va., and a rifle company
commander at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
In 1980, he graduated from the Air Force Command and Staff College
at Maxwell Air Force Base. Higgins served in various staff positions
at Marine Corps headquarters in Washington and at the Pentagon, and
graduated from the National War College in 1985.
He and his first wife, the former Bonita Spalding of Louisville, had
a daughter, Christine Lynn. His second wife, Marine Maj. Robin
Higgins, works at the Pentagon.
Both parents have died - his mother, Mary Ethel Higgins, in 1979,
and his father, William F. Higgins, soon after the abduction.
AP-NY-07-31-89 1250EDT
a243 1706 31 Jul 89
AM-Higgins-Reaction,0528
Lawmakers Urge Caution, Vengeance in Middle East
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional reaction to the reported execution
of an American hostage Monday ranged from calls for revenge to
warnings that such moves would only worsen conditions in the Middle
East.
''We can't blow Lebanon up simply to avenge the life of one
American,'' said Rep. Dante Fascell, D-Fla., chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee.
The apparent killing of Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins is a symptom
of a global problem that should be handled by the United Nations,
Fascell said.
''No terrorist should have refuge anywhere,'' he said. ''As long as
this kind of activity persists, and mankind seeks to solve its
problems in brutal ways ... then it becomes incumbent on all of us to
continue to speak out hoping for the day when we c.''
House Minority Leader Robert Michel, R-Ill., said: ''No cause or
political goal can be used to justify such a despicable, cowardly
act.''
''As for options, we're back to square one,'' said Sen. Richard
Lugar, R-Ind., a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. ''It's a horrible mess.''
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell, D-R.I., called
the reported execution ''a dreadful, horrible, devastating action. I
know the president is as horrified as we are. This will be discussed
at the highest levels. And I am sure we will be cooperating with the
executive branch.''
''It is difficult to lose the lives of Americans serving their
country in time of war,'' said Sen. William Shelby, D-Ala. ''It is
all the more unbearable to lose a life to such a senseless and brutal
act of violence.''
Rep. William Broomfield of Michigan, the senior Republican on the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, lamented that ''with every passing
year it seems that some areas of the Islamic world are moving farther
and farther away from the orbit of civilized nations.''
He said Bush should ''let the world know we take the murder of
innocent Americans very seriously.''
Others were more blunt. Rep. George Gekas, R-Pa., said ''We need
revenge and we need justice, and I will support the president in
whatever means he might employ to bring them about.''
Rep. Robert Lagomarsino, R-Calif., added: ''The president should do
everything he thinks is necessary to avenge this killing. And I mean
he should consider every possible retaliatory action.''
Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, called it a ''senseless, brutal act,'' and added: ''Those
responsible for the execution of an innocent American serviceman must
be held accountable for their actions.''
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., asked Bush in a letter to award Higgins
the Congressional Medal of Honor.
''This tribute is customarily issued to soldiers who prove valor in
military actions, or in peacetime, demonstrate unique acts of
bravery,'' McConnell told the Senate.
''I think Rich's record is clear,'' he said. ''His selfless efforts
to secure peace in a nation consumed by bloodshed and battle should
be recognized and honored.'' Higgins was born in Danville, Ky.
AP-NY-07-31-89 1957EDT
***************
∂31-Jul-89 2323 Mailer re: Higgins and US policy against terrorism
To: vera@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from vera@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 1 Aug 89 04:55:04 GMT.]
Perhaps Mr. Vera is right that Mr. Redlich and Mr. Bone have been
hasty in their suggestions. However, rather than use this
regrettable event as one more occasion for a battle between
peaceniks and more nationally assertive people, let's consider
what the options are.
Mr. Vera, you find Redlich's options too indiscriminate. Do you
have any suggestions of what options should be considered?
Are all military options unworthy of serious consideration?
It seems relative to the behavior of the Russians and the Israelis,
our policy has at least some disadvantages. The Russians have
been mentioned before. It should be noted that although the
Israelis took Obeid, and there are Israeli prisoners in Lebanon,
there was no threat to hang one of them. Could there be some
defect in our policies that causes us to be singled out?
I still tend to think in terms of military options. Here's one question
President Bush should ask. How many marine regiments would it
to take to conduct a house-to-house search of West Beirut and the
other relevant parts of Lebanon? What degree of tactical surprise
might be hoped for?
∂01-Aug-89 0013 Mailer re: Higgins and US policy against terrorism
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 1 Aug 89 05:25:36 GMT.]
At the time the Israelis took Obeid, it was said that he was specifically
implicated in the kidnapping of Higgins, namely Higgins was held for a
while in Obeid's apartment.
∂01-Aug-89 1737 JMC re: Your submission to CACM.
To: pjd@RIACS.EDU
CC: jimm%acmvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from pjd@riacs.edu sent Tue, 1 Aug 89 16:45:33 pdt.]
The signed Viewpoint option is too attractive to resist, and there is
more to say. I notice that about 700 words go on a page along with
the big header of the signed Viewpoint, and the last item (by Jim
Morris) took about 1000 words. How long (or short) is reasonable?
The current version is about 540 words. Many thanks for the quick
reply. Is electronic submission of the text helpful?
∂02-Aug-89 0057 Mailer re: Higgins
To: P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from P.DRAVID@GSB-WHY.Stanford.EDU sent Tue 1 Aug 89 20:14:55-PDT.]
Ajay Dravid writes:
We need to stop attaching disproportionate weight and
importance to the life of one Higgins, or to the needs
of one race, religion or nation, and try to solve the
larger problems and issues, and to try to improve the
lot of all of mankind.
I agree with that except that I don't know many good ideas
``to improve the lot of all mankind'' except to continue
to develop technology of all kinds. This has produced
most of the improvement in the past.
However, the world has political problems as well as technological
ones. It is tempting to conjecture that these problems are the
same the world over and can be solved in some uniform way.
For example, it has been said on su-etc is that all we need
to do is apply the Golden Rule.
My opinion is that each area has its specific political problems,
and they require separate solutions. Consider the Middle East,
where Col. Higgins was murdered.
One of its major problems is the Moslem religion. It has its
vicious forms as in Iran, but even its milder forms work against
technological, political and social progress. It needs to be
greatly attenuated as has happened to the Christian religion
almost everywhere. In the early part of this century the
Moslem religion was being rapidly attenuated, especially
in the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Young people led
this attenuation. Through a combination of political
forces including Soviet support of extreme nationalism
with weapons and the countercultural loss of confidence
in the West, we have been going through a period in
which the youth of the Moslem countries have led the
way back to fanatical fundamentalism.
I don't see the West can do much about that except contain
its expansionist tendencies. The tide will turn after a
while. It would be interesting to know if the Iran-Iraq
war has pounded any sense into the youth of these countries.
The corruption of the populations of countries like Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia by their oil wealth doesn't seem to affect
us much, but it will affect them. Eventually they'll have
to learn to work again.
Besides religious fanaticism, there is ordinary political
fanaticism. There is politics by assassination. There are
maximal leaders.
You will note that I haven't listed ``Western imperialism''
as one of their problems. However, finding scapegoats
including Western imperialism is one of their problems.
There must be some sensible people in these countries,
conceivably even a majority, but one doesn't hear of it.
Probably Arjay Dravid has a different diagnosis of Mideastern
problems.
∂02-Aug-89 0923 JMC re: Pat Simmons......
To: chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 2 Aug 1989 8:15:18 PDT.]
That should have been clt@sail, not tlc@sail.
∂02-Aug-89 1224 Mailer The Office of Technology Assassination at it Again
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Some years ago Congress set up a reasonable sounding
office directly under its jurisdiction - The Office of Technology
Assessment. Unfortunately, it attracts as Congressional
overseers and as staff members people with an anti-technology
bias. The VTSS program at Stanford mostly attracts similar
people as faculty, staff and students. These are people who
don't want to do anything technological themselves, but they like
to boss other people and especially to denigrate what other
people want to do.
One cannot be sure that Harry F. Rosenthal, Associated Press
Writer, hasn't distorted the emphasis of their report, but I
suspect he's got it right. My problem isn't with their estimate
of astronaut deaths, although I would guess that enough has been
learned from the Challenger accident and from the 3 year safety
review to reduce the probability of failure more than by just
half from the observed failure rate. They don't issue reports on
the space program often, and look at what they have chosen to
emphasize.
My problem is the emphasis on deaths and the strong
suggestion that it is a reason to reduce or abandon manned space
flight. Being an astronaut has not proved an especially dangerous
occupation compared to being a military pilot or being an explorer
or mountain climber. The rewards are high and the number
of would-be astronauts is enormous. Moreover, planetary exploration
is likely to require considerable hardship and greater risk as did
exploration of the Earth. If these guys get safety standards
pushed too high, planetary exploration will become too expensive
to be attempted.
NASA public relations people and the journalists
(basically the same kind of people) have invented a fantasy about
public attitude towards accidents in space travel. They claim
the public will demand abandonment of the space program if there
are more accidents. All the evidence is that the public is far
more sensible than these people and accepts the fact that space
travel is likely to be somewhat dangerous and considers that
fact acceptable.
More Astronaut Deaths Likely, Report Says
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States must be prepared to accept the
likelihood that more astronauts will be killed if space missions
become routine, according to a report submitted to Congress today.
''If such risks are perceived to be too high, the nation may decide
to reduce its emphasis on placing humans in space,'' said the report
by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
Space shuttle reliability to date, with one catastrophic failure in
29 launches - the 1986 explosion of Challenger - is 96.5 percent and
a contractor estimated last year that a representative chance of
mission success is 98 percent.
The price of increased space activity includes ''the likelihood that
loss of life will occur,'' the report said.
''If reliability is and remains 98 percent, there would be a 50
percent chance of losing an orbiter on the next 34 flights, a 72
percent chance of losing an orbiter before the first space station
assembly flight and an 88 percent chance of losing an orbiter before
space station assembly is completed 42 flights later,'' said OTA.
Current plans call for all hardware for the planned space station to
be carried into orbit in shuttle cargo holds, along with astronauts
who will do the assembly. Engineers have been talking, though, of
reducing the number of shuttle missions by carrying parts into orbit
on heavy-duty rockets.
After the loss of Challenger, NASA was left with a three-orbiter
fleet: Columbia - the shuttle that is scheduled to fly next week on a
military mission - Discovery and Atlantis. A replacement for
Challenger, named the Endeavour, is expected to be ready for flight
in 1992 and a year later NASA expects to reach a flight rate of 14 a
year.
OTA said one more orbiter, costing $2.5 billion, is needed and a
decision to have it ready by 1996 would have to be made in the fiscal
year that begins in October.
''Continued dependence on only four orbiters could be risky,'' said
the report. ''Launching each orbiter three or four times every year
creates a growing cumulative risk of accidents or 'wear out;'
supporting the space station in addition to other crew-related
missions would be difficult if not impossible with fewer than four
orbiters.''
The OTA report, called ''Round Trip to Orbit: Human Space Flight
Alternatives,'' examines some of the policy choices Congress faces in
decisions that must be made this year or next.
If Congress wants to reduce risks to the shuttle fleet during
assembly of the space station, OTA said, it could direct NASA to buy
Titan 4 launch vehicles or develop a so-called Shuttle-C launch
vehicle, which would use shuttle booster rockets and fuel tank to
orbit a huge cargo container.
The report also laid out options to advance U.S. crew-carrying
capabilities beyond the shuttle era into the next century. They
include an Advanced Manned Launch System leading to an advanced
shuttle-like vehicle and a Personnel Launch system, which could
dispatch a crew-carrying vehicle from unpiloted launch rockets.
An aerospace plane, able to take off from a runway and fly to orbit,
would be a major step forward, OTA said, but would be much more
expensive and a larger technical challenge.
One section of the report addresses contingencies requiring the
emergency escape or rescue of astronauts.
''The existing space shuttle system is neither robust enough nor
reliable enough to support continuously, at low risk, the needs of
space station crew during deployment and operations,'' the report
said. ''The space station may need a lifeboat, a capsule kept at the
space station for emergency escape to Earth, or a rescue vehicle kept
ready on a launch pad on Earth.''
∂02-Aug-89 1456 JMC cs306
To: stager@Score.Stanford.EDU, nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Shankar would like to teach cs306 again, and I think he did a good
job last time.
(home: 858-1643) (office: 859-5272) (em: shankar@csl.sri.com)
∂02-Aug-89 1508 JMC
To: MPS
pinto.1[let,jmc]. Get address from letter in my out box.
∂02-Aug-89 1532 JMC
To: MPS
nas.1
∂02-Aug-89 1722 JMC answer to question
To: hoffman@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
It wasn't hard to win this one, because no one at Stanford
complained about any specific jokes. It was a case of
bureaucratic timidity about someone possibly complaining and
bureaucratic arrogance with regard to the readers of the
newsgroups. When the Academic Senate Steering Committee referred
the issue to its Committee on Libraries they came up with the
statement that considerations of freedom from censorship applied
to electronic media in the same way that they applied to print
media. This was sufficient to win the case.
∂02-Aug-89 1724 JMC re: hoover press paper
To: RQ.WSB@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 2 Aug 89 16:29:43 PDT.]
Thanks for transmitting the article. Hoover needs to be on the
Stanford network, so other Stanford people can communicate freely with
their colleagues at Hoover.
∂02-Aug-89 1812 JMC re: Foyles in London
To: prasad@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 2 Aug 89 17:49:55 PDT.]
>Foyle Book Store 119 Charing Cross Road, 437-5660
∂02-Aug-89 1825 JMC bad not
To: VAL
In the paper on the puzzles, I noticed that they are
using the wrong symbol for ¬. Their symbol has a
left projection on the bottom. Do they make this
misprint elsewhere?
∂02-Aug-89 1836 JMC
To: VAL
I have finished my proofreading. We need to discuss it.
∂03-Aug-89 1204 Mailer world government
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Warren Redlich has many well-founded doubts about world government.
I have two more.
1. The best indicator of what world government politics would be like
is the General Assembly of the United Nations. Compared to the
parliament of an industrial democracy, its politics is very bad.
Many of its resolutions are pure demagogy. Vote buying of various
kinds is rampant. If a world government conducted its politics that
way, it would be replaced by a military dictatorship in a relatively
short time - either a dictatorship growing out of some faction, a
dictatorship coming from some of the former sovereign countries
or one generated by the world government's own armed forces.
I don't regard this as a consequence of the very idea of world government
but a consequence of the political immaturity of the communist
countries and the Third World today. Some have supposed that
a world government is a means of overcoming this immaturity.
Unfortunately, political maturity, i.e. adherence to electoral
democratic practices, by a large majority of countries is
a precondition for a viable world government.
2. This one seems to me to be even more serious an objection, because
even the United States and the other industrial democracies aren't
mature enough politically to avoid disaster from intellectual fads.
The United States and other countries have been repeatedly swept
by intellectual fads that result in bad laws. Fortunately, not
all countries are swept by the same fad at the same time. Moreover,
the organization of the U.S. into somewhat independent states
mitigates some of them. The existence of many sovereign countries
protects the world against being conquered by a single fad or
ideology.
On the positive side, the existence of many countries means that
a new idea has more chance of being tried than if it had to
conquer the whole world. Here's a minor example. Allowing a
right turn on a red light started in California in the 1930s.
It was a success in California, and more states adopted it.
In the 1970s Congress had a fit of imposing uniformity on state
traffic laws and made it national except where specifically
forbidden. This is killing the goose that laid the golden egg,
because it was allowing states to have different traffic laws
that led to the good new practice.
One could imagine a world government that would avoid this difficulty.
I don't think it could be done by provisions in a world constitution,
because if ideology swept the world intellectuals and press, they'd
get around any provisions in the constitution. There would have
to be tolerance of difference, reluctance to impose even ideas
thought to be excellent and a practice of experiment. Every now
and then, experiment is proposed in the U.S. as a way of trying
out a proposed solution to national problems. Sometimes genuine
experiments are made, but much more often, politics causes the
money for the experiment to be divided up, and neither enough
money nor enough good people go to any one place.
Of course, there will be an experiment that will tell us something
about how world government might work. The European economic union
of 1992 will tell us within 20 years whether my and Warren Redlich's
fears are justified. The Common Market is a success according to
the criterion that more countries have joined it. However, these
have been countries that were poorer than the existing members and
which now get subsidies from the richer members. Apparently the
level of subsidy is low enough to be tolerated by the rich members
and high enough to be a real help to the poor members, e.g. Greece,
Portugal and Ireland.
Maybe in 20 years enough countries will be politically mature enough
to make at least some kind of world economic union feasible. If
the Soviet Union becomes a normal country, this might tip the
balance.
∂03-Aug-89 1420 JMC
To: CLT
Are you on Scherlis's list SW-PI?
∂03-Aug-89 1525 JMC
To: CLT
How about pi-data?
∂03-Aug-89 1717 JMC reply to message
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 03-Aug-89 17:15-PT.]
That's what I thought.
∂04-Aug-89 1334 JMC
To: MPS
Sharon Ludlum 301 231-7826, IAKE is calling for you
∂04-Aug-89 1430 JMC exam
To: m.marty@MACBETH.Stanford.EDU
You may find me a pain in the neck as a exam chairman. I know
enough to ask some questions but not enough to understand without
having to ask a lot of questions. To begin with, what's the
difference between an immersion and an embedding?
I guess that some of the mathematicians also will require some
introduction to the technicalities, so I hope your exposition
will devote some time to this.
∂04-Aug-89 1434 JMC abstract
To: m.marty@MACBETH.Stanford.EDU
I believe thesis abstracts are supposed to be comprehensible to mathematicians
not specializing in the subject. I doubt the first sentence of yours
is comprehensible to someone not specializing in differential geometry.
What's a complete minimal graph in 3-space?
∂04-Aug-89 1708 JMC re: Blacks and Jews
To: jim@KAOS.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 19 Jul 89 01:46:18 GMT.]
I would be interested in the article if there is more than a single
quote about Jews. There is one that is always repeated, and it didn't
convince me that East European Jews had a general reputation for
stupidity. I have more evidence on the Irish reputation for stupidity.
∂04-Aug-89 2032 Mailer re: When should I call JMC racist? [was Re: black doctors]
To: siegman@sierra.UUCP, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from siegman@sierra.UUCP sent 5 Aug 89 00:20:27 GMT.]
NSF did a study some years ago of the subsequent performance of people being
considered for NSF fellowships in mathematics. The only clear correlation
was with age - the younger the better.
This wasn't convincing to the Admissions Committee of the Computer Science
Department this year, which turned down all the very young candidates.
∂04-Aug-89 2120 JMC
To: CLT
There's a review of a Babar movie on the AP wire. Let's take Timothy.
∂05-Aug-89 1813 JMC (on TTY63, at TV-140) display losing
To: BUG-E
On datadisc lines are often garbled. However, when the line
is visited, i.e. the pointer is moved to it, the display clears
up. It remains clear when the pointer is moved away from the
line. Thus the problem seems distinct from earlier display
lossages.
∂06-Aug-89 1059 JMC re: Offices
To: weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sun, 6 Aug 89 07:17:16 PDT.]
That would be ok.
∂06-Aug-89 1612 JMC re: Meet
To: rpg@LUCID.COM
[In reply to message sent Sun, 6 Aug 89 15:51:39 PDT.]
Tuesday at 11 will be fine. I have some other matters to discuss
in addition to CPL including Elephant 2000. Also let's you and
me have lunch afterwards at the Faculty Club.
∂06-Aug-89 1630 JMC Bing form
To: CLT
I have been thinking that perhaps we should add a few
more remarks about Timothy. If you agree tell me
where you've put the form, and I'll do it tonight.
1. He has birthmarks on his legs which are sometimes
noticed by other people. He hasn't noticed them himself,
but perhaps other children will notice and tease him,
and he'll have to learn to react appropriately to that.
2. He rarely cries when he hurts himself. He has to
be hit fairly hard for that. However, he does cry
fairly readily when frustrated or offended.
∂07-Aug-89 0935 JMC
To: CLT
Springer says the damage is more extensive than anticipated.
858-1202 is number at 846 Lathrop.
∂07-Aug-89 1536 Mailer suggestions solicited
To: su-computers@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
The following will probably be a "guest viewpoint", i.e.
guest editorial in the Communications of the ACM. I plan
to wait a few days for suggestions before I submit the
final version.
%networ[e89,jmc] Networks considered harmful
\input memo[let,jmc]
\title{ NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL---FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL}
Electronic mail, using the ARPAnet and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless electronic mail is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be wiped out by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, edited and searched.
The reason why telefax will wipe out electronic mail is
that telefax works by using the existing telephone network
directly. To become a telefax user, it is only necessary to buy
a telefax machine for a price between \$1,000 and \$5,000
(depending on features) and to publicize one's fax number on
stationery, on business cards and in telephone directories.
Once this is done anyone in the world can communicate with you.
No politics, no complicated network addresses.
Electronic mail could work the same way, but because of a
mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a special-purpose,
special-politics network the main vehicle for electronic mail, it
was combined with other network uses that require higher
bandwith.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but two features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
isn't very serious, because other systems could always pretend to
be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the protocols.
2. It requires that the sender of a message have login
privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system of
relaying messages that involves gateways and complicated
addresses. This results in politics in getting connected to the
gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. A whole industry
is founded on the technologically unsound ideas of competitive
special purpose networks and storage of mail on mail computers.
It is as though there were dozens of special purpose telephone
networks and no general network.
The solution is to go to a system in that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
\noindent MAIL $\langle$user$\rangle$@$\langle$telephone number$\rangle$,
\noindent after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for $\langle$user$\rangle$. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
\noindent{\bf The World of the Future}
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to--coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
\noindent {\bf What about the next 20 years of email?}
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get the various UNIX consortia to add a direct mail telephone
protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow mail to be
addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The computer would
require a dialer and a modem with whatever characteristics were
taken as standard and it would be well to use the same standards
as have been adopted for telefax. It mustn't require
pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving computers, and
therefore cannot involve any kind of login. Non-UNIX systems
would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched.
Since fax transmits images, fully formatted documents can be
transmitted. However, this loses the ability to edit the
document. This can be beaten by email, provided there arises a
widely used standard for representing documents that preserves
editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because the
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted, but
I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to the effect that
expecting institutions to behave rationally is like expecting heat
to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation between
this proposal and the various electronic communication standards that
have been adopted like X25. I only note that the enormous effort
put into these standards has not resulted in direct telephone
electronic mail or anything else as widely usable as telefax.
∂07-Aug-89 1547 JMC re: researchers in logical reasoning
To: JONES@VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 7 Aug 89 17:38 CDT.]
I haven't heard of Andrew Whinston. If his work is in automatic theorem
proving, this isn't surprising, but Bob Boyer at UTexas Austin has good
taste in such matters and is influential in hiring.
From your message, I can't tell enough about your interests to advise
you. If you are interested in automatic theorem proving or its applications,
Boyer or Mark Stickel at SRI could give you advice.
If you are interested in the use of logic to model common sense knowledge
and reasoning, Stanford is good and so is the University of Maryland
(Don Perlis).
∂07-Aug-89 1633 JMC re: Email, Email, wherefor art thou, Email?
To: PAF
[In reply to message rcvd 07-Aug-89 16:23-PT.]
Sure. How about 2pm tomorrow - my office.
∂07-Aug-89 1648 JMC re: suggestions solicited
To: gregory@Polya.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon, 7 Aug 89 16:40:39 -0700.]
Thanks.
∂07-Aug-89 1741 Mailer when life begins
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
I just occurs to me that there's one tradition in the matter that
I haven't heard before. Maybe the "pro-life" people refer to it.
When a pregnant woman was condemned to death in renaissance
times, the execution was postponed till after the birth (and
often cancelled). Presumably, they judged that to execute a
pregnant woman would kill an innocent. "She pleaded her belly"
was the phrase used.
Just stirring things up.
∂07-Aug-89 2203 JMC electronic mail
To: nilsson@Score.Stanford.EDU
I welcome suggestions on that screed which will probably be
published as a CACM guest editorial.
∂08-Aug-89 0220 Mailer quake
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
a039 0210 08 Aug 89
PM-California Quake,0241
Sharp Quake Jolts San Francisco Bay Area
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A sharp earthquke rocked the San Francisco Bay
area today, shaking buildings for 10 seconds but causing no major
damage or injuries.
The quake occurred at 1:13 a.m. PDT and had a magnitude of 5.1 on
the Richter scale, according to the U.S. Geological Survey in nearby
Menlo Park.
It was centered about 10 miles southwest of San Jose and felt
throughout a wide area, as far away as Santa Cruz, 75 miles south of
San Francisco.
Residents described the quake as jolting and rolling.
''It was the strongest I've ever felt,'' said Bernie Beck, 38, who
lives in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district.
''I live in an old building that was built after the 1906 quake, and
it really had me going,'' Beck said. ''It felt like you were sitting
on a saw horse, rocking back and forth.''
The open-ended Richter scale is a measure of the energy released by
an earthquake, as measured by ground motion recorded on a
seisomograph.
Each increase of one number, as in a jump from magnitude 5.5 to 6.5,
means that the ground motion is 10 times greater. A quake of 3.5 can
cause slight damage in populated areas, while a quake of 6.0 can
cause severe damage. In March 1964 an earthquake in Alaska hit 8.5 on
the Richter scale, killing 114 people.
AP-NY-08-08-89 0506EDT
***************
∂08-Aug-89 0942 Mailer re: quake
To: VAF@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from VAF@score.stanford.edu sent Tue 8 Aug 89 09:28:48-PDT.]
Either that or you and I are soulmates with the same imagination.
∂08-Aug-89 1056 JMC re: How do you . . .
To: P.REDLICH@GSB-WHY.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Aug 89 10:06:30-PDT.]
The SAIL computer has the AP A wire coming into the computer and
a program called NS that accesses the stories. We did this in
1972 as a prototype home computer service. To use it you'd need
an account on SAIL for which someone would have to pay. It also
has a one-of-a-kind operating system, so you'd have to be highly
motivated.
The political suggestions you made are interesting, but doing politics
is not something I can readily bring myself to do. Publishing the
article in CACM is about my limit.
∂08-Aug-89 1057 JMC re: your su.computer message
To: sol@NIC.DDN.MIL
[In reply to message sent Tue, 8 Aug 1989 10:22:20 PDT.]
Thanks, and I'll change it to ARPANET.
∂08-Aug-89 1107 Mailer re: Need opinions on company names.
To: jln@PORTIA.STANFORD.EDU, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from jln@Portia.Stanford.EDU sent 8 Aug 89 17:34:22 GMT.]
How about Black Hole Ventures?
∂08-Aug-89 1129 JMC problem with permission to hire someone
To: levinth@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
We are having trouble getting permission to hire Harlan
Sexton PhD to work on a DARPA contract. We also want
to hire Jim McDonald, nonPhD. The contract results from
discussions between us, DARPA and Dick Gabriel. Gabriel
is one of the principals of Lucid, a company that makes
Common Lisp compilers. He is also a consulting professor.
As I understand it the difficulties arise from the Lucid
relationship, but I don't understand what the concern is.
In my opinion, this doesn't have the character of our
being a front for Lucid, if that's the concern. It's more
that these guys want to do some research that is
inappropriate for a private company to finance.
I would like to discuss it with you to see if the difficulties
can be overcome. However, I don't know what the motivation
is of the rules that the Provost's office appointment people
have been invoking.
∂08-Aug-89 1306 JMC re: Decommissioning of SCORE ***PLEASE READ***
To: GOTELLI@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Aug 89 11:52:44-PDT.]
The obvious questions is when can files be moved from SCORE to the
new machine in question?
∂08-Aug-89 2003 JMC re: I forgot to mention this
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 08-Aug-89 13:34-PT.]
This cannot be done immediately or even soon. I have been exploring
the matter with Vladimir in mind, and they are stalling
Professor (Research) appointments until yet another committee
deliberates and reports.
∂08-Aug-89 2004 JMC re: kinds
To: DUPRE@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Aug 89 16:15:45-PDT.]
Thanks.
∂08-Aug-89 2005 JMC re: abstract
To: M.MARTY@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Tue 8 Aug 89 18:14:54-PDT.]
OK, I understand all three explanations.
∂08-Aug-89 2108 JMC re: Need opinions on company names.
To: les@GANG-OF-FOUR.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 8 Aug 89 21:54:34 GMT.]
That was the Black Hole Fund if I remember correctly.
∂09-Aug-89 0904 JMC reply to message
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Aug-89 08:54-PT.]
By the way, Professor (research) requires a formal search, a
publication record, comparison with other candidates, department
and school recommendation, and Trustee approval. It is almost as
difficult as appointment to tenure. It seems to me you'd need
a few years of steady publication. What's your present publication
situation?
∂09-Aug-89 0911 JMC re: reply to message
To: RPG
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Aug-89 09:10-PT.]
That should do quantitatively.
∂09-Aug-89 0932 JMC problem with permission to hire someone
To: CLT
∂08-Aug-89 1826 levinth@sierra.STANFORD.EDU problem with permission to hire someone
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 89 18:26:00 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 8 Aug 89 18:25:05 PDT
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 89 18:25:05 PDT
From: levinth@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Elliott C. Levinthal)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 08 Aug 89 1129 PDT <1NJp60@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: problem with permission to hire someone
John, I will call you tomorrow on this matter. With whom have you been
dealing on these appointments. Are these Research Associate
appointments?
Elliott
∂09-Aug-89 1200 JMC
To: MPS
pigott.1
∂09-Aug-89 1521 JMC re: Gelfond
To: VAL
[In reply to message rcvd 09-Aug-89 13:47-PT.]
Yes, let's have lunch with him.
∂09-Aug-89 1523 JMC re: re: researchers in logical reasoning
To: JONES@VAXB.ACS.UNT.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 9 Aug 89 17:03 CDT.]
Strong recommendations and material accepted for publication
always help. What does unt stand for in your address?
∂09-Aug-89 1618 JMC Levinthal
To: CLT
I talked to him. He hasn't made all his phone calls
and still hasn't got to the bottom of what concerned them.
He'll get back to me tomorrow afternoon.
∂10-Aug-89 1101 JMC re: response to your netmail article
To: tutiya@RUSSELL.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu, 10 Aug 89 10:11:17 PDT.]
It seems to me that your correspondent did miss my point. I
don't understand the references to various communication
standards, like ccitt x.400/x.500, but I suppose them to be
standards for the handshaking that occurs when messages are
transmitted. However, my point concerns the fact that fax uses
the existing telephone numbers, and the only business requirement
is to buy a machine and pay the phone bill. My objection is to
the organization of electronic mail into networks with which the
user must concern himself. I have no problem with the various
standards for the technology of the transmission, because I
assume that the people developing them are competent to do so and
have heard nothing to the contrary.
∂10-Aug-89 1131 JMC re: O.T.A. message to Su-etc
To: C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 10 Aug 89 09:53:55-PDT.]
I'm interested.
If the facts are as you state, then it seems to me that Toyota's liability,
according to the strict liability doctrine, is clear. I would oppose
punitive damages, but the direct damages in a case of paraplegia are
very large. If I could avoid it, I wouldn't even use the word "negligence"
or the word "stupidity". Maybe even "foreseeability" should be dropped.
An accident has occurred and the costs are to be allocated among those
whose different actions could have avoided these costs. The goal of
the rule is to motivate people to avoid such costs in the future. As
you tell the story, the victim was entirely innocent, although other
people besides car manufacturers certainly aren't and should be
allocated their share of the costs.
I don't think the state of engineering is such that an unsafe feature
of a product that can be pointed out in retrospect is necessarily
foreseeable in advance. Nevertheless, manufacturers will do better
if they have enough incentive to foresee everything they can. Is
the law sophisticated enough to separate liability from blame?
Naturally, if it could be shown that the problem was anticipated by
Toyota engineers or by their knowing of a previous accident enough
before the Celica design was finalized, negligence could come in.
As to $4 to save a life, if it means $4 for each of the (say) 40 million
cars manufactured in the world per year to save one life in ten years,
then the resulting $1.6 billion per life saved isn't worth it. Making
the cars $4 cheaper will save more lives through its effect in
causing unsafe older cars to be replaced slightly sooner.
In 1981 I did a regression of death rates by states vs. personal
income and came up with the result that every increase of personal
income by $2.5 million saved one life. The prima facie conclusion
was that safety measures were dangerous if they cost more
than $2.5 million per expected life saved. Someone repeated the
regression from a more recent Statistical Abstract of the United
States and got no such effect, but I'm not absolutely sure he
did it right.
If you have the ability to coerce people or companies to spend
money to save lives, it can be done quite cheaply. The most
cost-effective way to save lives is by public health measures in
underdeveloped countries. If you want to save middle class
American lives, this could be done for $30,000 each by improved
paramedic services.
If you can only coerce companies to spend money to save lives
in their own line of business, then my guess is that $1 million
per life saved is as far as you should go.
Let me repeat my question. Does law today distinguish between
liability and blame?
∂11-Aug-89 1659 JMC
To: ME
Remember I gave up the bike locker and gave you the key.
∂11-Aug-89 1751 JMC Dependence of counterfactuals on context
To: VAL
When I rushed off, I was groping towards the following example.
The meaning of a counterafactual condition depends on the context.
Consider ``If he had struck this match yesterday, it would have lit''.
Let the facts about the world be the same in the two contexts of
discussion. However, let there be two hearers or readers of the
sentence.
Context 1: Hearer 1 knows that the reason he wants the match to light
is that he wants to burn a certain paper so as to prevent someone
from seeing it. Yesterday the paper was in a damp vault from which
it could not be moved. Had he struck the match in the vault it would
not have lit.
Context 2: Hearer two is taking the sentence in the normal sense
of referring to the same environment where "he" is now. Yesterday
it was dry there.
In the two contexts, different approximate theories with different
Cartesian product structures are wanted.
This example can probably be improved.
∂11-Aug-89 1808 JMC re: reply from jmc
To: jun@XROADS.CC.U-TOKYO.AC.JP
[In reply to message from jun@xroads.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp sent Sat, 12 Aug 89 10:04:33 JST.]
Now I think I understand. This says that if someone did develop a direct
telephone electronic mail system, these protocols would allow it to work
in parallel with fax. That's nice.
∂12-Aug-89 1334 Mailer re: mathematical maturity in our youth
To: gds@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM, su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message from gds@spam.istc.sri.com sent 12 Aug 89 15:46:14 GMT.]
On the one hand, I think it is an exaggeration to say that mathematicians
reach their peak in their late teenage years. However, I suppose most
reach their peak analytical power in their twenties. Nevertheless,
their most important contributions may come somewhat later.
On the other hand, I think it is still possible for a teenager to
make a major contribution in math. The educational system has
never been conducive to such contributions, and in every case
the person who made such a contribution at an early age
learned what he needed to know by independent study.
Mathematics is an enormously broad subject, and some parts
of the frontier are reachable with little study. For example,
John Milnor proved his theorem on the total curvature of knots
as a college freshman, having learned about the problem in a
mathematics for they layman course. This was around 1950.
The problem had been well known for ten or fifteen years.
The new idea necessary to settle P=NP may come from a teenager.
There is a large literature, but probably most of it is irrelevant
to solving the problem.
∂13-Aug-89 2207 JMC re: Inquiry about the ELIS again
To: okuno@NTT-20.NTT.JP
[In reply to message sent 14 Aug 89 13:46:39 JST.]
My plans for new hardware are proceeding rather slowly, and I think
I had better pass up the chance to use these Elis machines. Sorry
to have put you to trouble, but I was undecided and only just
decided not to use them.
∂14-Aug-89 0029 JMC re: Inquiry about the ELIS again
To: okuno@NTT-20.NTT.JP
[In reply to message sent 14 Aug 89 15:34:14 JST.]
That's interesting. What does the Basic Research Lab do, and
what is your group now doing?
∂14-Aug-89 1131 JMC re: Appointment
To: cloutier@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 14 Aug 89 11:28:09-PDT.]
Friday at 11 will be fine. Thank you very much for arranging the change
and thank Dean Gibbons for me if he had a part in it.
∂14-Aug-89 1136 JMC re: Appointment
To: cloutier@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 14 Aug 89 11:28:09-PDT.]
Sorry. I have to go back to the original schedule, Wednesday at 10.
I forgot I have a final orals to go to at 10.
∂14-Aug-89 1225 JMC
To: LES
networ[e89,jmc]
∂14-Aug-89 1315 JMC re: Your submission to CACM.
To: pjd@RIACS.EDU
CC: jimm%acmvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from pjd@riacs.edu sent Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:29:15 pdt.]
The next message will be a TEX source for my proposed signed Viewpoint.
As you will see, there was more to say about the subject. The TEX source
should be readable as is. If you want me to remove localisms, so PlainTEX
will print it, I will. Also I'll send a paper copy when you want it.
∂14-Aug-89 1317 JMC re: Text of signed Viewpoint
To: pjd@RIACS.EDU
CC: jimm%acmvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message from pjd@riacs.edu sent Wed, 2 Aug 89 09:29:15 pdt.]
\title{ NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL---FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL}
Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless email is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be wiped out by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, edited and searched.
The reason why telefax will wipe out email is
that telefax works by using the existing telephone network
directly. To become a telefax user, it is only necessary to buy
a telefax machine for a price between \$1,000 and \$5,000
(depending on features) and to publicize one's fax number on
stationery, on business cards and in telephone directories.
Once this is done anyone in the world can communicate with you.
No politics, no complicated network addresses. Telefax is already
much more widely used than email.
Email could work the same way, but because of a
mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a special-purpose,
special-politics network the main vehicle for electronic mail, it
was combined with other network uses that require higher
bandwith and packet switching.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but two features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
isn't very serious, because other systems could always pretend to
be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the protocols.
2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have
login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system
of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and
complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting
connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are
complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the
technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose
networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though
there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no
general network.
The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
\noindent MAIL $\langle$user$\rangle$@$\langle$telephone number$\rangle$,
\noindent after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for $\langle$user$\rangle$. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside
the computer science community. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
\noindent{\bf The World of the Future}
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to--coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
\noindent {\bf What about the next 20 years of email?}
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct
mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow
mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The
computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever
characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to
use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It
mustn't require pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving
computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login.
Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and
can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted
documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to
edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there
arises a widely used standard for representing documents that
preserves editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted,
but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect
like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like
expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation
between this proposal and the various electronic communication
standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note
that the enormous effort put into these standards has not
resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as
widely usable as telefax.
∂14-Aug-89 1745 JMC re: Appointment
To: cloutier@SIERRA.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Mon 14 Aug 89 17:42:23-PDT.]
OK, please also phone my secretary, Pat Simmons, on 3-6321.
∂14-Aug-89 2023 JMC re: state of the universe
To: rick@HANAUMA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent 15 Aug 89 02:51:37 GMT.]
What is the value given for the speed of light? I want all the
decimals that are given. Is it still given a conventional value
leading to the meter being defined in terms of the second?
∂14-Aug-89 2222 Mailer re: Freedom of the press??
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 Mon, 14 Aug 1989 21:52:54 PDT.]
Should the matter ever come up, I plan to decline to be interviewed
by Janet Malcolm.
∂15-Aug-89 1000 JMC re: research interests
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Aug-89 08:46-PT.]
I'll do this in a day or two.
∂15-Aug-89 1132 JMC Please send
To: MPS
cbcl to
David Goerz, Senior Vice President
C. Itoh Company
Suite 920
1 Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, 94111
∂15-Aug-89 1149 JMC
To: CLT
I will be at IJCAI in Detroit all next week.
∂16-Aug-89 0920 JMC re: labrea account
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Aug-89 18:13-PT.]
Agreed.
∂16-Aug-89 1930 JMC re: labrea account
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 16-Aug-89 10:10-PT.]
I never got around to it.
∂17-Aug-89 1548 JMC re: Electronic Mail on Networks
To: siegman@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Wed, 16 Aug 89 13:49:29 PDT.]
Thanks, I'll do it.
∂17-Aug-89 1604 JMC your comments
To: pjd@RIACS.EDU
As you will see from below, I don't agree with most of them. However,
I have made a few changes in the text to try to explain a few things
better, especially the reference to politics. The next message
will be the revised text.
1. Your complaint seems to be with the addressing schemes and low
density of ports for email, not with email itself. Your argument
seems to be this: In the current world, there are relatively few
termini for computer networks as compared with telephones. And
when you do connect your computer to a terminus the addressing
scheme is difficult to fathom or obtaining the address is
difficult. The current practices surrounding use of telephones are
well understood and people can more easily begin to use email if it
were based on the phone network. Correct?
ans: It isn't merely that the procedures are better understood.
I understand electronic mail quite well, having used it for
20 years. However, I can now reach local contractors and
lawyers and Japanese hotels by fax.
2. What do you mean by "politics"? Do you mean the need for
negotiation among human beings and the reaching of agreements?
What's wrong with that?
ans: I prefer leaving the politics to the International
Telecommunications Union. Eligibility for membership in various
noncommercial nets has been and must be determined by politics,
because there are always marginal cases which require negotiation
and influence. For example, the inclusion of IBM on Arpanet to
several years to negotiate. Exactly what academic institutions
were eligible for ARPAnet was problematical. I bet there are
problems about what institutions are eligible for NSF's network.
This contrasts with fax. All you have to do is buy a machine.
3. The title does not describe the content very well. How about:
"The birth and death of electronic mail"? That will seduce the
reader.
ans: I prefer the present title. I am not expecting electronic
mail to die, only to be superseded for most communication that
has to be available to most organizations.
4. You refer to a mistake made by DARPA around 1970, making the
ARPANET a vehicle for electronic mail. As I understand their
intentions at the time, they were NOT trying to provide a vehicle
for electronic mail. Even as late as 1980, NSF was resisting the
idea of selling networks (e.g., CSNET) based on electronic mail
benefiting the community. Electronic mail snuck in and, I think,
surprised everyone with how much people liked it.
ans: I remember electronic mail as having been important from the
beginning of ARPAnet. Even if you're right about the history, the
mistake was in not providing a set of telephone protocols for
electronic mail.
5. The Research Internet is designed to take care of part of the
problem of proliferation of networks. No matter which network
you are connected to, the same protocols will allow you to interact
with anyone or any machine anywhere in any of the networks making
up the Internet.
ans: That is an improvement, although I don't know if any of my
troubles in reaching people have been protocol incompatibilities.
However, even if the protocols are compatible, the addresses may
still be exotic. Communication between Internet and non-research
people will be difficult, and communication with people on
commercial networks that require payment is particularly
problematical.
6. The telephone companies are interested in becoming the providers
of ubiquitous "information infrastructure". The phone jack in your
house will be the end of a fiber and will serve as a high speed
data/voice/video link, providing myriad information and communication
services. Some of them are also talking about "universal phone numbers"
which are yours and will allow your calls to reach you no matter where
in the world you are. These trends will eventually supplant today's
email and fax systems, don't you think?
ans: Very likely, if providers of preent services that will be superseded
aren't successful in preventing it by law. ``anywhere in the world''
means that an awful lot of interests may have power to prevent or
delay the millenium. I think the millenium is unlikely to be reached
in this millenium.
Please revise your commentary as you see fit based on these comments
and send the result to me with copy to Jim Maurer. Thanks. We'll
publish as early as possible during late fall.
Peter
jimm%acmvm.bitnet@forsythe.stanford.edu
Signed Viewpoint, final texless version
The following was also sent to Peter Denning, but the previous
try at mailing to you failed, because of an addressing error.
NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL - FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL
Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless email is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be supplanted by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email
is separated from special networks is that telefax works by using
the existing telephone network directly. To become a telefax
user, it is only necessary to buy a telefax machine for a price
between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features) and to
publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and
in telephone directories. Once this is done anyone in the world
can communicate with you. No complicated network addresses and
no politics to determine who is eligible to be on what network.
Telefax is already much more widely used than email, and a
Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200
target price.
Email could work the same way at similar costs, but
because of a mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a
special-purpose, special-politics network the main vehicle for
electronic mail, it was combined with other network uses that
require higher bandwith and packet switching.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but three features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
is only moderately serious, because some other systems have been
able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the
protocols.
2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have
login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system
of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and
complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting
connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free
and therefore of limited expandibility.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are
complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the
technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose
networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though
there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no
general network.
The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,
after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for <user>. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside
the computer science community. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
The World of the Future
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to-coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
What about the next 20 years of email?
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct
mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow
mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The
computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever
characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to
use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It
mustn't require pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving
computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login.
Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and
can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted
documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to
edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there
arises a widely used standard for representing documents that
preserves editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted,
but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect
like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like
expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation
between this proposal and the various electronic communication
standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note
that the enormous effort put into these standards has not
resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as
widely usable as telefax.
I am grateful for comments from many people on a version
distributed by electronic mail to various BBOARDS.
∂17-Aug-89 1619 JMC NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL - FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL
To: telecom@EECS.NWU.EDU
Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless email is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be supplanted by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email
is separated from special networks is that telefax works by using
the existing telephone network directly. To become a telefax
user, it is only necessary to buy a telefax machine for a price
between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features) and to
publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and
in telephone directories. Once this is done anyone in the world
can communicate with you. No complicated network addresses and
no politics to determine who is eligible to be on what network.
Telefax is already much more widely used than email, and a
Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200
target price.
Email could work the same way at similar costs, but
because of a mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a
special-purpose, special-politics network the main vehicle for
electronic mail, it was combined with other network uses that
require higher bandwith and packet switching.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but three features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
is only moderately serious, because some other systems have been
able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the
protocols.
2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have
login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system
of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and
complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting
connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free
and therefore of limited expandibility.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are
complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the
technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose
networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though
there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no
general network.
The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,
after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for <user>. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside
the computer science community. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
The World of the Future
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to-coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
What about the next 20 years of email?
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct
mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow
mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The
computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever
characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to
use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It
mustn't require pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving
computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login.
Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and
can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted
documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to
edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there
arises a widely used standard for representing documents that
preserves editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted,
but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect
like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like
expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation
between this proposal and the various electronic communication
standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note
that the enormous effort put into these standards has not
resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as
widely usable as telefax.
I am grateful for comments from many people on a version
distributed by electronic mail to various BBOARDS.
∂17-Aug-89 1623 Mailer Final version of Networks considered harmful.
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
This is more-or-less accepted for publication late this year in CACM.
Many thanks to everyone who commented. Some of the comments
have been incorporated.
NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL - FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL
Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless email is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be supplanted by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email
is separated from special networks is that telefax works by using
the existing telephone network directly. To become a telefax
user, it is only necessary to buy a telefax machine for a price
between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features) and to
publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and
in telephone directories. Once this is done anyone in the world
can communicate with you. No complicated network addresses and
no politics to determine who is eligible to be on what network.
Telefax is already much more widely used than email, and a
Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200
target price.
Email could work the same way at similar costs, but
because of a mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a
special-purpose, special-politics network the main vehicle for
electronic mail, it was combined with other network uses that
require higher bandwith and packet switching.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but three features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
is only moderately serious, because some other systems have been
able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the
protocols.
2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have
login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system
of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and
complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting
connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free
and therefore of limited expandibility.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are
complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the
technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose
networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though
there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no
general network.
The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,
after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for <user>. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside
the computer science community. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
The World of the Future
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to-coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
What about the next 20 years of email?
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct
mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow
mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The
computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever
characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to
use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It
mustn't require pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving
computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login.
Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and
can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted
documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to
edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there
arises a widely used standard for representing documents that
preserves editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted,
but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect
like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like
expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation
between this proposal and the various electronic communication
standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note
that the enormous effort put into these standards has not
resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as
widely usable as telefax.
I am grateful for comments from many people on a version
distributed by electronic mail to various BBOARDS.
∂17-Aug-89 1758 JMC re: failed mail returned
To: ME
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Aug-89 17:33-PT.]
Sorry, I knew that but slipped.
∂17-Aug-89 1803 JMC Signed Viewpoint, final texless version
To: jimm%acmvm.bitnet@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU
The following was also sent to Peter Denning, but the previous
try at mailing to you failed, because of an addressing error.
NETWORKS CONSIDERED HARMFUL - FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL
Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax
is more recent. However, unless email is freed from
dependence on the networks, I predict it will be supplanted by
telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over
telefax. These advantages include the fact that
information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than
as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated.
Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email
is separated from special networks is that telefax works by using
the existing telephone network directly. To become a telefax
user, it is only necessary to buy a telefax machine for a price
between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features) and to
publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and
in telephone directories. Once this is done anyone in the world
can communicate with you. No complicated network addresses and
no politics to determine who is eligible to be on what network.
Telefax is already much more widely used than email, and a
Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200
target price.
Email could work the same way at similar costs, but
because of a mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a
special-purpose, special-politics network the main vehicle for
electronic mail, it was combined with other network uses that
require higher bandwith and packet switching.
Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network,
but three features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone
Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder.
1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX
operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This
is only moderately serious, because some other systems have been
able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the
protocols.
2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have
login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system
of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and
complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting
connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail.
3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free
and therefore of limited expandibility.
There has been a proliferation of networks and message
services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them
are commercial and some of them serve various scientific
disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between
these networks require politics and often fail. When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are
complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the
technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose
networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though
there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no
general network.
The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that
the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form
of the command is just
MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,
after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.
The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is
done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender
announces that it has a message for <user>. Implementing
this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a
special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or
local area network. The former involves less hardware, but the latter
involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving
machine.
I have heard various arguments as to why integrating
electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I
could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to
simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently
than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside
the computer science community. Indeed it
is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to
have an email address when getting the forwarding connections
right seems too complicated.
The World of the Future
Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or
office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission
facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic
mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of
Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national
video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require
different communication rates and can afford different costs
to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial
messages coast-to-coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed
the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that
people are willing to pay even higher costs.
What about the next 20 years of email?
There are two kinds of problems, technical and political.
Guess which is easier.
The main technical requirement is the development of a
set of point-to-point telephone mail protocols. Any of several
existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose.
Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would
be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds.
Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be
to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct
mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow
mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The
computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever
characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to
use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It
mustn't require pre-arrangement between the sending and receiving
computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login.
Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.
Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and
can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted
documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to
edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there
arises a widely used standard for representing documents that
preserves editability.
The political problem is more difficult, because
there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system.
There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the
organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the
engineers developing protocols for the various networks.
I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have
remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother
me, kid, I'm busy.''
It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee
to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear
the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would
die from being loaded with requirements for features that
would be too expensive to realize in the near future.
Fortunately, there is free enterprise.
Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct
electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware
as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for
connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs).
The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers
of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will
obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out
their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them
back into computer form.
This is probably how the world will have to get rid of
the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.
More generally, suppose the same need can be met either
by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs
are at all close, the people who sell the product win out
over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists,
and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with
the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.
I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted,
but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect
like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like
expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place.
I must confess that I don't understand the relation
between this proposal and the various electronic communication
standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note
that the enormous effort put into these standards has not
resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as
widely usable as telefax.
I am grateful for comments from many people on a version
distributed by electronic mail to various BBOARDS.
∂17-Aug-89 1901 Mailer kicking the doves
To: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
As is their habit, the Soviets kicked the doves in the teeth.
Guess who is the first Israeli cabinet minister to visit the
Soviet Union since 1967.
∂18-Aug-89 1546 JMC re: Re -- Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: dgc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 10:47:06 PDT.]
Thanks for your comments, which, have come the day after I sent the
"final" version to CACM. You may want to write CACM a letter when
the piece appears in late Fall. Here are some responses.
1. The fact that you don't know who is paying the cost of your
call means that some organization is doing a public service by
incurring the costs. Their willingness to do so is a random
variable, and it's likely to decline if too many people take
advantage of it.
2. Indeed.
3. That's just because the piece will appear in CACM, and I wanted to
suggest some action to someone who could undertake it.
4. My information about Unix was faulty, because I'm not a
Unix system programmer or even a regular Unix user. However, I was
a surprised that I was wrong about the login point, because quite
a few Unix experts have seen the piece. I think the Unix systems
that poll and retransmit messages have something that amounts to
login privileges. Your "telnet <host> 25" did work, although none
of the three Unix users I asked had known about it, and it required
considerable experimentation. However, it won't meet the requirement
unless it can be used by telephoning the Unix system rather than
accessing it on a network and can then be packaged into a macro,
so that my proposed
mail <user>@<phone number>
will work. While I'm not a Unix user and don't know how to do
it, I suppose the packaging could be made to work if the
telephone part would work. If the telephone part would work, I
might be reduced to advocating that Unix users publicize their
Unix phone numbers and that the required macro be publicized.
Do you know whether there is a direct telephone equivalent of
"telnet <host> 25"?
∂18-Aug-89 1607 JMC re: lunch?
To: ullman@NIMBIN.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 15:36:58 PDT.]
IJCAI is next week. How about the following week? Any day.
∂18-Aug-89 1627 JMC re: research interests
To: CLT
[In reply to message rcvd 18-Aug-89 16:21-PT.]
Yes. I phoned her.
∂18-Aug-89 1700 JMC re: lunch?
To: ullman@NIMBIN.Stanford.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 16:54:52 PDT.]
Monday the 28th is fine with me. Let's make it 1230 so that my 11am
dentist is sure to clear.
∂18-Aug-89 1738 JMC re: Networks considered hamful - for email
To: OLE@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 18 Aug 89 17:27:06-PDT.]
My U.S. mail address is
Computer Science Department
Stanford, CA 94305
Please send me the copies of your magazine. It seems to me that
the article shouldn't be reprinted until it has appeared in CACM.
In any case, you will have to ask their permission.
∂18-Aug-89 1758 JMC re: Networks considered hamful - for email
To: OLE@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri 18 Aug 89 17:46:20-PDT.]
The article was first submitted to CACM. They considered it too short for
publication as anything but a letter which I had declined to do and
suggested that I lengthen it for publication as a Guest Viewpoint.
I then posted the original version on the Stanford BBOARD su-etc
and revised it in accordance with comments I received and resubmitted
it by email. It has been accepted and will be published late this
year. I then sent it, at someone's request, to Telecom digest.
Probably I will be interested in doing another version that will take
into account reactions to the original version. However, that may only
after the CACM version appears and people have reacted to it.
∂18-Aug-89 2127 JMC re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: rick@UUNET.UU.NET
[In reply to message sent Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:16:52 -0400.]
Lots of people have been correcting me, and I may get to revise
before publication. To most people, however, uucp is a mail
protocol, because they send mail to an address .uucp. I recently
learned that Unix sites on networks can be sent mail without
login using "telnet <site> 25". I don't know if a Unix
site reachable by telephone directly can be sent mail.
Do you know whether this is possible?
Someone also sent me a description of BACKMAIL that can be
used to send mail among IBM pcs, but the description brags
about the simplification achieved by limiting it to pcs.
This works only for pcs running an operating system that
can run the mail server as a background job.
∂18-Aug-89 2202 JMC re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: rick@UUNET.UU.NET
[In reply to message sent Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:37:05 -0400.]
Sorry to be ignorant. If you telephone a Unix site and it
say "login:", what do you say to it if you have no login
and want to send mail to someone who does?
∂18-Aug-89 2217 JMC re: Comments on telecom posting
To: mvac23!thomas@UDEL.EDU
[In reply to message sent Fri, 18 Aug 89 23:05:20 edt.]
Thanks for your comments. Here are some replies.
1. Costs are not reduced by relaying. Telephone charges are only
slightly dependent on distance. A cross country call at night is
only about twice a local call.
2. I had imagined that X400 was complete. Do you know in what sense it
is working towards allowing telephone numbers as adresses? I
should think that could be accomplished in one shot.
∂19-Aug-89 1038 JMC re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: ficc!peter@UUNET.UU.NET
[In reply to message sent Sat, 19 Aug 89 10:45:07 -0400.]
All the documents I have ever received by fax had been typed.
∂19-Aug-89 1526 JMC Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: LES
∂18-Aug-89 2116 rick@uunet.uu.net Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 89 21:16:12 PDT
Received: by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14)
id AB12209; Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:16:52 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:16:52 -0400
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
Message-Id: <8908190416.AB12209@uunet.uu.net>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
In-Reply-To: your article <telecom-v09i0306m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>
News-Path: wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
I dont know where you got your UUCP information but its totally wrong.
UUCP was an experimental file transfer program. It was not, nor is
it now a mail protocol. Some people happen to use it to distribute mail,
but that is not its function.
UUCP does NOT require a login. That is some people chose to set it up.
Many ATT sites run uucp without logins (with public access, not just
internally)
While you comments are reasonable in general, your specific examples
are quite flawed.
∂19-Aug-89 1527 JMC re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: LES
∂18-Aug-89 2136 rick@uunet.uu.net re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 89 21:36:24 PDT
Received: by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14)
id AA16070; Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:37:05 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:37:05 -0400
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
Message-Id: <8908190437.AA16070@uunet.uu.net>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Absolutely. A UNIX site reachable by telephone does not require a login.
Actually, a very common setup is to require a well know login "uucp" or "nuucp"
with no password.
The reason for having the login is to act as a multiplexor rather
than security. Otherwise you need to dedicate a modem/port for
incoming mail. This isnt always economically feasible (witness
the devices they sell to let you have a fax machine and a modem
onthe same line).
Your basic argument is correct, however much of your uucp example
is not somethign required by uucp, but rather something chosen
by the people installing the software. (e.g you could put
an encryption box on your fax to prevent unauthorized users. This is
similar to the login/password requirement of uucp. You could
put one of the fax/modem multiplexing devices in front of your fax.
This would be similar to having a well know login with no password.
Or, you can just start up the protocol when someone calls. This is
also possible, but fairly uncommon. I think its for cost reasons
more than anything else)
∂19-Aug-89 1527 JMC re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
To: LES
∂19-Aug-89 0904 rick@uunet.uu.net re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Received: from uunet.uu.net by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 89 09:04:41 PDT
Received: by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14)
id AA29408; Sat, 19 Aug 89 12:05:20 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 12:05:20 -0400
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
Message-Id: <8908191605.AA29408@uunet.uu.net>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
If you call a unix site and it says login, then you need to know what
they want you to say for login (usually uucp).
However, some site dont prompt you with login. They answer the
phone and expect the protocol to start up. It up to the site
how they do it.
∂19-Aug-89 1829 JMC re: Columbia (vis a vis the drug cartel) (actually lunch)
To: U.UNDERDOG@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Sat 19 Aug 89 17:38:42-PDT.]
As part of my campaign to meet some su-etc contributors in person,
would you like to have lunch with me at the Faculty Club some day,
not Monday or Friday, of the week after next, i.e. the week of
August 28? I'll be in Detroit next week and won't respond to
email.
∂20-Aug-89 1049 JMC (→22231 26-Aug-89)
To: "#___JMC.PLN[2,2]"
I will be at IJCAI till Aug 26.
∂20-Aug-89 1112 JMC
To: CLT
At school I lock the bike to the railing by the back door of MJH.