perm filename SAVED.MSG[ESS,JMC]8 blob
sn#154714 filedate 1975-04-15 generic text, type T, neo UTF8
∂15-APR-75 1758 PNT,DCL
John-You may not have got my previous msg.
If Suzuki does not accept the Res. Assoc. as sems likely,
I would like to offer it to Derek Oppen from Toronto
(we discussed this before).-David
∂15-APR-75 1713 NUM,DBL
Thanks for looking it over. We'll include your review. -- Doug
∂15-APR-75 1409 NUM,DBL
We are about to release the AI Qual syllabus. It is on file
SYL.PUB[ai,tw]. Please look it over if you have a chance today.
Thanks -- Doug
∂12-APR-75 1932 I,REF
Dear John,
Greetings. I hope you've had a pleasent journey and are enjoying
your stay in Japan.
I have decided to go to Carnegie next year. I'd like to thank you
for your help in the admissions process.
The proof is coming along fine. (i.e. I can see the light at the
end of the tunnel). If you want to talk to me about it, phone number is
967-7869, or leave me a message on the system. I realize, though, that
you're probably too busy with other things.
Good luck in Washington.
bob
∂2-APR-75 0528 network site ISI
Date: 2 APR 1975 0528-PDT
From: LICKLIDER at USC-ISI
Subject: Easter Message
To: McCarthy at SU-AI, Ernest at SU-AI, Winston at MIT-AI,
To: Newell at CMU-10A, Nilsson at SRI-AI, Amarel
cc: Licklider
The purpose of this Easter note is to bring you up to date
on a development in ARPA that concerns me greatly -- and will, I think,
also concern you. It is the continued and accelerating (as I
perceive it) tendency, on the part of the ARPA front office, to devalue
basic research and the effort to build up an advanced science/technology
base in favor of applied research and development aimed at directly
solving on an ad hoc basis some of the pressing problems of the DoD.
Let me be clear that I am strongly in favor of ARPA's contributing
maximally to the solution of pressing DoD problems. What concerns
me is that, whereas I see the main hope in the creation of new methods
and far-advanced systems based on new methods, the prevailing direction
in ARPA is to do research within the specific
contexts of military problems -- and not to do research
that does not have a military 'buyer' ready to take it over as soon as
the concept gets well formulated.
The present indications of this direct-
application-oriented trend are strong pressures form the new Director,
George Heilmeier, that IPTO 'redirect' the university AI efforts
to work on problems (vehicles) that have real DoD validity, criticisms
of the Speech Understanding and Image
Understanding programs for not being tied directly into application
projects that will be taken over and supported by the Services, strong
emphasis on Software Technology efforts that will have effects in the
short term (with strong pressure to de-emphasize longer-term research
such as that on fully automatic programming), and, in general, a
tendency to evaluate IPTO programs by asking people in the DoD offices
(which would use or preside over the use of eventual applications of
our stuff) what they think of the programs.
In the case of AI (or Intelligent Systems, IS, as the sub-
element of the IPTO program is called in local paperwork -- IS now
includes three sub-subelements: AI, Knowledge-Based Computer System
Applications, and Intelligent Terminals), the situation is complicated
by the fact that ARPA has been supporting basic research at a
rather high level for more than ten years (has spent more than
$50 million on it), and it is natural for a new director, or even an
old one, to ask, 'What have we gotten out of it in terms of improvements
in national defense?'. [Supermodern punctuation convention right
there!] Unfortunately, most people who are asked that question answer
'I don't know' or even 'nothing'. IPTO tries to establish that pushdown
lists, interactive debugging in source language, and even a
big part of time sharing came out of AI and that AI systems such as
Dendral, Mycin, and Macsyma actually do have expert-human-level
capabilities or (in some areas) better, but there is in fact a big
gulf between the perceptual sets of AI buffs and DoD administrators,
and the latter really mean, when they ask about the payoff, where are
the intelligent weapon systems? They would understand intelligent
support systems, but weapon systems dominate support systems in the
prevailing psychological space, and even the Secretary of Defense has
to work at it to get his people to realize that more is spent on
operations and maintenance than on personnel and more on personnel than
on procurement. In any event, this perceived lack of specific
payoff from $50 million is a major source of dissonance.
Needless to say, we have all been working hard to accomplish
two things:
1. To educate the new Director into a stronger appreciation
of truly advanced technology and into a realization that
the future is not to be won by making a lot of minor
technological advances and moving them immediately into the
Services. We point to time sharing and interactive computing,
systems like DENDRAL and MACSYMA, languages like LISP, the
ARPANET, highly realistic graphics with brightness
gradations, color, and kinematics, and other such exemplars
of real advances that have already been made and have had
major effects. We point to the big advances that are now in
the offing -- about which more later.
2. To improve the connections between IPTO programs and the
DoD offices that ought to know about them, appreciate them,
say good things about them, and be ready to take over and
apply their applicable outputs. There is no doubt that
IPTO is (and always has been) weak in respect of that kind of
connection with the Department of which it is a part. During
the time he was in DDR&E, George Heilmeier evidently heard
a lot of criticism of ARPA, and of IPTO in particular, from
the various DoD offices, and now he is determined to do
something about it. The fact is, we in IPTO were working
very hard to do something about it, but now we are under
strong Directoral pressure to accelerate the movement.
Many of my remarks at the recent PI Conference were related
to what I am telling you now, but I mean what I say here to be a
stronger statement of the problem and an assertion that
the problem is deeper than I then realized.
During the time since George Heilmeier arrived, we have
taken advantage of every opportunity to brief him and discuss
programs with him. He has given us a lot of time and participated
actively in the discussions. He is bright and energetic; there is
no problem about getting his attention. The problem is that the
frame of reference with which he enters the discussions is basically
quite different from the frames of reference that are
natural, comfortable, and familiar to most of us in IPTO -- and, I
think, to most of you. In my frame -- or in our frames -- it is a
fundamental axiom that computers and communications are crucially
important, that getting computers to understand natural
language and to respond to speech will have profound consequences
for the military, that the ARPANET and satellite packet communications
and ground and air radio networks are major steps forward into a new
era of command and control, that AI techniques will make it possible
to interpret satellite photographs automatically, and
that 10↑10-bit nanosec memories and 10↑12-bit microsecond memories
and 10↑15-bit millisecond memories are more desirable than gold. In
George's frame, and to a greater or lesser (I think the latter)
extent also in Alex Tachmindji's frame, none of those things is
axiomatic -- and the basic question is, who in DoD needs it and is
willing to put up some money on it now? We are trying hard to
decrease the dissonance between the frames, but we are not making
good progress. As one of my colleagues put it Friday, 'I think we are
slowly holding our own with George'.
A little over a week ago, we had our 'Apportionment Review'
in which adjustments to FY 76 funding levels were discussed. We
have not heard yet exactly what the front office's conclusions were
or will be (though we have been interactiong on the question); we
expect to have a written statement on Tuesday, along with the other
ARPA offices. My expectation is that there will be major deferrals
in all our basic research programs. But we shall
know more definitely very soon, so I'll not speculate further on that
subject. The important thing will be not so much the size of the
deferrals as whether they are defined as hedges against Congressional
fund cutting (Such deferrals are necessary because we do not yet know
what the action of the Congressional committees will be.) or as
diversions of funds from basic research (or even exploratory
development projects that do not have definite technology-transfer
routes established) into definite applications.
As I mentioned at the PI Conference, the concept of
'Silver Bullets' is important in ARPA, in George Heilmeier's view
of what ARPA should accomplish. One of his main silver-bullet areas
is underwater sound and sonar, and IPTO is in the process of 'buying
in' on the HASP Project (Ed Feigenbaum's AI approach). Another is
maintenance of vehicles with the aid of sensors and indicators that
predict needs for maintenance, and we are trying to establish the
fact that computers necessarily must play a central role in
maintenance diagnosis and prognosis. A third silver-bullet area is
Software Technology -- an all-out effort to solve DoD's software
problem(s). (This is an IPTO area, and we are working hard to formulate
it. George wants to get the Services and the software houses
into the effort, as do I, since I have embraced the basic goal of this
and see the Services and the companies that do DoD's software work
as essentially the targets (and we need to have the targets working with
and for us). An issue in ST is the degree to which AP can be kept in
the program as the main hope of achieving a really fundamental solution.
An important staffer on an important Congressional Committee seems
(still) to be set against AP and even against ST, and all the other
powers that be seem to be constitutionally against anything that won't
get finished while they are still in their present jobs.
At present, George's list of important things IPTO can do for
DoD is:
Get computers to read Morse Code in the presence of other code
and noise.
Get computers to identify/detect key words in a stream of
speech.
Develop speech-understanding systems (if there really is a
clear use for them in the military). [This is a major come-about
during the last few days. Earlier, he was very cool toward SUS.]
Solve DoD's 'Software Problem'.
Make a real contribution to Command and Control. [George is
not fully convinced about packet communications, yet, but he thinks
we may have something in there somewhere.]
Help the Tactical Technology Office do a good thing
in sonar.
[end of list]
Sadly, that list does not include some of the main items
that are on mine. It is too late on Easter evening to give my
full list, but here is one item from each of our seven
programs:
Intelligent Systems
Develop a system that will guide not-sufficiently-
trained maintenance men through the maintenance of complex equipment.
Advanced Memory Technology
Learn how to handle very large, distributed, redundant
databases.
Image Understanding
Develop automatic photointerpretation.
Climate Dynamics
Develop the basis in modeling and array computing for
evaluation of effects of major human projects/activities on climate.
[As you know, ARPA is transferring this
one to NSF -- but what I listed is more or less accomplished.]
Software Technology
Take the excessive cost, delay, and error out of software
development and maintenance.
Speech Processing
Make it possible for people to communicate with computers in
natural, continuous speech.
[Let me list a second item here.]
Achieve good-quality, natural, recognizable speech with
500 to 3000 bits per second (through commpression) so it can be
made secure for DoD communication -- and also master the handling of
speech in packet communication networks.
Integrated C↑3 Systems
Provide an integrated, coherent, secure, effective computer-
communication base of Command and Control -- i.e., an ARPANET-like
system with additional media (satellites, ground radio,
aircraft radio), security, message services, database services, and so
on, with the emphasis on integration/coherence.
[end of list]
What are we going to do about all this? Here in IPTO we are
going to continue our interaction with George and get off to a strong
start with the new Deputy Director who will be coming on board in a
couple of weeks. We are going to try to sell them our view of the
world, but we are going to be moving closer to their view, surely,
in the process. We will be pressing on you in ways not natural to
my philosophy -- not to get you to do research you do not want to do
or to make compromises you do not want to make, but to get you to see
the picture clearly as it is seen from here so you can make wise and
correct decisions. And we will be asking you, as soon as we can
arrange it, to come in and meet and try to influence the new Director
and Deputy Director. Meanwhile, we are open to advice and counsel --
indeed, need it and will appreciate it greatly.
On the positive side, let me say that a lot of the offices in
DoD and elswhere in the government have by now heard of IPTO and
are impppressed with the technology the IPTO Community
has created. There is some real support out there in the technical
offices of DoD. Also on the positive side, let me say that the IPTO
Program Managers have been doing a marvelous job. Their performance
on the second day of the Apportionment Review was superb, and George
Heilmeier realized he had really been in a session (and he acknowledged
it).
On the negative side, the fact is that we are not making as much
progress as I think necessary, and the timing in relation to my own
plans is very poor. As most of you know, I have been thinking
in terms of going back to MIT in September, and, unless, I can
get a strong candidate-successor before the new Director,
I am afraid he might take the occasion of my leaving to put
a strongly applications-oriented person into the job.
My reporting on the problem at this time is not intended to
sound a general quarters alarm; it is to make sure that you are aware
that a serious problem exists in ARPA-IPTO and demands profound
consideration by all of you. Please share this information with those
in your organizations who should ponder the matter and will respect its
sensitivity, and please call me to discuss any or all aspects of it.
I'll keep you informed as the situation develops.
[Time Lapse. Now it is Tuesday Morning.]
Yesterday afternoon, Dave Russell and I spent another hour
and a half with Heilmeier and Tachmindji. As a result, my perception
of the situation is a bit more definite. I'll add a few paragraphs
to Sunday's message (which I decided to hold until after the Monday
meeting) and send it off to you.
The 'directoral guidance' re Intelligent Systems is
now quite specific in these respects: ARPA does not want to continue
to fund the field in an open-ended stream-of-research way; it
wants to redirect most of the AI research it is funding in such a way
as to test or measure the present capability of the field to
serve real DoD application needs, and it would like to see the support
of basic research in AI either taken over by an agency such as NSF
or, at least, shared more equitably than it is now. The transition
will be handled insofar as possible to avoid damage to the field, but
the transition will be made. In some instances, contracts in the
IS area, or largely in the IS area, will be extended on a short-term
(e.g., 6 mo.) basis while redirection takes place.
Dave and I are directed to discuss with other agencies the assumption,
on their part, of a larger share of the over-all support of the
field. For the time being, the over-all IPTO IS budget is not to be
reduced, but it is necessary that the same funding level now cover
some application efforts. Definite allocations of funds within the
IS budget have not been directed, but it is clear that George is
determined to bring about the shift to application and will direct
definite allocations if he is not satisfied with IPTO's progress in
effecting the desired change in direction.
The Intelligent Terminals sub-area of IS, which is a new
sub-area, planned to be funded in FY 76, is not touched by the
direction just mentioned, and its funds are not part of the basic-
plus-applied total that is supposed to be the same in FY 76 as in FY 75.
The IT program has been planned in such a way that its application and
technology-transfer aspects are clear and definite, so it does not
come under the pressure to shift from basic to applied.
In Image Understanding, the direction is less definite, but the
pressure is strong to achieve actual applications of results in
image coding, image enhancement, and image restoration, and the
sense is that IPTO will have to determine and make the case for the
plausibility of a program in image interpretation (alias, extraction
of information from images, alias 'image understanding' in analogy
with 'speech understanding') before actually setting out on an
Image Understanding program. Again, the cost of application and
technology-transfer work will have to come out of a total budget that
is not greater than last year's.
The third basic-research area (the third of the three
IPTO Computer and Communication Sciences subelements) is Advanced
Memory Technology. It is almost wholly new in FY 76 and so does not
come under the same kind of redirectional pressure as IS and IU. The
Very Large Database Systems part of AMT is set up with strong attention
to application and technology transfer. The Advanced Memory Concepts
part has been planned as a quite-far-out program and therefore will
have philosophical problems that may translate themselves into
funding problems, but it is too early to tell just what will happen.
The AMC Program Planning Committee (Berlekamp Commitee) is going
to brief Heilmeier and others on (tentatively) April 17, and the
situation will begin to clarify itself then.
Finally (in this report of what I learned yesterday and how
it shaped my perception of what is going on), the feedback from our
Apportionment Review is going to slip a bit, and I will not know today
(as I think I indicated I would) exactly what the 'reapportionment
guidance' is.
From what I have said, you can see clearly, I think, that
we are at a watershed in the history of ARPA-IPTO. Although the
redirection is not wholly, or even to any large extent, in accord with
my own philosophy of research support, it will at least remove or
reduce the dissonance that has long characterized
the relation of the IPTO program to the DoD organizations that are
supposed to use the results of IPTO-supported R&D. At the same time,
it will introduce dissonance into the relation between IPTO and its
basic-research contractors. I am deeply concerned about my own role
in the redirection -- whether to fight it, try to contain it, or
join it wholeheartedly and try to steer it in such a way as to
wind up with a larger, stronger, more productive enterprise. I
have been about half way between the first two alternatives, but
neither the half-way-between point nor either of the first two is
really a workable position within ARPA. It has to be either leave
and fight or stay and join -- and it is clear that to adopt the former
course precipitously would have a very bad effect on the program.
And it is such an important -- in many ways, absolutely crucial --
program!
One of the next steps is to get the IS PIs to come here to talk
with George Heilmeier and Don Looft (who is the new Deputy Director,
just now coming on board). I'll be contacting some of you about that
in the near future.
Meanwhile, please let me hear from you. I need your counsel
and help.
[Another time lapse. Now it is Wednesday morning.]
Let me end this message with a proposal: what the response of
IPTO and the contractor community should be to the situation I have
described. I am sure the situation is real. I am not just in a
temporarily gloomy state. I have smoothed quite a bit, held back on
composing such a piece as this for some time, not wanting to be an
alarmist. Indeed, I would much rather talk with each of you
personally about the situation -- face to face or on the phone, so I
could react to your individual responses in real time. (I realize
that the written word is no proper medium for this kind of
communication, but there is not time for so many individual
interactions, and I think I should get on with this.) Here is
the proposal to which I invite your reaction:
IPTO should proceed promptly but deliberatlyy to construct
a new modus operandi that will provide a new basis for very significant
advances in computer and communications sciences, together with their
application to improve U.S. defense, during the next ten years.
The new game will wholeheartedly embrace the goal of bringing about
applications of new technology. It will continue the present
devotion to major scientific and technological advances (and not
devote much time or money to merely incremental improvements), but it
will devote a much larger fraction of its resources to moving the
advances into use. It will not, over a long period, be a zero-sum game.
(For a time, until it proves itself, it will have to operate with a
level or declining budget.) It will take
advantage of every demonstrated success to increase both the basic
research and the application budgets. But most of the growth will be in
the area of present lack, in computer and communication engineering and
applications, and there will be a significant shift in the center of
gravity of the contractor community. The shift will give the
university research groups an engineering arm , a marketplace,
customers, users. Several 'industrial' contractors and several
Service laboratories will be brought into the community, and maybe
one or two more of the FCRCs. (The Lincoln Laboratory is the only
'Federally Controlled Research Center' in the IPTO contractor
community in a major way.) Interaction
between the university research groups and the engineering and
application parts of the community will be real and strong. The
university people will learn more about possible DoD applications,
and there will be less basis for the belief (which exists in some
quarters) that there is an active shunning of research vehicles
that might appear to be related to DoD applications.
The interaction will strengthen the basic work because there
will be more feeback from real tests of the new ideas and because
every star needs an audience and performs best before a big and
enthusiastic one. Moreover, ideas will really start to move into
use. The presently vast gulf between how software is created in
some of the IPTO-sponsored laboratories and how it is created
in the shops that produce DoD's software will narrow. It will take
three years instead of thirty for spaghetti stacks
to get from LISP to COBOL.
In short, IPTO should correct the present imbalance, should
build up an engineering and applications wing to make the contractor
community strong and capable of meeting the challenges that are not
now being met well. This will remove the dissonance that is causing
the present trouble and will turn grumbling into appreciation. In the
process, it will do a very good thing for the basic science, which
cannot really get along playing so much to itself as it now
(allegedly and probably actually) is.
That is just a rough first cut and deals with objectives more
than with how to achieve them, but it seems best to propose
something for discussion rather than just to ask you to ponder
the situation. Please let me have your reactions soon.
Regards
Lick
-------
∂31-MAR-75 1243 RAP,MG
Subject: Request for volunteer to speak.
I havn't found anyone for the next meeting of the reasoning about
programs group yet so it probably won't be for some time.
∂11-APR-75 1037 BPM,BPM
Your name isn't on the list of blood donors I just received from the
Red Cross. I want to know if you really have donated--meaning they
screwed up somehow. If you haven't donated, I hope you can find time
to make an appointment and go in on your own. (I realize lots of
people haven't been able to because of illness, vacation, etc.)
Details about the hours for donating, the telephone number to call
for an appointment, and how to get to the Blood Center are in
DONORS.MSG[AIL,BPM].
Out of 26 who volunteered to donate in February or March, only 13
have done so. I encourage you to donate at your earliest convenience
and let me know if and when you do. Thanks.
∂26-MAR-75 1903 A,JJ
I am working for Winograd. I'll be at the lab most of tonight if you
want to talk about it. ...Jerry
∂26-MAR-75 1436 1,JB AT TTY110 1436
I am enjoying working on Ramsey's theorem; I am keeping in touch with RWW
about it. I wish you good luck in Japan!
∂26-MAR-75 1123 CYB,DBL
please try to spare a few minutes and look over the proposed syllabus for this
year's AI qual. You have a copy; also found on file SYL.PUB[AI,TW]. Thanks. -- Doug
∂26-MAR-75 1027 DOC,TOB
KRK wants to work here this summer.
He has made an intensity map for the video synthesizer as free
student labor. He impresses me as knowing what he wants and
as pretty sharp, aggressive, and competent.
WHAT DOES QUAM THINK OF HIM?
WHAT DOES HE PLAN TO DO THIS SUMMER?
He wants to work with digital hardware and hopefully servos. He
is interested in working on things which are of high priority to
us also.
WHAT ARE HIS LONG RANGE PLANS
He will go off for a year or longer to get some experience with
digital design. He may return for a PhD, or may decide that he
will gain more by working in industry without a PhD.
WHAT DOES HE GAIN OUT OF BEING HERE THIS SUMMER?
He is seeking a job which does not open up until September or so.
He wants to be in the bay area somewhat longer. He enjoys working
at the lab.
WHAT DOES HE WANT IN PAY?
He wants to work fulltime. He needs at least $350 a month. If
it were impossible to be paid full time, he would consider halftime
pay.
∂26-MAR-75 0843 1,HVA
CONgratulations and Bon Voyage. May I ask if decision has been made
on Spring Quarter salary? HVA
∂26-MAR-75 0119 2,NXL
yes, but at home. The grade sheet you have (had?) should also tell.
∂26-MAR-75 0109 2,NXL
ok. Have you turned in the grades for the incompletes in 206 - someone
was asking me again a couple of weeks ago - he said he'd talk to you.
I'll see you in 3 months if not tomorrow. Nick
∂26-MAR-75 0003 PNT,DCL (reminder)
We have a date for a quick chat late this afternoon-David.
∂24-MAR-75 2336 network site SRI
Date: 24 MAR 1975 2334-PDT
From: BOYER at SRI-AI
Subject: Nuclear Energy
To: JMC at SU-AI
I have decided that because I am so ill-informed about the
case for or against nuclear energy I would not make a
useful contribution to the deliberations of the "steering" committee
for SENSE; so I won't come to Connolly's Tues. evening.
I am sorry that it never came to pass that I gave a lecture to
your class on the theory of computation; perhaps I should have
reminded you. In any case, I would still like to give such a
presentation. Incidentally, J Moore just tonight discovered
that our theorem prover was in fact capable of proving
something, at least, about the Fibonacci function, namely
that Fib(n) is equal to cdr(f(n)) where Fib has the usual defintion
(fib (n) (cond ((zerop n) 0)((equal n 1) 1)(t (plus (fib (sub1 n))(fib (sub1
(sub1 n)))))))
and where f is the following "optimization" of fib, namely
(f (n) (cond ((zerop n) (cons 0 0))((equal n 1) (cons 0 1))(t
(cons (cdr (f (sub1 n)))(plus (car (f (sub1 n)))(cdr (f (sub1 n].
-------
∂24-MAR-75 1224 1,PAW
your flight to japan has been changed as the flight connecting to the PANAM
flight from Tokyo to Osaka sold out...you are confirmed on Northwest 9
leaving SFO at 9:30 arriving Tokyo at 4:55 on the 28th connecting in Tokyo
to Northwest 7 leaving Tokyo at 6:15pm and arriving Osaka at 7:20 pm. Will
send telegram to Takasu with change....patte
∂24-MAR-75 1032 RAP,MG
Subject: MEETING TODAY OF DISCUSSION GROUP.
At today's meeting Jim Morris will talk about joint work he and Ben
Wegbreit have been doing.
The time and place are 3:30 today in the ISHIZAKA room (S 117) of
SRI's INTERNATIONAL BUILDING.
If you can't find room to park in the visitors lot outside the
'I-building` go along Ravenswood untill Middlefield. Then take a
right along Middlefield and then take the first entrance into SRI.
Apparently there's a big car-park there.
Does anyone want to speak at the next meeting ?
∂24-MAR-75 0947 P,JRA
would you like more details?
∂24-MAR-75 0939 1,OH
ARPA RECEIVED THE PROPOSAL AND THERE IS BIG TROUBLE. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
PAY A $25 DELIVERY CHARGE. THEY WOULD NOT PAY IT AND LET US REIMBURSE THEM.
LICKLIDER SAYS HE DOES NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH MONEY. THEY WILL
GET BACK TO US TO LET US KNOW IF THE FREIGHT COMPANY WILL BILL STANFORD.
OLIVIA.
∂22-MAR-75 1239 2,BG
The most recent version of the MTC section of the ARPA proposal is
FR2B[2,BG].
∂22-MAR-75 0422 1,TAG
YES, I PUT FINISHING THE ARM ABOVE REPAIR OF THE IMLAC, WHICH IS LIKELY
TO BREAK IN SOME NEW AND INTERESTING WAY SOON AFTER IT IS REPAIRED ANYWAY. I
EXPECT TO GET IT WORKING EARLY NEXT WEEK. BY THE WAY, I FINALLY OBTAINED ALL THE
PARTS FOR MOUNTING THE LOUNGE TV ANTENNA ON ITS OWN MAST WITH A ROTOR, AND THE BILL
IS $63.92. I HAVE THE RECEIPTS IN MY OFFICE.
∂21-MAR-75 1450 DOC,AJT
GOAL.NOT[R,AJT] is a note about what I propose to do. RWW will
incorporate it in some form in the proposal, if you approve.
a.
I might think about using Geomed as a display program, just for
dramatic effect, in the assembly task mentioned.
∂19-MAR-75 2024 CAR,HPM
A new version of CRYPT which works if TTY: is specified as the input
file is available as CRYPT.FAI[HAK,HPM] if you want it. The version
on the system has been changed to it.
∂17-MAR-75 2253 network site AI
From: MINSKY@MIT-AI 03/18/75 01:52:49
Diffie asked me to write reccomendation to stanford.
I think he is first rate and should do very well.
Is there still time for letter?
∂07-MAR-75 1109 THE,AJT
I shall be glad to hear your ideas; but why are you prepared to give only
half time support during the summer when it is/has been standard practice to
give full time support? Is this because you are unhappy with what I'm doing?
If so, say so, and I will argue with you, and make invidious comparisons...
a.
p.s. one of the reasons that has decided me against staying next year
is that I really don't feel that I have been getting much (moral) support
from you of late. The way I look at it is this: I am one of the few people
who seem to take seriously the idea of tackling real-world problems using the
formalism of FOL, and as such I had expected that you would react with a
little more enthusiasm towards my efforts than you have. In some (non-self-
serving) sense I expect a little consideration for trying... I have always
had the feeling that you find my ideas banal, not to say boring.
∂19-MAR-75 1526 1,PDQ
I will need some time to tie up loose ends and find another
job before I leave. Could you suggest how much time would
be reasonable?
∂19-MAR-75 0027 S,LES
I don't have the Formal Reasoning part of the proposal.
␈ CC: jmc;rww
∂17-MAR-75 2300 DOC,TOB
Are you going to the Workshop on Cognitive
Robotics? If you are interested, it's
still open to give a keynote address.
Tm
∂17-MAR-75 0639 network site ISI
Date: 17 MAR 1975 0639-PDT
From: FIELDS at USC-ISI
Subject: KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION LANGUAGE
To: WINOGRAD at SU-AI
cc: MCCARTHY at SU-AI
THE RECENT SU-AI PROPOSAL MENTIONED AN EFFORT
ON A KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION LANGUAGE, AND GAVE A POINTER
TO AN SU-AI FILE CONTAINING A DOCUMENT. I HAVE BEEN
UNABLE TO RETRIEVE THE DOCUMENT. COULD TOU PLEASE
SEND ME SOMETHING TO READ? THANKS
BEST
CRAIG FIELDS
-------
∂17-MAR-75 0637 network site ISI
Date: 17 MAR 1975 0636-PDT
From: FIELDS at USC-ISI
Subject: TELEPHONE PROTOCOL
To: RUBIN at SU-AI
cc: MCCARTHY at SU-AI
JOHN MCCARTHY TELLS ME THAT YOU HAVE
DEVELOPED A PROTOCOL FOR LINKING COMPUTERS THAT CAN
TELEPHONE EACH OTHER AND ANSWER CALLS. THIS IS
OF GREAT INTEREST TO ME BECAUSE THAT IS PROBABLY JUST
RIGHT FOR MESSAGE TRAFFIC AMONG INTELLIGENT TERMINALS., ETC ETC.
COLD YOU SEND ME WHATEVER YOU HAVE IN WRITING?
THANKS
BEST
CRAIG FIELDS
-------
∂16-MAR-75 2053 105,SGK
Some things I might do while you are away for you to consider:
Write the Cusp document
Write an ETV manual
Design a new editor
Begin to design a PUB replacment
Continue work on ETV.
I will only comment now that I think that E is a lost cause. Any minor
improvement to E costs about 4 times as much as it should because of the
lack of organization. And in any case we need a significantly hairier
editor than E will ever be. I don't particularly advocate writing a new
editor for this system, but enough is known about the new system that we
should start thinking about its editor.
My personal plans are to stay around here for the summer if not for another
year. I don't know what I will decide to do about my education during that
time. I do want to move into a place where I have space to hack which
means that I am going to ask you for something closer to a reasonable wage
than what I am making now. It doesn't seem right that you should have to
practically support me because of random Stanford rules or whatever decided
how much you were to pay me.
∂16-MAR-75 1331 ACT,REG
Gary Morganthaller called to say that Tymshare is thinking of building a new
assembler which will handle multiple relocation counters. This feature is
necessary to handle extended addressing in the KL10 properly.
Now, FAIL already has half that feature, and with a little work it might be
improved to the extent they desire. My understanding is that if Tymeshare
wants to use FAIL and if we (meaning me) want to do this mod, then they'll
recompense us with machine "tyme". Should I pursue this?
∂16-MAR-75 1145 S,WD
Have you considered mailnet. The "letter protocol" requires a folder-stuffer
and a postage meter connected to the XGP. Th "tape protocol" requires a more
elaboratβ device for putting mag tapes into packages. This might be easier with
the IBM3850.
∂15-MAR-75 2101 network site SRI
Date: 15 MAR 1975 2058-PDT
From: BOYER at SRI-AI
To: JMC at SU-AI
Thanks for the invitation. I am planning to come.
-------
∂14-MAR-75 1610 REP,DEW
John, I have the outline of a solitaire system in SOL[REP,DEW]. It is
fully specified except for 2 disaster routines although not fully
formalized. The formalism I'm using makes it hard to express he
xx the things I want to say. I'll work on it more and have it in
better shape before long. I'm planning on leaving Wednesday for a
vacation so would like to talk to you on Monday or Tuesday. In
particular I'd like to know where to go with the solitaire thing.
I tried to simulate a game but in the middle it took about 10 minutes
per card to figure everything out and I reverted to just doing what I
thought the system would do. We won the game but the cards were
favorable. Dave
∂14-MAR-75 1613 AP,EK
Fred Moore from Homebrew Computer Club wanted me to tell you
that they are meeting here at seven on wed nite. Paul
∂12-MAR-75 1124 1,PAW
monday fine for 36,000 mile servicing a Peninsula Mazada...patte
∂12-MAR-75 1027 RAP,MG
Subject: Location of Meeting
The next meeting of the discussion group (at which Jim Morris will
describe work he's doing with Ben Wegbreit) will be in the ISHIZAKA
room (S 117) in the INTERNATIONAL BUILDING at SRI on march 24 at
3:30 pm. Coffee and cookies will be served.
∂11-MAR-75 1530 S,WD
TIDBIT: The documentation which traveled with Skylab weighed on the order of one
hundred kelos. Most of this doWmentation, primarily stowage lists, could be
replaced by a houskeeping computdr. Maybe such a system has enough in common
with a home computer that NASA could be touched for some funds.
∂11-MAR-75 1139 1,MG
Subject: Next Meeting of Program Reasoning Group.
At the next meeting Jim Morris will describe some recent work that he
and Ben Wegbreit have done. The meeting will be on march 24 at 3:30
p.m. in SRI (I'll fix up an exact room later)
∂10-MAR-75 1711 DOC,TOB
I hope that you will be coming to the
workshop on Cognitive Robotic Systems
next week, March 20-22. If you feel
like saying a few words as a keynote
speaker, that is still open.
Tom
∂10-MAR-75 1125 network site ISI
Date: 10 MAR 1975 1125-PDT
From: ABRAMSON at USC-ISI
Subject: HEART-SHER POSITION PAPER
To: DAVID-WALDEN at BBN
cc: ABBOTT at ISI, ABRAMSON, AMAREL, BERNSTEIN at BBN,
cc: BURCHFIEL at BBN, BRYAN, CERF, CHEATHAM at HARV-10,
cc: COOPER at BBN, CHI at ISI, DERTOUZOS.MAC at MIT-MULTICS,
cc: FARBER at ISI, FEIGENBAUM, FRALICK at SRI-AI, FRANK at ISI,
cc: HEART at BBN, HOLT at SRI-ARC, HUMMELL at ISI, KIRSTEIN,
cc: KLEINROCK, MAGILL at SRI-AI, JMC at SU-AI, MEDRESS at BBN,
cc: NEWELL at CMU-10A, NILSSON at SRI-ARC, OMALLEY at BBN,
cc: PIRTLE at I4-TENEX, PRATT at ISI, SALTZER at MIT-MULTICS,
cc: STOCKHAM at UTAH, SUTHERLAND at BBN,
cc: TEITELMAN at PARC-MAXC, UNCAPHER at ISI, WALKER at SRI-AI,
cc: WARSHALL at SRI-ARC, WATSON at SRI-ARC,
cc: WIENER at RAND-RCC, WINSTON at MIT-AI, WOODS at BBN,
cc: CARLSTROM at ISI, KAHN, WALKER, RUSSELL, LICKLIDER, CARLSON,
cc: FIELDS, STUBBS, BLUE
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SAN DIEGO POSITION PAPER OF MARCH 7:
WE HAVE STARTED SOME WORK ON A NARROW PROJECT WHICH IS CONTAINED
IN THE AREA DESCRIBED IN YOUR PAPER. WE HAVE BEGUN TO DO SOME
SPECULATING ABOUT USING PACKET BROADCASTING WITHIN A MULTIPROCESSOR
SYSTEM --- A PACKET BROADCASTING UNIBUS IF YOU WILL. WE HAVE ALSO
HAD SOME CONTACT WITH RAJ REDDY AND SAM FULLER AT CMU ON THIS
AND WE HOPE TO EXPAND INTO SOME JOINT WORK HERE. IN ESSENCE WE
FEEL THE CONNECTIVITY PROBLEM WITHIN A SYSTEM OF THOUSANDS OF
MICROPROCESSOR AND MICROMEMORY CHIPS MIGHT BE LOOKED AT FROM
THE POINT OF VIEW OF PACKET BROADCASTING. EACH ENTITY TO BE
CONNECTED MIGHT HAVE A MICRO-TCU, CONSISTING OF A BUFFER, MODEM AND
MICROTRANSCEIVER (ORIGINALLY RADIO, BUT WE ARE NOW TENDING TOWARD
INCOHERENT LIGHT EMITTERS SUGGESTED BY KAHN) EMITTING MICROWATTS.
AS WE SEE IT YOUR SUGGESTION IS COMPOSED OF TWO IDEAS ---
(A) PACKET SWITCHING
(B) PACKET BROADCASTING
AND THE FLEXIBILITY YOU MENTION IN PROVIDED BY THE CONNECTION FREEDOM
OF IDEA (B) MORE THAN IDEA (A). FOR A GOOD TREATMENT OF THE
DISTINCTION SEE METCALFE'S PROJECT MAC REPORT --- PACKET BROADCASTING.
SO FAR WE HAVE A ROUGH DRAFT OF THE WORK OF ONE UNDERGRADUATE ON THESE
IDEAS. IT IS RATHER UNSOPHISTICATED, BUT IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT
(18 PAGES) SEE <ALOHA>MULTI-MICRO-PROC-PAPER AT ISI.
-------
∂09-MAR-75 1650 S,WD
Ves Marinov called in connection with visa to the Soviet Union.
∂07-MAR-75 2159 105,SGK
Sorry about the SX-70. When I heard you were leaving I thought you might
want it, but hadn't had the chance to transport it or anything else I had
packed in my bag.
∂7-MAR-75 1341 network site BBNB
Date: 7 MAR 1975 1603-EDT
From: SUTHERLAND at BBN-TENEXB
Subject: more new program comments
To: abbott at ISI, abramson at ISI, amarel at ISI,
To: bernstein at BBN, burchfiel at BBN, bryan at ISI,
To: cerf at ISI, cheatham at HARV-10, cooper at BBN, chi at ISI,
To: dertouzos.mac at MIT-MULTICS, dickson at BBN,
To: farber at ISI, feigenbaum at ISI, fralick at SRI-AI,
To: frank at ISI, heart at BBN, holt at BBN, hummel at ISI,
To: kirstein at ISI, kleinrock at ISI, lebow at BBN,
To: magill at SRI-AI, marill at CCA, jmc at SU-AI,
To: medress at BBN, newell at CMU-10A, nilsson at SRI-AI,
To: norton at SRI-ARC, omalley at BBN, pirtle at I4-TENEX,
To: pratt at ISI, saltzer at MIT-MULTICS, stockham at UTAH,
To: teitelman at PARC-MAXC, uncapher at ISI, walker at SRI-AI,
To: warshall at SRI-ARC, watson at SRI-ARC, weiner at RAND-RCC,
To: winston at MIT-AI, woods at BBN, wintz-purdue at I4-TENEX,
To: licklider at BBN, carlstrom at BBN
cc: sutherland at RAND-RCC, kahn at ISI
I have made a further collection of various documents I put together
in the last year which comment on new program issues. In case anyone
wants to read them they will shortly appear as
[bbn]<documentation>new-program.thoughts
in the bbn (bbnc) documentation directory. Anyone interested can
print theH out and read.
I'm afraid that they may be somewhat rambling at times , but there
they are. Comments are welcome.
Bert Sutherland
-------
∂7-MAR-75 1217 network site BBNA
Date: 7 MAR 1975 1511-EDT
From: DAVID-WALDEN at BBN-TENEXA
To: ABBOTT at ISI, ABRAMSON at ISI, AMAREL at ISI, BERNSTEIN,
To: BURCHFIEL, BRYAN at ISI, CERF at ISI, CHEATHAM at HARV-10,
To: COOPER, CHI at ISI, DERTOUZOS.MAC at MIT-MULTICS,
To: FARBER at ISI, FEIGENBAUM at ISI, FRALICK at SRI-AI,
To: FRANK at ISI, HEART, HOLT at SRI-ARC, HUMMELL at ISI,
To: KIRSTEIN at ISI, KLEINROCK at ISI, MAGILL at SRI-AI,
To: JMC at SU-AI, MEDRESS, NEWELL at CMU-10A,
To: NILSSON at SRI-ARC, OMALLEY, PIRTLE at I4-TENEX,
To: PRATT at ISI, SALTZER at MIT-MULTICS, STOCKHAM at UTAH,
To: SUTHERLAND, TEITELMAN at PARC-MAXC, UNCAPHER at ISI,
To: WALKER at SRI-AI, WARSHALL at SRI-ARC, WATSON at SRI-ARC,
To: WIENER at RAND-RCC, WINSTON at MIT-AI, WOODS,
To: CARLSTROM at ISI, KAHN at ISI, WALKER at ISI,
To: RUSSELL at ISI, LICKLIDER at ISI, CARLSON at ISI,
To: FIELDS at ISI, STUBBS at ISI, BLUE at ISI
cc: WALDEN
Position Paper for ARPA IPTO Meeting
in San Diego, March 1975
Control and Monitoring Systems Using Packet Technology
F. Heart, L. Sher
Computer Systems Division
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
A major advantage of packet-switching technology is that
one is able to use less communications bandwidth by more effectively
multiplexing many different users over single pieces of bandwidth.
To date, the packet-switching technology has been considered mainly
in relation to communications between people and computers, computers
and computers, and people and people. There is an entirely separate
class of possible applications which effectively uses some of the
techniques learned during the development of the ARPA Network packet-
switching technology: applications for monitoring and control.
Many large and complicated systems in both the civilian and
military sectors are built with a very large number of wires, e.g.,
automobiles, ships, airplanes, and buildings. An airplane has many
miles of wire connecting all the controls and indicators with all
the actuators and all the sensors. A ship has a similar abundance of
wires. An office building uses many wires for alarm systems,
heating systems, lighting systems, etc. Whereas such wires--on the
spool--are usually inexpensive, the related costs are not. In all
cases, wires require installation, connectors, servicing provisions,
failure-mode provisions, and documentation, any or all of which may
cost much more than the wires themselves. In aircraft, additional
related costs arise from considerations of weight, reliability,
shielding from electrical noise sources, possible retrofits and
modifications, periodic reconfiguration (e.g., passengers vs. cargo),
interchangeability of the system pieces (with those in other
aircraft types), inventory of spares, etc. All such costs are
impacted if packet technology is substituted for "multiwire", and
it would appear that the impact could be made to be favorable in
almost every case.
A multiplexing scheme using packet technology has the key
attribute that it can compress a large portion of the complexity
of a monitoring and/or control system into a set of near identical
little boxes, and such boxes have been getting smaller and cheaper
at a stunning rate. Thus, one can easily imagine a set of
standardized modules, one used at each control, indicator,
actuator, or sensor. Interconnecting these modules would be a
single communications medium, using guided or unguided electro-
magnetic or acoustic energy, e.g., a wire, a coaxial cable,
a waveguide, the skin of an airplane, the electrical power line,
the hydraulic power lines, optical fibers, etc. Sensors and
controls would launch addressed packets into the communications
medium. Indicators and actuators would listen for and acknowledge
correct receipt of any packet addressed to them. Packet routing would
probably be quite different from ARPANET protocols, and all
instruments* would probably share a common communications channel,
as in the ALOHA protocols.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
*For this purpose, an instrument is any indicator, sensor, actuator,
or control.
Refinements of numerous types are possible: Sensors could
send packets at a rate suitable only for resolving changes in the
parameter sensed. (If there is no change, sensors could just send
packets periodically.) Data of low or high bandwidth, if not
needed in real time, could be time compressed or expanded as
needed in order to get into and out of the packet format. Polling
could be used in all, some, or no data transmissions. A
system could run continuously-interleaved self-diagnostics. The
communications medium could have various forms of redundancy making
it highly immune to failure. It could be optical, which would
be fully immune to electrical noise.
Adding any sending, receiving or sending/receiving element
would require a near-irreducible minimum of effort. For example,
one could easily imagine an airplane in which any of the cockpit
instruments could be plugged into any cockpit instrument location.
Except for serial vs. parallel data paths, this concept of
a packet-carrying "information bus" is not unlike the PDP-11's
Unibus, which has since been widely copied. A similar kind of
"information bus" has now been proposed by Hewlett-Packard for
industry-wide adoption, so that various instruments of different
manufacturers--and of one manufacturer--can easily be plugged
together.
Some of the interesting questions about using packet
technology for control and monitoring systems are the following:
1. What are the projected costs of the modules which
interface instruments to the packet-carrying communications medium?
2. In what kinds of applications are the costs first likely
to be acceptable?
3. Can interface modules become so standardized that one
type or a very few types could serve many users and uses?
4. In what application areas might it be reasonable to
expect this technology to transfer from the military to the
civilian sector?
We can now speculate on some of these issues.
On costs (question #1), we must make some assumptions.
First we assume a communication medium that has a useful bandwidth
of somewhere between 1Mb and 100Mb (even though for some
applications, 1Mb would be overkill). This bandwidth would
probably permit error-free intercommunications of a hundred or
so to a few thousand common kinds of instruments. An interface
module for this purpose, if built in 1975, would probably have
10 to 30 IC's and would probably cost $1000. Current trends,
however, suggest that in 5 to 10 years, one or two IC's at $10
is not unreasonable, particularly if they are not too highly
specialized. One can easily imagine this interfacing module
incorporated either in the instrument or in a connector.
On applications (question #2), one cannot avoid
spacecraft and aircraft as the most likely candidates, both having
extensive, stringent requirements and a high cost overhead per
installed wire. (But, as noted, there is a possible commonality
of parts with other monitoring and control systems, which suggests
that in more cost sensitive applications, high parts costs might
be offset by low design and development costs.) The rising
popularity of fly-by-wire techniques also bodes well for the
high damage-resistance possible in a packet-mediated control
system.
Standardization of interface modules (question #3), appears
to be limited by two primary factors, both of which may be
overcome, at least partially: (a) Different kinds of communication
media, e.g., fiber optics vs. coaxial cable, obviously require
different kinds of coupling to them. The solution here appears to
be a two-part interface module, one part which does the logic
electronically and the other part which couples energy to and from
the communications medium. (b) Applications requiring vastly
different minimum speeds of communication are easily imagined.
The solution here may be two or three different speed-families,
or possibly using a single fast family of logic modules for all
applications, slowing the bit rate (within each packet) by
suitable fast-in slow-out shift registers where necessary.
Fallout of this packet technology into civilian life
(question #4) may appear in such places as automobile traffic
control, mass transit and personal rapid transit (PRT) systems,
monitoring and control in large buildings, weather sensor arrays,
fire sensor arrays, and commercial aircraft. It is interesting
to observe that multiplexing to reduce the number of wires has
already been done in the 10-channel audio and the light switches
at each seat in a jumbo jet and has been seriously proposed and
demonstrated for automotive use by DuPont using digital multiplexing
over plastic fiber optics*.
←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←
*Design News 30 (No. 4), 34, (Feb. 17) 1975.
We suggest that now, as the needed technology is so rapidly
appearing, the use of packets for monitoring and control should be
studied. The primary issue for study is a technologic-economic mix:
What kinds of development are needed to assure early yet prudent and
economic deployment of such a capability? Other important issues
are a quantification of costs and benefits for likely areas of
application, and key technologic hurdles.
-------
∂06-MAR-75 2147 105,SGK
Is this a good time to ask you about borrowing some money for a few weeks?
I have applied for random Master Charge card.
∂06-MAR-75 1641 LSP,AJT
Now that I've committed myself to going away in September, can I be
reasonably sure that you will support me during the summer? (It's a
question of necessity rather than convenience: in the absence of that
support I shall not be able to stay during the summer).
thanks. a.
∂06-MAR-75 1356 1,ECH
Dear Pro. J. McCarthy,
Unfortunately, I have to leave your very attractive laboratory.
Thank you very much for giving me a chance to work at AI Lab., and good bye.
March 6, Eiichi Miyamoto
∂06-MAR-75 1156 1,BH
Re ACMization of DECUS paper, here are what I think are the important ideas:
1. Even programs which do not obviously need a display capability (e.g.,
SPELL) can be vastly improved by exploiting display features.
2. Display support should be built into the system at a low level in a
simple and uniform way, not programmed separately in each user program.
3. It is okay and maybe even preferable to centralize the intelligence in
the terminal system.
4. Very high baud rates make a qualitative difference in what you can do.
(e.g., WHO, NS, E)
5. 2-D display capability is intimately connected to the ability to control
multiple procedures effectively. Users need this ability.
Of these, I think the last is the most important, followed by #2. Do you
have any comments?
∂05-MAR-75 1532 LSP,AJT
reminder - committee meeting tomorrow (Thurs) 2:00 in Shepard's office:
Jordan 356
a.
∂05-MAR-75 1129 1,JB
I'd like to see you about my work for the coming quarter.
∂26-FEB-75 1034 1,MG
Is there any news about money for Dr. John Darlington to visit here?
∂04-MAR-75 0957 ACT,REG
Yes, I saw your comments to Les. I believe the revised proposal
incorporates most, if not all, of your suggestions. There are still a
couple of things I'd like to improve. Lick says essentially that ARPA
doesn't want to spend any money on operating systems "unless the need is
specific and thoroughly justified." I believe we've made a case for the
display work, because Lick himself already believes in it to some extent.
I feel the file system thing is a little shakey. I'd like to firm it up
by adding more arguments in its favor (I've already added examples of
why the present schemes are inadequate and that some of the MULTICS work
is relevant so we don't have to reinvent things) but I feel there's a
lack of conviction that the proposal is "thoroughly justified."
∂03-MAR-75 2044 ACT,REG
A draft of the revised proposal is PROP75.A[DOC,REG]. I welcome your comments.
∂03-MAR-75 1942 1,BH
In RCV, typing "C ?" or "T ?" to an option request will tell you the name
of the current output file and allow you to specify another.
∂3-MAR-75 1154 network site AI
Date: 3 MAR 1975 1457-EST
From: PHW at MIT-AI
To: jmc at SU-AI, les at SU-AI, minsky at MIT-AI
Hi,
I have not received your vote for the C&T lecture and I need them
desparately. Could you please rank the following and return via
the net immediately.
bobrow
buchanan
clowes
fikes
goldstein
green
hayes
papert
reddy
reiger
sacerdoti
sandewall
schank
siklossy
sussman
wegbreit
wilks
woods
∂03-MAR-75 0956 1,MG
Subject: Richard Waldinger talks at PARC today.
The meeting is at Xerox PARC today at 3:30 p.m. Richard will talk
about his recent work on achieving several goals simultaneously.
Mike.
P.S. We still need a volunteer for next time.
∂28-FEB-75 1119 S,WD
The proposal is LISP.PRO[WD,JMC]. I believe Patte will have left a
copy on you desk.
∂27-FEB-75 1146 L,FWH
Subject: What Richard will talk about at next discussion group meeting.
At the next meeting (3:30 on 3 mar. at PARC) Richard Waldinger will
describe his recent work on how to achieve several goals
simultaneously. He'll illustrate his methods by showing how they can
be used to generate a program for interchanging the values of two
variables.
MG
∂1-MAR-75 1711 network site SRI
Date: 1 MAR 1975 1718-PDT
From: BOYER at SRI-AI
Subject: AI FORUM - Delegate safety at IJCAI4
To: sigart at CMU-10B
cc: erik at MIT-AI, jmc at SU-AI
IJCAI4
FROM: Vesko Marinov
IMSSS, Stanford University March 1, 1975
Stanford, CA94304
The safety of the delegates to an international scientific
conference is, in my opinion, essential for the normal conduct of the
conference. Furthermore it is important for the success of a
conference that anybody qualified and wishing to attend should feel free
to do so.
I welcome the choice of Tbilisi as the site of IJCAI4, but only
under the condition that all prospective delegates should feel safe
to attend. However, there are reasons to believe that the safety of
some delegates, particularly those of East European origin, may be
jeopardized by going to Tbilisi.
Therefore I suggest that the organizing committee, including
the Soviet organizers, coordinate opinions with the Soviet authorities
and issue an oficial statement guaranteeing the safe attendance of
all delegates. I appeal for the support of the AI community in obtaining
such a guarantee.
-------
∂01-MAR-75 1706 REP,DEW
There's a finished copy of my paper on your desk. Please throw the old
one away as soon as possible since it had some errors in it thathave been corrented
. Also the last example is the most instructive one. I would like
suggestions again on what to do next. Dave
∂01-MAR-75 1320 1,ELF
I AM NOW TO DAMN SCARED TO TALK TO YOU AND IM GETTING SICK OF IT
∂28-FEB-75 1659 2,JH
My contribution to expanding news75.pro is on [2,jh]. The expanded parts
are mostly on the area of man-machine interaction. Jim
∂28-FEB-75 0615 network site ISI
Date: 28 FEB 1975 0614-PDT
From: CARLSTROM at USC-ISI
Subject: IU WORKSHOP
To: JMC at SU-AI
cc: CARLSTROM
THANKS FOR YOUR NOTE. I'VE TALKED WITH BINFOORD ON THE PHONE AND
I THINK EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE.
REGARDS,
DAVE C.
-------
∂27-FEB-75 1537 PNT,DCL
YES-MARCH 11 AND 13 ARE FINE. WHAT IS THE ROOM NO. OF YOUR CLASS?
∂27-FEB-75 0808 E,ALS
The trouble is with the MAIL-E interface in that MAIL does not pass on to E
the information that E needs. I Will look into it however and see if I can
get it fixed. ALS
∂26-FEB-75 1355 1,MG
Subject: Next meeting of discussion group
The next meeting, at which Richard Waldinger will talk, is on monday
3 march at 3:30 p.m.in PARC.
After that we run out of volunteers. Would anyone like to describe
what they have been up to lately or what their current problems
and/or unimplemented future plans are?
Mike
∂26-FEB-75 1337 THE,AJT
since you appear to be leaving on the 7th., it is essential
that you let me know whether you can make it to my committee
meeting on Wed. 6th. provisionally at 2:00. please let me know
a.
∂25-FEB-75 1631 NS,ME
I looked at the proposal again but have no suggestions.
I'll be gone till Friday night.
∂24-FEB-75 1515 THE,AJT
Hintikka can't come(aaarrrgh!) to the Thursday meeting. Other possible
times are: any day next week in the morning, or between 2 and 4. Let me
know a possibility list and I'll try to achieve a magical correlation with
other people's.
sorry about all this... arthur.
∂24-FEB-75 1211 1,QIB
TENTATIVE: A.I. SCIENCE LUNCHEON WITH LEDERBERG, FACULTY CLUB, 12:00,
MARCH 10 - MAY I CONFIRM?
∂24-FEB-75 1206 1,QIB
REMINDER: TAXI WILL PICK YOU UP AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE FACULTY
CLUB AT 1:00 TO TAKE YOU TO THE AIRPORT - 2-25 (TUESDAY).
PROF. FEIGENBAUM NEEDS A COPY OF THE LETTER ON THE ARPA PRINCIPLE
INVESTIGATORS MEETING IN MARCH.
∂24-FEB-75 1152 VCG,DCL
Were we supposed to meet today (Mon. Feb-24) to continue?
␈ CC: JMC;TOB;RWW;TW;DCL
∂23-FEB-75 2224 1,DBX
I have put a copy of my write-up on recursion to your desk. I hope it
is more or less correct now. We are going to discuss it with Richard
and Bill to-morrow and I hope we can talk on Friday, which will be my
last day here.
∂23-FEB-75 0055 S,LES
It is now Sunday Morning and I still have not received any contributions
for the ARPA PI Meeting Summary, except for one written by Brian McCune
on behalf of Cordell. I should be pissed off, but it is hard to get
worked up when this kind of performance has become standard.
I have hacked something together in ARPAPI.75 [D,LES]. It is mainly the
list of bullets that I compiled several months ago. Perhaps if you show
it to them they will be moved to write something more up-to-date.
According to the Meeting Announcement, we were supposed to send it to
FEINLER @ NIC by last Thursday. Hopefully, it will happen early this
week.
I will try to check in by phone on Tuesday, or sooner if there is a
phone at the place where we are staying.
∂21-FEB-75 1811 network site SRI
Date: 21 FEB 1975 1811-PST
From: BOYER at SRI-AI
Subject: scientism
To: jmc at SU-AI
I wonder if there is still a plan for a meeting tonight at
your house on the subject of a bay area scientism club.
-------
∂11-FEB-75 1225 1,MG
John Darlington (a collegue of Rod Burstall who's at present visiting
IBM Yorktown Heights) would like to visit Stanford and SRI in a few
months time. Richard Waldinger tells me that SRI can only offer $150
and as this won't cover the cost was wondering whether Stanford had
any money available which could be combined with the above to produce
a reasonable sum.
Mike.
∂08-FEB-75 1719 1,SGK
Call David McQueen 513-8787295 office 255-3098. Feferman has folder.
∂11-FEB-75 1231 network site ISIA
Date: 11 FEB 1975 1229-PST
From: NBS at USC-ISIA
Subject: TIMESHARING COOP
To: JMC at SU-AI
cc: NBS
DEAR DR. MCCARTHY,
IREAD A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR A TIMESHARING COOP,
AND IT SOUNDS VERY INTERESTING TO ME. THEREFORE I WOULD
BE WILLING TO AND INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT IT WITH
OTHER PEOPLE, AND IN HELPING TO SET IT UP.
I AM AN UNDERGRAD AT STANFORD, AND HAVE A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND
IN COMPUTING.
I CAN BE REACHED VIA THE FOLLOWING:
ARPA-NET NBS@ISI (PLEASE START MESSAGE WITH "FOR ED FRANK"
SLAC-TRIPLEX SUGGEST TO EHF$EA
UNCLE SAM
LETTER SINK ED FRANK
P.O BOX 2008
STANFORD, CA
MA BELL 415-321-6143
SINCERELY,
ED FRANK
-------
∂11-FEB-75 1407 DOC,TOB
There are two positive contributions by
Don Gennery. As a course project, he made
a search for calibration solution that was
successful, where Hannah had been unsuccessful
before. At SRI, he made a horizontal
rectangle bounder; JMT's opinion is that he
did a good job. That he had good ideas, was
competent and a good executor, hard worker.
Along the lines of Perkins, not a deep thinker
but reasonable and competent.
There is of course the negative information
about not working his first year here.
Tom
∂08-FEB-75 0139 100,100: sgk @ SAIL
Have invited Schroeppel & c. to stay here the nite of the 22nd. Say if OK soon pls.
∂05-FEB-75 1503 100,100: S/WD @ SAIL
I don't know if you found the note. Telco was here about the phone problem
while you were away and claims that you need an interface for you Phonemate.
∂05-FEB-75 1415 1,ELF
READ MADMAD.MAD LAST PART[1,ELF]
∂05-FEB-75 1132 1,MG
Subject: Change of time or place of meeting.
I've just discovered that the conference room at SU-AI is booked
every monday between 4:15 and 5:15. Thus either the time or place of
the next meeting of the program reasoning group must be changed. I
propose that it be moved to tuesday 18 feb. (the day after it was to
be). Please let me know if this is O.K. If it isn't maybe we could
still have the meeting on monday but at SRI or PARC?
I'll confirm the new time and place in a day or so.
Sorry about this. Mike
∂04-FEB-75 1202 P,JRA
cs206?
∂04-FEB-75 1137 1,MG
Subject: Future meetings of Program Reasoning Group.
The next meeting is in the conference room at Stanford A.I. Lab. at
3.30 p.m. on mon. 17 feb. Balint Domolki (who's visiting the A.I.
Lab. from Hungary) will talk.
The meeting following that will be at Xerox PARC at 3.30 p.m. on mon.
3 march. Richard Waldinger will talk.
The debate described in previous messages (which was conceived of by
Bob. Boyer) is to be organanised by Richard Waldinger. Further
suggestions concerning it should be sent to Richard at SRI.
Sorry about the vast list of names that non-SU-AI people have been
getting at the top of previous messages - I had no idea they were
appearing! I hope I've now found the right hack to suppress them.
If you would like to stop getting these messages, or if you know
someone who'd like to start getting them, please let me know.
Mike
∂04-FEB-75 0758 100,100: sgk @ SAIL
Heave left your camera by the imlac. I bought more film for you, and
then proceeded to take nine shots... Will get more eventually. TNX
Essay debugging is progressing despite E's efforts to drive me to the
nut house.
∂03-FEB-75 1102 THE,AJT
what do you know about the funny Schloss Laxenburg placein Vienna - can
you give me some idea of th sorts of things that they're doing, and of
your own opinion of the place. thanks. arthur
∂03-FEB-75 0951 1,MG
Subject: **** FREE COFFEE AND COOKIES ****
Today's meeting of the program reasoning group - in which J moore
will discuss the new improved LISP theorem prover - will be at
3.30 in SRI's I building room s109 (the keidan room).
************************************
* There will be FREE refreshments *
************************************
∂02-FEB-75 1839 1,PMK AT TTY106 1839
John,
Would you have some time to talk with me tomorrow? I saw you when
I came in tonight but you looked tied up, then you disappeared!
I plan to be here most of tomorrow, so if you have some free
time would you please let me know.
Thanks, Peggy
∂31-JAN-75 1354 network site ISIA
Date: 31 JAN 1975 1334-PST
From: LICKLIDER at USC-ISIA
Subject: Hieronymus
To: McCarthy at SU-AI
cc: Licklider
John, I do not know him well enough to be helpful.
He seemed bright and interesting when he was here for a short visit,
but I did not get enough of a fix on him to be sure whether I'd
want to hire him, myself, or urge you to keep him
hired.
My consideration of your proposal was interrupted by
paperwork requirements levied by the new Director and by
the need to get out several Memos Requesting ARPA Orders before
COB today. I'll get back at it shortly. I'll have to ask for
considerable sharpening of the objective structure; it now reads
as though there are a lot of miscellaneous objectives to be reached
in a year or two, but that it is not clear what roads they are on,
what major goals they are subordinate to. Also, I'll have to ask for
a major reconsideration of the equipment section, which sounds as though
it is heading for another ideosyncratic system. (I have an idea
about how to handle that, but I can't describe it now.) Sorry to
have to noodle about on the proposal. Al Blue got us an extension
to cover the time required for noodling without losing the money.
But we'll have to work pretty fast. I assume I should communicate
with LES -- with carbons to you?
Regards
Lick
-------