Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!human-nets From: human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA Newsgroups: fa.human-nets Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #53 Message-ID: <2305@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 02:59:51 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2305 Posted: Tue Oct 2 02:59:51 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 05:48:33 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 269 From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator)HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 1 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Query - E-mail to distribute telephone messages?, Computers and the Law - Unions muscling in? (2 msgs), Computers and People - Say What?, Chess - Move 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 22:56:42-PDT From: Richard Furuta Subject: Anyone using electronic mail to distribute telephone Subject: messages? To: Tops-20@SU-SCORE.ARPA, Unix-Wizards@BRL.ARPA Is anyone out there using electronic mail to distribute telephone messages? The system we use now is to write the message on a little green piece of paper which is subsequently filed for the recipient. We are interested in switching to an electronic mail based system. However, it's unfair to ask the already busy person answering telephone calls to switch to a system for message taking that will increase the workload. It seems to us that using a vanilla mail interface will increase that workload particularly since the information that comes in on the message often doesn't arrive in a linear form (e.g., the telephone number may be given before the name of the caller and each might precede the name of the intended recipient). What I hope is that someone has already solved the problem and can point me to a piece of software (preferably running on Tops-20 or on Berkeley Unix) to aid in this process. In any case, I'd be interested to hear from anyone whose organization is using electronic mail for the telephone messages with details of how it is done and how well it is working. Since the amount of information on Human-Nets and Unix-Wizards overwhelmed me long ago, I'd appreciate it if responses could be mailed directly to me. --Rick Furuta@Washington (Arpanet, CSnet) ihnp4!uw-beaver!furuta (Usenet) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Sep 84 12:49:10 EDT From: John R Ellis Subject: Re: Government on the move: Home computer use To: Mike The claim is that these moves against home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down on the computer business in which many people work at home. According to the most recent issue of National Review, the AFL-CIO considers "telecommuting" the same as "home work" in traditional manufacturing and wants to ban it. ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 1 Oct 1984 06:46:49-PDT From: taber%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Patrick St.Joseph Teahan Taber) Subject: Re: Governement on the move: Home computer use I think the case you are talking about deals with people in Vermont who are knitting ski caps at home for various large retailers. The union has been pressuring the feds for many years now to put a stop to it. So far, the feds have been smart enough to stay out of it, but with an election coming up the knitters are at a great disadvantage because they are a small number of individuals in a single state, and the unions are organized across the nation. Obviously, a union can spend more money, send more letters to more congressmen, and sway more votes than a few folks working independently out of their homes in Vermont. Politians are not usually nasty people, but they make their living by winning a popularity contest every few years decided by large groups of single-issue voters. If these individuals send letters to their respective congressfolks saying, "Stop the Vermont knitters or I won't vote for you" then there can be little question that the pols would rather put some faceless people in another state out of work, than be out of work themselvs. (Especialy given that their replacement will probably pass the law anyway.) Skillful statesmen get through issues like this by keeping legislation from getting out of committee and by distracting unions and other special interest groups with other, hopefully more generally beneficial, legislation that they want more. But time is against the knitters. Sooner or later the unions will make it more of a priority to stop independent workers. The polititians will be faced with the choice of doing something they know is wrong, and getting thrown out of office (where they might do some good later) while the wrong gets done anyway. It's a classic problem in philosophy. Probably they'll pass some sort of compensation bill for the knitters (drawn out of social security, no doubt) and close them down. The only way to stop the unions is with a larger, more organized force. There are no signs that such a force is likely to form. National Right To Work laws never get enough support to make it to the floor. The majority of individuals support the concept, but they are not motiviated to make the effort of a special interest group. This screed should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of unions. Unions have helped form our present society. You wouldn't like your life quite so much if it weren't for the gains that unions bought: the 40-hour week, paid vacation, company-paid medical insurance, the list goes on to include virtually every benefit we take for granted in high-techdom. The unions have also screwed up the economy, made poor quality a hallmark in American manufacturing and have earned the image of "thugs." I think unionism is like communism... a good theory, but difficult to translate into practice. As to unions in the computer trade, they really aren't a good fit. A union is at its best when it is protecting workers from an exploitative management. At the present, it is the skilled workers who are exploiting the companies. We don't need unions yet. When it is no longer a seller's market in the computer biz, then organization might be a better idea. Remember, most people who sit on one company's board of directors, also sit on others. It's a very small world at the top; everyone knows everyone. They have de facto organization. It's still not uncommon to hear of price-fixing and non-competitive agreements made between large companies at "secret" meetings. That's really all unions are about. Wage-fixing at the bottom of the pyramid. >>>==>PStJTT ------------------------------ Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 16:49:19-EDT From: Janet Asteroff Subject: Luddite Theory From the "No Comment" department: "What is the effect of the flat, two-dimensional, visual, and externally supplied image, and of the lifeless though florid colors of the viewing screen, on the development of the young child's own inner capacity to bring to birth living, mobile, creative images of his own? Indeed, what effect does viewing the computer screen have on the healthy development of the growing but unformed mind, brain, and body of the child?" -- Douglas Sloan Teachers College Record Summer, 1984 ------------------------------ Date: Sun Sep 30 16:02:03 1984 From: mclure@sri-prism To: ailist@sri-ai, human-nets@rutgers Subject: Delphi 15: cruncher nudges bishop The Vote Tally -------------- The winner is: 14 ... Ne8 There were 16 votes. We had a wide mixture. The group seemed to have difficulty forming a plan. Many different plans were suggested. The Machine Moves ----------------- Depth Move Time for search Nodes Machine Est 8 ply h3 6 hrs, 4 mins 2.18x10^ +4% of a pawn (P-KR3) Humans Move # Votes BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK ** 14 ... Ne8 4 ** BP ** -- BB BP BP BP 14 ... Rc8 3 BP ** -- BP -- ** -- ** 14 ... Nh5 3 ** -- ** WP BP -- ** -- 14 ... Nd7 2 -- ** -- ** WP ** BB ** 14 ... Qd7 2 ** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP 14 ... Nxe4 1 WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP ** 14 ... Qb6 1 WR -- ** -- WR -- WK -- Prestige 8-ply The machine's evaluation turned from negative to slightly positive. Apparently it likes this position somewhat but still considers the position even. The Game So Far --------------- 1. e4 (P-K4) c5 (P-QB4) 11. Be2 (B-K2) Nxe2 (NxB) 2. Nf3 (N-KB3) d6 (P-Q3) 12. Qxe2 (QxN) Be7 (B-K2) 3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O) 4. o-o (O-O) Bd7 (B-Q2) 14. Be3 (B-K3) Ne8 (N-K1) 5. c3 (P-QB3) Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3) 6. Re1 (R-K1) a6 (P-QR3) 7. Bf1 (B-KB1) e5 (P-K4) 8. d4 (P-Q4) cxd4 (PXP) 9. cxd4 (PXP) Bg4 (B-N5) 10. d5 (P-Q5) Nd4 (N-Q5) Commentary ---------- BLEE.ES@XEROX 14 ... Ne8 as 14 ... Nh5?; 15. h3 B:f3 (if 15 ... Bd7?; 16. N:e5 and white wins a pawn) 16. Q:f3 Nf6 (now we've lost the bishop pair, a tempo and the knight still blockades the f pawn and the white queen is active...) (if 16 ... g6?; 16. Bh6 Ng7; 17. g4 and black can't support f5 because the light square bishop is gone) while 14 ... Nd7?; 15. h3 Bh5; 16. g4 Bg6; and black has trouble supporting f5. I expect play to proceed: 15. h3 Bd7 16. g4 g6 17. Bh6 Ng7 18. Qd3 f5 (at last!) 19. g:f5 g:f5 JPERRY@SRI-KL In keeping with the obvious strategic plan of f5, I vote for 14...N-K1. N-Q2 looks plausible but I would rather reserve that square for another piece. SMILE@UT-SALLY 14 ... Nh5. Paves the way for f5. Other possibility is Qd7 first. Either way I believe f5 is the key (as it often is!). REM@MIT-MC I'm not much for attacking correctly, so let's prepare to double rooks: 14. ... Q-Q2 (Qd7) (It also helps a K-side attack if somebody else can work out the details.) VANGELDER@SU-SCORE 14. ... Nxe4 (vote) In spite of what the master says, White can indefinitely prevent f5 by h3, Bd7, g4. Will the computer find this after Ne8 by Black? Stronger over the board is 14 ... Nxe4. If 15. Nxe4 f5 16. N/4g5 f4 and Black regains the piece with advantage. The majority will probably not select this move, which may be just as well, as attack-by-committee could present some real problems. Nevertheless, the computer presumably saw and examined several ply on this line and it would be interesting to see what it thinks White's best defense is. An alternate line for White is 15. Nxe4 f5 16. N/4d2 e4 17. h3 Bh5 18. Bd4 Bg4!? 19. Nxe4 fxe4 20. Qxe4 Bxf3 21. gxf3 Rf4. There are many variations, but most are not decisive in 8 ply, so the computer's evaluation function would be put to the acid test. ACHEN.PA@XEROX 13 ... Nh5 (keep up the pressure) this might provoke 14 g3 Bd7, either 15 Nd2 or h4 to start a counter attack. the black is hoping to exchange the remaining knight with queen's bishop 16 ... Nf4 then maybe attempt to encircle the white with Qb6 attacking the weakside behind the pawns. (note: if 13 ... Nh5 can't 14 ... f5 for the obvious reason) Solicitation ------------ Your move, please? Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************