Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Star Wars, Computers and Doomsday Machines Message-ID: <353@pedsgd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 13:34:46 EST Article-I.D.: pedsgd.353 Posted: Tue Nov 12 13:34:46 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 21:43:30 EST References: <343@whuts.UUCP> <7800666@inmet.UUCP> <797@whuxl.UUCP> <798@whuxl.UUCP> Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 28 Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <798@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: { a bunch of stuff about computers and SDI ending with ... } >By the year 1990 is there any programmer willing to stake >the future of the world on a computer? >I think programmers should do all in their power to point out >that idea is *extremely* dangerous! > "Peace in the World, > or the World in Pieces!" > tim sevener whuxn!orb > Tim; Currently this decision is in the hands of Ronald Reagan; I think maybe I *would* prefer a comupter. Actually, as a pacifist/realist I like nuclear weapons of the MAD variety. They are frightening enough that even the powers that be are afraid they wont survive. The part that bothers me about SDI is that when Reagan says everybody will be safe, I think he means everbody *important* anyway. This is the true danger of SDI. Bob Weiler of the MAD