From steve at advocate.net Mon Aug 2 10:00:05 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:00:05 -0800 Subject: Web customer service Message-ID: <199908021604.JAA11115@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ==================== I especially liked this part - "...why are the frequently asked questions on the Web sites I frequent so frequently not the questions I frequently ask, I ask?" ==================== Customer Service Via E-Mail? There's No Simple, or Human, Answer for Your Web Site Questions Fred Barbash Washington Post 8/2/99 In my eighth-grade French class, we were asked to memorize a series of answers, so that when the teacher came around and asked us questions in French, we might know how to respond. The problem was that I rarely understood the questions, so chances were high I would flawlessly deliver an irrelevant answer. It went like this: "When does the train leave, Frederique?" "The pen is over there, Mademoiselle Morgan." I am reminded of this often when, having failed to find the desired information in the ubiquitous FAQs on a commercial Web site, I send it an electronic mail and get a response that completely misses the point of my query. Why does that happen? Because one of the World Wide Web's dirty little secrets is that there usually aren't human beings looking at incoming e-mail such as mine. Rather, the messages are examined by a computer program that purports to have "artificial intelligence," and responses are sent out based on what it thinks you want. It's ironic, because when these sites are selling ads, they call us "unique visitors" and boast about how many of us they have. And one of the great claims of e-tailing is personalization: Their software can find out everything about you, and tailor services to suit your individualized needs. As Barney says, you are special -- except when it comes to getting questions answered, at which point one size fits all. The useless FAQs (why are the frequently asked questions on the Web sites I frequent so frequently not the questions I frequently ask, I ask?) and the canned e-mails present a lesson in hubris: Only the folks in this business would figure they know what I want to know before I know I want to know it! Recently we rented a beach house in North Carolina with one of those telephones that intrudes on outgoing calls by making you sit through tape recordings directing you to overpriced phone service providers. How, I asked in an e-mail to CompuServe -- my Internet service provider -- could I work around this tape recording so it wouldn't disrupt my online experience? Surely, I thought, this company, which is now owned by America Online Inc., has dealt with travelers attempting to use the service from hotel rooms and other strange locations. Surely someone there would know the answer. The answer: Dear [my membership number; I don't even rate a name]: I am writing in response to your recent question. We are sorry [Hmmm. First "I." Now "We." A crowd has gathered], but unfortunately we do not support that ability at this time. However, we do rely on our members' feedback, and all comments submitted to us are forwarded to the appropriate department for consideration. Thank you again for voicing your concerns. Doug Member Services Come on "Doug." This isn't even close. What "ability" is "Doug" referring to? What "concerns" did I voice? I just asked a simple question, which "Doug" didn't answer. What Doug told me, getting back to my French lesson, is that the pen is over there, Monsieur. My online brokerage went the other way in response to a question I sent asking whether, if I purchased a mutual fund online, I could add to it regularly in some way without paying a commission each time, as I can if I purchase it directly from the mutual fund. The brokerage (I'm not mentioning the name because it's the only one I use and I beat up on it all the time in these pages) sent me a very long response that was roughly the entire policy and rate schedule for buying and selling stocks, options and mutual funds, essentially a restatement of the FAQs. For all the verbiage, it left my question unanswered. What the brokerage gave me was the entire train schedule, which, as it turned out, left off my train. I sent off another e-mail objecting to this non-answer and finally got the answer I was looking for. (I must admit here that I have also benefited from automated inanity. A few months ago I ordered a pair of tennis shoes online. I received a single shoe in a box. I e-mailed the company requesting the second shoe. It responded with a pair of shoes one day; a second pair another day; a third pair another day; and yes, a fourth pair on the last day. On the fifth day it rested -- or someone finally read my daily messages stating that I only wanted the missing shoe and would not pay for anything more. I swear this is true. I've got the shoes to prove it. I've not been billed, either.) The problem here, of course, is the pathetic technology of automated responses. I understand the need for it when there are many, many customers and a relative handful of employees. But all the time? And it's getting worse, not better, as the numbers of customers increase. Sky Dayton, founder and president of EarthLink Network (one of the most successful Internet service provider portals in the world) bemoaned the "technology industry's general inability to treat its customers as intelligent human beings" at a recent Internet conference I attended in California. EarthLink employs 2,300 people, with 1,600 of them providing support to customers. "Instead of seeing support as a vexing cost like other technology firms," Dayton told me in an e-mail interview, "we saw it as a competitive advantage for EarthLink, to become the one place in the world you can call any time day or night and get an intelligent HUMAN to answer your questions." I appreciate the cost and understand that not all companies, particularly mass market e-tailers, can make EarthLink's investment. Guy Jones, president and co-founder of IslandData Corp., a Carlsbad, Calif.-based Internet messaging company, estimates that the highest number of e-mails that a well-trained human can answer in a day is about 100, with a cost of $3 to $15 per message, depending on efficiency and complexity. "It's pretty simple math," he said. "Yahoo receives 500,000 e-mails a month. They'd have to have more support agents than . . . employees. The only way around this is autoresponse," which is what Jones's company specializes in. "Absolutely," Jones said, "there is a problem. There's a paradigm shift in the way customers are asking for support and companies don't yet know what to do with it." Too many, he said, are still relying excessively on FAQs. "That puts the burden on me to go find the answers. So customers are increasingly using e-mail, throwing the ball back to the company." The companies are using inadequate response tools, he said, many still relying on designating words in a question as keywords, which may or may not be terribly relevant, to trigger the sending of a canned response. For example, one technology company with which he is familiar received an e-mail about a hard drive failure with the comment that "if I don't solve this problem I'm gonna lose this job." The keyword zeroed in on was "job" and the message got routed to the company's human resources department. That's bad. Companies need more sophisticated autoresponders, he said, "natural language processing systems" that see the phrase "if I can't get this disc drive installed I lose my job" and figure out that the last four words are, for problem solving purposes, superfluous. Part of the goal of the autoresponse technology is to determine when a company doesn't "have the right answer," in canned form; when a query needs to be escalated to a human level. "The worst thing is to respond back with irrelevant information," he said. People in e-tailing boast that they've compressed everything in the life cycle of traditional businesses -- financing, growth, brand recognition -- so that everything happens faster than it ever did with traditional companies. I don't disagree. It took conventional businesses half a century to forget their manners and alienate customers. The online businesses are getting the job done in a few years. Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Tue Aug 3 08:09:24 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: $10,000,000 for community networks in Texas! Message-ID: <199908031509.IAA27084@scn.org> Just a quick reply to Kurt's note. I realize that Kurt feels very strongly about his anarchism -- that there should be no government, etc. That everything they ever do or ever would do is evil. Unfortunately I feel that this attitude is counter productive. Although I can probably construct a list as long as Kurt's about government misdeeds I question the wisdom of his splendid isolation. I believe that a democratic government (imperfect to say the least!) is the best chance that we have and we have to keep engaged with it if we have any chance for success. The big corporations certainly don't let any ideological purity prevent them from engaging with the government. (Would you like to hear NPR or another commercial station?) I honestly do believe that access to information and communication (like the Internet) is heavily skewed in favor of the rich and the white, etc. and that projects like SCN (however imperfect it may be!) will be part of any solution, if a solution is found. I can't imagine that there would be any great progress made towards providing more and better access to low-income and marginalized communities without some government involvement. I agree that working with government involves some risk, but is anything risk-freee?!? So, Kurt, I WOULD like to bring somebody up from Texas -- *not* on their dime, to talk about their work with community network funding in Texas. -- Doug > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:56:49 -0700 > From: Kurt Cockrum > To: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: $10,000,000 for community networks in Texas! > > Doug said: > >BIG things going on in Texas!! I'd like to bring Gene up here > >to talk to us at SCN about working with the state legislature. > > On his own dime, I hope. > I wish I could bring Timothy McVeigh^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H > (sorry, slip-of-the-keyboard) Molly Ivins up here to talk to us > about working with the state legislature! I'll bet she would > have some interesting things to say. > > >Texas is spending more on public infrastructure than the US > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >government TIIAP program! > > Well, to be honest, I didn't think the Panopticon-on-the-Prairie *had* > any infrastructure that wasn't part of the correctional or railroad > establishments, or to enforce things like food-disparagement laws. > Could I be wrong? (perish the thought! :) > > The idea really gives me the creeps! They aren't spending that money > because they believe in free speech, that's for sure! Control, power, > money, that makes a lot more sense. But it also makes sense here, too, > in the much more benevolent land-of-the-latte. If SCN ever gets some > government subsidy money, I would consider that the beginning of the > downward slide into NPR-dom. > > You are all following the Pacifica implosion (just as an example of > a *much* *more* *widespread* phenomenon that includes NPR as well)? > I. e. consolidation, homogenization, bland-down, professionalization, > displacement of local talent by piped-in stuff, wholesale firings of > volunteers and workers who question the status quo, censorship, strikes, > lockouts, runaway BOD's, the whole 9 yards. And this from a bunch of > cute little bunny-rabbit Clintonoid liberals and their foundation pals! > This gives serious meaning to the term "devil-bunny" :) > > Just remember, "he who has the gold makes the rules". The obvious > corollary is "he who takes the gold agrees to abide by the rules". > Or to put it another way, once you take a handout, you are *property*, > to be disposed of as the owner sees fit, even if you can still walk and > talk and proclaim your freedom and autonomy. If you *don't* take the > gold, you are still poor, but then if you proclaimed your freedom and > autonomy, you wouldn't be lying. > > I hope and pray that we have the bravery and prudence to steer clear of > any so-called "public/private partnerships". But money is a *powerful* > drug. It's *way* easier to stop smoking tobacco than it is to tighten > one's belt after having once had a money-fix. > > Turning grassroots into astroturf is easy, but it's a one-way trip. > Don't go down that road. > > Beware of the Friendly Stranger! > --kurt > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Tue Aug 3 12:16:17 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCNA Policy Statement Message-ID: * Revised SCNA Policy Statement - available for your viewing at http://www.scn.org/scna/new.policy.html. Our previous policy statement can be viewed at http://www.scn.org/scnpolicy.html. What, if any, are substantial differences between the two? They appear quite similar, the revised one seeming more polished. Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Tue Aug 3 16:14:46 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCNA Policy Statement Message-ID: <199908032314.QAA07136@scn.org> I agree with Malcolm. Can we see a file shows just the changes? Current and proposed verbiage next to each other? Thanks! -- Doug * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jw4 at scn.org Tue Aug 3 22:36:36 1999 From: jw4 at scn.org (Joel Ware IV) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WAISP Membership Update -- 8/2/99 (fwd) For Your Info Message-ID: Forwarded for your info -- SCN is a member of WAISP -- I am the designated representative from SCN. WAISP is the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers -- see their web page for more general info about the organization: http://www.waisp.org Joel Ware, IV Governance Committee jw4 at scn.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:04:05 -0700 From: Gary Gardner--Executive Director To: exec-director at waisp.org Subject: WAISP Membership Update -- 8/2/99 WAISP Membership Update 8/2/99 It has been a somewhat quiet summer so far, but we have plenty of pending issues and news. Cable Modem Issue As you no doubt have heard, the Broward County, Florida council has mandated Open Access for that community, following the lead of Portland, OR. Meanwhile, closer to home the King County Expert Review Panel has convened and started work. WAISP Board member Ralph Sims sits on the Panel, as does "retired" founding WAISP member Jeff Sterling who founded IXA. The Panel has held two meetings, and heard from the county departments responsible for cable regulation. The next two meetings will focus on fact finding and presentations from various "stake holders". I will testify for WAISP, as a member of the Pacific Northwest Open Access Coalition, along with GTE and AOL, on Tuesday 8/3. All of the Panels meetings are open to the public, held on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday's of each month in the King County Courthouse. There will be an opportunity for interested ISPs to testify in the coming weeks and we will let you know. USWest ISDN Tariff - Time to Force a WUTC Review? Several WAISP members are concerned about USWest's high price for ISDN service, especially in light of recent price reductions by Sprint United. We are investigating and considering filing for a mandatory review of USWest's ISDN tariff and will be soliciting your input directly in the coming weeks. Seattle City Zoning The Seattle City Department of Land Use has raised the issue of locating ISPs in residential areas and if there should be zoning restrictions on ISPs within the city limits. As Seattle goes, so will a lot of other cities in King County, as well as the County and other surrounding areas. We are working closely with the staff, who have raised some interesting questions. Our attorney Rich Busch has some of the zoning experts at his firm also looking into the issue. The Department expects to have a draft regulation ready for city council review in September. If you are curious as to the types of questions being asked by the staff, let me know and I'll forward you the questions, and your help in answering might be useful in developing a strategy. On Line Privacy The Washington Attorney General has appointed me to her Consumer Information Privacy workgroup. This workgroup will be meeting over the next few months to look at how information is collected and used by business - particularly "personal" information. The group was put together after numerous press reports and consumer complaints about private information being shared. (Credit card numbers etc..) In the next few days all WAISP members will get a short questionnaire from me, and your prompt reply will be quite helpful in developing our position within this Workgroup. Association Member News WAISP Founding Member and past President Troy Roper, CEO of Northwest Link has sold the company to MDM I-Net. Troy will remain as Vice President of Operations. Troy says there are no plans to change current NWL operations. Another founding WAISP member, Chris Caputo, President of Altopia Corporation, and new WAISP Board member has announced his candidacy for King County Council, District 4. He is running as a Libertarian for the seat currently held by Democrat Larry Philips. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Thu Aug 5 00:23:37 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:23:37 -0800 Subject: Access Message-ID: <199908050627.XAA15647@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes =========================== (Los Angeles Times editorial)---In 1994, then House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to post all congressional proceedings on the Internet as a way of launching what he called a "civilizational upheaval" in which "regular people in little towns"--not well-moneyed lobbyists--would manage affairs in Washington. In 1996, the representative from Georgia, swayed by the futurism of writer Alvin Toffler, helped pass the Electronic Freedom of Information Act, which required federal agencies to grant Americans prompt access to any information in their databases that could help "ensure an informed citizenry." Three years later, Gingrich's revolution, far from online, is nowhere in sight. Rather than complying with the 1996 law, most parts of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government stand in blatant violation of it. While the Supreme Court of Mongolia has its own official Web site, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't, forcing Americans to search through unofficial Web sites in hope of finding its briefs and opinions. While the Congressional Research Service makes its reports on vital issues like HMO reform instantly available online to legislators, taxpayers, who fund those studies, can get them only through the mail from their members of Congress. If you are a soldier who believes he was made ill by the military's anthrax vaccine, for example, you might want to know what was said in Tuesday's hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform, in which Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and leading scientists discussed how the government should weigh a vaccine's risks against its benefits. The full text of the hearing was available Tuesday to anyone who could afford a subscription to a private online data service. Those hoping to access such supposedly public information on the Web, however, were out of luck. The House Government Reform Committee's Web site lists transcripts from only a hodgepodge of committee hearings. The most recent transcript available at that site is from June. Today, Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to hold a press conference in which they will release a study by two Washington public-interest groups on how federal agencies have failed to comply with the 1996 law. McCain and Leahy, along with David E. Price (D-N.C.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) in the House, have introduced similar bills to require Congress to put Congressional Research Service documents online within 30 days. The measures currently are in the House and Senate rules committees. Fundamental change won't occur until national leaders like President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) call upon all government agencies to honor the letter and spirit of the 1996 law. Reforming the Congressional Research Service is only a baby step toward the revolution that legislators promised so bombastically. But it's as good a place as any to start. To Take Action: Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), chairman, House Committee on Rules, (202) 225-2305, www.house.gov/dreier, click on "Feedback" Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, (202) 224-2541, e-mail, senator at mcconnell.senate.gov Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From aki at halcyon.com Thu Aug 5 09:24:58 1999 From: aki at halcyon.com (Aki Namioka) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Access In-Reply-To: <199908050627.XAA15647@scn.org> Message-ID: I know exactly why most agencies don't put their information on the web - there are huge privacy issues and fear of inapprorpiate information getting out of control. Its a mess and hard to deal with. Government agencies do not store, maintain, nor safeguard information for public consumption. Most of their databases were created to do government business - allowing public access was not in the original spec. There are also flaws in laws that dictate what is public information - for example, in Washington State - your birth certificate is public information. Anybody in theory should be able to get a copy. Do you want this information made public for all to see? I don't. Even though this information is "public" the State will not issue a copy of the certificate unless they are somewhat confident that you have a "right" to that information (e.g. you are the individual or close relative). They are probably not going to put birth records on the internet in the near term. There are a gazillion cases like this in government data stores - unless there are better laws protecting personal privacy and defining public information I like the fact that government agencies are conservative with their information - they are at least taking stewardship a little more seriously. Thanks, Aki Helen Namioka aki at cpsr.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Thu Aug 5 10:54:45 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:54:45 -0700 Subject: Access Message-ID: <01BEDF30.EE63E160.jmabel@saltmine.com> Yeah, but Supreme Court decisions? Congressional votes? -----Original Message----- From: Aki Namioka [SMTP:aki at halcyon.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:25 AM To: Steve Cc: scn at scn.org Subject: Re: Access I know exactly why most agencies don't put their information on the web - there are huge privacy issues and fear of inapprorpiate information getting out of control. Its a mess and hard to deal with. Government agencies do not store, maintain, nor safeguard information for public consumption. Most of their databases were created to do government business - allowing public access was not in the original spec. There are also flaws in laws that dictate what is public information - for example, in Washington State - your birth certificate is public information. Anybody in theory should be able to get a copy. Do you want this information made public for all to see? I don't. Even though this information is "public" the State will not issue a copy of the certificate unless they are somewhat confident that you have a "right" to that information (e.g. you are the individual or close relative). They are probably not going to put birth records on the internet in the near term. There are a gazillion cases like this in government data stores - unless there are better laws protecting personal privacy and defining public information I like the fact that government agencies are conservative with their information - they are at least taking stewardship a little more seriously. Thanks, Aki Helen Namioka aki at cpsr.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From sharma at aa.net Thu Aug 5 13:07:34 1999 From: sharma at aa.net (Sharma) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Access In-Reply-To: <01BEDF30.EE63E160.jmabel@saltmine.com> Message-ID: To put relevant information on the internet would take a goverment task force at least 5 years to determine which information should be public. Then a new government agency would have to be created and funded, via legislation of course, so that should take a minimum of another five years. Then of course it would have to be staffed and equipped. By that time we would have gone thru several election cycles and the only people still in DC who were there at the beginning would be the lobbyists for and against this new agency and a few legislators. At this point the legislation would have been so changed that it probably would have become either the department to sell public information or the department to convice the public they do not want information. Only if it is the transcript of secret grand jury testimony about sex can it cut through the normal red tape channels and arrive on the internet quickly. And after the public did not jump the way the people who put that there hoped, the chances for other information to arrive got even slimmer. -s On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Joe Mabel wrote: > Yeah, but Supreme Court decisions? Congressional votes? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aki Namioka [SMTP:aki at halcyon.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:25 AM > To: Steve > Cc: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: Access > > I know exactly why most agencies don't put their information on the web - > there are huge privacy issues and fear of inapprorpiate information > getting out of control. Its a mess and hard to deal with. Government > agencies do not store, maintain, nor safeguard information for public > consumption. Most of their databases were created to do government > business - allowing public access was not in the original spec. There are > also flaws in laws that dictate what is public information - for example, > in Washington State - your birth certificate is public information. > Anybody in theory should be able to get a copy. Do you want this > information made public for all to see? I don't. Even though this > information is "public" the State will not issue a copy of the certificate > unless they are somewhat confident that you have a "right" to that > information (e.g. you are the individual or close relative). They are > probably not going to put birth records on the internet in the near term. > There are a gazillion cases like this in government data stores - unless > there are better laws protecting personal privacy and defining public > information I like the fact that government agencies are conservative with > their information - they are at least taking stewardship a little more > seriously. > > Thanks, > Aki Helen Namioka > aki at cpsr.org > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From aki at halcyon.com Thu Aug 5 13:38:11 1999 From: aki at halcyon.com (Aki Namioka) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Access In-Reply-To: <01BEDF30.EE63E160.jmabel@saltmine.com> Message-ID: Well the article was being critical of agencies who were not putting their information on-line. That was what I was refering to. Congressional votes and court decisions are fine with me. But they are two very different issues that the editorial was trying to blur together. On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Joe Mabel wrote: > Yeah, but Supreme Court decisions? Congressional votes? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aki Namioka [SMTP:aki at halcyon.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:25 AM > To: Steve > Cc: scn at scn.org > Subject: Re: Access > > I know exactly why most agencies don't put their information on the web - > there are huge privacy issues and fear of inapprorpiate information > getting out of control. Its a mess and hard to deal with. Government > agencies do not store, maintain, nor safeguard information for public > consumption. Most of their databases were created to do government > business - allowing public access was not in the original spec. There are > also flaws in laws that dictate what is public information - for example, > in Washington State - your birth certificate is public information. > Anybody in theory should be able to get a copy. Do you want this > information made public for all to see? I don't. Even though this > information is "public" the State will not issue a copy of the certificate > unless they are somewhat confident that you have a "right" to that > information (e.g. you are the individual or close relative). They are > probably not going to put birth records on the internet in the near term. > There are a gazillion cases like this in government data stores - unless > there are better laws protecting personal privacy and defining public > information I like the fact that government agencies are conservative with > their information - they are at least taking stewardship a little more > seriously. > > Thanks, > Aki Helen Namioka > aki at cpsr.org > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > Thanks, Aki Helen Namioka aki at cpsr.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From kv9x at scn.org Thu Aug 5 16:40:44 1999 From: kv9x at scn.org (Brian High) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 16:40:44 -0700 Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline Message-ID: <37AA20FC.57E83D93@scn.org> X-No-Archive: Yes Thursday August 5 5:05 AM ET Free Computer Network Goes Offline CLEVELAND (AP) - Cleveland Free-Net, the nation's first free community computer network, is already a victim of the Year 2000 bug. The system, which started as an electronic bulletin board in 1984 at Case Western Reserve University, is scheduled to go out of business on Oct. 1. Its operators said the system would self-destruct at year's end because the computer program written for it can't recognize the year 2000. Operators have decided to get out early. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/technology/story.html?s=v/ap/19990805/tc/free_net_demise_1.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Fri Aug 6 08:00:57 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:00:57 -0700 Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline Message-ID: <01BEDFE1.D152E920.jmabel@saltmine.com> Hard to know what to make of this. Almost seems like a hoax, or at least a partial misunderstanding, although I don't doubt Cleveland Freenet is going out of existence. Unlike our SCN, I gather they never really made the transition to the Web & they are more of a glorified BBS. Shutting that down would just be the recongnition that their software has gone from obselescent to obsolete. Still, it's bizarre that they are closing shop instead of transitioning. Must be far more to the story than this, and they are blaming the software for an institutional problem. -----Original Message----- From: Brian High [SMTP:kv9x at scn.org] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 4:41 PM To: scn at scn.org Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline X-No-Archive: Yes Thursday August 5 5:05 AM ET Free Computer Network Goes Offline CLEVELAND (AP) - Cleveland Free-Net, the nation's first free community computer network, is already a victim of the Year 2000 bug. The system, which started as an electronic bulletin board in 1984 at Case Western Reserve University, is scheduled to go out of business on Oct. 1. Its operators said the system would self-destruct at year's end because the computer program written for it can't recognize the year 2000. Operators have decided to get out early. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/technology/story.html?s=v/ap/199 90805/tc/free_net_demise_1.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Fri Aug 6 09:13:42 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: New CTCNet/Forum Telecom Policy RFP Message-ID: <199908061613.JAA02181@scn.org> FYI... Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 15:47:42 -0500 From: Peter Miller Subject: New CTCNet/Forum Telecom Policy RFP For immediate release and distribution -------------------------------------- CTCNet and the Civil Rights Forum to Distribute $70,000 to Rural Community Technology Centers for Telecommunications Policy Projects Guidelines for Third Round Applicatons Due October 8, 1999 The Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet) and the Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, as part of a grant from the Kellogg Foundation's Managing Information with Rural America (MIRA) program, are overseeing the distribution of $70,000 over the remainder of 1999. This grant program seeks to support low-income and other disenfranchised people in rural communities who have had some experience with computers and the Internet to educate their communities and advocate telecommunications policies that support technology equity and universal service. CTCNet affiliates, MIRA clusters of community teams, and other low-income center-based education and access programs are all well qualified to argue that funds and other kinds of support are important in helping this constituency become involved in communications policy decisions at the local, state, and federal levels. These CTCNet/MIRA funds are to support involvement in telecommunications policy decisions. Successful applicants will receive $1,000-$5,000 for community center-based projects involving students and participants in rural job training or literacy programs, 4-H or Boys and Girls Clubs, libraries, Indian councils, multi- service agencies, community cable access centers, health centers, community networks, or other similar efforts. Current CTCNet rural affiliates are eligible to apply for these grants, and rural programs not currently affiliated with CTCNet are encouraged to join as well as apply. Non-rural CTCNet affiliates that have a clear rural impact and/or partner will also be considered. Applications should describe a project on telecommunications policy in rural communities. A community technology center may undertake this either as a stand-alone effort or one that is integrated with an on-going program. Projects may range from public policy advocacy and grassroots organizing, to research and analysis, to efforts that build the capacity of those who are not ordinarily involved in public policy. The most recent Round 2 grant recipients are: * The National Association of Partners in Education will be developing a curriculum and inclusive community leadership teams involved with telecommunications policy in White River and the small communities surrounding Vermillion, SD. * The South Carolina State University 1890 Extension Service will be training youth to involve rural citizens in telecommunications policy through forums across the state. * The Allegany County Public Schools in western Maryland will be involving rural Appalachian residents in communications policy through a fall regional conference and outreach through area technology access centers. Previous grant recipients include: * In Covington, KY, the Media Working Group for designing a curriculum and training program for Adult Literacy students on how the state's communications policy process works, who the players are, and how to intervene and have a voice in the process. * In Las Vegas, the Rural Telecommunications Task Force for publishing a report to catalyze its work and broaden citizen participation with the state legislature's implementation of its Universal Service program. * In Blacksburg, the Virginia Cooperative Extension and the state's 4-H clubs for collaborating in running a summer computer camp on the Internet as a Civic Forum. In addition, the current issue of *The Community Technology Review* is devoted to communications policy (http://www.ctcnet.org/review99.htm) and offers a wide selection of projects that are suggestive. Applications should include: 1) a statement of the rural telecommunications policy problem to be addressed, articulating 1-2 specific telecommunications policies to provide focus for this work; 2) description of the target audience to be involved; 3) description of the project that will address this problem; 4) expected outcomes from the project; 5) description of organization's qualifications; 6) description of involvement of other partners in implementing this project; and 7) a budget summary. Successful applications will address: 1) relevancy of community problem to broader rural issues in telecommunications policy; 2) capacity of the project to educate target audience and involve them in communications policy activities; 3) technical and practical feasibility of the project; 4) effectiveness of the project in addressing the stated problem; 5) appropriateness of the match between organization and project; and 6) involvement with other community partners and constituents. Award recipients will be expected to publish final reports on their Web site within one month of the project's completion. CTCNet will provide space for any organization without a Web page of its own. Applications are limited to 1,000 words to be preceded by a project summary of no more than 100 words and may note additional material that can be found on Web sites and elsewhere. Applications should be submitted electronically to ctcnet at edc.org by October 8, 1999. Grant recipients will be announced in late fall. There will be two 800 # group teleconferences for those wishing additional information, one on Thursday, September 23 at 11:00 a.m. EST, and another on Wednesday, September 29 at 4:00 p.m. EST. If you are interested, please contact the program coordinator and indicate your preference time. For further information about these awards, see http://www.ctcnet.org/mira or contact CTCNet public policy project coordinator Peter Miller at peterm at ctcnet.org, 617/734-1910. ## * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From starsrus at scn.org Fri Aug 6 09:46:01 1999 From: starsrus at scn.org (Kenneth Applegate) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline In-Reply-To: <01BEDFE1.D152E920.jmabel@saltmine.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Joe Mabel wrote: I checked the Cleveland Freenet site, and apparently it's no hoax, althought they don't say much about. They seem to be tied closely to Case Western Reserve University, and there is a note advising faculty, staff, and students to switch over to other university services. I hope the obsolete software that doesn't do Y2K isn't named "Freeport"! Ken Applegate > Hard to know what to make of this. Almost seems like a hoax, or at least a > partial misunderstanding, although I don't doubt Cleveland Freenet is going > out of existence. Unlike our SCN, I gather they never really made the > transition to the Web & they are more of a glorified BBS. Shutting that > down would just be the recongnition that their software has gone from > obselescent to obsolete. > > Still, it's bizarre that they are closing shop instead of transitioning. > Must be far more to the story than this, and they are blaming the software > for an institutional problem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian High [SMTP:kv9x at scn.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 4:41 PM > To: scn at scn.org > Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline > > X-No-Archive: Yes > > Thursday August 5 5:05 AM ET > > Free Computer Network Goes Offline > > CLEVELAND (AP) - Cleveland Free-Net, the nation's first free > community computer network, is already a victim of the Year 2000 > bug. > > The system, which started as an electronic bulletin board in 1984 > at Case Western Reserve University, is scheduled to go out of > business on Oct. 1. Its operators said the system would self-destruct at > year's end because the computer program written for it can't recognize > the year 2000. > > Operators have decided to get out early. > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/technology/story.html?s=v/ap/199 > 90805/tc/free_net_demise_1.html > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== > * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * > Ken Applegate How do you identify astronomers from Seattle? By the windshield wipers on their telescopes! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From jmabel at saltmine.com Fri Aug 6 09:55:24 1999 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:55:24 -0700 Subject: Y2K & FreePort Message-ID: <01BEDFF1.CEA05900.jmabel@saltmine.com> OK, so I don't know the answer to this: what use is SCN still making of the Freeport software? How crucial is it in our operations? Would we be dead in the water if it has Y2K problems? If so, how much effort have we spent investigating how to solve this? JM -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Applegate [SMTP:starsrus at scn.org] Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 9:46 AM To: Joe Mabel Cc: scn at scn.org; 'helenek at microsoft.com'; 'whatever at whatever.org' Subject: RE: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline [snip] I hope the obsolete software that doesn't do Y2K isn't named "Freeport"! Ken Applegate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Fri Aug 6 23:15:21 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 23:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CFN & Y2K: Free Computer Network Goes Offline In-Reply-To: <01BEDFE1.D152E920.jmabel@saltmine.com> Message-ID: How to find out? Is there anything SCN and SCNA can gain from their experience? I'm thinking particularly in terms of institutional problems, solvable problems. Joe wrote "... Shutting that down would just be the recognition that their software has gone from obsolescent to obsolete. Still, it's bizarre that they are closing shop instead of transitioning. Must be far more to the story than this, and they are blaming the software for an institutional problem." Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Thu Aug 12 01:38:53 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 00:38:53 -0800 Subject: The keyboard Message-ID: <199908120742.AAA29436@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ====================== Defunct Keys and Odd Commands Still Bedevil Today's PC User Jennifer Lee NY Times Every time you sit down at a computer, you come into contact with an item that has been pretty much unchanged for 15 years: the keyboard. During that time -- an eon at today's technological pace -- mice have multiplied, monitors have grown and microprocessors have become exponentially more powerful. But like some awful new-wave band, the standard PC keyboard has remained mired in the early 1980's. It has not remained that way because the design is optimal -- quite the contrary. Many designers criticize the keyboard for serving a befuddling mix of obsolete needs. Of the sprawling 101 keys on the standard keyboard, a good number are either redundant, confusing or vestigial. While the Esc key often does escape, Pause seldom pauses. These days few people can articulate what SysRq is. At least Microsoft revived Print Scrn from the depths of obsolescence by using it for a screen-shot function in Windows. Perhaps one day Microsoft will find a scroll to lock for Scroll Lock. "All these old buttons on the keyboard are literally the carrying over of the original sin," said Regis Magyar, one of the designers who worked on the standard keyboard design, which was introduced by the International Business Machines Corporation in 1984. "We sort of need an exorcist to clean these keyboards out now." The illogic doesn't stop there. The keys for the comma and the period, along with keys for opening and closing parentheses and brackets, are all next to each other, but the forward slash and the backward slash are two rows away from each other. And someone should explain why the Caps Lock light is often on the opposite end of the keyboard from the Caps Lock button. Unfortunately, as engineers have realized over the years, renovating one of the most entrenched designs in computer history is nearly impossible. Few other items are used on a regular basis by as many people who have developed a skill set around it. And new keyboards must be compatible with a huge array of existing software, making the removal of keys difficult. As a result, debates over keyboards are a little like debates over the Federal budget. Everybody wants spending cuts, as long as it doesn't affect them. "People are always hesitant to take away a key, because it was there for some reason and you don't want to be the one to take it away and not have some application out there work anymore," said John Karidis, an engineer at I.B.M. The keyboard's entrenchment has become worldwide, conquering even nations that don't have primary languages based on the Roman alphabet. Japan and China, for example, have adapted to the standard keyboard, with many users finding it easier to type Romanized phonetic words on the 101-key keyboard and have the computer convert them into Chinese and Japanese characters. Keyboards constructed around the 50 Japanese "katakana" phonetic characters were too bulky compared with the standard Roman keyboards, said Izumi Kimura, a Japanese technology historian. Users showed a preference for the 101-key keyboard, with its smaller alphabet. "I personally think that the number of keys has been decisive," he said. The standard keyboard design was arrived at in a relatively arbitrary manner, a combination of legacies and historical accidents that began with the patent of the so-called Qwerty typewriter in 1878. The Qwerty layout, named for the first six letters of the top row, is the subject of much debate. The layout was designed by C. L. Sholes during the late 1860's so that typewriter hammers would not get caught on one another. A result, intended or not, was that it slowed down typists. Even now, the layout is criticized for overworking the weaker ring and pinky fingers. Alternative layouts emerged, most notably the Dvorak keyboard, which was patented in 1932 by August Dvorak and W. L. Dealey. But a number of studies have shown that it is only 6 percent to 10 percent faster than Qwerty, enough for a niche following but not enough for typists to throw out Qwerty and relearn touch-typing. Qwerty has its proponents, too. Brian Shacklel, professor emeritus of human sciences at Loughborough University in England, said that Qwerty is actually near optimal, primarily because it allows many keystrokes to be made by alternate hands. As computer keyboards evolved from typewriters, extra keys were added to accommodate the proliferation of new functions. If the "hardware wars" between marketers, engineers and accountants had worked out differently at I.B.M., Dr. Magyar said, we all might be using vertical-only Enter keys and a half-size Backspace key. "All these decisions were political and economic compromises," he said. "The bean counters didn't care how much users liked it." In spite of its flaws, the design inspired many copycats after it was introduced. "Radio Shack said if the big boys did it, we'll do it," Dr. Magyar said. "Compaq said I.B.M. must be right. So everyone copied us." Within a few years, the 101-key layout became the industry standard for PC's. Even Apple Macintoshes adopted similar keyboards, but with Command instead of Control keys and Option instead of Alt. Many of the keyboard's quirks are left over from the time when engineers had to balance the needs of older mainframes and the emerging PC's. Keys like SysRq, Pause and Break are relics from the mainframe era. Ins, Del, Home, Page Up, End and the arrow keys were all introduced for editing functions to fill out forms on mainframes. Scroll Lock and Print Screen were developed for the DOS operating system. But as software and hardware has become more sophisticated, the keyboard has remained the same. One of the great curiosities is the NumLock key, which allows users to toggle between number keys (which exist elsewhere on the keyboard) and arrow and utility keys in a single keypad area (which also exist elsewhere on the keyboard). In fact, the entire 17 keys of the number keypad make up a wholly redundant area of the keyboard. "Everyone hates NumLock," said Dr. Magyar, who noted that the number keypad was created to accommodate spreadsheets. But even as the other utilities gained independent real estate, the redundancy remained to accommodate old software. "NumLock is a dead key as far as I am concerned," Dr. Magyar said. But one constituency remains faithful to the key. "NumLock is pretty valuable to players of many first-person games like Quake," said Dan Horn, a University of Michigan graduate student who has done research on keyboard designs, "because the number pad allows users to move diagonally more easily than the dedicated arrow buttons where two key presses are necessary." Not all of the keyboard's design is arbitrary. The inverted-T format of the arrow keys was chosen for its efficiency. An analysis of typists by the Digital Equipment Corporation revealed that the most common switch between two keys was from the down-arrow key to the left-arrow key, so those keys were put next to each other, according to Michael Good, who worked on the project. "Back in the late 70's and early 80's, the arrow key functions were all over the keyboard," Good said. "Wordstar had them as control keys on the regular keyboard. Other people had them on the numeric keypad. They were arranged in squares and diamonds." Dr. Magyar caught sight of Digital's inverted-T design in a computer magazine during the early 1980's, and adopted it for the I.B.M. keyboard. As soon as I.B.M.'s standard keyboard emerged in 1984, competitors rushed to copy it. Some other keyboard designs were left trampled at the sidelines, including one developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology called Etude that included keys for many of today's commonly used functions like undo, cut, copy and paste. Though Macintosh computers originally had simpler keyboards when they were introduced in 1984, they soon offered extended keyboards that paralleled the PC 101-key model. But the relatively new Apple iMac has a streamlined keyboard. "The iMac keyboard is hugely downsized, making people both happy and sad," Amelia Morrow, a longtime Macintosh owner, said. Along the way, some additional keys have been introduced, most notably the three extra iconic keys -- two Windows keys and a menu key -- on Microsoft's Natural Keyboard, which have half-heartedly been accepted by users since their introduction in 1994. "It's hard to see why they bothered with the keys," said Richard Penn, who considers the Windows keys useless and redundant. "I think it came from a marketing goal to 'brand' the keyboard, rather than a usability goal." Many of the design pressures affecting keyboards have to do with the shrinking size of personal devices like subnotebook computers. Typically, the number pad is the first to go, then the large keys get trimmed, then the entire keyboard is shrunk. One ingenious design was I.B.M.'s butterfly-concept keyboard on the Thinkpad, which is made up of two halves that fold up when the laptop is closed. Another attempt to save space is the chordal keyboard, versions of which have appeared since the late 1980's. It has far fewer keys and takes up less space. A chordal keyboard requires simultaneous key presses for each character typed, similar to playing a musical chord on a piano. With as few as 5 keys, there are 31 chord combinations that may represent letters, numbers, words, commands or other strings. But they take a great deal more training, and are a lot less intuitive. A number of companies have made one-handed Qwerty keyboards. One-handed keyboards were first developed in conjunction with the mouse. Until voice-recognition or some other interface takes over, the keyboard will probably remain, and remain largely the same. "Because novices are flocking to computers in droves to get on the Web, there is going to be more pressure to make computers as easy to use as possible," said Horn, who uses a Dvorak keyboard. "People are comfortable with the current style of keyboard. Even if they are not good typists, they understand how the keyboard works, and can get by with hunt-and-peck strategies." Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From douglas Thu Aug 12 12:30:43 1999 From: douglas (Doug Schuler) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Looking for board members -- think about this! (i suggest...) Message-ID: <199908121930.MAA24765@scn.org> FYI A new non-profit public access TV (and other media) organization is being started. They are now looking for board members to help launch it. For more information check out http://cityofseattle.net/scan. There is a slight misprint here. It's Seattle Community Access Network. (Yes it does sound a *bit* like Seattle Community Network...) -- doug Seattle Community Network Acces c/o Office of Cable Communications City of Seattle Central Building Room 442 810 3rd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Volunteer Program Cordinator Natalie-Pascale Boisseau Phone: (206) 684-0252 E-mail:[12][LINK] Call for Application Seattle Community Access Network (SCAN) is inviting dynamic citizens to apply for a position of initial Board Director. SCAN is a new community organization created for the purpose of operating and developing public access television and other medias in one or more access center(s) in the greater Seattle metropolitain area and participating jurisdictions in King County. The City of Seattle and the cable company TCI -initial designated access manager-, are working towards shifting the management of public access television to SCAN by the beginning of the year 2000. Sufficient operational funding, provided by TCI, will be granted to the newly formed nonprofit organization in exchange for its services, through a contract with the City of Seattle. SCAN will request a tax exempt status from the IRS that will allow new sources of funding and donations for additional programs and activities. Formation of First Board of Directors Prospective board members should hold a broad vision for the potential and development of community access television and new media.They should have proven skills to govern the existing public access television center, ensuring the smoothest transfer as possible to the newly formed organization. Applicants must also have strong skills and experience in the implementation and management of a nonprofit organization at a start-up stage. The initial Board of Directors will consist of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 13 persons who will represent the racial, ethnic, geographic, social and economic diversity of the residents of the City of Seattle. The Board will also represent the broad base of community interests as reflected in the variety of non-profit organizations and institutions serving the City of Seattle, and will represent producers, and persons with knowledge, expertise and specific skills which will benefit the corporation. Term of Office: Half of the initial Board of Directors will serve a two-year term, and the other half will serve an initial one-year term. Elected members may serve a maximum of 6 consecutive years. Board members are not compensated. They serve on a volunteer basis. Time Commitment: Board members generally will give between 3 to 8 hours per month to the organization for Board and committee work. Board members will be expected to attend several activities during the year, as needed and established by the Board of Directors and the management of public access, including Board Orientation and Planning retreats. The initial Board of Directors will determine standing committees once it is active. Process and procedures: The initial Board members will be appointed by the organizational core group of citizens and formed in the beginning of fall 1999. Fill and send the application with an updated resume and a cover letter describing why you qualify as a Board member and what you can contribute before: August 31, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Aug 14 12:59:48 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 11:59:48 -0800 Subject: Links Message-ID: <199908141903.MAA28054@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ======================= "Deep linking" lawsuits threaten everything that makes the Web work right. Scott Rosenberg Salon.com Links are the Web's essence and its genius. Every public Web page's URL, its address, is available to all; we can point any Web page to any other. That's why the Web keeps growing -- and everyone from Yahoo to you can slice new paths through its vastness and recombine its pieces in new ways. In 1999 this is almost too obvious to restate in intelligent company, right? That isn't stopping a still small but growing list of companies from contending that certain kinds of links are actually illegal. Go ahead and link to our sites, they're saying, but only if you link the way we tell you to. Otherwise, you'll hear from our lawyers. Ticketmaster started all this back in 1997. Miffed after Microsoft's Sidewalk sites started linking directly to its ticket sales pages rather than to its home page or "front door," the ticketing giant -- which had a deal with Sidewalk competitor CitySearch -- sued Microsoft. (The companies settled in February.) Since then, Ticketmaster merged its online operations with CitySearch, and that company swallowed up Microsoft's city guide. This new, engorged Ticketmaster is now at it again: It has sued Tickets.com, complaining that the rival firm is bypassing its home page and linking directly to "inside" pages. (The suit also alleges that Tickets.com stole Ticketmaster content and provided inaccurate information on the availability of Ticketmaster tickets.) In a similar case, Universal Studios recently sent its lawyers after the proprietor of a site called Movie-List, which compiles links to online movie trailers, demanding that he stop linking to the movie previews the studio posts on its own sites. The operator of the site put up a page compiling his correspondence with Universal's lawyers and his own Internet service provider -- which, among other things, complained to him that he was not a "registered search engine," whatever that is. The practice that bugs Ticketmaster and Universal has become known -- in what sounds like some sort of homage to both Watergate and the porn industry -- as "deep linking." That term carries some sinister overtones, but in truth "deep linking" comes naturally on the Web: I've already done it several times in this story, linking "deep" into other sites' content and file structure. That serves you, the reader, a lot better than telling you to go to Wired News or the New York Times' home pages and search for "Ticketmaster AND lawsuits" to find the articles I'm referring to. I did that work for you already; you just have to follow my "deep link." Ticketmaster argues that since it sells ads on its home page, "deep links" hurt its business by bypassing those ads -- so it maintains that if you want to "deep link" to its site, you have to negotiate a deal with it first. According to Ticketmaster, I guess, this link is illegal: If I want to send you to where you can buy tickets to a Tom Petty concert next weekend, I'd better do it Ticketmaster's way, or not at all. Of course, there are ads on that Tom Petty ticket page, too. And you'd think that Ticketmaster -- which, after all, is in the business of selling tickets -- would welcome the additional Web traffic and business generated by "deep linkers," whoever they might be. Similarly, Universal posts trailers to its movies on the Web because, presumably, it wants as many people as possible to see them. If Movie-List sends more people its way, why complain? Web site operators who don't want anyone to link to them -- or who want to limit visitors to some preselected group -- always have the option of building a gate in front of their pages, an authentication routine that checks to make sure that the visitor is a registered user. But outside of sites that charge subscription fees for access, such schemes are rare on the Web, for good reason: From the early days of HotWired -- which originally required visitors to register for access -- to the present, Web sites have learned the hard way that users tend to go away when they hit any kind of barrier. And the Web business remains a numbers game, so why hobble yourself? The most successful companies online understand that the more people who link to you, the better. Amazon.com's associates program, which lets any Web site that points visitors to Amazon's bookstore collect a small slice of the sale, is the embodiment of this principle -- but you don't need to sign up with anyone or get permission to link "deep" to any page in Amazon's catalog you choose. Objectors to "deep linking," like Ticketmaster and Universal, want to have their Web businesses both ways: They put their services and content out on the public Web to attract users, but they also expect to be able to control every facet of how those users access their services and content. They want their pages to be openly available to individual visitors but not to other sites -- a division rendered nearly impossible by the very technical structure of the Web. Of course, what software can't do, maybe the courts can accomplish. Right now there is no legal precedent to establish either the "right to link" or, alternately, a Web site's right to prohibit links. Sooner or later, though, one of these disputes will wind up in court. I'd like to think that would be a good thing, and that the legal system would understand and honor the Web's essential openness, while leaving room for the law to crack down on truly parasitical behavior (like one site's "framing" another's content with its own ads). But it's just as likely that we'll end up with a decision that extends special privileges to some kinds of commercial Web sites and declares certain kinds of linking to be verboten. If that happens, the consequences could be grim. As it is, we've only barely scratched the surface of the new kinds of communication that the Web might enable. Linking today remains primitive; we need new elaborations of the Web's interface and underlying protocols that allow, for instance, links to contain more information -- so that they become less like unmarked doorways and more like well-mapped paths. But if we are headed for a climate in which every Web author needs to check with every link target before putting up a page, then forget such innovation; forget new services and search sites, forget the continued growth of Web use. Instead, consider the morass of confusion we will enter: If "deep linking" becomes regulated or illegal, who do the rules apply to? All Web sites or just "big commercial" Web sites? Who would draw that line? What about individual users -- is "deep bookmarking" to become a problem too? How about passing around a "deep link" on a mailing list? Let's pray for some deep sanity to prevail here, or we will find ourselves in deep, uh, trouble. Copyright c 1999 Salon.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Mon Aug 16 17:40:32 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:40:32 -0800 Subject: The good stuff Message-ID: <199908170553.WAA29918@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ==================== Enthusiasts Are Scouring the Web to Find 'Antique' Software Victoria Shannon WA Post 8/16/99 How can anything be an "antique" in a world that's only about 20 years old? In the personal computer world, which runs on a clock that ticks millions of times per second, it's pretty easy. And these days, its inhabitants are showing some nostalgia for the good old days of the '70s and '80s. It's old software they're after -- programs that just aren't made any more, applications that have been retired for any number of reasons. They have become outmoded, perhaps, or their companies have died or been bought up, or they can't run on today's machines. Pair that demand with the Internet, and voila, you have a market for antique software. This new wave of reminiscence started last month when Dan Bricklin, coauthor of the classic but long-dead spreadsheet program VisiCalc, posted a working version of it on his Web site (www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm). For the youngsters among us, VisiCalc came out in 1979 for the Apple II computer and a couple of years later for IBM PCs, and its ease and functionality almost single-handedly created the personal computer market. In other words, it was wildly popular. But it was discontinued by Lotus Development Corp. when the company bought VisiCalc's developer firm in 1985; Lotus, after all, already had a fine-selling spreadsheet, 1-2-3. But now VisiCalc's back: In July, Bricklin put up the 1981 DOS version as part of his site cataloguing the history of the program. In just the past couple of weeks, early versions of Borland's Turbo Pascal and Turbo C programming applications and the More outlining software, all from the early '80s, have hit the World Wide Web. (The More software is available at www.outliners.com; the Borland software is available at http://community. borland.com/museum/; click on 'Anonymous' to enter the site.) The Internet's wildfire way of spreading the word has fueled the rest. What's the draw to programs that have failed? It's due in part to a nostalgic fondness for childhood toys. We learned on these programs, and laughed and cried over them; just seeing these old pals again gives us a warm feeling. But many people would argue the tug is more than emotional. Some of these old-timers are essential tools for opening old data files. And many of them seem better than today's multi-featured applications, which are powerful but overextended pieces of programming that always do far more than the task you bought them for. They take up huge amounts of disk space and memory. The 1981 VisiCalc just posted takes up 28 kilobytes on a hard drive! Case closed. Even if you like today's apps better, you may not own the latest, greatest, fastest personal computers that you need to run them. Thus, when a Web site for Macintosh news posted some publicity about the release of the More software, there was an outpouring from readers looking for Cricket Graph, or Multiplan, or the ChipWits game, or MacWrite, or bragging about how their 10-year-old calendar program still worked better than anything out today. Even without the latest push started by VisiCalc, the Web already held a lot of old software, most of it shareware; the commercial applications still belong to their companies or creators, and search engines will turn them up. A lot of DOS programs, for example, can be found at http://oak. oakland.edu/simtel.net/msdos/ index-msdos.html. Some old Mac software is archived at www.geocities.com/ SiliconValley/Hills/6629/old.html. There's also something called the Software Museum on a personal home page in Amsterdam, but it just catalogues the names of disk contents and doesn't provide the programs themselves. You'll need to be a hard-core fan of nostalgia to enjoy it. Programs include IBM PC DOS 1.10, Microsoft Multiplan 1.2 and Microsoft Word 1.1. A couple of years ago, Sun Microsystems Inc. launched a "project rescue" to issue software that would help keep 486 machines up to speed on the Web. The idea was to sell speedy Java engines that could work on DOS without Windows 3.1. But there appears to be little evidence of it today on Sun's mammoth Web site. There are also a few bricks-and-mortar retail stores that sell out-of-print software; B&R Computer Services in San Diego is often mentioned for Macs. Community computer user groups also tend to have a selection. It's real easy to get teary-eyed over this old stuff. But at the same time, we shouldn't forget that a lot of programs have become historical footnotes for a good reason -- they were dogs. If you go looking for them, be discriminating. c Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Wed Aug 18 09:11:12 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:11:12 -0800 Subject: ISP immunity Message-ID: <199908181515.IAA28626@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ===================== AOL Case Will Test ISP Liability Rafer Guzman The Wall Street Journal The Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments next month in a case that pits the victim of a child pornographer against Internet provider America Online Inc. The suit involves a South Florida schoolteacher who videotaped himself molesting an 11-year-old boy and then used an AOL chat room to arrange mailing the tape to another pedophile. The schoolteacher, arrested in 1995, is serving time for sexual-battery and child-pornography charges. But the victim's mother, referred to in court records as Jane Doe, is suing AOL, the world's largest Internet service provider, for $8 million on her son's behalf. On a broader level, the case tests a federal law designed to provide immunity for Internet service providers. AOL's lawyers argue that Internet service providers are not responsible for material transmitted by their subscribers according to the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. But Ms. Doe's lawyer counters that Florida law holds providers liable, and that the laws in the federal act do not to apply to this case. "AOL knew or should have known that this activity was occurring and did nothing to stop it," says Ms. Doe's lawyer, West Palm Beach attorney Brian Smith. "We're suing them for aiding and abetting the distribution of child pornography." AOL, based in Dulles, Va., would not discuss details of the case. But Randall Boe, the company's associate general counsel, says previous rulings bolster AOL's case. "Courts have uniformly decided that Internet service providers are not legally responsible for content that they don't create." It's been a losing battle for Ms. Doe so far. A West Palm Beach trial court dismissed the case in 1997, ruling that there was no legal basis for her claim. She appealed, but last October the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach upheld the dismissal. However, the court requested that the Florida Supreme Court hear attorneys' arguments. The fact that the state Supreme Court agreed "opens up the possibility" of different interpretations of the laws, says Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, who teaches media law at the University of Florida in Gainesville. If the Supreme Court dismisses the suit, she says, "it's just going to be another in the line of cases that give broad immunity to Internet service providers." But, she adds: "If they don't, it will be a landmark case." Perhaps the most crucial question is whether or not the federal law providing immunity to providers preempts the state law that holds them liable. The state Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1986, established well before the federal Communications Decency Act, states that "it is unlawful for any owner or operator of a computer online service, Internet service or local bulletin board service knowingly to permit a subscriber to utilize the service" to distribute child pornography. Ms. Doe's attorney, Mr. Smith, says the statute should apply to AOL in this case. But some lawyers say the state law won't hold up against the federal Communications Decency Act, section 230 of which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider." Fred Cate, professor of law at Indiana University in Bloomington, says Congress wrote that section expressly to reverse a 1995 case in which White Plains, N.Y.-based Internet service provider Prodigy Communications Corp. was held liable for a defamatory message posted on one of its bulletin boards. (Ironically, Prodigy was held liable because its policy of screening and editing messages led the court to decide that the company was assuming responsibility for the content on its service.) With the Communications Decency Act, Mr. Cate explains, "Congress said, 'It shouldn't be that way. You will not be liable if you accidentally miss something.'" The Prodigy ruling has since been overturned. Another case testing the Communications Decency Act arose in 1997, when a subscriber sued AOL for not removing a defamatory message even after he alerted the company to its existence. But, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the court found in favor of AOL. The "clear legislative intent" of that law, says Mr. Cate, "was to make Internet providers immune for the content that they did not originate." However, the West Palm Beach case "is the first of which I'm aware that involves something other than defamation," says Mr. Cate. The fact that a pornographic videotape of Jane Doe's son was "distributed on AOL further contributed to the already tremendous harm to this child." Mr. Smith says he plans to present that argument to the state Supreme Court. "Ours is a criminal-conduct case that Section 230 was never intended to provide" immunity for, he says. "I think it was intended to be limited to certain situations like defamation, not criminal conduct." If the state Supreme Court agrees, Florida's statue holding service providers responsible for child pornography on their services may be applied to AOL. Ms. Lidski at University of Florida says Mr. Smith's argument may have merit. She says she was initially "surprised with the vehemence" of the courts that in the past few years have granted "almost total immunity to Internet service providers' based on the Communications Decency Act. "I don't think that reading was mandated by the statute itself," she says. "I think it could have been interpreted more narrowly." But David Wasserman, a Winter Park attorney who has handled a number of Internet pornography cases, disagrees. "If you impose responsibility on" AOL, he says, "how about the telephone company? How about the U.S. Postal Service?" Internet service providers can't be held responsible for their millions of subscribers and perhaps billions of messages, says Mr. Wasserman. "To police them, they'd need millions of police." Mr. Cate suggests that if the state Supreme Court decides that Florida law supersedes federal law in this case, the question for AOL will be, "What did AOL know and how did it know it? And how did it behave? What AOL is going to be hoping for is that it didn't know much." Mr. Cate says it's more than likely that the state Supreme Court will rule that state law prevails. "It would not surprise me if, throughout the chain of Florida courts, the statute is upheld," he says, though he adds that a federal court is just as likely to strike the statute down. Mr. Smith says other arguments are available to him. For one, he says, even if the Communications Decency Act does hold AOL immune from liability for its content, the law did not go into effect until after the man who molested Jane Doe's son began discussing the videotape via AOL. "At the time this guy was doing the marketing of the videotape, Section 230 wasn't in existence," says Mr. Smith. "I'm saying [the Communications Decency Act] shouldn't even apply to us, because it's not a retroactive statute." Mr. Cate says the most important question is whether the Florida Supreme Court will allow Mr. Smith's suit to go to trial and raise the question of how the state interprets the federal Communications Decency Act. It "doesn't seem right," he says, "that AOL should be able to profit from delivering content yet enjoy immunity for that content." But, he adds, "If there's no immunity, then they're out of business. There's not a lot of middle ground here." Copyright c 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb615 at scn.org Wed Aug 18 09:11:58 1999 From: bb615 at scn.org (Rod Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Free Computer Stuff on August 21 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:56:00 -0700 From: LOCKT INTRODUCTION I'll be having a general-to-SCN giveaway, as I am now officially awash in extra monitors, keyboards, and odd bits of software. Rich, Mel, Steve: if you could get the following up on an SCN bulletin board, I'd appreciate it. FREE Working used VGA and SVGA monitors, keyboards, heavyweight printers and a plethora of odds and ends of hardware and software. Mostly PC, some Mac. Not for newbies, as you will need to know what you're looking for and at. There will be an area where you can plug in equipment to see if it works. Please note that we rent space in a warehouse and that the folks there are not prepared to answer techncial questions, nor are they prepared for you to stop by before 1:00 on the day of the "garage sale". Call Ti Locke at 206/443-4860 if you have questions. Saturday, August 21 CAMP/ROPE Warehouse 2615 S. Jackson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bg658 at scn.org Wed Aug 18 18:31:29 1999 From: bg658 at scn.org (SCN User) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MIME formats Message-ID: <199908190131.SAA21729@scn.org> To operator(s) What is being done at SCN regarding MIME format E-mail postings being incompatible with Freeport/PINE mail? It is getting annoying trying to decipher some of the postings arriving recently. Thanks, Steve M * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Fri Aug 20 09:36:27 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:36:27 -0800 Subject: The good ol' days - part 3 Message-ID: <199908201540.IAA15619@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ==================== At This Rate, Imagine How Much Dell Would Pay for an Old Abacus By RODNEY HO Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL On Oct. 9, 1976, John C. Shepard walked into Chicago Computer Store and paid $1,330.35 for a MITS Altair 8800b, one of the first commercially available personal computers. Little did he know he would still be using the clunky, 50-pound machine 23 years later. "It's worked like a champ, so why throw it away?" he says. The 49-year-old patent attorney beat 208 other entrants to win Dell Computer Corp.'s search for the oldest PC in use by a small business. The prize: $15,000 in new computer equipment. Let others progress to the swiftest and most powerful. Mr. Shepard, of Winnetka, Ill., remains linked to his relic, which lacks a modem, hard drive and mouse. Mr. Shepard had flipped on his Altair once or twice a week to print out forms for wills, patents and real estate. "There's no easy way to convert them over," he says. And he uses it for word processing. "I only type so fast, and it still keeps up with me," he notes. He owns a Pentium-chip computer for e-mail and Internet work, but that by no means dims his love for his Altair. With all the levers and blinking lights on the old Altair, a black and blue box about the size of a small file cabinet, Mr. Shepard says with affection, "it looks 'Star Trek'-ish, the way a computer should look." He adds, "You want to see things happening." When he purchased it, the machine lacked such basics as a monitor or memory. Or a keyboard. Those bells and whistles he added the next year. But it wasn't really useful for his business until 1981, when he purchased a $3,100 letter-quality printer from the future founder of U.S. Robotics, Casey Cowell. Mr. Shepard says the Altair saved him from hiring a full-time secretary, since he could quickly print forms that "looked like someone put a lot of effort into it." He thinks this makes up for the fact that he spent $10,000 over the years upgrading his Altair, "a bottomless pit for money." Ed Roberts, the Altair inventor who is now a rural doctor in Georgia, says he's glad someone else is still using his creation. He himself works on a Dell these days. "I like to try new stuff," he says. "I don't spend much time looking back." An Altair sits in his office only for show. In exchange for Dell's prize, Mr. Shepard will relinquish his Altair to the Computer Museum of America, a nonprofit organization in La Mesa, Calif. "If it weren't for this contest," he says, "I'd still keep it." Copyright c 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From rockybay at scn.org Fri Aug 20 14:09:48 1999 From: rockybay at scn.org (Malcolm Taran) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ProComm Message-ID: (1) --> Does anyone use ProComm+ for Windows? Does anyone use newer than ProComm+ 3.x? Still using 2 or 3? Would a mouse-capable automatic shell of the most-used tasks for SCN and Quest SPL, SPL to KCLS be very desirable? (2) Does anyone know how to get ProComm to release control of the COM port without hanging up, without resetting the Carrier Detect to Low? A ProComm directory and script could log on, launch IComHost, and then I-Comm browser could take over. ProComm Setup--Connection setup--boxes[2]: checkbox NO drop DTR _should_ allow ProComm to quit so I-Comm may take over. However, ProComm seems to require complete hangup before closing. Even if you just answer (1), please let me know. Thank you Malcolm Taran * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Sat Aug 21 10:20:48 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:20:48 -0800 Subject: Open source Message-ID: <199908211624.JAA02041@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ====================== Heads turned in June when Linus Torvalds's Linux operating system was awarded first prize by the judges of an international art festival. How far, one wonders, can the open source model go? Harvey Blume Atlantic 8/99 Where open source is concerned, no hyperbole seems too hyper. The distribution of Linux source code by Linus Torvalds, in 1991, has been compared to Martin Luther's translating the Bible into the vernacular. Larry Wall, the inventor of Perl, declares that open source programming is the expression in software of a fundamental Christian message: creation is not fixed in advance; free will is included and collaboration is encouraged. Even the Chinese Communist Party smiles on open source. China Youth Daily reports that open source programming has met with resistance from "software companies" trying to impose the norms of a "traditional market-economy age upon the new 'age of the information economy.'" Closer to home, but in no less political a vein, FEED's Steven Johnson compares Eric Raymond's open source manifesto, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," to the Port Huron Statement, Tom Hayden's white paper for 1960s student radicalism. The Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest once flourished with their potlatch (or gift) economy, but other Americans have had little experience with the idea of prospering by giving wealth away instead of hoarding it. No wonder, then, that we're uncertain about how to label open source: whether as animal or vegetable, politics or theology. Open source pits the virtues of collaboration and participation against the habits of consolidation and control -- and, as far as the development of software infrastructure goes, it works. Still, how much cultural significance can be bundled into a software package? This past June the jury of the Prix Ars Electronica added yet another dimension to open source by awarding Linux a Golden Nica for first prize in the ".net" category. (The 1999 awards will be presented on September 6 as part of the Ars Electronica Festival in Linz, Austria.) For twenty years, Ars Electronica has held festivals on the theme of "cultural transformation from the analog to the digital era." Its jurors are unimpressed by "recycling conventional art forms on the Net (e.g. Web galleries)" and unmoved by brilliant home pages. In Linux they found an alternative form, one that contributes to global networking even as it foments discussion about whether "code itself can be an artwork." At first blush this discussion doesn't seem all that promising. Why shouldn't code be art? From Chartres to the Brooklyn Bridge, feats of engineering have been appreciated for their aesthetic properties. Why should software engineering be any different? But the Prix Ars Electronica went not only to the content of Linux (those efficient, bug-free lines of C) but also to the process of producing them -- in other words, to open source itself. As Eric Raymond observes in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," "Linus's cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model." The Golden Nica invites us to detach the code from the process for the moment and to ask, If open source can lead to computer code worthy of being called art, can it serve as a foundation for other kinds of art as well? Of course, art has been made along open source lines in the past. In the 1920s, for example, the Surrealists explored a form they called the "exquisite corpse," in which a drawing or poem in progress was circulated to a number of artists for elaboration. (Examples are on display in the Surrealist exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum.) Participants in the project did not get to see the entire work (unlike in open source software development), only the section or line to which they would add -- but that shouldn't prevent us from viewing the exquisite corpse as a way of applying open source to poetry. It's our notion of open source that should be opened up and made flexible. The very market success of open source demands this; as it continues to prove its viability, open source enters into any number of partnerships with traditional forms, without necessarily abandoning its original inspiration. More generally, the open source phenomenon ought to be understood as an electronically networked and rapidly evolving expression of a long-standing collaborationist dream. As the Surrealists put it: "Poetry must be made by all and not by one." An expanded view of open source sheds new light on one of twentieth-century art's signature techniques: quotation, or, in the digital context, sampling. Quotation is a kind of "open-sourcing" of artistic material. Picasso started by quoting freely from earlier styles (and wound up quoting freely from himself). Copyright was never at issue in Picasso's case -- only originality, its unregulated counterpart. Today, of course, the purview of quotation has expanded enormously. Sampling almost anyone and anything is just a simple cut-and-paste operation. From one point of view this is liberating. >From another it is theft. And neatly separating these two aspects of the same process may be well beyond our powers while we are in the midst of it. Consider the case of John Myatt, described last month in The New York Times Magazine as being part of an art-forgery scam so profound that it was said to have "altered art history." Myatt didn't grow ever more expert in copying one painter, as have forgers before him; he copied many twentieth-century artists, and (in his own opinion) not very adeptly: "There was a negligence to everything I did," he confessed. Your favorite Giacometti could easily be yet another Myatt, and certainly would be if it had any K-Y Jelly slopped on the canvas (the use of fast-drying K-Y being one of Myatt's techniques for increasing his output). Astonishingly, the K-Y almost never tipped off the experts, many of whom now despair of getting the canon right again, separating the real Giacomettis, Braques, and Chagalls from the jellied frauds. But other experts admit that Myatt was doing just what a modern artist should: quoting like crazy and making us think about what artistic originality amounts to in the first place. This is exactly the kind of thing the Ars Electronica jurors like to ponder. Perhaps next year, if he can get online, Myatt will be rewarded with a Golden Nica, making him a hero of the open source underground: the Linus Torvalds of the dark side. Make no mistake -- there is such a thing as an open source underground, where the distinctions between literature and software, not to mention sharing and stealing, get really and truly fouled. This underground is personified by the legendary figure of Luther Blissett -- "Luther Blissett" being (according to a site called the "Luther Blissett Project: a mythopoetic on-line guide") "a multi-use name that can be adopted by anyone and is used every day and every night in the rest of Europe and the world." When Blissett hijacked a bus in Rome -- "with drums, confetti, drinks and ghetto blasters tuned in to Radio Blissett" -- the hijackers "bought only one ticket, because they all shared the same open identity, that of Luther Blissett." Blissett would just as soon crack Web sites as hijack buses. This past spring he paid a surprise visit to hell.com (an invitation-only portal to select art sites), downloaded all its files, and copied them to a free site. As he put it: "What is a computer if not something that benefits by the free flow of information?" Blissett is also an open source novelist. Inspired by the papal encyclical Ut Unum Sint ("That all may be one"), he wrote A Survivor >From the XVIth Century: Q (not yet in English), announcing that the process of composition requires "no boss, no mysterious scholar," only the contribution of many Blissetts, all of whom would be credited separately if their names were not identical. "Creative writing," Blissett declared, "is an utterly collective operation: concepts can't be anyone's property, the genius doesn't exist, there's just a Great Recombination." Clearly Blissett's idea of recombination owes more than a little to a talent for real and virtual safe cracking. His slogans might be: "Release early, release often -- or we'll do it for you!" and "Open source: by any means necessary!" But we don't need Blissett to point out that open source practices of one sort or another are more common than might be supposed. There are signs, for example, that computer-game characters are beginning to offer themselves up to the great recombination. Phil Hood, an analyst at the Alliance for Converging Technologies, writes that computer games are "slowly moving to a model in which users and programmers can add characters and actions to existing proprietary games." In his view, game-makers will find it makes good business sense to collaborate with users "to extend, enhance and enlarge a brand." Hood explains that "By acknowledging fans and customers as 'co-owners,' companies open up new opportunities to tap the creative powers of their fan base." Those powers are, of course, the engine of open source. The New York Times recently reported on a game in which "the real action happens in edit mode, where you can customize and choreograph every facet of a fighting character's movement." And there have been reports of players fashioning high-powered characters for existing games, then auctioning them off on eBay. Perhaps some comparable process will be coming to literature. Fictional characters have long been reused by writers -- think of how many authors have helped themselves to Sherlock Holmes, or how Shakespeare drew on a potpourri of characters as it suited him -- but characters may soon be snatched from author's galleys. Not plots, not whole books, but simply characters: literary action figures drafted into interaction with other such figures. It's relevant that the Nabokov estate has recently settled with Pia Pera, an Italian writer who has rewritten Lolita from Lolita's point of view, while the copyright to the original novel remains in effect. If this deal had followed open source protocol, the character of Lolita would be henceforth available for rewriting by any willing writer. One day, she might encounter Hamlet. We think of open source as arising on the cutting edge of digital technology -- certainly Linux and, say, Apache, are inconceivable without an Internet. And yet the dream of a vast collaborative and communal enterprise is primal, whether expressed in the dictum that "Poetry must be made by all and not by one," or in recent allusions to an electronic noosphere, a region of ideas that encircles and engages us. Versions of the dream are as likely to turn up in the creation of comics as in the dissemination of scientific information. Art Spiegelman, for example, based his last book -- The Narrative Corpse: A Chain-Story by 69 Artists! (1995) -- on the idea of the exquisite corpse, with each artist forwarding his contribution to the story line to the next cartoonist in the chain. And, this past June, NIH director Dr. Harold E. Varmus proposed to put all scientific research on what is effectively an open source footing. Under Varmus's plan, which is still being debated, researchers would skip mediation by scientific journals and upload their results directly to the Internet, to be freely examined by anyone. This system would strongly promote the collaborative side of science, upsetting researchers wed to the proprietary approach. According to The New York Times, however, many concede an open source revolution in research is "just a question of when and how." The conjunction of old dream and new media gives open source redoubled force. Its popularity, and its presence in many fields of intellectual endeavor, make it tempting to look back on the production of cultural goods in the twentieth century as a halting march toward some grand collaborative consummation. Of course, the attractions of this sort of open source utopianism haven't been countered, as yet, with anything like open source realism. Hence the theorists of open source theology, open source politics, and open source business plans. The truth is, we don't know how far the open source model can go. The Golden Nica awarded to Linux reminds us it can go as far as art. Copyright c 1999 by The Atlantic Monthly Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From steve at advocate.net Mon Aug 23 10:16:52 1999 From: steve at advocate.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 09:16:52 -0800 Subject: CESA Message-ID: <199908231620.JAA14576@scn.org> x-no-archive: yes ===================== Justice Dept. Pushes For Power to Unlock PC Security Systems Covert Acts Could Target Homes, Offices by Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer The Justice Department wants to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to obtain search warrants to secretly enter suspects' homes or offices and disable security on personal computers as a prelude to a wiretap or further search, according to documents and interviews with Clinton administration officials. In a request set to go to Capitol Hill, Justice officials will ask lawmakers to authorize covert action in response to the growing use of software programs that encrypt, or scramble, computer files, making them inaccessible to anyone who does not have a special code or "key," according to an Aug. 4 memo by the department that describes the plan. Justice officials worry that such software "is increasingly used as a means to facilitate criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, terrorism, white-collar crime, and the distribution of child pornography," according to the memo, which has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and other agencies. Legislation drafted by the department, called the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act, would enable investigators to get a sealed warrant signed by a judge permitting them to enter private property, search through computers for passwords and install devices that override encryption programs, the Justice memo shows. The law would expand existing search warrant powers to allow agents to penetrate personal computers for the purpose of disabling encryption. To extract information from the computer, agents would still be required to get additional authorization from a court. The proposal is the latest twist in an intense, years-long debate between the government and computer users who want to protect their privacy by encrypting documents. Although Justice officials say their proposal is "consistent with constitutional principles," the idea has alarmed civil libertarians and members of Congress. "They have taken the cyberspace issue and are using it as justification for invading the home," said James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group in the District that tracks privacy issues. Police rarely use covert entry to pave the way for electronic surveillance. For example, federal law enforcement agencies obtained court approval just 34 times last year under eavesdropping statutes to install microphones, according to the 1998 wiretap report issued by the Administrative Office of the Unites States Courts. David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, predicted the number of secret break-ins by police would soar if the proposal is adopted because personal computers offer such a tantalizing source of evidence for investigators -- including memos, diaries, e-mail, bank records and a wealth of other data. "Traditionally, the concept of 'black bag' jobs, or surreptitious entries, have been reserved for foreign intelligence," Sobel said. "Do we really want to alter the standard for physical entry?" The proposal follows unsuccessful efforts by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and other Justice officials to secure laws requiring computers or software to include "back doors" that would enable investigators to sidestep encryption. Those proposals, most notably one called Clipper Chip, have been criticized by civil libertarians and have received little support in Congress. In a snub of the administration, more than 250 members of Congress have co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit the government from mandating "back doors" into computer systems. "We want to help law enforcement deal with the new technologies. But we want to do it in ways that protect the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who originally sponsored the legislation, known as the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act. Goodlatte said the Justice Department's proposal might upset the "very finely tuned balance" between law enforcement power and civil liberties. But Justice Department officials say there is an increasingly urgent need for FBI agents and other federal investigators to get around encryption and other security programs. "We've already begun to encounter [encryption's] harmful effects," said Justice spokeswoman Gretchen Michael. "What we've seen to date is just the tip of the iceberg." The proposed law also would clarify how state and federal authorities can seek court orders to obtain software encryption "keys" that suspects might give to others for safekeeping. Although few people share such keys now, officials anticipate that they will do so more often in the future. Administration officials played down the potential impact on civil liberties. In interviews, two officials said the law would actually bolster privacy protections by spelling out the requirements for court oversight of cyber-surveillance and the limits on how information obtained in a search could be used. "The administration is supportive of encryption. Encryption is a way to provide privacy, but it has to be implemented in a way that's consistent with other values, such as law enforcement," said Peter P. Swire, the chief White House counselor for privacy. "In this whole debate, we have to strike the right balance." Computer specialists predict that people under investigation will take countermeasures. "It's 'Spy vs. Spy,' " said Lance Hoffman, director of the Cyberspace Policy Institute at George Washington University, who praised the administration for raising the issue but expressed skepticism about the proposal as it was described to him. "I'd be leery if I were the government. . . . They have to be real careful," he said. Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * * From bb156 at scn.org Fri Aug 27 11:22:44 1999 From: bb156 at scn.org (Andrew Higgins) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: E-mail: public or private? Message-ID: X-No-Archive: Yes E-mail: public or private? Friday, August 27, 1999 -- (BOSTON AP) - It used to be any written correspondence with a government official was considered a matter of public record that the public had a right to review. But what about e-mail? Seven Boston city councilors are fighting vigorously to protect e-mail correspondence from constituents that one newspaper group says should be fully open for review. Legal experts say they have news for the councilors: Courts around the country are siding with the public's right to know. During the Bush Administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled e-mails in the White House system were government documents. Since then, the courts have pretty consistently considered e-mail documents as public records, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig, who specializes in Internet law, said Thursday. But as Internet use has exploded, e-spats have erupted about e-mails throughout the commonwealth and the country. In 1995, the Norfolk County District Attorney ordered three members of the Foxboro School Committee to make paper copies of e-mails they sent before a controversial vote. In November, a complaint was lodged against the town of Ashland because selectmen wrote e-mails about a controversial apartment complex. Winchester school board members won't exchange e-mails on anything but mundane topics ever since a resident filed a complaint against them. In Texas, Gov. George W. Bush won't e-mail for fear incoming e-mail might become the subject of an open records request. City Councilor Stephen Murphy sides with Bush. He has defied a state order to hand over e-mail correspondence from his constituents to Linda Rosencrance, a reporter for the weekly Boston TAB. Rosencrance had asked eight months ago for the councilors' e-mails about a controversial real estate development along South Boston's industrial waterfront. Murphy, along with six of 13 councilors, refused, even after the state's supervisor of public records told them to hand the e-mails over. ``This isn't about me, this isn't about the Boston TAB, it's about private citizens and their ability to access public information,'' said Rosencrance, who said she can barely remember what the e-mails she did get were about. City Councilor Thomas Keane, who handed over to Rosencrance his e-mail correspondence, agrees. ``The real problem of what's going on is you have a bunch of politicians who would like to keep secret what they're doing rather than expose them to the light of day,'' Keane said. ``It's a terrible thing. It creates suspicion where there shouldn't be.'' But Murphy believes a requirement to turn over his private correspondence with constituents - electronic and otherwise - would chill his constituents' constitutional right to free speech. ``I still have a right to close my door and have a meeting in my office and keep Linda Rosencrance in the hallway,'' Murphy said. His constituents agree with him, he said. Lessig believes people have different expectations about what happens to a document than they do a phone call. And, he said, ``It's just as abusive to record telephone calls and to turn them over as it is to turn over e-mails.'' Today, the secretary of state was to ask the attorney general to enforce the order to turn over the e-mails. ``They don't have a problem with our office,'' said Jack McCarthy, spokesman for the secretary of state's office. ``They have a problem with the law.'' ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ,_____,_____, 6 __ _ User: bb156 T\ :. .^\,_/__|_ /_| _/_ _ )__/'_ _ ' _ Domain: scn.org I ^T=====;=====T /| ( |/)(// (-((/ / //(/(///)_) Seattle, WA I I _|_| _/_/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ==== * * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *