HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:03:27 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET

Query to Charles Elliot: If the GEneie question is not a question relevant
to ethics in computing, what would be?


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    John F. Covaleskie                        *
*      Cultural Foundations of Education and Curriculum        *
*  259 Huntington Hall                                         *
*  Syracuse University                 Maloff Towers, #2       *
*  Syracuse, NY  13244                 Chittenango, NY  13037  *
*  315/443-3343                        315/687-5595            *
*                   JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET                       *
*                                                              *
****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:13:47 EDT
From:         Charles Elliott <CEE@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie adopts censorship
              28 Jul 1992 21:36:23 EDT from <saviour!scifi!lepore@UUNET.UU.NET>

Did this list somehow become a political action list rather than
an ethics list ? The GEnie matter is interesting, but I am a bit put off
by finding it here...Charles Elliott

----------------------------------------------------------------|
Charles Elliott                                                 |
cee @ cornellc                                                  |
cee@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu                                    |
----------------------------------------------------------------|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Full-Name: Scott Guthery
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:00:57 CDT
From:         Scott Guthery <guthery@ASC.SLB.COM>
Subject:      Legal Ethics question
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
Comments: cc: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              20 Jul 1992 16:18:26 PDT <9207202325.AA14243@leo.asc.slb.com>

Neither defendent nor defendent's counsel have any ethical obligation to tell
plaintiff about additional X-ray readings.

First, plaintiff's act of suing moved the situation from the ethical domain to
the purely legal domain.  You don't get to pick two "ya gotta's" from Column A
and two from Column B.  Once in the legal domain *ONLY* legal requirements
hold.  This was the plaintiff's free choice.  He gained something (legal hold
on defendant including access to police powers of the state to force testimony
etc.) but should be expected to pay something for what he gained ... in this
case, to recourse to ethical or even human imperatives.  In fact, one could
argue that since the plaintiff didn't ask his own advisors for a full X-ray
interpretation he didn't want one and it is not the defendent's place to force
one upon him.

Secondly, neither defendent or defendent's counsel is a medical professional
nor is either ethically obligated to provide plaintiff with medical advice.
The X-rays are the property (persumably) of the plaintiff who can contract for
his own X-ray interpretation.  If there is any fault here is it with the
plaintiff's X-ray reader, not the defendent's.

I can't see that simple posession of information carries with it any
obligation to act on it at all let alone in any particular fashion.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:24:28 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         Joe Ryan <JORYAN@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU>
Subject:      GATEWAY/WINDO Q&A

Got in triplicate ... thanks in any event!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:21:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Medical Applications Of Computers

Dr Schwartz touched on some of my concerns with his excellent and insightful
reply.  I can understand risk-adjustment but am troubled when it is used for
cost containment.

I am happy to hear of FDA scrutiny of med expert systems.

What REALLY concerns me is whether a situation could rise where medical
personel could not, or did not intervene on a routine basis.  Perhaps
unrealistic, but the type of situation I am talking about would be a GP
in the rural wilds of North Dakota feeding in symptoms and acting on an
outputed diagnosis the physican could not personally validate.

Of even more concer, would be the general public using existing medical
dianosis programs which are not FDA approved and treating themselves
instead of consulting a doctor.  I hate to see the human equation removed
even if it exists only as an oversight to intervene if needed.

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:02:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case

Sorry Charles, but I have to agree with Jim.  Application of control or
censorship - at any level - has ethical implications.
        - is control needed?
        - why and who does the control benefit?
        - is the control within the agreement of member it services?
        - is it uniformally applied or only on "certain" issues?
        - are groups targeted for control?
        - what are the goals of the controlling group?

If this isn't an ethical question applicable to computers and computing
I better restructure my Computers and Ethics classes at SUNY/ESC!

Place it in a non-commercial setting: if the Ethics-L moderator suddenly
decided to delete all emails that questioned the action of a certain
member of congress that the moderator supported - would THAT be an
ethical issue it itself?

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:14:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case

>It sure is easy to be misunderstood !  England is on the right (ethical)
>track with the questions he raises in his objection to my bland remarks
>about the focus of this discussion.

I 'gotta agreed with you Charles.  In email it is too easy to fire off
bland remarks which may not reflect what you meant to say.

>Cases, circumstances and actions should not be the focus but the background
>to the discussion.

Interestingly, here we agree too.  In fact, you've described here what I
feel had begun; the original GEnie post for me WAS laying a background of
real experience and details to BEGIN a discussion of more general
circumstances and actions.

>I might also suggest that there are interesting ethical considerations in
>the misreading or misrepresentation of another's postings on a network
>which is so highly public.

This too is a point of agreement with us Charles, and let me assure you,
I do not feel as if you have intentionally misread or misrepresented my
posting to your oomment.  Neither do I feel as if you meant to imply
any special significance by citing my posting alone - one of four along
the same vein.

What I and perhaps others suggested was that the details, the true life
cases ARE of real use and benefit to ethical discussions.  All too
often we tend to get stuck simply in principles and 'made-up' situations
which are easier to debate and explain but not always applicable to
the real world.

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:05:20 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET

I posted some obseervations on the legal ethics question this morning, and
I received TWO messages from the listserv telling me that the message was
being returned because itr had already been posted.  Could someone please
the message was received by the listserv three times, posted and tehn rejected
twice, or if there was no posting, in which case I will resend.

Thanks.


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    John F. Covaleskie                        *
*      Cultural Foundations of Education and Curriculum        *
*  259 Huntington Hall                                         *
*  Syracuse University                 Maloff Towers, #2       *
*  Syracuse, NY  13244                 Chittenango, NY  13037  *
*  315/443-3343                        315/687-5595            *
*                   JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET                       *
*                                                              *
****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 07:48:42 EDT
From:         Charles Elliott <CEE@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case

It sure is easy to be misunderstood !  England is on the right (ethical)
track with the questions he raises in his objection to my bland remarks
about the focus of this discussion. He is really attending to the ethical
considerations. My suggestion was - or I thought it was - that the focus
ought to be on principles and values rather than on the enumeration of
cases or the detailedrecounting of experiences - all of which would be
more pertinent to a legalistic or political   activist discussion.
Cases, circumstances and actions should not be the focus but the background
to the discussion.

I might also suggest that there are interesting ethical considerations in
the misreading or misrepresentation of another's postings on a network
which is so highly public. --(Hey, guys, I am against censorship, too !)
--Charles Elliott

----------------------------------------------------------------|
Charles Elliott                                                 |
cee @ cornellc                                                  |
cee@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu                                    |
----------------------------------------------------------------|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  BMARANTZ
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:58:00 EDT
From:         Barbara Marantz <BMARANTZ@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ethics of Computer Use in Medicine

Perhaps what follows belabors the good points already made; yet,
an implicit caveat, I believe, needs to be made explicit.

While computerized diagnostic information and prognostic treatment
information is available, and surely should become *part* of the
process of any individual diagnosis, there seems to be general
agreement that the physician as human decision-maker must remain
part of the process.

The real danger, it seems to me, is that since (once) computerized
packages become generally available and better and better, physician's
education can focus more on learning what programs are available and
how to access them for use than on learning the diagnostic skills
built into the programs.  Only if/as those skills are taught, honed,
and honored will it be possible to use the computerized information
intelligently and effectively.  It is easy for an individual
physician to forget that the information (and decisions) offered
by the computer are derived from group statistical data, and thus
may *not* apply in an individual case where, perhaps, "deep description"
is a more useful approach than statistical prediction.

I'd be equally concerned if my physician used *only* computer
diagnosis as I would if s/he used *only* her/his own experience.

Barbara Marantz
bmarantz@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:59:03 PDT
From:         Woody Weaver <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Legal Ethics question
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Mark Hayes <ccmlh@BU-IT.BU.EDU> continues the question on legal ethics
thread:
[lots of stuff deleted]
>>I can't see that simple possession of information carries with it any
>>obligation to act on it at all let alone in any particular fashion.
[1]
>If you see a blind person about to step over the edge of a subway platform,
>I'd say you have an obligation to warn them.
[2]
>If a manufacturer that discovers a potentially hazardous defect in a product
>that is already on the market, I'd say they have an obligation to warn the
>public and recall the product, if necessary.
[3]
>If I learn that someone is being charged with a crime, and I possess proof
>positive that they did not commit it, I'd say I have an obligation to report
>that proof to the authorities.

For all of these, I think the answer is, in the extreme case, less than
clear cut.

[1] Almost surely.  But what if stepping over the platform is their intent?
Are you obliged to stop them?  You have set up a bit of a straw man, here -
the assumption is that their blindness prevents them from knowing the edge.
What if over the edge is their intent?  Should you not interfere in their
desires?  [I'm not happy defending this: I'd certainly warn them, and knock
them down as necessary.]

[2] While the company is I think required to mitigate damages, I don't think
they are required destroy themselves in the process unless the hazard
destroys consumers.  Suppose the hazard were something simple, such as a
poor design (that can be mitigated) causing the loss of a few MPG.  Assume
further that the cost to advertise and correct the problem is larger than
the total loss of gasoline, pollution, and etc -- and of course, the costs
would be passed on to consumers.  Are not consumers benefited by the less
agressive (albeit less honest) approach?

[3] Here I'm most comfortable.  If I have proof an accused did not commit a
crime, its easy to present my proof.  A far more difficult situation is that
of my having information that leads me to believe a crime occurred (this
arose in private email in conversation with none of the aformentioned
principals, with regards to the wholescale pirating of software (beyond the
misdemeanor level).  My response was that while I have evidence that leads
me to believe that a felony has been committed, I have no proof of such; my
obligations of citizenship require me to forward on proof of commission of
felony, but not suspicion of felony -- they can require that I present true
justified belief (knowlege) but not mere belief.

Tell me, net, is this mere pedantic sophistry?

--woody
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <bmcmanus@gdalsrv.sas.upenn.edu>
Posted-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 10:54:19 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:54:19 EDT
From:         William McManus <bmcmanus@GDALSRV.SAS.UPENN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: X terminal emulators for dos/windows
X-To:         AIX-L@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
              "MCCONNAUGHEY%NIEHS.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU" at Jul 17,
              92 11:24 am

Bob,
You asked:
>
> Does anyone have experience - good or bad - with any of the X-terminal
> emulator programs that are available for DOS or Windows?  We have some
> 386 machines that need to hook up to some molecular modeling software on
> SGI & RS6000 boxes.
> Thanks,
> Bob McConnaughey mcconnaughey@vaxe.niehs.nih.gov
>                  bob@mojo.niehs.nih.gov

I like the combination of IBM's OS/2 operating system and IBM's TCP/IP
for OS/2 ver. 1.2.1.  OS/2 2.0 is a superior operating system to
DOS/windows and the X server you can get with the TCP/IP package is
excellent.  I use it regularly to do SAS and Ingres work off my RS6000.
I would recommend at least 8MB of RAM on the 386 boxes, more if you can
afford it.

Bill

William J. McManus                  bmcmanus@gdalsrv.sas.upenn.edu
University of Pennsylvania          bill@romulus.sas.upenn.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:41:13 EDT
From:         "Darrell A. Early" <PADDY@VTVM2.BITNET>
Subject:      C++ Error

All,

Would any C++ RISC programmers out there like to take a stab at the error one o
f my users received and mailed to me???

Many Thanks!!!  --Darrell   CAD Administrator

Error Message Follows with brief note from user
***********************************************

This is our C++ Compiler error....We are not sure what call is using the signed
char in the localedef.h file....and thus we don't know if we can change it to
 not use it....furthermore, we are unsure as to why it cannot find where the
 implementation of signed char is.....

CC  +p Create_Solid_Features.c:
"/usr/include/sys/types.h", line 93: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 65: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 66: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 67: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 68: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 69: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 70: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 71: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
"/usr/include/sys/localedef.h", line 72: warning: " signed" not implemented
 (ignored)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:39:22 +0100
From:         "Omar G. Stradella" <omar@MALENA.CRS4.IT>
Subject:      Re: User "nobody"
X-To:         IBM AIX Discussion List <AIX-L@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
              31 Jul 92 09:25:22 EDT.) <9207311328.AA16824@crs4.it>

Your message dated: Fri, 31 Jul 92 09:25:22 EDT

>> The Xstation manager-software uses the Userid nobody.
>> If you chose another machine than the Xstation server on the initial screen
>> on the Xstation, the login software performs an su to the user nobody
>> and then an rlogin to the chosen machine.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>BTW I have I have never been able to get this to work on our Xstations.
>I just get a message saying cannot su to remotehost; account "nobody"
>has expired. What should I do to fix this
>
>John Lobaugh
>lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu

Change the expiration date of user "nobody" to 0. For example using
smit go into Security and Users, User, Change / Show Characteristics of a User,
select User Name: nobody and change the last field.
Or put: "expires = 0" in the entry for "nobody" in /etc/security/user

Bye

Omar
- - --
****************************************************************************
* Dr. Omar G. Stradella    -    omar@crs4.it                               *
* CRS4 - Centro di Ricerca, Sviluppo e Studi Superiori in Sardegna         *
*      - Centre for Advanced Studies, Research and Development in Sardinia *
* -------------------------+----------------------------+----------------- *
* Casella Postale 488      |    Via Nazario Sauro, 10   | 39 13' 19" North *
* 09100 Cagliari CA        |    09123 Cagliari CA       |  9  6' 17" East  *
* Italy                    |    Italy                   |                  *
* -------------------------+----------------------------+----------------- *
* Phone: +39 70 27 96 236       FAX: +39 70 27 96 220                      *
****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Universitaet Bonn, RHRZ; Wegelerstr. 6; D-5300 Bonn 1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:06:09 MEZ
From:         Hans Dieter Petersen <UZR11F@IBM.RHRZ.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject:      Re: RS6000 channel attach to MVS?
              21 Jul 92 17:20:10 MEZ from <stoodt@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU>

On Tue, 21 Jul 92 17:20:10 MEZ Timothy Stoodt said:
>
>Hi,
>     Two quick questions:
>
>1.  Can you channel attach an RS6000 to a 3090 running MVS?  What hardware
>    and software are involved?
>
You must buy a parallel channel card for the RS6000, BMX software feature
for AIX V3.2 (not enclosed in the basic operating system), and MVS
TCP/IP V2.2 which supports the point-to-point connection for TCP/IP
protocols.
>2.  If I want a very very rough comparison of one of these machines to a
>    mainframe ..ie how many mainframe mips can I offload to it.. should I
>    be looking at MFLOPS or one of the SPECmarks?  Looking at a chart of
>    the different machines, when you move up a model the increase in MFLOPS
>    and the SPECmarks isn't proportional.
>
>                                          Thanks for any advice. T.S.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: aix-l@PUCC.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:51:08 -0300
From:         Ricardo Tavares <ricardo@YARA.UFPA.BR>
Subject:      Traceroute bugs

Mr. Pieter

        Very thanks by your traceroute e dig programs, the dig works
fine but the traceroute program terminate with a message:
        segmentation fault(coredump) when I run the program with
arguments (when used whithout arguments the normal help is presented)
maybe a bug in this copy at ftp directory or a incompatibility of any
type?

        Can you help me again?

                        Ricardo Tavares
                        Universidade Federal do Para
                        Centro de Exatas e Naturais
                        Belem-Para-Brazil
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.aix-l:1289 comp.protocols.nfs:1982 comp.unix.aix:8358
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: User "nobody"
Date: 31 Jul 92 10:03:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: U22C5@wvnvm.wvnet.edu's message of 30 Jul 92 21:21:42 GMT

In article <92212.172142U22C5@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> U22C5@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Larry F Armbruster) writes:

   Can anyone give me a good reason not to delete user "nobody" from a unix
   system?  My reason for wanting to get rid of it is its ability to be a
   valid user in NFS after an aborted logon.

Well, why not arrange for nobody's account to be impossible to login
to? ie:
	nobody:x:-2:-2::/nowhere:/bin/false

Note the impossible encrypted password, non existent home directory
and /bin/false as a shell.

It's highly unlikely that anything will depend on an entry for nobody
in the password file. However if there isn't one, you will see the uid
(-2 or maybe 65534) instead of the name when you list files which were
mapped to that UID as a result of NFS requests as root. It's possible
that this could upset other software (or things like system accounting
or disk quotas) if they can't find user name to correspond with a UID.

		Jim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU