HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
From: Eric Andrew Morgan <em31+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:35:26 -0400 
Organization: Senior, Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Sounds like a great idea and as far as wearable computers go, the
Engineering Design Research Center here already has designed a head
mounted computer with a small screen that hangs in front of one eye.  It
is called Vu-man and has the equivalent power of a PC.  They are working
on a successor called the Navigator that works by projecting the images
on a HUD so that they are superimposed over the environment.

--Eric

Eric Andrew Morgan
Psychology Department(Cognitive Science), Class of '93
Carnegie Mellon University
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: mdm@stegosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Moore)
Subject: Is the Television a cyberspace?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.181445.12662@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>
>
>You probably already have access to multiple cyberspaces in your home. The telephone itself is a cyberspace port, and you can use it to access others
>(usenet, fidonet, prodigy...). Your TV set is another interface to another 
>cyberspace (whether broadcast or cable). A ham radio rig is yet another.
>

	Does not cyberspace imply a form of interaction between the
user and the environment represented?  The only form of interaction
available on the TV set is changing channels.  You cannot exchange
information with the tv, you can only recieve information from a
finite set of sources.  On the telephone, you can both send and
recieve information, as well as on the internet and on a ham radio.
Does this, then, exclude the television from being termed a 
cyberspace?  

	-Michael
From: rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:19:39 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <4emWii200WBLA7jnw6@andrew.cmu.edu>, Eric Andrew Morgan <em31+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Sounds like a great idea and as far as wearable computers go, the
> Engineering Design Research Center here already has designed a head
> mounted computer with a small screen that hangs in front of one eye.  It
> is called Vu-man and has the equivalent power of a PC.  They are working
> on a successor called the Navigator that works by projecting the images
> on a HUD so that they are superimposed over the environment.
> 

Having never used one I'm probably wrong, but I can't help thinking that a
HUD overlaid on normal visual signals would be hard to read. Does anyone
have any pertinent experiences they could share?

-- 
Robert 'Stumpy' Marsh | 95 Fairfield Rd | I can't reply to E-Mail, but 
rmarsh@waikato.ac.nz  | Hamilton        | don't let that stop you sending.
+64 7 855 4406        | New Zealand     |
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: Liberating Tech: Cybernomads
Originator: jcarroll@ferris
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:21:36 CDT


>I have a similar dream, but not on such a miniaturised scale. Mine is
>actually realisable easily now... given a moderate sum of cash which I
>don't have at the moment.

>Still a nomadlike lifestyle, but with a few more of the creature comforts 
>and no face hugging HUD or backpack to lug around. I like the idea of 
>living in a mobile home with all the nifty tech that we have come to love. 
>Still needs the cellular modem, but that (and the rest of the tech) is 
>readily available off the shelf now. 

>The advantages include speed of travel, availability of shelter and the 
>ability to carry around more stuff. 

There's a guy who has a setup like this on a recumbent bicycle who spends
his time pedaling around North America being a technology evangelist. He posted
in misc.jobs.offered a few months back trying to hire an assistant (actually
I believe the term was "companion" - don't know whether he was looking for an
SO or not).

Not to engage in gratuitous value judgment of other people's fantasies, but
this sounds like a much more practical vision than hiking around with a
heads-up display and a workstation on your back. Even Gibson's characters
(who are plenty fictional) weren't trying to play tennis and manipulate
Swiss bank accts at the same time. Your vision looks like a reasonable
increment of the dream all we hippie wannabes had of living in a van :^)

What I'm curious about is whether anyone would be lining up to volunteer
for the kind of invasive neurosurgery Gibson talks about. We may not be
too far away from the technology for some of that stuff.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@lemon.cray.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court and U.S. Constitution (was Re: Banned Computer Material
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:09:52 GMT

In reply to the mail from <jkp@cs.HUT.FI>...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <1992Oct3.085046.23065@newstand.syr.edu>, greeny@top (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>Rather, one should fell completely free to cite SC interpretation as *the*
>>meaning of the Constitution.
>
>I am saying that one shouldn't and the SC doesn't have a monopoly to
>interpret the Constitution since it isn't given such a monopoly in the
>U.S. Constitution.
>
>>Where an individual disagrees with the SC as to the "proper" interpretation
>>of the document, he or she should feel free to say "According to the SC..."
>>And where one provides one's *own* interpretation, it should be prefaced
>>with something to the effect of "IMHO..."
>
>Best would be to use to use both, but to make a point it is IMHO
>sufficient to say "The Supreme Court says that censoring obscenity is
>constitutional, while the Constitution itself doesn't prohibit
>obscenity and thus the prohibition on obscenity is unconstitutional".
>
>//Jyrki
>
I'm afraid your premise isn't correct.  The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court has been extended by the Court to include matters of Constitutional
interpretation.  For you to assert something is constitutional or
unconstitutional does not make it so.  At this point only the Supreme Court
can make it so. (Although Congress may pass laws defining or limiting the
Court's jurisdiction.  In fact, this happened at least once.  The Court was
barred from hearing certain habeus corpus cases during and just after the U.S.
Civil War.  An appeal was made to the Supreme Court concerning a writ of
habeus corpus, but the Court declined to reach the facts of the case, since
its jurisdiction had been limited by Act of Congress.  The decision rendered
the Court of Appeals the highest court for the case, since the Appeals Court's
decision could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. )

Just because the Constitution does not mention a particular topic does not
mean anything not mentioned is automatically constitutional.


Bob



Bob Solon, DITSO-CO-BCC
Administrative Information Branch -- DRMS

"We Code, You Explode!!"

Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3076 comp.org.eff.talk:6293 comp.admin.policy:1234 alt.censorship:7876 soc.college:4151
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
From: ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud)
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:27:07 GMT

From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
>
>Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
>to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
>encrypt everything.  It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
>from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
>A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
>one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.
>
>Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu

I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal.  (Why
they gave her sysadmin caps, I'll never know.)  It kept her from blatently
stupid snooping after that.  This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
limited response.  (My error that year was in reporting obvious system
breeches--passwords left in public readable files.  Bad move.)
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:34:42 GMT
Organization: Aston University

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
: In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
: 
: >Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
: >rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
: 
: What are "burglary tools?"  Putty knives?  Glass cutters?  You know,
: burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
: "Burglar's Kits."

Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
that purpose.

: 
: I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
: lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
: always have my key if I wish to open the door.  If I accidentally lock
: my keys in my room, I don't really want to have to pay Amherst College
: $10 so that campus security can come and open my door.  At BSU,
: however, I suppose this personal safeguard is Right Out.

Could try a (spare) key on a neck chain, though even this is not fool
proof.
(though maybe a spare key is not on where you are)

: 
: >or an
: >unlicensed concealed weapon.  
: 
: There is no "license" for owning a password cracking program.  The
: analogy fails.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:49:03 GMT

Please feel free to repost the list to interested mailing lists or
local newsgroups.

Also, if your school is on the list, you might want to send it to your
campus paper as a press release with a catchy title: "University of
Somewhere on international list of computer censors". You should
probably include a local contact. If you also want to give me as a
contact, send me email.

- Carl


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:

Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley *,
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of Wyoming,
UKNet, Virginia Public Education Network, Virginia Tech, Western
Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid Laurier U. (2), Williams
College **

========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.


=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/banned.1992

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom banned.1992





-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: alan@ssd.ukpoit.co.uk (Alan Barclay)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 07:37:33 GMT


Ran Ever-Hadani about
> 
> I believe that freedom of speech is an important principle everywhere.
> The fact that the US has a Bill of Rights is important as a legal means
> to fight for various freedoms within the US, but the fact that such a bill
> does not exist in many other countries does not diminish the obligation
> of all of us, American or otherwise, to advocate freedom of speech as a
> universal principal.

Obligation? What obligation? Some people might legitimately reject
universal freedom of speech, me for example, just as some others
reject the universal freedom to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

It can be a personal choice, but no way is it an obligation.

-- 
Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England 
alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214261
iT - The Information Technology Business     | explist now set to 3 days.
Of The Post Office : In Tune With Technology | Anyone got a 1.2 Gig disk?
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:12:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:56:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.024913.14347@news.iastate.edu> spam@iastate.edu (mike begley) writes:
>A "senior
>official" personally told me that "the [ISU] computation center
>administration had no business in making legal decisions because they
>have no legal expertise".
>Michael Begley 

This is the central point by which I object to ALL censorship by computer
centre staff (and others) of material distributed via Netnews.  They make a
decision based on hearsay, rumor and a occasional personal observation mixed
together with their own beliefs and then place a blanket ban on the group. 

This extends to censorship of email and posting to groups - if you take on
the responsibility of deciding what is and is not `legal' without the
necessary background you can end up with real legal problems of your own.

Common carriers like the post office and its officials are not
responsible(*) for the possibly illegal contents of letters and packages and
make no attempt to check.  Why should netnews or email be any different.  

(*) This may not be true absolutely everywhere.


-- 
Geoff. Lane. | Internet: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk | Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin,  Manchester Computing Centre,  Oxford Rd,  Manchester, M13 9PL
"The Royal Family must think the entire world smells of wet paint."
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:38:56 GMT

00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

[...]
>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools or an
>unlicensed concealed weapon.  

>Herbert Stahlke
>Associate Director
>University Computing Services
[...]

Personally, I view the distinction as rather like the distinction
between possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually
stealing. That is why I see it has censorship.

BTW: Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could be
used to break rules and laws. As one example:

     Hoffman, Abbie. 
     Steal this book / by Abbie Hoffman ; co-conspirator, Izack Haber ;
        accessory after the fact, Bert Cohen. New York : Pirate Editions ; 
        Distributed by Grove Press, c1971. 
     xii, 318 p. : ill., ports. ; 18 cm. 
     Includes index. 
     Bibliography: p. 288-308. 
       1. Anarchism--United States.   2. Radicalism--United States. 
          I. Title.  
     ocm09-793311  

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.freedom.of.information.act
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:18:59 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon. 
>Isn't this
>censorship?

That depends on their reason for doing it. If their real, actual, genuine
reason is that the newsgroup takes up too much disk storage or some other
resource (and this may be the case, for all I know), then it isn't
censorship. 

If their real, actual, genuine reason is that they disapprove of the
content, then it is censorship. 

If their real, actual, genuine reason is some mixture of the above, then
it's censorship. 

Their *stated* reasons do not bear on the question. 

--
Scott Maxwell (maxwell@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2983 comp.org.eff.talk:6158 comp.admin.policy:1156 alt.censorship:7793 soc.college:4088
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:07:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: eff.1992Oct2.160752.26340
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <92276.093531HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>>From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
>>
>>How is a handgun like speech concerning "sex/porn/necrophilia"?
>
>My right to bare arms is as much a right according to US law as
>is free speech.

I think you mean "to bear arms." In any case, we are talking about censorship,
not gun control; censorship has far more nuances than gun control,
probably because speech is much more flexible and subtle than guns are.
So the purpose of your analogy is unclear.

>My point exactly.  EFF is the one that batched together censorship
>of sexual material (free speech) along with censorship of programs
>on certain systems.

Pardon me? What's your source on this? EFF has never taken the position
that system administrators cannot prevent certain programs from being run
on their systems.

>Keep listing those that censor various sexual
>newsgroups.  But it is the perogative of every computer center to
>decide what programs are or are not allowed to run on their system.

You seem confused here.

>There is a huge difference between having a law on the books and having
>advocates in every country.

Carl Kadie's posting wasn't addressing whether the censorship he cited was
illegal. You seem to have misread his posting as a claim that the
censorship in other countries is illegal. But Kadie never said this.
I advise you to reread it.




--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:47:33 GMT

In article <BvELx1.A4J@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <BETSYS.92Sep30104251@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>>   There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and 
>>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>>their .plan file or on our bulletin board  "for sexually explicit
>>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt" 
>
>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"  Users
>would be amply warned in advance, and there would not be no need even
>for any restrictions based on the location of such material.
>

I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
an indulgence in "dirty words".  The idea that administrators are getting
away with silencing that which is explicitly political by trivializing
it to that level is disgusting.

Anyway, a .plan is like an answering machine message.  If you don't like
what you hear, at least YOU were responsible for calling.

In our department this problem is somewhat circumvented by having the
default finger retrieve the short (no .plan) version, and anyone who
wants to read a .plan has to do finger -l

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:04:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.164415.13315@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Thanks for the clarification.  However, your original statement was:
>
>>Although obscenity is regulable
>>under the Constitution,
>
>which taken separately clearly is incorrect.

You are mistaken. What I said is entirely correct.

>I think it would be best
>to qualify clearly unconstitutional interpretations (or ones where
>there's considerable disagreement) by things like "according to the
>current interpretation [by the Supreme Court]".

Jyrki, you use "clearly unconstitutional interpretations" in a very odd
way here. The Supreme Court is the highest governmental body that
interprets the Constitution. While I disagree with many of the decisions
the Supreme Court has made, I can't say I know of a single "clearly
unconstitutional interpretation."

>I think this is an important distinction.

It's not one that is ever found in American discourse on Constitutional
law. Perhaps we should institute it as the Kuoppala Distinction.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2994 comp.org.eff.talk:6179 comp.admin.policy:1164 alt.censorship:7801