HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Forfeiture Laws - "60 Minutes" Story
Date: 7 Apr 1992 09:53:52 GMT
Organization: Cobol Pacific University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

Last Sunday's "60 Minutes" had, as its first segment, a story done by
Steve Kroft that was both hilarious and disturbing about how people
who haven't been charged with crimes can be driven to bankruptcy by
the government through use of the forfeiture laws.

Hilarious because CBS showed an indictment(?) against a seized
airplane. Evidently, the assets are "arrested" for committing the
crime. The case was "United States of America v. <plane's designation
number>". Then they cut to the private jet sitting on the tarmac,
looking rather dejected, if not guilty. PSA painted smiles on their
jets (USAir, when they acquired PSA, wiped them off), so people do
have a certain amount of anthropomorphism when it comes to planes. But
believing them capable of criminal intent? Since the government
usually quickly auctions off the seized planes, aren't they being
irresponsible in letting lawbreakers loose? Shouldn't those guilty
planes be at least sentenced to community service? Teaching people how
to fly, for example.

Disturbing for the above and because a person only has to fit a
"profile" that the police think is suspicious to have something
seized. The charter pilot who lost his plane had a passenger who was
suspected of criminal activity, but never charged. The other "victim"
portrayed in the piece, who ran a plant nursery business, had bought a
"short turnaround" (1 day or less at destination before returning)
round-trip plane ticket from Nashville to Houston with cash. He fit
the profile of a drug smuggler, although there wasn't any evidence;
and $9000 in cash he was carrying was confiscated.

Regular readers of this newsgroup are certainly already aware of the
laws and the abuses they entail, especially when applied to cases of
suspected computer mischief. The CBS piece is important not for its
information, but for having presented a powerful dramatization to a
large audience, making this a good time for any effort to curtail such
abuses.

-David
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk
From: dana@rucs.faculty.cs.runet.edu (Dana Eckart)
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Organization: Radford University
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 12:36:54 GMT

Everyone appears to be focused on the absence of the ABC in the series,
yet no one (as far as I can tell) seems concerned with the MINIMAL mention
of John von Neumann in the first show (I think he got a photo and a sentence 
or two mention -- along the lines that he came on board to the ENIAC project 
just as Eckert and Mauchley were leaving).

Surely von Neumann made "lasting contributions"?!?

-- 
J Dana Eckart     INTERNET: dana@rucs.faculty.cs.runet.edu
                     SNAIL: 15 Grandview Dr/Radford, VA  24141
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
From: vec@sunshine.Kodak.COM (Vance Cochrane)
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:20:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.135924.15805@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

> Yes, I was annoyed that von Neumann's contributions were ignored.  But then
>what can you expect from a program that says a transistor is 100 times
>ligher than a vacuum tube -- that would give it negative weight by my
>calculations.
>
Sorry, but (+)/(+) is not < 0 !

-- 
Vance Cochrane			Email: vec@Kodak.COM
Research Laboratories		Voice: (716) 722-3709
Eastman Kodak Company		Fax:   (716) 722-0160
Rochester, NY 14650-1816
USA
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:50:02 EDT
Distribution: comp

jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>In another newsgroup (comp.arch?  sci.electronics?  I don't remember offhand),

comp.risks, which Paul Eggert has just posted to this group.

>taken too much time.  The producer pointed out that they were careful to
>refer to ENIAC as the "first programmable electronic computer", though

"working", not "programmable". Oops.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Project IDEALS -- The University of Alabama
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:55:08 CDT
              <ACM-L@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
From:         "Chet Farmer, Asst. Dir., Project IDEALS" <CFARMER1@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      ANNOUNCEMENT OF SAGSET CONF

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *                                                                 * *
*     ----------------------                                          *
*     Call for participation:  ---------------------                  *
*     ----------------------   Joint 1992 conference:  ///////////    *
*                              ---------------------   S A G S E T    *
*                                                       I S A G A     *
*   Society for the Advancement of Games and           \\\\\\\\\\\    *
*   Simulations in Education and Training                             *
*                   International Simulation and Gaming Association   *
*                                                                     *
*   Conference theme:        Developing transferable skills through   *
*   ----------------                          simulation and gaming   *
*                                                                     *
*   18-21 August, 1992       Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland   *
*                                                                     *
*   For further information:                          Fred Percival   *
*   =======================       SAGSET/ISAGA Conference Secretary   *
*                                                 Napier University   *
*                                                 219 Colinton Road   *
*   Telephone:  44 / 31-455-4394                 Edinburgh EH14 1DJ   *
*   Facsimile:  44 / 31-455-7989                           Scotland   *
*                                                                     *
* *                                                                 * *
  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Chet Farmer, Assistant Director   |   English / 103 Morgan           |
|  Project IDEALS -- FIPSE, DoE      |   Tuscaloosa, AL  35487-0244     |
|  University of Alabama             |   tel 205-348-9494               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:47:21 EDT
Distribution: comp

erspert@athena.mit.edu (Ellen R. Spertus) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.183002.5425@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
>>dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak) writes:
>>>I was appalled that there was NO mention of Atanasoff.  
>>The show is titled "The Machine that Changed the World." ENIAC
>>and its progeny changed the world. Atanasoff's machine didn't.
>I don't agree with this objection.  Konrad Zuse's machine didn't
>change the world, but he was featured.

In another newsgroup (comp.arch?  sci.electronics?  I don't remember offhand),
someone posted a message from the producer of the show on why they left
Atanasoff out.  Basically, it's because his machine went nowhere, and to
give enough background to include his contribution in context would have
taken too much time.  The producer pointed out that they were careful to
refer to ENIAC as the "first programmable electronic computer", though
without the context of Atanasoff's nonprogrammable machine, the distinction
does become lost.

As to why Zuse's machine was featured (despite going nowhere) and Atanasoff's
wasn't, I would guess it was because Zuse's machine was a more interesting
failure; it provided the bridge between Babbage's "Steam Age" machine (:-) 
and Mauchly&Eckert's "Electronic Age" machine (being an "Electric Age"
machine).  Atanasoff's computer was an Electronic Age attempt that went
nowhere, and would have broken the flow of the presentation.
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:36:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: sctc.1992Apr16.153611.26487
Distribution: comp
Organization: SCTC

dana@rucs.faculty.cs.runet.edu (Dana Eckart) writes:

>Surely von Neumann made "lasting contributions"?!?

That's been a subject of historical debate, too. His two classic
papers about computer architecture, the "First Draft Report" and
"Preliminary Considerations" were both written while he was hanging
around Moore School participating in the ongoing conversations about
doing better than ENIAC. Sorry I can't cite a source offhand, but I
remember reading comments by some of those participants alleging that
von Neumann got his key ideas from the Moore School group rather than
vice versa. The Moore School group was constrained from publishing by
military security constraints that von Neumann found a way around.

Anyway, that's one interpretation. In any case, he wrote it up so
his name got stuck on it. Nobody disputes that he was brilliant,
regardless of which ideas were specifically his.

Some who are familiar with the Atanasoff story might take this as
poetic justice acting against Mauchly.

Rick.
smith@sctc.com         arden hills, minnesota
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: Who's On First and Historical Correctness
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:05:38 GMT
Distribution: comp

From article <1992Apr15.152445.5780@sctc.com>,
by smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith):
> 
> About the only "first" historians seem to agree on is that the
> Manchester Mark I ran the "first stored program" of any computer.


"What was the first programmable computer?" is ill specified question.
The first machine to be completed is not necessarily the first one to
have run a stored program, because it is pretty clear that the early
machines were working programmable computers for a significant time
before they were debugged and fully operational, and it is also hard to
tell from the records when the first program was loaded and tried for
debugging purposes.

Back when I was a student at Illinois, I started reading back through
the old Digital Computer Lab technical reports, wondering about the date
of the first program run on ILLIAC.  The old reports from the late 1940's
were mostly dittoed, and much of the ditto ink had turned into faint
brown shadows, making these reports very hard to read.

What I found was that ILLIAC I and its twin ORDVAC came up slowly.  Long
before there were any serious reports of any applications programs being
run, there were pages of teletype output (judging by the type font)
stapled to the dittoed reports.  These were octal dumps of the machine's
memory, included as supplements to the tech reports to demonstrate that
the Williams tube memory was finally working.

To make such dumps, there must have been a considerable amount of working
hardware -- not an entire working computer, but enough to step throug
memory and convert binary to octal for printing.  My suspicion is that
they used the CPU's data paths to do this, with a very simplified control
unit that turned what they had into a memory tester, but I didn't have
time to find out if this was so.

I also got the impression that they were running programs with just add,
jump, load and store instructions for a considerable time while the
remaining parts of the control unit were debugged enough to announce that
they'd built the machine that they'd contracted to build.

The date used for "official" purposes for when Illinois got its first
computer running was the date on which ORDVAC passed its acceptance tests
(after which it was crated up and shipped out).  There was an interesting
side note to this:  ILLIAC and ORDVAC were built at the same time, but
there was apparently no binding of a name to a machine until one of them
passed its acceptance test.  At that point, the working machine became
ORDVAC and was crated and shipped, and the other one became ILLIAC and was
finished for local use.
					Doug Jones
					jones@cs.uiowa.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:33:49 EDT
              <ACM-L@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
From:         barton@CPS.MSU.EDU
X-To:         acm-l%ohstvma.bitnet@suvm.acs.syr.edu,
              acmchap%suvn.bitnet@suvm.acs.syr.edu,
              acmstchp%suvm.bitnet@suvm.acs.syr.edu, asmith@ais.org,
              blitzen@cc.ysu.edu, maruyama%dayton.bitnet@suvm.acs.syr.edu,
              sadkins@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu,
              ts0098@ohstmvsa.acs.ohio-state.edu, vanscoy@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu

     *******************************************************************
     *                                                                 *
     *                     CANCELLATION NOTICE                         *
     *                                       *
     *******************************************************************


     The Officer Training Workshop and Tour Planning meeting scheduled for
     Saturday, April 25th in Columbus, Ohio has been cancelled.
     Unfortunately, there were not enough chapters able to attend on that
     day.

     For those chapters in what is now the former East Central Region,
     if you are interested in doing any tour planning with other chapters
     this Spring, please fill out the Lecturer Preference Form that was
     mailed to your chapter along with the workshop announcement.

     For all chapters responding by May 15th, I will attempt to group the
     respondents together and put you in contact with each other.  Student
     chapters, be sure to include summer phone numbers and addresses for
     the person at your chapter responsible for assisting with tour
     planning.

     Professional Chapters, please reference the most recent Student
     Chapter Reference Guide (available from ACM Headquarters, contact
     Judy Granat (granat@acmvm.bitnet) if you don't already have a copy)
     and check for student chapters in your area, contact them, and
     please work with them to include them in any tour plans you may
     already have been working on.

     For those of you who don't recall getting the mailing, it was
     sent to the person most recently listed as your chapter chair
     for Professional Chapters and to the chapter sponsor for Student
     Chapters.  If tracking that person down still doesn't produce the
     mailing, please e-mail Ruth Barton (barton@cps.msu.edu) and
     a replacement copy of the planning form will be e-mailed to you.

     I'm sorry that we won't be meeting at OSU this Spring.  I will
     truly miss the opportunity to visit with you and share ideas
     with your chapter.
From: Peter.Gorny@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Peter Gorny)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: Who's On First and Historical Correctness
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:29:27 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany

smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:

>I think it should be clear by now that regardless of who did what
>"first" in computers, there were lots of creative people chasing
>the same goals at roughly the same time. The technologies had
[....]

Another example is Konrad Zuse, who started with building computing
machines in 34, had his first electrical one running in 39 and the
first electronic one in 44. Since he worked in Germany and his achieve-
ments were at once used for military purposes, he did not publish
anything before several years after world war II. His first post war
computer with a broader market was ZUSE 22 (1960), built in his
own factory - later bought up by bigger companies and today part of
Siemens.

Peter Gorny
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:00:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.190912.25532@kodak.kodak.com> vec@sunshine.Kodak.COM (Vance Cochrane) writes:
>
>Sorry but "100 times lighter" implies 1/100 which is division. 
>If you are interested in precision, please indicate how you translate 100 times
>lighter into a subtractive operation. 

  If I make an object 20% heavier, I add .2 times its mass.  If I make an
object 75% lighter, I subtract 75% of its mass.  If I make it 100 time
lighter I subtract 100 times its mass.  That leaves it with a mass -99 times
its previous value.

         --------

  Perhaps I owe you an apology.  I had assumed that the "ACM" in 'comp.org.acm'
stood for "Association for Computing Machinery", an organization whose members
possess a modicum of mathematical literacy together with something of a sense
of humor.  Obviously I was seriously mistaken.
From: dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: dab@moxie.oswego.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: SUNY Oswego


I've read the positive reviews of the "Machine that changed the world"
and I agree, almost.

I was appalled that there was NO mention of Atanasoff.  

Since Unisys was a sponsor of the show, I suppose I shouldn't have
been surprised, since they lost a lawsuit over his role in the history
of computers.  Maybe disappointed is a better word to describe how I
feel about sponsor influence over content.

-dab

--
         /\           David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department
        /  \          SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY  13126 (315) 341-2347
  _____/____\_____    Internet: dab@moxie.oswego.edu                     
 /    /      \    \          or dab%moxie.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net     
/____/        \____\  UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!moxie!dab
From: mwitt@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Mike Witt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Local ACM Chapter
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:36:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.36209
Distribution: pdx
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


Could someone tell me the phone number (or better yet an
email address) for the local ACM chapter here in Portland?

Thanks,

-Mike (mwitt@cse.ogi.edu)
From: nanders@plains.NoDak.edu (Noel Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
Subject: Re: PBS show is NOT historically correct!
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:45:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.16677
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

I, too, am concerned about the omission of JV Atanasoff and the possible
connection between the omission and UNISYS sponsorship of the program.
The story of Atanasoff's late night brainstorming drive to a roadhouse in
Illinois and how the filing of a patent was indefinitely postponed due to
war time concerns could have made interesting footage.  (Iowa State alumni
know about these things ;-).

Otherwise,  I thought the first installment was well done. 

-- 
Noel W. Anderson                   nanders@plains.nodak.edu (Internet)
Asst Prof, Computer Engineering         "I speak for myself, not NDSU"
EE Dept, North Dakota State University         nanders@plains (BITNET)
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Subject: PBS show and Atanasoff
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:22:25 GMT

dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak) writes:

>I was appalled that there was NO mention of Atanasoff.  

Risks Digest (comp.risks) 13.38 (10 April) contains a note from
the show's producers on this subject, which I reproduce in full below.

>Maybe disappointed is a better word to describe how I
>feel about sponsor influence over content.

No one has given any evidence to support allegations of sponsor influence,
and it's irresponsible to make such allegations without any evidence.
The PBS show followed the view of the majority of historians, and I find
it hard to criticize them on this point, even though I myself feel that
Mauchly did not give Atanasoff proper credit.

Here's that note from the producers.


  Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 18:17:28 EDT
  From: WGBH-TV (Information Age) <wgbh@MEDIA-LAB.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
  Subject: Re: TV Show Accuracy]

  Out of respect for John V. Atanasoff's efforts with the ABC Computer, "The
  Machine That Changed the World" has been very careful to avoid the term
  "first" in speaking of the ENIAC computer.  Generally, we refer to it as the
  first "working" electronic computer.

  However, the decision NOT to include Atanasoff's computer in the series was
  made only after a great deal of consideration.  There is much debate about
  Atanasoff's machine -- did it ever really work?; could it be considered a
  "programmable, digital, computer" as we defined the computer for the purposes
  of our series?; how does one weigh the pronouncement of a judge against the
  opinion of the majority of the computer community (including historians)
  regarding Eckert and Mauchly's place in computer history versus Atanasoff's?

  Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that the series (with its inevitable
  time constrictions) can only focus of those machines that influenced further
  development in the field.  With that criteria, we could not justify spending
  the large amount of time that would have been necessary to tell the Atanasoff
  story.  In addition, some authors claim that Mauchly "stole" the idea from
  Atanasoff is unproven and without Mauchly to tell his side, we felt that
  exploration of this part of computer history would only lead to the dead end
  of inconclusiveness.

  We understand and appreciate the controversy regarding Atanasoff, but feel
  that our decision was correct.  In the words of Sir Francis Darwin (in 1914):
  "In science, the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to whom
  the idea first occurs.

  Producers, "The Machine That Changed the World"