HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez)
Subject: ROBOTICS SW DEV JOB OPPORTUNITY
Organization: Denning Mobile Robotics
Distribution: comp
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:45:11 GMT


REAL-TIME MOBILE ROBOTICS SOFTWARE ENGINEER

Denning Mobile Robotics, Inc. is the leading developer in the field of
commercial mobile robots.  Our current products include a robotic floor
scrubber, a robotic tow vehicle, an autonomous televison camera pedestal, an
autonomous research vehicle, a robotic security system, and a laboratory
sample delivery robot.  Additional projects underway include development of a
robotic pallet truck and additional types of robotic floor care equipment.  

We have an immediate need for an outstanding software engineer to continue
Sun-hosted real-time software development for one or more of these products.

Minimum qualifications:

- Experience developing real-time application software
- Experience in Unix/C development
- Experience in integrating software and hardware systems
- BSEE or MSEE or equivalent required

Experience or training in mobile robotics is helpful but not essential.


Interested candidates should send a resume to:

		Elaine Schubert
		Denning Mobile Robotics, Inc.
		21 Concord Street
		Wilmington, MA  01887

or email to me (Roger Gonzalez)

		rg@msel.unh.edu
		
Plain ASCII will get the fastest delivery time, TeX or Postscript accepted,
but it will probably take me a few days to get around to formatting/printing
it.

--
ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS:  Pieces of plastic and metal, crudely fashioned to
  bear a limited, superficial resemblance to real flowers, but with no
  credible attempt to match their internal complexity in terms of form,
  function, or behavior.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Really smart computers.

Roger Gonzalez - rg@msel.unh.edu     (508) 658-7800 (fax -2492)
Denning Mobile Robotics, 13 Concord Street, Wilmington MA 01887


Newsgroups: comp.realtime
From: muts@fysap.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Re: bash on LynxOS ?
Organization: Rijks Universiteit Utrecht
	<1992Sep14.174058.27890@sunova.ssc.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:04:39 GMT

>>On 14 Sep 92 17:40:58 GMT, faught@berserk.ssc.gov (Ed Faught) said:

  Ed> bash was included in the 2.1 beta release, but it's broken. tcsh
  Ed> works, though.

But is horrible especially compared to bash. Does anyone have an idea
why it is broken and what it takes to fix it?
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers.         |================================================ 
muts@fys.ruu.nl         |        Quod licet bovi, non licet Jovi
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
From: wheelerd@tt.com (David Wheeler)
Subject: MIPS vs. VAX MIPS
Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown MD
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:35:09 GMT

I am currently involved in studying the relative performance of several
microprocessors and I'm interested in estimating the VAX MIPS performance
of these processors.  If anyone has any data on the VAX MIPS ratings of
any of the processors I list here, I would appreciate it if you could send
me the info.  If possible, please report which version of the processor was
used as well as the clock speed, and wait states used.

Here are the processors I'm interested in:
	Intel 80186
	Intel 80386
	Intel i960
	Motorola 68332 (CPU32)
	AMD 29000

As an aside, can anyone refer me to a good source of other benchmark
data?  Our application is primarily integer arithmetic and moving data
around, not floating point processing.  What would be a good benchmark
for this?  Where can I look for more info on benchmarks and benchmark
data?
	
- David Wheeler
  wheelerd@tt.com
  Telecommunications Techniques Corporation
From: kolbe@cellwar (Andreas Kolbe)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
Subject: SCSI boards for VMEBus ????
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:51:50 GMT
Organization: Cellware Breitband Technologie GmbH, Berlin, Germany

Hallo !

I'm currently in a process of developing a VMEBus-based communication device 
with a SCSI - high speed communication link to the connected workstation.
I am looking urgent for commercially available SCSI-II VME boards with a SCSI-
transmission rate of  10 MByte/s  ! (synchronous) and the support of both 
the initiator and the target modus in the board firmware !.

Who can me help ?? 

Many Thanks,
Andreas Kolbe
CELLWARE Broadband Technology Company Berlin
kolbe%CELLWAR.uucp@germany.EU.net
/ex
Newsgroups: comp.realtime,gnu.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
From: rw@IKP.Uni-Koeln.DE (Ralf Wirowski)
Subject: bash on LynxOS ?
Organization: Institute of Nuclear Physics, University of Cologne, Germany
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 08:45:37 GMT

Has someone ported the bash with full job-control to LynxOS ?
In my opinion, only the jobs.c file must be adapted.


Ralf Wirowski

Institut fuer Kernphysik
Universitaet zu Koeln
Zuelpicher Str.77
5000 Koeln 41

Mail: rw@ikp.uni-koeln.de
From: tdonahue@BBN.COM (Tim Donahue)
Newsgroups: comp.realtime
Subject: Pete Salerno - how to reach you?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 12:54:47 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tdonahue@BBN.COM (Tim Donahue)
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com


I'd like to reach Pete Salerno at Northrop.

"salerno@ast.dsd.northrop.com" doesn't quite make it... 

If you could please send me (tdonahue@bbn.com) a reply address, I'd
appreciate it.

Thanks,
Tim
From: pollock@milton.u.washington.edu (Joe Pollock)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Should Alums have access to school accounts?
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:27:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep8.202739.16429
Organization: The Evergreen State College

As we prepare to get on the internet, we are considering also considering
the issue of alum access.  The alumni association wishes to keep in contact
with as many individuals as possible, and is attempting to find out how many
of our alumni have some form of e-mail access, and how many would use it for
contacts.

Our previous system was a Data General MV/10000, and we did provide limited
resources to alums.  Accounts were limited with respect to disk space, and
ran at a lower priority than regular student accounts.  Major concerns were
commercial usage - strictly prohibited by state regulations - and 
recreational usage (games :-) interfering with academic usage.  Since the
machine was not connected to external networks, it had few other attractions.

The solution was not entirely satisfactory, and few people used it on a
regular basis.  One interesting item - people who had used the previous
computer system (an HP-2000) did not transition well to the DG.  This is
most likely a common problem - supporting remote users who rarely, if ever,
come into the computer center, when major system changes occur.

I'm a bit envious of those of you who say "Give the Alumni Association
a spare workstation."  At this time, we have one workstation for our
Internet connection, and several AT&T 3B2's for DOS networking and UNIX
classroom support.  Quite frankly, the UNIX environment has not been
particularly popular here, in a liberal arts environment,  and it's
difficult to generate support for resources used by a very small fraction
of the community.  

My personal inclination is to observe resource utilization for a quarter
or two, and then offer alum access.  I expect this to require a bit of
a selling job with management :-)

Has anyone had any really negative experiences, or problems, such as
administrative overhead, support headaches, etc.?  

Joe Pollock      The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA
pollock@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:55:11 GMT

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.161638.3832@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

>>I'm glad we're in agreement that Wang should get his just comeuppance; I
>>hope we can agree that the employee has something coming too, whether
>>prosecution for rights violation(s) or discharge for incompetence.

>>-JTT

>The only problem I've got with this one is it sends a message to others:
>"Even if people are using their account to steal corporate secrets or 
>consortwith other employers, leave them alone."

No.  It means that you leave them alone without what the shysters call
"probable cause".  Remember too that a man is innocent until proven
guilty.  Having violated the rights of others, the guilty lose their own
rights (unless you take politicians seriously); then it would be acceptable
to go into their email [to check for evidence of additional crimes].
In the case above, there's no satisfactory explanation of how deleting a
mail account necessitated reading any remaining messages.  If the employee
meant to save them in a file in case they were requested by the account
holder, but hit "Print" instead, and then _read_ what came out, he screwed
up in one or both ways I mentioned.

-JTT


Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1006 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2741 misc.legal.computing:2104
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:20:33 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.190922.900@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.  According
>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages.  This
>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties. 

>>Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.

>No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
>to view Wang's email.  He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
>and treated as harshly as possible.  That said, the evidence that Wang was
>involved in crimes of his own *exists*.  It cannot be ignored.  Two wrongs
>do not make a right.  Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
>shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").

That all depends.  If the company paid for the mail account, then the mail
is *not* Wang's personal property, it is the company's, by implicit contract 
and also IMHO by moral standards.  The company has put it there for their
benefit, not Mr Wang's personal use or anything else.

I agree with you that Wang should be tried in either case.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark Komarinski)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:46:31 GMT

jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:

>In article <huh?>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
[...]
>I'm sorry, but there seem to be some confusion about the facts in your
>original post.  Wang worked for Borland International.  He had an MCI
>Mail account.  MCI is the electronic communications service provider.
>An *MCI* staff worker was closing the account, not a Borland employee.
>At least, that is what I read from your post:

>> Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.
>> According to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then
>> deleted.  All these came to light when a staff worker was closing the
>> account and "looked" into Wang's account and was suprised on the
>> contents of the messages.  This started court orders to search
>> offices/residences on both parties.

>The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
>from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
>communications.  Unless I seriously misunderstand how MCI Mail works, I
>wouldn't think that a Borland employee could close/look into another
>person's MCI mail account.  If the mail messages were somehow stored on
>a Borland system before they were sent out to/through MCI Mail
>(although the original post seems to indicate something else), if that
>Borland employee's duties are to maintain the mail accounts, then
>he/she is still considered to be part of an electronic communications
>service provider, because in this case, Borland is also a provider.
>Thus, again, according to the ECPA, what the employee apparently did
>was legal.  It doesn't have to be in any contract.  Given the
>information we on the net have, I don't really think that we are in a
>position to determine (or decide for ourselves) whether what the
>person did was illegal or outside his/her "rights".

But is it legal to have a sysadmin read user's email? NO!  At least it 
shouldn't be.  Even though MCI was carrying the mail, they should have
no right to read user's messages.  Then again, if he didn't want anyone
to read his messages, he should have deleted them before closing his 
account.  This may be a very interesting case.

One other thing.  I'm just responding to the above comments and therefore
don't know the whole case.  Could some kind soul send me the original
article?  Thanks.

-Mark


--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
"You can do anything you want until someone complains.  Then you're screwed."
-Heard in reference to the FCC.
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1014 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2752 misc.legal.computing:2114
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:42:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep11.234228.25430
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

>>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.  According
>>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages.  This
>>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties. 

>>Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.

>No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
>to view Wang's email.  He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
>and treated as harshly as possible.  That said, the evidence that Wang was
>involved in crimes of his own *exists*.  It cannot be ignored.  Two wrongs
>do not make a right.  Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
>shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").

When i was one of the LAN administrators for a medium sized company, we
didn't *have* a policy on such things (though we were agitating to get
the higher ups to *set* one)

What we did when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick
pass through their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal,
and make a scan for files marked as being owned by them elsewhere. 

After cleaning up the "personal" stuff, and nuking "irrelevant" stuff
(like config files for various programs), any remaining files were referred
to their supervisor to see if they were "needed". (ie for their replacement
or as general company data, sday a process spec the person had been writing).

Anything that wasn't "needed" got nuked. 

Yes, we read "private" files. But it was our job to cleanup the account,
and better *us* than their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you
the next day what had been in 90% of the files that got deleted as 
"personal". 

In fact as I had occasion to tell users who were worried about the fact that
I could read any file on the LAN "There are something like 4 gigabytes of
files out there. *Thousands* of them. Even if I *wanted* to snoop, there's
too much to go thru!"


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:16:38 GMT


Please note that in my original somewhat harsh post I _did_ say "unless a
contract states otherwise..."  There are all kinds of contracts, implicit
as well as explicit.  These also include questions of ownership of the
message(s).

I can't see how the reading of someone's email while an account is being
deleted could possibly be considered "inadvertant".  Does this mean that
deleting an account _causes_ its remaining/existing messages to be read?
If so, then 1) This was probably understood when the service was
initiated, and so may be legit, but 2) how can this be "necessary" when
an account is removed?  I find it inconceivable that many people would
subscribe to a supposedly private email service if they *knew* that any
messages [still] in their accounts could be read when the accounts were
removed.

I'm glad we're in agreement that Wang should get his just comeuppance; I
hope we can agree that the employee has something coming too, whether
prosecution for rights violation(s) or discharge for incompetence.

-JTT

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Article on E-mail Privacy/Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:09:22 GMT

jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:

>Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.  According
>to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then deleted. All
>these came to light when a staff worker was closing the account and "looked"
>into Wang's account and was suprised on the contents of the messages.  This
>started court orders to search offices/residences on both parties. 

>Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>When I close accounts, I tar everything to tape and then remove everything.
>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.

No, he did *not* have the right (unless a prior contract specified otherwise)
to view Wang's email.  He should be prosecuted, found as guilty as he is,
and treated as harshly as possible.  That said, the evidence that Wang was
involved in crimes of his own *exists*.  It cannot be ignored.  Two wrongs
do not make a right.  Wang should also be tried, convicted, and probably
shot ("if you don't like the consequences of your actions...").

-JTT

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:20:36 GMT

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

>>Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?

>>I don't have time to read user's files or email that is still in queue.

>I follow the same pattern......I don't have time to snoop either.

It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
have the _right_?

Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
Why would it be in the contract?  Who would sign such a contract?

-JTT

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:36:31 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Sep13.033137.16339@rock.concert.net> ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account) writes:
}At the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, screen locking is
}not a problem because of watchdog, a program that logs out inactive
}accounts, locked screen or not.  During long file transfers you are 
}placed in an exception file that cannot be altered by hand....
}ie, if someone tries to put themselves in the file, they don't get
}the 'benefits'.  During my stay there this seemed like an effective
}compromise.  If you wanted a dawg program for yourself, a fairly
}simple way to implement it is to stat your tty for activity.  I haven't
}tried this on xterms, but it ought to work.

Works for xterms, but not for other applications (i.e., if I spend
the whole time in xfig or some such no tty is involved).  I understand
there is an X extention called XIDLE (or some such) which I presume
measures the time since that last X key or mouse event, but it is
not available on our Xservers currently.

John

-- 
John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account)
Subject: Re: New Princeton Policy
Summary: screen locking
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:31:37 GMT

At the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, screen locking is
not a problem because of watchdog, a program that logs out inactive
accounts, locked screen or not.  During long file transfers you are 
placed in an exception file that cannot be altered by hand....
ie, if someone tries to put themselves in the file, they don't get
the 'benefits'.  During my stay there this seemed like an effective
compromise.  If you wanted a dawg program for yourself, a fairly
simple way to implement it is to stat your tty for activity.  I haven't
tried this on xterms, but it ought to work.

Tom Wilson
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy