Conference 7.286::digital

re: .0

>    	When will the computer be used to benefit society?

Since the day the first one ran a program of course.

As far as I can tell, computers are being used today for each
and every one of the examples you gave.  They could all be better
but couldn't everything?  I had trouble understanding your note
as being about "computers", though I'd certainly agree with you
that the world would be a better place if we did all these things
better, and computers can help each and everyone.

Whether or not expanded use of computers would be the *best*
investment in each case would vary quite a bit depending on a
analysis of a lot of complex values.

- g

    re .0:  When I read the paragraph asking why doctors had to get a
    second opinion I was tempted to reply, but I caught myself.  I did a
    SHOW CONFERENCE to make sure I wasn't in SOAPBOX.  There used to be a
    conference called FORUM, a more civilized version of SOAPBOX, and this
    was probably where I would discuss it.
    
    Well, I suppose that since Digital is in the business of making and
    selling computers, the topic is relevant to this conference.  Back to
    the topic.
    
    --Simon
    

    Since I avoided an exploratory operation a year ago specifically
    because of a CAT scan, which absolutely depends on computing
    technology, I totally disagree with the premise in .0.

    Now, why are the moderators willing to put up with a drivel topic like
    this, which, as far as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with the
    way we work at Digital?  Maybe they haven't seen it yet.

         Sounds like a good opening to a radio talk show.
Maybe we could use computers to delete information that we are not
interested in seeing.
    
    
    
    David Buswell
    buz

    I strongly disagree with .2 & .3! .0 is asking about the use
    of computers in medicine. Reread .0 and leave your prejudices
    in that other conference.
    
    re .0
    Maybe someone who is more familiar with MUMPS can explain some
    things. Routine question-response programs for initial medical
    diagnosis have been around for quite some time. One of the
    biggest problems, IMHO, is the tremendous pressure on physicians
    from the malpractice suits. If the physician doesn't have 100%
    confidence in the computer program's ability to present the
    facts, they're not going to make a diagnosis based on that data.
    They're going to want to, personally, interview the patient, making
    the computer redundant and an unnecessary expense. This can be seen
    in the requirement for a second surgical opinion. Medical diagnosis
    of internal problems is extremely subjective  and the hope is that
    a physician with a different set of experiences will catch errors
    or suggest a different procedure. Until we can prove that AI is
    100% correct in this application, computers in medicine will be
    relagated to equipment control.
    
    Bob Mc

This conference is NOT about how to use computers!!! It's about DIGITAL!!!!

BRUCE

    I agree totally about this topic being drivel, except that I see it as
    somewhat dangerous drivel.  Computers to track things like:
    	- forced sterilization of citizens, by questionable  selection
    	  criteria???
    	- the educational progress of my child, removed from my custody
    	  in the interest of a "better end product"?????
    	- medicine driven by programs, when we all know -- or should! -
    	  how hard it is to find the last bug????????
    I could go on, but I'm sure I would violate some rule about being civil
    in notes conferences.
    
    When Digital starts developing these applications, I quit.

    
    The relevancy that I see applies to a growing attitude within Digital,
    and the industry in general, that the computer industry is mature and 
    past growth rates will level off and eventually decline. 
    
    A recent Boston Globe article discussed a study that compared the
    evolution of the computer industry to that of electrical power and
    electrical generators (dynamos) in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It
    was 60 years after the invention of the dynamo and beginning of
    electrical power before real productivity gains and growth really took
    off. The point was that the real boom in computers, and sweeping change
    to our society, may still be a ways off.
    
    As .0 illustrates there are still many frontiers for technology, and at
    Digital we should be constantly looking for, and pushing into, these
    frontiers.  
    
    Mike.

    I would second .8's statement about pushing into new frontiers,
    and would also second .7's caution regarding those fronteirs.
    
    I certainly don't want my child to grow up in a "BIG BROTHER IS
    WATCHING" world.  But it would be rather convenient to know that
    all of his medical records could be found on 1 chip.  Which, by
    the way would mean his medical care providor could dedicate a large
    amount of space, manpower, and $$$ to caring for people not paper.
    
    I'd go on and on, BUT .....

    The author of the base note apparently has never watched an episode of
    the TV program, "Computer Chronicles".  

Re: .0

The world can be changed with computers without being made perfect.  The
computer has irreversably altered the complete social structure of mankind.
Our uniqueness in society is measured by what demographic groups we represent.  

When we allow computer's to choose for us, then we have lost our freedom of
choice.  A human is not a variable to be factored out of an equation.

If you expect the computer to alter the world into a nirvana-like Utopia,
then I would recommend you to get your feet back on the ground.  People are
imperfect and so are their creations.  People who expect the computers to
solve the great problems of mankind, without raising a new, unique set of
problems, are short sighted.  Technology is a two edge sword.  Fire burns.
weapons help in the hunt, and kill in battles.  Remember that the
introduction of the automobile was considered "good" fifty or seventy years
ago.  Now we've discovered these machines are poisoning the air we breathe,
and wasting precious resources.

I would say that the computer industry today is equilavent to the
automobile in the 1920s-30s.  What will be the curse of the Computer fifty,
or seventy five years from now?

Dave

>    	How many times have you been to a doctor, only to ask or be asked
>    to obtain a second opinion. True, insurance companies require them, but
>    that is another issue. Isn't there a problem in the medical profession,
>    when a doctor has you go to a second doctor to get a confirmation on a
>    diagnosis? Why can't the first doctor give a competent diagnosis?  What
>    was he doing in med school all those years?? 

Medicine is not a science.  Med student are not admitted on the basis of
their scientific abilities and they are not trained to be scientists.

>    	Why not use a computer to diagnosis your ailment. A properly

The same reason you can sue after an auto accident in NJ even though
there is no-fault insurance:  The professionals would be out of work.

I should point out that such programs do exist and some such as
INTERNIST are reported to be as acurate as humans.

>    	Why would an alleged criminal tell the truth? Why would a victim
>    tell the truth? Especially if the victim could gaurantee a higher
>    charge by exaggerating the facts. And, how can the supreme court make
>    decisions that affect the lives of millions of people if only 5 of 9
>    can agree it is a proper decision?

TRUTH is different from FACT.  The truth can vary from person to person.
    
>    	The courts need to use a better means of extracting the truth, from
>    alleged criminals, witnesses, and victims alike. The polygraph or
>    penathol to arrive at the truth. The results could be fed into the
    
Unfortunately torture is barred by the U.S. Constitution.  The accuracy
of the things you describe is questionable in addition in theory they
can only measure the truth as one knows it, not the fact.
    
>    	Why can't a system of identification(bar codes, finger print
>    identification..) be used to handle the distributuion of welfare
>    benefits? This country hands out billions of dollars to welfare
>    recipients each year. And, each year millions go to fraudulent homes or
>    false social security numbers. A government database would prevent some
>    of these cases. 

Such systems are the tools of tyrants.
                          
>    to the parents ability to provide for the child's upbringing. So why
>    not incorporate a method of paying for the sterilization of welfare
>    parents so as to not burden society with children that statistically
>    end up in jail or as more welfare recipients?  This would reduce the

Who sets the standards?  Heidrich tried this in Europe a few years ago.

>    	Why not develope a better method of placing children in a boarding
>    school to develope a better end product. Again, computers would be used
>    not only to monitor the child's progress, but to help discover the
>    ideal learning path for each child. The computer would also serve as a
>    learning tool for the children, therefore making them ready for today's
>    high tech society.

Who wants to go to boarding school.

John

        Re: .0

>    Yet, there have been no measurable improvements in society. 

        Your basic premise is incorrect--computers have made measurable
        changes in society.  Two areas that spring to mind are telephony
        and air travel.  Inexpensive and pervasive telephone service
        depends on computer technology as does the safe management and
        control of the current volume of air transportation--from the
        sale and distribution of tickets and flight information to the
        control of the take-offs and landings.

        But, even though changes have already occurred, you are
        partially correct in that many more changes are possible. 
        However, your choice of possible changes are hideous.

    MEDICINE:	

        As a previous reply mentioned, there is a problem with liability
        in computer diagnosis.  We know how to make fancy programs, but
        not how to have them totally reliable, especially in an area as
        vague as medicine where one symptom may have several possible
        causes and a problem may have a variety of first symptoms.

        Computer tools have been and are being developed to assist
        doctors in various areas, but we don't know how to replace a
        significant part of a doctor's job with a program.

    THE COURT SYSTEM:

>    	The courts need to use a better means of extracting the truth, from
>    alleged criminals, witnesses, and victims alike. The polygraph or
>    penathol to arrive at the truth.

        Polygraph tests are often unreliable.  They can be biased by
        either the subject or the questioner.  An honest but nervous
        subject will show up as a liar, a brave and bold liar can show
        up as an honest man, and a skilled questioner can dramatically
        affect the results by the wording or presentation of the
        questions.  Drugs are even less reliable as they affect
        different people in different ways.

>    The results could be fed into the
>    computer and a recreation of the facts would be made and a decision
>    rendered based on past decision of the court.

        Even if the `facts' could be obtained, this isn't plausible. 
        Laws, rules, regulations, and prior court decisions are not
        written in a formal language suitable for computer processing. 
        They are instead vague, ambiguous, and often contradictory.

    WELFARE AND GOVERNMENT:
    
>    	Why can't a system of identification(bar codes, finger print
>    identification..) be used to handle the distributuion of welfare
>    benefits? This country hands out billions of dollars to welfare
>    recipients each year. And, each year millions go to fraudulent homes or
>    false social security numbers. A government database would prevent some
>    of these cases. 

        I see a variety of problems with this positions, and one of the
        biggest is demonstrated by the programs to cut welfare fraud in
        the start of the Reagan administration.  Large numbers of people
        were dropped from the welfare roles with great publicity.  What
        didn't get publicity was the fact that a majority of the people
        dropped, after losing welfare payments for months, were
        reinstated after appeals.  In a significant number of cases,
        people were dropped because of inaccurate or incomplete computer
        records.

        The comments on education subsidies and sterilization have
        nothing to do with computers, but clash strongly with the notion
        of freedoms that are an important aspect of life in the United
        States.

    SCHOOLS AND CHILD CARE:

>    	A statistically proven fact shows that a child that attends a
>    boarding school from an early age reaches a haigher achievement level
>    	Why not develope a better method of placing children in a boarding
>    school to develope a better end product.

        So what?  Do you have any evidence that a `higher achievement
        level' leads to a more enjoyable life?  Or does life at a
        boarding school just produce high achievers with high levels of
        stress?  Your choice of a definition of `better end product' is
        your opinion.

>    Again, computers would be used
>    not only to monitor the child's progress, but to help discover the
>    ideal learning path for each child. The computer would also serve as a
>    learning tool for the children, therefore making them ready for today's
>    high tech society.

        Computers are being used as learning tools, and this use
        increase significantly each year.  As far as monitoring and
        directing children, do you have any evidence that we can write a
        computer program to handle this?

        Oh, I just thought of another concrete way that computers have
        improved society.  They have made it much easier to create,
        edit, and distribute information.  There are significant tools
        for preparing documents.  For example, spelling checkers can
        dramatically reduce the spelling errors in documents.  Before
        you start proselytizing about complex uses of computer
        technology, you may want to consider taking advantage of the
        simple tools already available. 

        					B.J.

    Could it be that this Lortie person who posted .0 is a hit-and-run
    agent provocateur who entered the base note and has no intention
    of participating in the ensuing topic?

    I suggest waiting for another entry from Lortie, whoever he or she
    or it may be, before getting deeper into the topic.

    Can the computers change the world?  One gotta be blind not to see the
    profound change the computers have made in the world.  As a matter of
    fact, I would argue that the advanced western civilizations have grown
    to depend on them.  Just imaging what will happen when all the
    computers quit tomorrow...  Well, here are a few possible outcomes, and you
    are welcome to add a few more:
    
                    Your car will quit (it got some kinda computer chips in
                    them to regulate something).
    
                    Your telephone will quit.
    
                    Your bank will quit.  No more transactions.  the banking 
                    system will probably collapse in a few days.
    
                    All the military and commercial airplanes will be grounded.
                  
                    You go to your local grossery stores and found out that
                    there is a huge line there, the adding machines just
                    quit.
     
                    NYSE is in disarray.  Ya can't buy and sell anymore.
    
                    The banking and finacial system is no longer
                    operable, the economy is in a total mess.
    
                    Millions of people lose their jobs as a result.
    
    Eugene
                                                               

>This conference is NOT about how to use computers!!! It's about DIGITAL!!!!
    
    I find this response unintentionally ironic.
    
    On the other hand, as my first response hinted at, I would like to find
    out how the topic is to relate to Digital, and to us employees.  I am
    astounded at the implication that computers have not benefited society,
    if that was the intended meaning.  The only question is how may
    computers benefit society even more.  And to relate that to the domain
    of this conference, what can we Digital employees do about it?  We can
    blue-sky all we want and that's nice; it gives us warm fuzzies, but if
    there's nothing we can do in the way of innovation, that would make
    this discussion sort of pointless, at least in this conference.  I
    don't mean to belittle or make fun of, or be prejudiced against the
    points in the topic note by mentioning a certain other conference. 
    (This is in reply to reply .5.)
    
    re .14:  Give the guy a break.  It has been only one working day since
    he entered the note.
    
    --Simon
    

    P.S.  Speaking of innovation, I wonder if this discussion might find a
    more appropriate audience in NODEMO::MARKETING.

The author of .0 is apparently unaware of what we (both industry and Digital)
have actually done.  A few very off the top of my head items:

-- Dectalk: Dec product.  Gives blind access to printed material (through the
   Kurzweil Reading Machine).  Gives speech impared people a voice of their
   own: Stephen Hawking now gives his own speeches.

-- Microcomputer controlled wheelchairs for quadraplegics.

-- CAT scanning (the C stands for Computer) was originally developed using
   Dec micros.

-- Mumps-based cancer registries allow public health officials to coorelate
   certain rare cancers with certain occupations (and, thus, certain
   occupational hazards).

Martin.

    As if changing the world can only be measured by progress against a
    particular humanitarian, social or political agenda...
    
    If the application of computers has resulted in more jobs, better
    products, lower costs or other generally beneficial economic effects,
    haven't they already made a significant positive impact on society?
    
    Al
    

    I disagree with the base note's premise, but I fully support his right
    to enter the note.  From the number and nature of the replies, I would
    say it's clearly not "drivel."  In fact, I am more disturbed by the
    attempts to have the topic removed than by the topic itself.
    
    You might want to look for the RISKS Digest, an Arpanet newsgroup that
    discusses risks of and to computers.  Implicit in the discussion is the
    profound way that computing devices have moved into every facet of our
    technological society, generally to our benefit.  But the main risk
    seems to come from the assumption by designers and users alike that
    computers are (or can be made) infallible and 100% reliable.

    
    
    
               I think the base note was intended to spark OUR insight
         as to what other facets of society could be overhauled by using
         the information management capabilities of todays computers.
    
               Should we suggest something viable it would only ensure
         job security.
    
               I think one of the biggest problems today is the health
         care and medical fields.  There are so many different insurers
         with so many different methods of payment coming from so many
         branch offices that it is no wonder why it is virtually impossible
         to really verify charges and payments.
    
               Digital should put together a hardware and software package
         aimed at centalizing and standardizing the cost and payment
         specifics of ALL medical and dental procedures and practices,
         including a method of verification through the patient. We should
         market this "package" to the U.S. government and hope they
         don't make it any more complicated than necessary.
    
               Just a thought.
    
    
    
               Chris

    	Well I think it's time for an explaination. I have been taking an
    Intro to Sociology course for the past 15 weeks. The Instructor has
    been "brainwashing" the class on his ideas of the perfect Utopian
    society. He wants to build this society through social engineering. 
    
    	Maybe this did belong in SOAPBOX as .2 indicated. However, I am not
    entirely familiar with the other conferences, and decided at the last
    minute to open a topic in a notes conference. I have been a read only
    member here for over a year, so I concentrated the topic around his
    preferred use of computers in his engineered society. 
    
    	The comments in the base note are not those shared by myself
    entirely, but an extraction of some of the lecture material used in the
    class. The introduction of many of the topics discussed in class do not
    fit the conference, and will not be brought up, however. The possible
    applications of computers in his Utopian society may just be something that
    warrants further discussion. That is for the moderators and noters to 
    decide. I wanted to breech the subject in an open a forum as possible.
    I therefore, threw out his comments to see the responses that were 
    generated. 
    
    	In class Mr. Brooker controls the discussion, and allows for NO
    criticism of his ideas on the students part. He backs his arguments
    with statistics and percentages, based on years of research. Any
    continued disagreements are threatened with failure or withdrawal from
    the class.
    
    	I found that he made some sense in his lectures and discussions,
    although I did not agree 100% with his ideas. The topics to be
    addressed here pertain to his prescribed use of computers to build a
    fair and equal society. 
    
    	In medicine Mr. Brooker is in favor of eliminating the family
    doctor, to be replaced with a data entry operator. Together the patient
    and operator arrive at a diagnosis, and the patient is sent on to
    wherever(pharmacy, surgeon, etc.) to recieve treatment. Thereby freeing
    up the family doctors to do research. NO WAY! I want to see a real
    doctor, complete with diplomas on the wall if I'm sick. But, maybe the
    doctor could have a computer, linked to a database to aid with his
    diagnosis. Then maybe we can eliminate malpractice cases?? Lower
    medical bills, insurance costs, and lawyer fees??
    
    	In the courts, the computer is used to eliminate the bias, brought
    on by juries, judges and lawyers. Lie detectors well there not perfect,
    but they are better than the bibles of old. Computer programs like
    those used in personal computers, they would help fray the cost of
    lawyers. In some cases filing the proper form is all that is required,
    who needs a lawyer for that. However, the Bar Association is trying to
    block the use of those programs. Why? To save there jobs. But what
    about the poor old Joe Q. Public, who can't afford a lawyer, is it
    really fair to him. 
    
    	A big argument with Mr. Brooker is the quickly growing lower class
    population. According to his lectures, research shows that within 10
    years lower class, uneducatable students will be a majority in grade
    schools across the country. I do not advocate sterilization, per se.
    Is there a way to turn those figures around. Is paying a lump sum out
    to people who voluntarily agree to sterilization a reasonable solution?
    What does the high tech community have to offer as an alternative? 
    
    	Another sore spot is the United Farm Workers. He is appalled at the
    current living and working conditions they deal with on a daily basis.
    Long hard work days, exposure to pesticides, an increased cancer rate
    shown statitcally, and poor living conditions. He would like to see the
    farmers stop producing....CHILDREN. That's awful, why should they give
    up family life, and child rearing experiences. Just to put an end to
    poor living conditions. He so high on research, why not apply high tech
    devices to help solve the problems of the farmers. 
    
    	The responses that I recieved from the base note were quite on
    target. They were not like those heard in class, which is what I was
    hoping for. I have only touched briefly on the subject, as discussed in
    the class, but to go deeper would be to turn away from the ideals that
    this conference is designed for, namely how does this impact working
    for Digital. It probably doesn't. Then again maybe it should. 
    
    	Mr. Brooker readily admits that he does not know where to start
    building his Utopia. He is also aware that the changes will not come
    from a single individual. The changes will have to be broad based and
    will involve/impact everyone, from the poor to the President. The world
    is self destructing. The Earth Day exhibits helped to show that. Pick
    up the Boston Globe and look at the killings that have taken place in
    this year alone. Some thing has to give. Maybe it is the high tech
    industry that will have to respond and lead the way.
    
    Just MY comments. 
    
    Roland
    
    
     

    Oh, we should have known this was 'academic' and not 'real-world'.
    
    [smiley face....]
    
    	-Barry-
    

>    	In class Mr. Brooker controls the discussion, and allows for NO
>    criticism of his ideas on the students part. He backs his arguments
>    with statistics and percentages, based on years of research. Any
>    continued disagreements are threatened with failure or withdrawal from
>    the class.
    
Where does this joker teach (and does he have tenure)?

What you have described in your note is truely frightening (and I'm not
one to get agitated or take idiots too seriously).   I think that your
instructor's views (or your interpretation of them?) are the first notes
that I have ever found repulsive.  (Please note that I find the views
repulsive, not the fact that we are discussing them)

It is scary to see people trying to establish a scientific basis for the
logic used by such charmers as Himmler.

John

<begin rathole>

>    	In class Mr. Brooker controls the discussion, and allows for NO
>    criticism of his ideas on the students part. He backs his arguments
>    with statistics and percentages, based on years of research. Any
>    continued disagreements are threatened with failure or withdrawal from
>    the class.
    
If it were me in this class, and no discussion/disagreement was tolerated, I
would: 
 A)- withdraw ASAP
 B)- file a complaint with the Dept. Chair and Dean of the College
 C)- politely insist upon tuition reimbursement for that class if it was
	too late to register for an alternative class.

Academic freedom is the open and free discussion of ideas.  If as you state,
this instructor lectures on his ideas, does not discuss other perspectives,
and permits no feedback from students, then there is no academic freedom in
that class.
  
<end rathole>

 I am in my second class with Brooker. I took intro to sociology with him
and now I am completing Contemporary Social Problmes. 
 
  I have found that he is not looking to brainwash but he is looking at 
sociology from a scientific standpoint. Research analyze and predict.
What he is basically doing is putting Sociology in the lab and taking out
the personal opinions and basing his findings on data collection/fact.

  The hardest part for a person to do is leave there feelings and opinions
outside of the classroom and look at it from a scientific standpoint. 

   I don not believe he is trying to build a utopia he is just pointing out
problems that people do not like to hit head on. Not saying that I totally
agree with everything he says but some parts really make sense. 

  He did state however that if you attempt to discuss this with anyone that
has not taken the class or does not look as sociology as a science that 
what has happened here would happen.

  In our class he has five of us that took intro last semester and we do
get into discussions and it has not been all one way.


   I thought   .0  sounded familiar


                           Mike
 

>  He did state however that if you attempt to discuss this with anyone that
>has not taken the class or does not look as sociology as a science that 
>what has happened here would happen.

	What happened here? With a degree in Sociology I treat the subject
	very much as a science and have seen little to disagree with other
	then Mr Booker. And as for the state of the art in social science
	research, it doesn't sound like Mr Booker has taken a class in
	methods and research himself yet. There is an auful lot of personal
	opinions and bias in sociological research today and in the past.

			Alfred

    
     He teaches research methods. There may be different opinions/bias
    on research but if it is a science should sociologist bascially draw
    the same conclusions.
    
    I guess what I meant to say was anyone that has not taken a sociology
    class instead.

    re: .28
    
    A subject treated as a "science" does not mandate the conclusion that
    all "scientists" will draw the same conclusions.  The study of human
    social interaction is far too complex for any one person to have
    discovered the only "correct" answers on the basis of available studies.
    
    One should note that Hitler's Germany was seen by some as a society
    "scientifically" derived from the theory of evolution.  Some social
    scientists of that day reasoned that since Germany had the "master
    race", other "inferior" forms should be destroyed to decrease the
    "pollution" of the race with "inferior" genetics.  This, they reasoned,
    would speed the evolutionary process, as "survival of the fittest"
    dictated that this "superior" form would need to be triumphant
    eventually anyway.
    
    It just goes to show that (supposedly) "scientific" evidence can be
    used to justify even the most deplorable actions of human beings.
    
    The fact that this individual does not see fit to prove to you how his
    conclusions fit the facts makes his conclusions quite suspect.  If his
    conclusions properly reflect reality, there should be little hesitation
    to let you examine the veracity of his claims.  After all, facts have
    no need to protect themselves from the light of inspection.
    
    -- Russ

    I understand the points taken. I guess what disturbs me is we are going
    down a rathole discussing the professors teaching methods instead of the 
    science. I do respect him and his views I do not alway agree. He does 
    explain how he draws his conclusions. I have come to realize sociology
    is a VERY sensitive subject and can get dangerous, but before one goes
    after the professor for his teachings I beleive that should be
    discussed with that individual and the professor.
    
                          Mike
    

Re .0:

I find that at least those proposals on computer applications in "medicine",
"the court system" and "welfare and government" to be contrary to my
understanding of commonly held ethical standards in my profession.  I would not
participate in development of such projects on that basis (as well as others).

(The other sections seem either generally impractical or imply gross violations
of civil rights, so any appeal to professional ethics would be redundant).

If Mr. Brooker believes the ethics of these proposals are defensible, it would
be interesting to hear him do so in a suitable forum.  The Boston chapter of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is what springs to mind, though
I am not a member, and cannot pretend to speak for them.
				/AHM

I've lost the "Digital Way of Working" thread here ...

- g

    re: .32
    
>                  -< Assuming it was there at some point  >-
>
>I've lost the "Digital Way of Working" thread here ...
    
    *BIG* assumption.  8^}
    
    -- Russ

Re: .22

How about "Extract 1095.* debate.txt" and show it to your professor?

Who knows?  Maybe you'll get extra credit.

    re: .34
    
    NOT without express written permission of .....
    
    Aren't these conferences INTERNAL USE ONLY, etc..... ??
    
    	-Barry-
    

    re. 34/35
                 I thought he was talking about the author taking it back
    to the professor.  

Re .32:

>I've lost the "Digital Way of Working" thread here ...

I'm not sure there was one until I brought in the question of professional
ethics in .31.  Except for that potential, I thought the base note had no
business in this conference from when I first read it.  However, I'm glad I
waited to raise the issue until we were told that these schemes were someone
else's idea.

To render this topic even more relevant, let me ask the conference members if
*they* would work on such projects if a customer (like the guv'ment) wanted it?
				/AHM

    I wouldn't, but then people can always be found to do such jobs, either
    because they believe in them or they get paid a lot or they were
    ordered to and believed they had no choice.

    re rathole 1.

    Some Utopias found powerful product managers and build quite few
    concentration camps. 

    Euthanasia didn't succeed even in Hitler's Germany thanks to massive 
    protests of  different Christian Churches.

    The child upbringing in large social factories smells Madam Kollontaj ,
    and attempts were a disaster.

    Your professor may have a statistics about farmers getting more sick
    then other people but how scientific are the solutions.

    How can you scientifically prove that sterilizing farmers is an
    objective solution to a problem , just like changing a car wheel is a
    fix for a flat tire ?

    Have you observed that the coercion and violence in all these
    "solutions". There is something sick about it. 
    A way to get rid of "lower" classes is sterilization , are there
    really no other alternatives ?


    re rathole 2.

    I'm bit amazed by assumption Mr.Professor makes about computers.

    Machines are objective, thus good, while humans are subjective and bad.

    It wouldn't be to difficult to build a coffee machine systematically
    discriminating overweight people . King size citizens wouldn't get
    sugar or cream.

    The stupid thing ( computer ) does what it is programmed to, including
    all the prejudice and incompetence of the experts.

    The real problem in medicine , just like in almost all similar
    professions, is to have correct description of the symptoms. This is THE
    problem. It takes great skill and experience. Rest is "trivial".
    No data entry operator could do this job.

    Besides, as somebody said here, medicine is not a science, people are
    not machines. Similar ideas were/are held in Sweden, this is why ,
    IMHO, Swedish medical systems is one of the worse in Europe.

    						
    					Wlodek

    re .39, computers do what people tell them to.
    
    Bingo!  Computerizing doesn't automatically give you a world
    where there is no predjudice or subjectivity.
    
    See the "Risks Digest" on usenet for story after story about
    the comic or tragic consequences of over-trusting computers.
    
    			-John Bishop

    Don't mean to offend anyone here.  But I couldn't resist when I hear
    someone claim that sociology is a science.  What scientific laws
    have they discovered in sociology so far?
    
    I suggest you folks go and read note 34 of the DAVE_BARRY note. :-)
    
    Eugene

re: .22:
    	In class Mr. Brooker controls the discussion, and allows for NO
    criticism of his ideas on the students part. He backs his arguments
    with statistics and percentages, based on years of research. Any
    continued disagreements are threatened with failure or withdrawal from
    the class.

Anyone who doesn't believe that this is applicable to "the way we work
at Digital" is cordially invited to the RSTS 20th anniversary dinner
next week.  If you're too young to remember RSTS, you might be able
to catch the Unix sessions.

    Thereby freeing
    up the family doctors to do research.

Family doctors treat sick people; very few do research, want to do
research, or have the talents to do research.  And, on the other hand,
not all research-oriented physicians are particularly successful healers.
Also, physicians are trained to listen, look, smell, make judgements,
and take responsibilty; we have a long way to go in the computer industry
along those lines.
    
    	In the courts, the computer is used to eliminate the bias, brought
    on by juries, judges and lawyers. Lie detectors well there not perfect,
    but they are better than the bibles of old.

This is certainly "testable" -- even within the narrow strictures of
sociology: where is the evidence?

     Computer programs like
    those used in personal computers, they would help fray the cost of
    lawyers. In some cases filing the proper form is all that is required,
    who needs a lawyer for that.

True, for most "lawyer-like" interactions.  You can also buy a paperback
book with enough forms to fulfill about 90% of your legal needs.  I'm not
sure if I'd want to take one to a probable-cause hearing, though.

    	A big argument with Mr. Brooker is the quickly growing lower class
    population. According to his lectures, research shows that within 10
    years lower class, uneducatable students will be a majority in grade
    schools across the country. I do not advocate sterilization, per se.
    Is there a way to turn those figures around. Is paying a lump sum out
    to people who voluntarily agree to sterilization a reasonable solution?
    What does the high tech community have to offer as an alternative? 

How about teaching these supposedly uneducatable students?  There were some
interesting "sociological" studies done during/just after World War II.
It seems that the rehabilitation centers were teaching head-injured soldiers
to read again.  But, when the paperwork caught up to the patients, they
discovered that a goodly number of these soldiers couldn't read in the
first place.  What "evidence" does your esteemed professor that proves
that the problem lies with the student?  What "evidence" shows that it
is an inherited trait and not due to childhood/fetal trauma or malnutrition?
If the "uneducatable" student will not pass "uneducatable" genes to his/her
offspring, there is no reason -- except perhaps vindicitiveness -- to
offer steralization.

    	Another sore spot is the United Farm Workers. He is appalled at the
    current living and working conditions they deal with on a daily basis.
    Long hard work days, exposure to pesticides, an increased cancer rate
    shown statitcally, and poor living conditions. He would like to see the
    farmers stop producing....CHILDREN.

Aha, blame the victim again.  Now, where did I put my Steinbeck?

    I have only touched briefly on the subject, as discussed in
    the class, but to go deeper would be to turn away from the ideals that
    this conference is designed for, namely how does this impact working
    for Digital. It probably doesn't. Then again maybe it should. 

It probably does touch on Digital -- as my first rather cynical comment
suggests -- and more than you might expect.  It would be interesting to
look at some of the decisions we've made over the last 15-20 years
from the point of view of a sociologist.  Why were some products beloved
of customers but despised by the politically-correct parts of management
(Dec-10/20, RSTS, Unix, Teco, to name just a few)?

Martin.

.22>    	In class Mr. Brooker controls the discussion, and allows for NO
.22>    criticism of his ideas on the students part. He backs his arguments
.22>    with statistics and percentages, based on years of research. Any
.22>    continued disagreements are threatened with failure or withdrawal from
    
    I find it a bit odd that anybody espousing a "scientific method"
    should be so violently opposed to disagreement.  I'm beginning to
    understand why the American education system is so heavily criticized...
    
    I was gonna mention something about how an impartial semi-AI computer 
    network might start scheduling sterilizations for those with an IQ
    under 100, but we've had enough of those warnings so far.   DEC, with
    it's history in MUMPS, OPS, foreign device support <online lie detector>
    and distributed processing, would be the obvious vendor of choice for 
    systems needed to implement this "Utopian" vision.  (Enough DEC for you, 
    Simon and Greg?)
    
      John

    I guess my rebuttal to .22 fell on deaf ears. I had the instructor and
    heard a different message. I can really see how people read what they
    want to read and ignore other facts. Does this really have something to
    do with the way we work at DEC or have we found a BANDWAGON subject and
    not want to look at all the facts or selectivly pick the one we want to
    respond to ??????
    
                                  Mike

    I believe most of the notes in this topic are responding to the way the
    base note author presented the case.  If the case was not presented
    fairly, then the responses don't apply to that instructor.
    
    It's possible the instructor behaves differently in different classes. 
    You and the base note author could both be correctly representing the
    instructor's behavior.  If I've read the notes correctly, you did not
    take the same class at the same time.

    re.44
    	Mike, I heard him tell a student directly that if you can't
    comprehend what I am telling you then you better withdraw, because you
    will no pass the course. The discussion was on personal desicions,
    choices, and thinking. IMHO those are subjective points of view, not
    objective. Therefore, I believe there is room for discussion.
    
    
    re.45
    	I took the class during the day. I am assuming that Mike, .44 took
    the class at night. Or am I not the only 2nd shifter persuing an
    education during the day. There is a difference in teaching methods
    between days and nights. There is also a difference in the student
    attitudes between day and night. 
    
    	I did not state that I disliked the guy. Only that I did not agree
    with him 100%. In fact I liked him as an instructor. A sentiment shared
    by several in the class. He puts a great deal of energy in teaching,
    and he believes in what he is saying. I have not seen an instructor in
    college or high school that rallied the students to get as much out of
    there education as possible. He constantly pushed students to transfer
    to a better college if possible. For the students who can't afford to
    transfer then to seek out and investigate each of the professors for
    which you have a course to take. That way you will know first hand who 
    is the best instructor for that class. 
    
    	I would recommend Mr. Brooker to anyone starting out at WSC.
    Although, I did not agree with him fully, I thought that he encouraged
    students to learn. 
    
    Roland
    

    Rolad,
     Ithink I misunderstood y. I agree with you 100%. I would also 
    reccomend him. He is dynamic and takes interest in what he is 
    teaching. I guess he was right when he stated you could get quite
    a stir taking the info outside ofclass.
     He is constant in his styl both day and nday and night. He does not 
    tolerate ignorance. I will reply more later but I cannot stand typing
    between the brackets (poor Phone Line) or maybe its my background.
    
                                 Mike
    
     I'm glad we got that settled