Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 07 Issue 04
Computer underground Digest Wed Jan 18, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 04
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Copy Reader: Laslo Toth
CONTENTS, #7.04 (Wed, Jan 18, 1995)
File 1--GIF Tax Rumors- Threat or Menace? (Resp #1)
File 2--Re CuD 7.02 - Compuserv/Unisys GIF tax
File 3--The InterNewt
File 4--cu in the news
File 5--INFORMATION ACCESS: Not Just Wires (fwd)
File 6-- Re: COOCS'95 Deadline extended until January 30C
File 7--**How do I protect my program??**
File 8--Comment on D. Batterson's article (CuD 6.106)
File 9--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 14:12:31 -0600
From: /G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU1=0205465@MHS-MC.ATTMAIL.COM
Subject: File 1--GIF Tax Rumors- Threat or Menace? (Resp #2)
Date: 1/12/95 1:06 PM
Subj: GIF Tax Rumors: Threat or Menace?
For those of you who haven't been reading your email lately, or who have
managed to escape the net's Crisis of the Month Club, on December 28th
CompuServe issued an unnecessarily tangled, poorly worded press release
that contained the words "patent," "GIF," "royalty," and "CompuServe."
Pat Clawson, the President and CEO of TeleGraphix Communications Inc.,
spread the word to the world, along with his own interpretation.
For the next two weeks, all "the usual places" on the net (CompuServe's
GRAPHSUPPORT forum, Telecom Digest, Computer underground Digest, and
various UseNet newsgroups) exploded with scads of non-lawyers'
interpretations of a document that was clearly written (or at least
approved) by lawyers.
Serveral days ago, CompuServe issued another statement, clarifying the
whole mess. If I may abstract it:
1) The GIF image format, which CompuServe invented and promoted, uses
LZW compression to bring down the image size.
2) At the time, CompuServe was under the impression that LZW was public
domain. In fact, it was (being?) patented by Unisys.
3) Unisys wants its dough. Any package which uses LZW compression or
decompression, including anything that can make or display a GIF
image,
infringes on their patent.
4) CompuServe negotiated a pass-through agreement: for a nominal sum per
copy sold, you can sublicense the LZW/GIF code from CompuServe.
5) However, the terms of CompuServe's agreement with Unisys require that
they only sub-license software that was written specifically to
communicate with CompuServe.
6) If that =isn't= what your software is for, then you need to negotiate
your =own= agreement with Unisys for the offending LZW routines, or
stop selling software that uses them.
In his January 2nd screed, Pat Clawson of TeleGraphix misinterprets points
four through six above. His interpretation, which is now ricocheting
around the net, argues that GIF is now legally restricted to CompuServe
only. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Of course, Pat Clawson is not without fiscal interest in this controversy,
either. Within a day or so of his first call to arms, his company had
offered a competing spec, called GEF. Of course, at first his would be
the only software that could read it, which is always good for the ol'
market share, eh Pat? Oh, except now he's promoting yet another graphics
standard, RIPScript ... as evidenced by the fact that his Internet email
address has changed from PATCLAWSON@telegraphix.com to
rip.support@telegraphix.com.
On top of that, four days later Unisys' Public Relations department made
an announcement in CompuServe's GRAPHSUPPORT forum that is even better
news.
7) Unisys only wants to charge royalties from communications software
vendors who are charging a fee for software intended to connect to a
commercial online service.
8) Unisys explicitly says that they will not charge a royalty for "non-
commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications, including those for
use on the on-line services" or for "non-commercial, non-profit
offerings on the Internet, including +Freeware+."
9) They also made it pretty clear that they won't charge for selling
images, whether via World Wide Web pages, CompuServe fora, or local
bulletin boards. It's the software vendors whose software =makes=
the images who'll have to pay.
In other words, unless you =sell= =communications software= specifically
for connecting to =commercial online services= such as CompuServe or
America Online, and your software displays GIFs, you'll have to pay a
royalty. CompuServe estimates that the royalty will work out to around 11
cents per copy of the software sold. If you want to explore alternatives
to sub-licensing from CompuServe, or you want to make sure that you are
covered, email lzw_info@unisys.com and =ask them=.
Everybody else can relax, sit back down, and let this month's Panic of the
Month ebb away. There is no FCC modem tax, there is no FCC proposed rule
to outlaw religious broadcasting, Craig Shergold doesn't want more
postcards, and there is no conspiracy to tax, license, restrict, or outlaw
GIF files.
P.S. Thank all holy Gods that everyone involved is including a date and an
email address in their messages on the subject. Hopefully, we won't be
hearing about this "new threat" in five years.
P.P.S. Come to think of it, the FCC Modem Tax memetic infection started
with a CompuServe public announcement, too. "CompuServe Public Relations:
Threat or Menace?" Nah, it's probably just a coincidence.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:09:43 +0500
From: rich@PARIS.INTERTV.COM(Richard Forno)
Subject: File 2--Re CuD 7.02 - Compuserv/Unisys GIF tax
That just shows a few things. Firstly, it shows Compuserv's desire to
get noticed in the GII. They have probably lost marketshare to smaller
places such as AOL or due to people getting full-service accounts at
work and/or school. CServe figures that by adding this tax, they will
get a return on the existing .GIF Technology already in cyberspace.
Wrong! That's like the already-trampled-and-beaten PGP horse. That's
like having the federal government attempt to liscence and control
EVERY copy of PGP in existence and the subsequent use of the program
thereof. IT WON'T WORK!! Finally, since the public liscence conditions
weren't made available from Compuserv, I agree that it is their sneak
attack on the online community. If Compuserv feels this strongly about
the widespread use of GIF technology in the advancement of the Global
Information Infrastructure (which I would think as flattering, at
least) they would rethink this half-crazed concept of theirs. There
are other, more flexible image types that can easily fill the gap in
W3 sites and other GIF areas. IMHO, this is a major blunder for
Compuserv. It shows their motive for existence as only for profit
--forget helping advance on the GII, they just want bucks.
Not to mention, if .GIF was designed for use by the shareware
community, doesn't this kind of go against the shareware concept and
further show CServ's attempt to grandfather in this tax?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 14:00:41 -0800
From: dbatterson@ATTMAIL.COM(David Batterson)
Subject: File 3--The InterNewt
Newt and the Art of the Internet
By David Batterson
As the Religious Reich continues to march to the tune of "Onward
Christian Soldiers," we can expect the clueless Newtbies,
chainsmoking Helmsmen and Rush dittohead dorks to increase their
invasion of the Net.
Of course, they will not be satisfied with the Internet status
quo, but will immediately want to change things around to suit their
rightwing agenda (and placate their corporate contributors). Let's
prognosticate what we might expect if they have their way.
Senator Jesse Helms will be setting up a WWW home page for the
tobacco industry, where we can view video clips on the joys of
smoking, read informative text on how curbing smoking is an
infringement of our Constitutional liberties, see .GIF photos of
celebrities smoking away, and listen to .WAV files of cigarette
manufacturer CEOs testifying before Congress that there's no evidence
linking tobacco to lung cancer. Address: http://www.rightwing.puk
Speaker Newt Gingrich will set up a gopher site, where you can
to read and post in delightful new Newsgroups
like jobs.many.entrylevel, alt.gay.hangem, people.orphanages.buildem,
legal.aid.nofunds, TV.public.disband, defense.budget.skyhigh,
environment.pollute.whocares, and tobacco.ifyagotem.smokem.
You'll have to learn some new terminology when the "Sieg Heil"
crowd takes over. Don't worry, though; there will not be prison time
for first time offenders who still use the old meanings. You will be
required to subscribe to National Review, however, to catch up.
The definition of WWW (World Wide Web) will be changed to We
Want Wealth.
Archie and Veronica will be banned, and be replaced by earlier
comic strip characters Mutt and Jeff (to reflect the same age and
brainpower of our new leaders).
URL (Uniform Resource Locator) will probably become Unscrupulous
Republican Liars.
IRC (Internet Relay Chat) becomes Irresponsible, Reprehensible
Congress.
WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) switches over to Women Are
Insignificant Servants.
SLIP/PPP (Serial Line Internet Protocol/Point-to-Point Protocol)
will see its definition fall by the wayside. The terms will soon
stand for Slippery, Lame Internal Policies/Petty Political
Pugnaciousness.
TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) will
stand for Take Control and Plunder/Ignore Populace.
And FTP (File Transfer Protocol)? That's easy. It will soon
mean: Fuck The People.
See ya on the Net, and don't forget to give the third-finger
salute to the new Congressional leadership. 8^/
###
David Batterson contributes to WIRED, CONNECT, WAVE, Portland
Computer Bits, ComputorEdge and other publications. Cyberaddress:
dbatterson@attmail.com. Copyright 1995; all rights reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 12:21:41 -0800
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 4--cu in the news
Check Fraud
==========
According to the American Banksers Association (ABA), check fraud has
risen 136% over 1991 levels. Some of the culprits are desktop
publishing and laser printers, which allow for easier forging of
payroll checks. The ABA countermeasures for these developments include
direct deposit, software that watches for suspicious-looking check
numbers, and discouraging legitimate customers from printing their own
checks on plain-paper.
(ComputerWorld. 12/5/94 pg 8)
Cyberspace and the Law
====================
Edward Cavazos, attorney and author of _Cyberspace and The Law_ (MIT
Press), is briefly interviewed in the Dec. 5, 1994 issue of
ComputerWorld. Cavazos warns that there are several pitfalls for
businesses that allows employees access to the Internet. These include
copyright violations, privacy issues, and possible libel problems.
(pgs 114-116)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:47:34 -0600 (CST)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 5--INFORMATION ACCESS: Not Just Wires (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
**************************************
* Copyright Karen Coyle, 1994 *
* *
* This document may be *
* circulated freely on the Net *
* with this statement included. *
* For any commercial use, or *
* publication (including electronic *
* journals), you must obtain the *
* permission of the author *
* kec@stubbs.ucop.edu *
**************************************
ACCESS: Not Just Wires
By Karen Coyle
(University of California, Library Automation)
(Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Berkeley Chapter)
** This is the written version of a talk given at the 1994 CPSR Annual
meeting in San Diego, CA, on Oct. 8. **
I have to admit that I'm really sick and tired of the Information
highway. I feel like I've already heard so much about it that it must
be come and gone already, yet there is no sign of it. This is truly a
piece of federal vaporware.
I am a librarian, and I and it's especially strange to have dedicated
much of your life to the careful tending of our current information
infrastructure, our libraries, only to wake up one morning to find that
the entire economy of the nation depends on making information
commercially viable. There's an element of Twilight Zone about this
because libraries are probably our most underfunded and underappreciated
of institutions, with the possible exception of day care centers.
It's clear to me that the information highway isn't much about
information. It's about trying to find a new basis for our economy.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like the way information is treated in
that economy. We know what kind of information sells, and what doesn't.
So I see our future as being a mix of highly expensive economic reports
and cheap online versions of the National Inquirer. Not a pretty
picture.
This is a panel on "access." But I am not going to talk about access
from the usual point of view of physical or electronic access to the
FutureNet. Instead I am going to talk about intellectual access to
materials and the quality of our information infrastructure, with the
emphasis on "information.". Information is a social good and part of our
"social responsibility" is that we must take this resource seriously.
>From the early days of our being a species with consciousness of its own
history, some part of society has had the role of preserving this
history: priests, learned scholars, archivists. Information was
valued; valued enough to be denied to some members of society; to be
part of the ritual of belonging to an elite.
So I find it particularly puzzling that as move into this new
"information age" that our efforts are focused on the machinery of the
information system, while the electronic information itself is being
treated like just so much more flotsam and jetsam; this is not a
democratization of information, but a devaluation of information.
On the Internet, many electronic information sources that we are
declaring worthy of "universal access" are administered by part-time
volunteers; graduate students who do eventually graduate, or network
hobbyists. Resources come and go without notice, or languish after an
initial effort and rapidly become out of date. Few network information
resources have specific and reliable funding for the future. As a
telecommunications system the Internet is both modern and mature; as an
information system the Internet is an amateur operation.
Commercial information resources, of course, are only interested in
information that provides revenue. This immediately eliminates the
entire cultural heritage of poetry, playwriting, and theological
thought, among others.
If we value our intellectual heritage, and if we truly believe that
access to information (and that broader concept, knowledge) is a valid
social goal, we have to take our information resources seriously. Now I
know that libraries aren't perfect institutions. They tend to be
somewhat slow-moving and conservative in their embrace of new
technologies; and some seem more bent on hoarding than disseminating
information. But what we call "modern librarianship" has over a century
of experience in being the tender of this society's information
resources. And in the process of developing and managing that resource,
the library profession has understood its responsibilities in both a
social and historical context. Drawing on that experience, I am going
to give you a short lesson on social responsibilities in an information
society.
Here are some of our social responsibilities in relation to information:
1. Collection
2. Selection
3. Preservation
4. Organization
5. Dissemination
1. Collection:
It is not enough to passively gather in whatever information comes your
way, like a spider waiting on its web. Information collection is an
activity, and an intelligent activity. It is important to collect and
collocate information units that support, complement and even contradict
each other. A collection has a purpose and a context; it says something
about the information and it says something about the gatherer of that
information. It is not random, because information itself is not
random, and humans do not produce information in a random fashion.
Too many Internet sites today are a terrible hodge-podge, with little
intellectual purpose behind their holdings. It isn't surprising that
visitors to these sites have a hard time seeing the value of the
information contained therein. Commercial systems, on the other hand,
have no incentive to provide an intellectual balance that might
"confuse" its user.
In all of the many papers that have come out of discussion of the
National Information Infrastructure, it is interesting that there is no
mention of collecting information: there is no Library of Congress or
National Archive of the electronic inforamtion world. So in the whole
elaborate scheme, no one is responsbile for the collection of
information.
2. Selection:
Not all information is equal. This doesn't mean that some of it should
be thrown away, though inevitably there is some waste in the information
world. And this is not in support of censorship. But there's a
difference between a piece on nuclear physics by a Nobel laureate and a
physics diorama entered into a science fair by an 8-year-old. And
there's a difference between alpha release .03 and beta 1.2 of a
software package. If we can't differentiate between these, our
intellectual future looks grim indeed.
Certain sources become known for their general reliability, their
timeliness, etc. We have to make these judgments because the sheer
quantity of information is too large for us to spend our time with
lesser works when we haven't yet encountered the greats.
This kind of selection needs to be done with an understanding of a
discipline and understanding of the users of a body of knowledge. The
process of selection overlaps with our concept of education, where
members of our society are directed to a particular body of knowledge
that we hold to be key to our understanding of the world.
3. Preservation:
How much of what is on the Net today will exist in any form ten years
from now? And can we put any measure to what we lose if we do not
preserve things systematically? If we can't preserve it all, at least
in one safely archived copy, are we going to make decisions about
preservation, or will we leave it up to a kind of information
Darwinianism? As we know, the true value of some information may not be
immediately known, and some ideas gain in value over time.
The commercial world, of course, will preserve only that which sells
best.
4. Organization:
This is an area where the current Net has some of its most visible
problems, as we have all struggled through myriad gopher menus, ftp
sites, and web pages looking for something that we know is there but
cannot find.
There is no ideal organization of information, but no organization is no
ideal either. The organization that exists today in terms of finding
tools is an attempt to impose order over an unorganized body. The human
mind in its information seeking behavior is a much more complex question
than can be answered with a keyword search in an unorganized information
universe. When we were limited to card catalogs and the placement of
physical items on shelves, we essentially had to choose only one way to
organize our information. Computer systems should allow us to create a
multiplicity of organization schemes for the same information, from
traditional classification, that relies on hierarchies and categories,
to faceted schemes, relevance ranking and feedback, etc.
Unfortunately, documents do not define themselves. The idea of doing
WAIS-type keyword searching on the vast store of textual documents on
the Internet is a folly. Years of study of term frequency, co-
occurrence and other statistical techniques have proven that keyword
searching is a passable solution for some disciplines with highly
specific vocabularies and nearly useless in all others. And, of course,
the real trick is to match the vocaubulary of the seeker of information
with that of the information resource. Keyword searching not only
doesn't take into account different terms for the same concepts, it
doesn't take into account materials in other languages or different user
levels (i.e. searching for children will probably need to be different
than searching done by adults, and libraries actually use different
subject access schemes for childrens' materials). And non-textual items
(software, graphics, sound) do not respond at all to keyword searching.
There is no magical, effortless way to create an organization for
information; at least today the best tools are a clearly defined
classification scheme and a human indexer. At least a classification
scheme or indexing scheme gives the searcher a chance to develop a
rational strategy for searching.
The importance of organizational tools cannot be overstated. What it
all comes down to is that if we can't find the information we need, it
doesn't matter if it exists or not. If we don't find it, we don't
encounter it, then it isn't information. There are undoubtedly millions
of bytes of files on the Net that for all practical purposes are non-
existant .
My biggest fear in relation to the information highway is that
intellectual organization and access will be provided by the commercial
world as a value-added service. So the materials will exist, even at an
affordable price, but it will cost real money to make use of the tools
that will make it possible for you to find the information you need.
If we don't provide these finding tools as part of the public resource,
then we aren't providing the information to the public.
5. Dissemination:
There's a lot of talk about the "electronic library". Actually, there's
a lot written about the electronic library, and probably much of it ends
up on paper. Most of us agree that for anything longer than a one-
screen email message, we'd much rather read documents off a paper page
than off a screen. While we can hope that screen technologies will
eventually produce something that truly substitutes for paper, this
isn't true today. So what happens with all of those electronic works
that we're so eager to store and make available? Do we reverse the
industrial revolution and return printing of documents to a cottage
industry taking place in homes, offices and libraries?
Many people talk about their concerns for the "last mile" - for the
delivery of information into every home. I'm concerned about the last
yard . We can easily move information from one computer to another, but
how do we get it from the computer to the human being in the proper
format? Not all information is suited to electronic use. Think of the
auto repair manuals that you drag under the car and drip oil on. Think
of children's books, with their drool-proof pages.
Even the Library of Congress has announced that they are undertaking a
huge project to digitize 5 million items from their collection. Then
what ? How do they think we are going to make use of those materials?
There are times when I can only conclude that we have been gripped by
some strange madness. I have fantasies of kidnapping the entire
membership of the administration's IITF committees and tying them down
in front of 14" screens with really bad flicker and forcing them to read
the whole of Project Gutenberg's electronic copy of Moby Dick. Maybe
then we'd get some concern about the last yard.
In conclusion:
1. No amount of wiring will give us universal access
2. Just adding more files and computers to gopherspace, webspace and
FTPspace will not give us better access
3. And commercial information systems can be expected to be....
commercial
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 21:21:03 -0800
From: Rob Kling <kling@ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject: File 6-- Re: COOCS'95 Deadline extended until January 30C
Deadline extended until January 30 ........
Call for Papers:
Behavioral & Social Impacts Track
Conference on Organizational Computing Systems
COOCS `95
Sponsored by ACM SIGOIS
This conference has three tracks, and I'm posting here because I
believe that the Behavioral & Social Impacts Track will
interest some readers. While conferece focusses on "org computing systems,"
interorganizational communications, telecommuting, commerce on
the nets, electronically connected voluntary groups as organizations,
computer-mediated communication in diverse forms,
and many other such broad topics can fit ... as
computing/telecomm crosses org boundaries in so many ways these days.
Rob Kling
Chair, Behavioral and Social Impacts Track
----------
Topics for Track II: Behavioral and Social Impacts
o Social processes in the development and use of electronic journals
o Social processes in the development and use of digital libraries
o Social impacts of organizational re-engineering
o Organizational impacts of computerization of large applications
o Integrating information systems and small groups
o Social-technical systems analysis (theory and case studies)
o Organization and ramifications of mobile offices
o Open systems policies, standards, and impacts
o Social aspects of globally distributed organizational computing
o Theoretical approaches for understanding the development, use and/or
social impacts of information technologies
o The influence of technology and work organization on work life
o The cultural dimensions of computerization within and between
organizations
IMPORTANT DATES
Submission due: January 30, 1995
Author notification: March 8, 1995
Manuscripts due: May 10, 1995
Conference dates: August 13-16, 1995
-------------------------------------------
CONFERENCE SPECIFICS:
-------------------
Conference Location: Sheraton Silicon Valley ----Milpitas (near
San Jose), California August 13-16, 1995 (Immediately after the
Workflow `95 conference)
As we endeavor to move toward more effective and efficient organizations,
we must take into account technical, social, and organizational aspects of
computerization. This conference is organized as three tracks in order to
address these aspects.
I. Business processes track
II. Behavioral and social impacts track
III. Technical aspects track
Advances in tools, processes, technologies, and methodologies that
facilitate the use of information systems in organizations can improve
the way information is made available and used. This conference is
intended to bring together researchers and practitioners interested
in the introduction, management, deployment, and analysis of information
and processes within organizations. The scope of the conference is
intended to cover areas related to this goal, including but not
limited to:
Track II: Behavioral and Social Impacts
o Social processes in the development and use of electronic journals
o Social processes in the development and use of digital libraries
o Social impacts of organizational re-engineering
o Organizational impacts of computerization of large applications
o Integrating information systems and small groups
o Social-technical systems analysis (theory and case studies)
o Organization and ramifications of mobile offices
o Open systems policies, standards, and impacts
o Social aspects of globally distributed organizational computing
o Theoretical approaches for understanding the development, use and/or
social impacts of information technologies
o The influence of technology and work organization on work life
o The cultural dimensions of computerization within and between
organizations
------------------------------
Track I: Business Processes
o Workflow systems, models, and theories
o Process meta-models and meta-modeling
o Models and strategies for business process design, and re-engineering
o Measurement-based approaches to organizational analysis
o Process acquisition, monitoring and management tools
o Business systems formalisms
o Experiences with process models and process management tools
Track III: Technical Aspects
o Organizational computing systems and infrastructure
o Groupware
o Object and database models and systems
o Computer supported collaboration and negotiation
o Distributed AI, expert systems, multi-agent models
o Coordination technology and workflow technology
o Multimedia information storage, retrieval, and communications
Each track of the conference will have a program chair and a program
committee. Thus, each paper should be submitted to the program chair
of the most appropriate track. (See below for all 3 track
chairs)
Rob Kling (behavioral track chair)
Dept. Information/Computer Sci
University of California
Irvine, CA 92715 USA
Phone: +1 714 856 5955
Fax: +1 714 856 4056
email: kling@ics.uci.edu
If a submission falls within several tracks, please submit it to
one program chair, and note the overlap in a cover letter, so
that the submission can be properly considered. Each submission
will be critically reviewed and judged by the appropriate
program committee(s). Submissions to the conference can be in
the form of papers, or demonstration, panel, workshop or
tutorial pro- posals. Papers can take either of two forms:
(1) Research investigations present original work in any of the
areas of interest to the conference.
(2) Case studies discuss projects which introduce innovative tools,
technologies or methodologies into particular organizational
settings, and critically analyze the results and impact of the
project.
RESEARCH PAPERS --
Papers should present original reports of substantive new work
or integrative reviews. Theory, methodology, and concept papers
should present new theories, empirical results, methodologies or
concepts that stimulate new ways of thinking about, supporting,
or studying organizational information systems (broadly
conceived).
All papers should provide a concise message to the audience
about how the work relates to previous research or experience
and what aspects of the work are new. Papers will be evaluated
on the basis of originality, significance of the contribution to
the field, quality of research, and quality of writing.
Papers should not exceed 12 ACM camera-ready pages. It is
possible that some papers will be presented at the conference in
poster sessions. Papers must include an abstract of no more than
100 words. Papers must be twelve pages or less, including
abstract, figures, and references, printed in double columns, in
12 point Times font, on 8.5"X11" paper (See proceedings of
COOCS'93 or CSCW'94 for examples.)
------------------------------
Demonstration proposals should be 3-5 pages long, and include
enough information to allow the committee to judge the relevance
and significance of the work. Please include machine requirements.
Panel proposals should motivate the subject of the panel and give
brief biographical sketches of proposed panel members.
Workshop and Tutorial proposals should motivate the workshop/tutorial
and its relevance to this conference. For tutorials, provide an outline
and a brief biographical sketch of the proposers. For workshops,
motivate the workshop, indicate how you would select participants,
and outline the format of the workshop. Proposals for both half-day
and full-day workshops and tutorials are welcome.
Authors should submit five copies of the manuscript or proposal,
in English, together with a cover sheet, to the appropriate
Program Chair by January 4, 1995. The cover sheet should contain
(i) submission type; (ii) title; (iii) names, addresses, phone
numbers, fax numbers and email addresses (if available) of all
authors; (iv) contact author; (v) keywords and abstract.
Information on paper format can be obtained from any of the
Program Co-chairs.
IMPORTANT DATES
Submission due: January 4, 1995
Author notification: March 8, 1995
Manuscripts due: May 10, 1995
Conference dates: August 13-16, 1995
Conference Co-Chairs
Nora Comstock Clarence A. Ellis
Comstock Connections Dept. of Computer Science
3103 Loyola Ln. University of Colorado
Austin, TX 78723 U.S.A. Boulder, CO 80309 U.S.A
+1 512 928 8780 voice and fax +1 303 492 5984
loyola!nora@cs.utexas.edu (UUCP) skip@cs.colorado.edu
PROGRAM CHAIRS
John Mylopoulos (business track) Rob Kling (behavioral track)
Dept. of Computer Science Dept. Information/Computer Sci
University of Toronto University of California
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA Irvine, CA 92715 USA
Phone: +1 416 978 5180 Phone: +1 714 856 5955
Fax: +1 416 978 1455 Fax: +1 714 856 4056
email: jm@ai.toronto.edu email: kling@ics.uci.edu
Simon Kaplan (technical track)
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801 USA
Phone:+1 217 244 0392
Fax: +1 217 333 3501
email: kaplan@cs.uiuc.edu
REGISTRATION/LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
WORKSHOP ARRANGEMENTS TREASURER
Keith Swenson Jeanie Treichel
Fujitsu OSSI Sun Microsystems Lab, Inc.
3055 Orchard Dr. 2550 Garcia Avenue, UMTV 29-01
San Jose, CA 95134 Mountain View CA 94043
Phone: +1408 456 7667 Phone: +1 415 336 5260
Fax: +1 408 456 7050 Fax: +1 415 691 0756
kswenson@ossi.com email: jeanie.treichel@Sun.COM
------------------------------
From: Warren Smith <warren205@DELPHI.COM>
Subject: File 7--**How do I protect my program??**
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 95 16:32:30 -0500
I have spent two years of part-time work writing a program which I
hope to sell sometime. I would like users to try the program for
a time, say a month, before they can decide to buy it - I hate spending
my money on a program that I later find is no good.
The question is - how do I protect all my work against all the pirates
out there.
Do I force users to use a 'Dongle'? Is there a better way?
Even the 'Dongle' is not foolproof. And I have to absorb the cost
of the Dongles given to potential customers who don't later buy the
program. This also would prevent distribution by wire.
I notice some programs are being distributed on CDROM with a password
needed to access parts of the program.
Can anyone tell me where I can find help. Any Associations which might
help me?
By the way, which 'Dongle' is the best?
Sorry to offend all you liberated freedom loving pirates out there.
Thanks,
Warren.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 15:55:02 -0500
From: Petrocelli@AOL.COM
Subject: File 8--Comment on D. Batterson's article (CuD 6.106)
Item 2 talks about "old fashioned" market surveys and his opinion that
they are somehow ridiculous when compared to the on-line, electronic
version. He writes:
But an e-mailed (or online) survey would be the best way to go.
PRODIGY already has online opinion polls, with instant results
available for viewing, so it could be done easily enough. Online
market research is unintrusive, is digital in nature [no inputing by
data collectors is required], and surveys can be done according to the
respondent's time schedule, NOT the market research firm's. This
major market research firm has its head stuck in the sand, as do many
other ones.
This is a wonderful sentiment but, alas, an unscientific one. To
properly conduct a survey of any type requires a random sample.
Surveys conducted on an on-line service are only valid if you are
studying people who call on-line services or as a supplement to a
phone survey. Otherwise, characteristics of people who are on-line
will skew your results.
When the day comes that everyone is on-line, when we have a truely
global, electronic community then on-line surveys will make sense.
Until that time the time-honered way of using a phone and imposing on
their goodwill will be the best way to gather market intelligence
aside from showing up at someone's office and doing it in person. We
should never confuse asking someone for a moment of their time with an
abrigment of freedom.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 25 Nov 1994)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name
Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441.
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
EUROPE: In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32-69-844-019 (ringdown)
In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493
In LUXEMBOURG: ComNet BBS: +352-466893
UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD
ftp://www.rcac.tdi.co.jp/pub/mirror/CuD
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU
Sociology gopher at:
URL: gopher://corn.cso.niu.edu:70/00/acad_dept/col_of_las/dept_soci
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #7.04
************************************
