Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
EJournal Volume 03 Number 01
______ _______ __
/_____/ /__ __/ / /
/ /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / /
/ ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / /
/ /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_ / / /
\_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/
July, 1993 _EJournal_ Volume 3 Number 1 ISSN 1054-1055
There are 996 lines in this issue.
An Electronic Journal concerned with the
implications of electronic networks and texts.
3,059 Subscribers in 37 Countries
University at Albany, State University of New York
EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet
==========================================================================
********* Framework for this experimental HtxtRdr issue **************
- Read Me First -- Using the DOS-based HtxtRdr -- Read Me First -
============= =============
If you can't use DOS, or don't want to go to the trouble outlined
below, you can scroll through this issue of _EJournal_ as you usually
do, ignoring the whole experiment.
The experimental "hypertext reader" itself, at the end of the text,
has been compressed and ASCII encoded so that it will fit in this
sending of _EJournal_; you will need to do some decoding and
decompressing to get ready to use HtxtRdr.
You will need:
A. A DOS-based machine (IBM-compatible, 286 or higher) with a hard
disk drive.
B. A way to download files from your network account to the DOS
machine.
C. Access to the software UUDECODE and UNZIP. You may have them; they
are available on many mainframe systems (ask your system
administrator). The pair is also available as shareware for DOS:
(ftp the unzipper, UNZ50P1.EXE, from wuarchive.wustl.edu -
directory /mirrors/msdos/zip/unz50p1.exe [40K bytes];
(ftp the decoder, UUEXE521.ZIP, from procyon.cis.ksu.edu -
directory /pub/PC/UnixLike/uuexe521.zip [32K bytes]).
i) Before trying to download from an ftp site, confirm that the
journal file and the program files will fit on your DOS machine's
hard disk, and that they can be transferred in a reasonable time
through your modem [Total: about 124K bytes].
ii) If you decide to download from an ftp site, remember to issue
the BIN command before asking to GET the files.
iii) Before using the ftp'd programs, you will need to prepare them
using these DOS commands:
> UNZ50P1 [unzips the unzipper]
> UNZIP UUEXE521.ZIP [unzips the decoder]
Then you should be ready to follow steps 1, 2, ... below.
Here's the procedure: [this is line 61]
You will probably want to extract and download this whole e-mail
message, containing _EJournal_ V3N1 [about 52K bytes], to your DOS
machine, and then *print for reference* the screens/ pages
containing these instructions, before starting the procedure. In the
illustrations that follow, we have used the name V3N1.TXT for the
downloaded file; you can use any file.name you want; be consistent.
It is possible to do the decoding and decompressing before
downloading; we are not providing detailed instructions for following
that route, but the essential sequence, outlined below, is the same.
The HtxtRdr program must be unencoded and decompressed. To do this:
<1> At line 852, use a text editor to cut the coded "reader" program
from the body of _EJournal_ itself. Give the new file, the "reader"
program file, the name HYPERD.UUE .
<2> From the DOS prompt, step through the following command sequence.
[Be sure that the hyperd.uue file, and the "V3N1.txt" file, and your
uudecode. and unzip. files are in the same DOS directory.]
<3> > UUDECODE HYPERD.UUE [which creates HYPERD.ZIP for you]
<4> > UNZIP HYPERD.ZIP [which creates HYPERD.EXE]
<5> > HYPERD V3N1.TXT
<6> From there on, follow the on-screen instructions, responding to
the question, "Which EJournal file ...?" with V3N1.TXT (or whatever
full file.name you have assigned the _EJournal_ text itself).
In order to leap to a footnote, type the "f" key and then the number
of the note. To return to the screen where you were before you
jumped, tap Return.
The cursor itself cannot be moved. You can use the (S)creen command
to align the HtxtRdr with the number of lines/ rows your screen
displays.
(Inside the HtxtRdr, the line numbering may not agree exactly with the
plaintext issue's line numbers; cutting out the mail header will
help.)
HtxtRdr puts a "menu" line, reminding you of these (and the other)
instructions, and that line number, at the bottom of the screen.
If you decide to try the HtxtRdr, please let us know how it worked for
you. Thanks. Enjoy. (The source code is available.)
EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet
************** end of V3N1 HtxtRdr frame **************
=====================================================================
CONTENTS: [this is line 110]
Using the HtxtRdr ("Read Me First") [ Begins at line 21]
Editorial Note [ Begins at line 162 ]
Ocularities [ Begins at line 174 ]
Dilworth - Levine Exchange:
More about Copyright and Costs [ Begins at line 197
Levine 206
Dilworth 267
Levine - 2 370
Dilworth - 2 395
Levine - 3 443
Dilworth - 3 513
Levine - 4 543 ]
Lenoble Request:
Computer Generated Literature [ Begins at line 560 ]
Snippets from Inter\face 3 [ Begins at line 630 ]
Springer-Verlag Announcement:
Tables of Contents and Biblio/Abstracts [ Begins at line 682 ]
Notes accompanying V3N1 [ Begin at line 710 ]
Information about _EJournal_ - [ Begins at line 733 ]
About Subscriptions and Back Issues
About Supplements to Previous Texts
About Letters to the Editors
About Reviews
About _EJournal_
People - [ Begins at line 812 ]
Board of Advisors
Consulting Editors
HtxRdr program (also the "Cut Here" line) [ Begins at line 852 ]
*************************************************************************
* *
*This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1993 by *
*_EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and *
*its contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest *
*is hereby assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. *
*This notification must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. *
* *
*************************************************************************
Editorial Note - [line 162]
Ben Henry has written a miniature "hypertext" Reader for _EJournal_.
We want readers to be able to move around inside each issue without
having to scroll back and forth. We also would like to make every
issue self contained, HtxtRdr and all. And we don't want to overload
mailboxes, so we try to keep each issue to moderate length. These
constraints have squeezed us into the experimental format being tried
in this issue. We'd like to hear your reactions to the experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocularities - [line 174]
This "Letter to the Editor," a response to V2N5, did come with
a headnote, but we have put that note at the end of the issue in order
to play with our "Reader" framework -- [issue footnote # ^1^ ]
As background use in wide-area network,
Usenet readers grow far more varied shrooms;
And wide-awakened neckworts use more room,
hourly readings of buckgrinders groan;
Groundless netknees in glowing arc,
wise usurer works very mossbacked looms;
You, reader, farmer fairied hack ingrown,
ask not whose ideas bagroom networds clone.
As far as why-dangled rumors go, be brown-weed mulchers back?
We've more news yet:
No scent, no vine-grown musk is more U,
than is mine blow-rheum to the WELL-met!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dilworth - Levine Exchange - [line 197]
An interchange between John Levine and John Dilworth, following
John Dilworth's essay about electronic copyright in _EJournal_
Volume One, Number Three dash Two (September, 1992). See also
Volume Two, Number Four
---------------------------------------
From: John Levine [line 206]
The argument in recent issues of _EJournal_ about electronic copyright
seems to have been argued in a vacuum. Real authors are not going to
write for free.
Let me briefly state who I am: I'm the editor and publisher of the
Journal of C Language Translation, and also an author of several
computer books. Last year I co-authored ``Graphics File Formats''
for Windcrest and extensively revised ``Lex and Yacc'' for O'Reilly.
At the moment I'm working on ``Unix for Dummies'' for IDG and
``Programming for Graphics Files'' for Wiley. I have a PhD from
Yale, too, and do some teaching and consulting but I consider myself
primarily an author.
Dilworth asserts that electronic media are so different from previous
media that authors would forego payment for their work because the
fame they gained from electronic publication would somehow let them
pay their bills. That's very hard to believe. Real authors write for
money. Yes, we enjoy the fame and the freedom to structure our own
time, but the money is critical. I am hardly the first to voice this
opinion; Boswell wrote ``No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for
money.''[issue note # ^2^ ] A minority may write to gain leverage
for consulting or academic appointments, but most of us writers treat
writing as a job which we couldn't do without pay.
Dilworth also suggests that there'd no problem obtaining manuscripts
since publishers are already swamped with them. Despite having
mountainous slush piles, publishers pay, sometimes hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for the manuscripts that they do publish. The
reason, of course, is that the slush pile consists of junk, no more
suitable for electronic than for paper publication. To get quality
manuscripts, publishers pay their authors. One might as well argue
that there is no need to pay college faculty, since there are so many
applicants for any position. [line 240]
Publishers are certainly not opposed to electronic publication. In
my role as publisher of the _Journal of C Language Translation_, I
would love to distribute the journal electronically, but it just
isn't practical, because from electronic versions I can't currently
get the income I need to pay the authors or to pay myself something
for the time it takes.
Given the ease with which electronic documents can be cited and
excerpted, the traditional literary model of payment for a manuscript
as a flat fee or per copy sold doesn't work very well. More
appropriate would probably be something like the royalty scheme used
for phonorecords (a quaint legal term encompassing CDs, tapes, real
records, and any other recorded sound.) There is a normal flat or per
copy fee, and also a low per-play fee when songs are played on the
radio. Radio play fees are collected as flat fees from radio
stations, based on the station size, and then apportioned to the
authors and performers based on a statistical estimate of the number
of times each phonorecord was played.
Ted Nelson, the originator of hypertext, has given the issue of
copyright and author compensation in electronic text media
considerable thought. See notes ^3^ and ^4^ for details.
---------------------------------------
From: John Dilworth [line 267]
I appreciate John Levine's comments on my _EJournal_ article
(Volume 1 Number 3-2) and on my subsequent exchange with Allen
(_EJournal_ Volume 2 Number 4). In my reply I'll explore what may
be some underlying common ground between us, to show that my view
is not as unrealistic, nor as remote from his concerns, as he
suggests. I'll also try to sharpen some areas of disagreement, and
question some of Levine's presuppositions (as he does mine) in the
hope of raising further issues of general interest to _EJournal_
readers.
First, on general orientation. It seems we both agree that,
generally speaking, writers need to get some compensation from
somewhere. According to Levine, "Real authors are not going to
write for free." Let's initially assume that "for free" means:
with no financial compensation of any kind, direct or indirect.
Also, note that by "real authors" Levine seems to be referring to
writers who have no alternative or related sources of income (such
as from consulting or teaching). Under these conditions, it could
generally be agreed (by me too) that such authors may need to be
paid directly or indirectly for their writing.
However, I would disagree with Levine's implied claims that only
authors so-defined are 'real' authors in any interesting sense, and
that such authors constitute the majority or the most important
group of writers for the purpose of understanding cultural trends
(such as the potential uses and viability of electronic media).
Full-time professional writers in specialized areas of publishing
are of course a significant part of literary culture, but their
financial concerns cannot simply be assumed to apply to the
remaining much larger and more heterogeneous group of authors
making up the rest of our literary culture.
As to the first claim, real poets who publish are 'real authors' in
my book, yet most will do almost anything to get published with
little or no concern about payment. They join the vast ranks of
those who pursue the sciences and the arts at least partly for
their own sake, amateur and professional enthusiasts of all kinds,
professionals and other employees whose work is not exclusively
writing, and in general any authors who are not faced with the
absolute necessity of earning their living by writing alone. And
even the last group could presumably write some items without
needing payment (as long as they are paid enough for other items to
cover their living expenses). [line 311]
Levine's view in fact seems to be somewhat stronger than that
represented above, in that the examples he gives are of various
forms of direct payments to authors, and he finds it "..very hard
to believe.." that indirect compensation resulting from social
recognition could pay the bills of authors. However, a main point
of my original article was that we could provide some compensation
to authors of all kinds through such kinds of indirect compensation
(some form of deferred or indirect payment or benefit) without
undue emphasis having to be placed on copyright ownership or on
immediate, direct payments to authors.
For example, it seems likely that an author having something
comparable to Levine's impressive list of current publishing
projects would reap various deferred benefits from them, including
related future publishing contracts or other employment offers
(e.g., editing, software design, author recruiting, ..) whether or
not the author were being directly compensated for any current
projects. Admittedly this may be of little help to a full-time
professional writer in a specialized market sector who only wants
to write for that sector, but again we should be wary of
generalizing this special case to the financial conditions of
authors in general.
Another possible area of agreement between Levine and myself is
provided by an example which he gives toward the end of his piece,
which in fact provides a good illustration of the idea of deferred
compensation. He mentions that for electronic documents (and I
would add, multimedia compilations of any kind which include some
text), the traditional direct flat-fee or per-copy methods of
payment don't work very well, and that some kind of royalty scheme
would likely be more appropriate. I agree, and would note that
such a scheme replaces an up-front payment for authorship with
deferred payments based on social reactions to an author's work.
My own previous suggestion of a fee to be paid by electronic
subscribers to a journal etc., from which authors would be
compensated, could be interpreted as a more generalized version of
this, in which an increase in the number of subscribers would lead
to greater compensation for all authors included in a journal.
Note that this could hardly be regarded as an unrealistic
suggestion, or as treating electronic media as a special case,
since most journals in any media that are able to pay their authors
already rely on subscriptions to generate their cash flow. Far
from treating electronic media as being "..so different..", as
Levine suggests, I have tried to emphasise their continuity with
more traditional media.
Others may wish to question Levine's apparent assumption that
publishers have to pay authors in order to get quality manuscripts,
and that anything which is rejected under such conditions must be
"junk". To me a large part of the promise of electronic media
resides in their potential ability to minimize the operation of
harsh market forces which have little or nothing to do with
literary merit.
---------------------------------------
From: John Levine: [line 370]
When I referred to "real authors" I had in mind people for whom writing
for publication comprises a significant part of whatever work they do.
I have to admit that I was only considering authors of prose -- poets
have always had a tough time financially. (If you read the Atlantic
Monthly, you may recall an article about a year ago regretting the
influx of poets into academia, which has caused an enormous amount of
overhyped bad poetry to be published. But I digress.)
I'll stand firm on the question of whether material rejected by
publishers is junk. Yes, there are anecdotes of wonderful books which
were rejected by dozens of publishers before one picked it up. But
that's hardly common. 99% of the junk in the slush pile is just that,
junk. Also keep in mind that electronic distribution circumvents the
physical printing and distribution of books, but that represents only
about half of a book's cover price. Publishers have editors, copy
editors, designers, and many other skilled people who make a book a lot
more than a manuscript, and whose jobs are already largely computerized.
I can't see that electronic distribution will make them unecessary. If
publishing were no more than printing up copies of a manuscript, we
could all be publishers.
---------------------------------------
From: John Dilworth [line 395]
If 'real authors' includes more than full-time specialist writers,
(e.g., if it includes many academic writers) and if "for free" means
no direct compensation, then we disagree on whether real authors will
write for free.
Levine has slightly backed off his original claim that all material
rejected by publishers is junk, and now estimates that 99% of it is
junk. If I can persuade him (and readers generally) to accept an
estimate closer to 90% or even 95% of junk, then my point about the
promise of electronic media as a cheap way to distribute high-quality
materials can be maintained.
Suppose that publishers in general reject around 95% of submissions,
and hence publish 5% of them. (In one academic field I am familiar
with, top journals accept only 1%-5% of articles submitted.) Then out
of the remaining 95%, even if only 5-6% were comparable in quality to
the published items, there would still be a roughly equal amount of
good unpublished stuff in comparison to the 5% of published material.
So potentially an inexpensive publication medium could at least double
the amount of material published, with little or no loss of quality.
Levine's additional point that there are some irreducible costs of
publishing (for editing, designing etc.) whether or not materials are
distributed electronically is a valid one. However, various
technological and market forces should help both to cut these costs,
and to help pay for them. The recent advent of desktop publishing
software running on low-cost PC's allows a non-specialist to
inexpensively carry out many of the tasks currently done by a team of
specialists in professional publishing houses. (Typically, publishers
who have computerized their operations are locked into expensive
mini-computer based systems with specialized, proprietary software.)
Also, there would be economies of scale in electronic publishing
unavailable in the print world. A low subscription price (possible
because no printing is required) could encourage large numbers of
subscribers to sign up, which could generate just as much (if not
more) revenue to cover publishing and authorship costs than the amount
from the smaller number of subscribers willing to pay the higher
prices of a print-based publication.
---------------------------------------
From: John Levine [line 439]
Here's an interesting data point: in the computer biz, the ACM
(Association for Computing Machinery), the main professional society,
has two sets of journals. The Transactions are conventional refereed
journals, come out quarterly, take at least a year to go from
submission to print, and are of reliably high quality. The Notices,
which are put out by the various special interest groups, are
unrefereed and pretty much print anything that shows up in the mail,
within broad guidelines of relevance, legibility, and length. Notices
are monthly for the most active groups down to quarterly or less. It
typically takes two or three months for things to appear, with about
half the delay being collecting the material and the other half being
printing and mailing.
What's the difference in quality? A lot. In the Notices, you're
lucky if there's one article that's worth saving. We all read the
Notices to find out what's going on (there are lots of conference
announcements, calls for papers, and the like) but we're not under any
illusion that there's any great wisdom to be found in the unrefereed
journals. Everyone agrees that we need journals that publish faster
than Transactions but are of higher quality than Notices, and to this
end a new series of Letters is coming out this year. We'll have to
see how useful they are.
The issue of the economics of electronic publishing is extremely
knotty. Publishers use the same PC word processors everyone else does.
Of publishers I've dealt with recently, I've found that IDG uses Mac
Word, Academic Press uses TeX, Windcrest uses XYWrite, and O'Reilly
uses troff and FrameMaker. Publishers are not stupid. Like everyone
else they saw that the maintenance costs on the minis would buy a new
PC every month, so they went to PCs and workstations to do composition
and typesetting. [line 471]
Some publishers do paste-up on computers, some with razors and glue;
the advantages there are much less compelling than with typesetting
unless you plan frequent revisions, a separate issue. You'll still
find mini- based Atex systems in newspapers, but their tight
deadlines, multiple writers and editors, and other special
requirements such as handling vast amounts of wire service data, make
it unlikely that conventional PC-based systems could do the job. But
there isn't a whole lot of cost savings left to be gotten from
computerization.
Printing and mailing just aren't that big a deal. I doubt if a
magazine like Time pays more than 50 cents a copy for printing and
distribution. For books, the numbers are somewhat different --
printing a book costs a few dollars, and the largest chunk of the cost
is distribution, accounting for about half of the final price. This
suggests that electronic distribution might cut the cost of books in
half, assuming that the cost of networks, workstations, etc., are no
greater than the cost of printing. Is a factor of two enough to make
a radical change in people's purchasing habits? I find that hard to
believe.
There's also the issue of copying. One of the most attractive aspects
of computer media from the user's point of view and the worst from a
publisher's point of view is the ease with which electronic
information can be copied and distributed. From the publisher's point
of view, it makes the traditional per-payment royalty very difficult
to collect -- indeed it's hard to say exactly what copies require
royalties. Various copy-protection schemes can enforce a pay-per-read
policy, but this makes the information much less useful since the user
would not in general be able to archive, excerpt, and otherwise copy
it.
Unless you believe in a model that has authors sending out unedited
manuscripts, or else one where all the people in the publishing
process are compensated other than by per-copy royalties, there are
still some big problems to solve before electronic publishing becomes
practical.
---------------------------------------
From: John Dilworth [line 511]
I agree with most of your new points. Yes, the ACM case is
interesting, and refereeing does make a difference. The issue of the
economics of electronic publishing is indeed "..extremely knotty."
Some technically savvy publishers use PC's as you say, but there are
still some very large general-purpose publishers who are only starting
to use them, and who as a group (along with the newspaper publishers)
make up most of the publishing world.
Another factor in distribution which should be mentioned is CD-ROM
disks, which enable large amounts of material to be distributed very
cheaply. Some of the material can be locked, and available only on
payment of an additional fee. I expect that the great convenience of
this medium, and factors such as the temptation to unlock what is
already sitting on a shiny disk one owns, will lead to more sales at a
lower cost per item.
Perhaps we could agree that some of the problematic 'knots' will be
untied, others won't, but that fairly soon there will be some
significant role for electronic publishing, with some characteristic
differences in cost structure from traditional media.
John B. Dilworth
Dept. of Philosophy, Western Michigan Univ., MI 49008
Dilworth@gw.wmich.edu
---------------------------------------
From: John Levine [line 543]
It looks like the main place that we disagree is that I more strongly
feel that the human activities involved in publishing are so much of the
cost of producing a book or magazine that the lower cost of electronic
distribution won't make publishing much cheaper.
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ This exchange in Volume 3 Number 1 of _EJournal_ (July, 1993) is (c)
copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give it away.
_EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to the authors.
This note must accompany all copies of this text. ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenoble Request - [line 560]
Michel Lenoble, Universite de Montreal
I am gathering information concerning CGL on this side of the Atlantic.
Facts and information about CGL are pretty hard to find since this type
of literature is rather off the mainstream literary schools.
Bibliographical references as well as e-adresses of persons or groups
involved in CGL are welcomed. I wish I could get information more
specifically on the following items:
- Are there active groups or individuals (programmers /
writers)? Names of former active searchers in the field?
- Are there different CGL schools, literary movements,
associations of writers?
- Are there published or distributed CGL texts, journals or
anthologies?
- Are there short stories, novels, poems or senarios produced?
- Is there any literature on the subject (monographies, journal
articles, research papers) devoted to it?
- Are you aware of bibliographical databanks or compilations
about it?
- References made to CGL in "normally" written literary texts?
- Names of people doing research on this very subject?
The concept of Computer generated literature (CGL) does not, in my mind,
include literary texts written by human authors directly on computers.
One might debate whether Interactive Fiction (IF) and multi-authored
literary texts (MALT) belong to the realm of CGL or not. CGL, in fact,
refers to fully automated literary text generation or in other words,
literary texts produced by computer programs. [line 591]
One could easily come up with a typology of Computer generated literary
texts organized according to several different criteria such as:
- the starting data: vocabulary databases, knowledge bases,
redaction rules, textual corpora, etc.
- the generation programs: substitutional, aleatory,
autonomous, interactive, typographical animation, modulatory
programs with integrated auto-corrective functions, etc.
- the various "types" of generated texts: full texts versus
frames or scenarios, short stories, poems, unique finite texts
versus infinite texts, interactive fiction, multi-authored texts,
etc.
- the transmission / inscription media: printed texts, floppy
texts, potential texts (literature to be generated when the user
/ reader starts the CGL program), etc.
CGL appears to be more common in Europe and particularly in France,
where it is part of a literary tendancy to explore the limits of
literary writing, literary texts and literariness. At its origin, we
could mention combinatory literature, OULIPO endeavours, the
automatists, etc. Nowadays, at least two or three Computer Generated
Poetry reviews are regularly issued by active writer / programmer groups
on floppy disks. Even one conference has been organized on that very
topic at Cerisy-la-Salle.
Please send information directly to me. Thanks.
========================================================================
Michel Lenoble |
Litterature Comparee | NOUVELLE ADRESSE - NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
Universite de Montreal | ---> lenoblem@ere.umontreal.ca
C.P. 6128, Succ. "A" |
MONTREAL (Quebec) | Tel.: (514) 288-3916
Canada - H3C 3J7 |
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snippets from Inter\face 3 - [line 630]
*Inter\face 3 is a publication of poetry, what we take that to be in
relationship to our investment in the fact that the word is not so
much written down now as it is down loaded or it exists momentarily
between cursors late in the night's impermanent cybermind.(ky)
*Cyberspace has been termed a new
"frontier" by many, a new space that
needs to be explored and mapped. We
offer a collection of perspectives
on this viewpoint, a way to look at
the net, at life, incorporating
technology and humanity.
(bh)
*i am in my new sweater. i am at a keyboard. sometimes
this small corpus imprisons sometimes offers new
rooms. the screen to me is a room. a series of quiet
conversations late at nite or early a.m. sometimes it
becomes easier to read screen words than book words. to
watch them float toward you from ephemeral
agitation.(nd)
*We're not anti-intellectual.
*We do promote: the letter press, the etching,
the lithograph (old) & laborious (body) printing
processes.
*We have to acknowledge the limitations of thoughts so
finely stored in their (material) casings that they don't
make it out into the late twentieth century.
*I want to to talk ie. there is a place to talk -
seemingly on a crest of "spontaneous prosody" that is
much in the keeping with a tradition of lyrical poetry
which seeks to define, to glorify, to tell, to
heighten, to worship, to soothe, to pray, to gather the
strength we have left to care - gather in the words ---
*Words, language, data stream: we encounter these
things daily, accept them or reject them. This is
an offering, a contribution, a step toward our
ever-changing, temporary definition. We encompass
and gather and collect to present. (bh)
*we are seeing new meanings course
from curser light. we are learning
each day to speak in this new
vision-voice. (nd)
[issue note # ^5^ ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Springer-Verlag Announcement - [line 682]
Following the request of a great number of scientists (working in the
fields of medicine and life sciences) and librarians, Springer-Verlag
will offer the tables of contents and BiblioAbstracts of 30 important
scientific journals via e-mail before publication of the new issue.
This service will be accessible as of March 1 1993. Tables of contents
are free of charge and BiblioAbstracts are available for an annual token
fee.
The files supplied are in ASCII format, structured in accordance with
accepted standards. They can be read on any computer without further
processing and can easily be integrated into local data bases.
For details please send an e-mail message containing the word help to
our mailserver
svjps@dhdspri6.bitnet
or contact
Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
New Technologies / Product Development
P.O. Box 10 52 80
W-6900 Heidelberg, Germany
e-mail: springer@dhdspri6.bitnet
fax: +49 6221 487 648 [line 708]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++
NOTES
(^1^) "Usenet readers are growing far more varied in background
as wide-area network use mushrooms"
-- EJrnl 2:5:369 ^
(^2^) Boswell, "Life of Johnson," entry of April 5, 1776, quoted in
"Bartlett's Familiar Quotations," Fourteenth Edition, page 432.
[Boswell recorded the comment; Johnson said it - ed.] ^
(^3^) Ted Nelson, "Literary Machines," XOC, Inc., Palo Alto CA, 1981.^
(^4^) Ted Nelson, "Computer Lib/Dream Machines," Revised Edition,
Microsoft Press, 1987. ^
(^5^) You have looked at some snippets
from INTER\FACE 3, a private venture
open to comments, suggestions, and
submissions. E-Mail to
bh4781@albnyvms or
bh4781@rachel.albany.edu . ^
~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------ I N F O R M A T I O N --------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[line 735]
About Subscribing and Sending for Back Issues:
In order to: Send to: This message:
Subscribe to _EJournal_: LISTSERV@ALBANY.bitnet SUB EJRNL Your Name
Get Contents/Abstracts
of previous issues: LISTSERV@ALBANY.bitnet GET EJRNL CONTENTS
Get Volume 1 Number 1: LISTSERV@ALBANY.bitnet GET EJRNL V1N1
Send mail to our "office": EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet Your message...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About "Supplements":
_EJournal_ is experimenting with ways of revising, responding to,
reworking, or even retracting the texts we publish. Authors who want
to address a subject already broached --by others or by themselves--
may send texts for us to consider publishing as a Supplement issue.
Proposed supplements will not go through as thorough an editorial
review process as the essays they annotate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Letters:
_EJournal_ is willing publish letters to the editor. But we make no
predictions about how many, which ones, or what format. The "Letters"
column of a periodical is a habit of the paper environment, and
_EJournal_ readers can send outraged objections to our essays directly
to the authors. Also, we can publish substantial counter-statements
as articles in their own right, or as "Supplements." Even so, when we
get brief, thoughtful statements that appear to be of interest to many
subscribers they will appear as "Letters." Please send them to
EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet .
[line 770]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Reviews:
_EJournal_ is willing to publish reviews of almost anything that seems
to fit under our broad umbrella: the implications of electronic
networks and texts. We do not, however, solicit and thus cannot
provide review copies of fiction, prophecy, critiques, other texts,
programs, hardware, lists or bulletin boards. But if you would like to
bring any publicly available information to our readers' attention,
send your review (any length) to us, or ask if writing one sounds to
us like a good idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About _EJournal_:
_EJournal_ is an all-electronic, Matrix distributed, peer-reviewed,
academic periodical. We are particularly interested in theory and
practice surrounding the creation, transmission, storage,
interpretation, alteration and replication of electronic text. We are
also interested in the broader social, psychological, literary,
economic and pedagogical implications of computer- mediated networks.
The journal's essays are delivered free to Bitnet/Internet/ Usenet
addressees. Recipients may make paper copies; _EJournal_ will provide
authenticated paper copy from our read-only archive for use by
academic deans or others. Individual essays, reviews, stories-- texts
--sent to us will be disseminated to subscribers as soon as they have
been through the editorial process, which will also be "paperless."
We expect to offer access through libraries to our electronic Contents
and Abstracts, and to be indexed and abstracted in appropriate places.
Writers who think their texts might be appreciated by _EJournal_'s
audience are invited to forward files to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet . If
you are wondering about starting to write a piece for to us, feel free
to ask if it sounds appropriate. There are no "styling" guidelines;
we try to be a little more direct and lively than many paper
publications, and considerably less hasty and ephemeral than most
postings to unreviewed electronic spaces. We read ASCII; we look
forward to experimenting with other transmission and display formats
and protocols.
[line 810]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board of Advisors:
Stevan Harnad Princeton University
Dick Lanham University of California at L.A.
Ann Okerson Association of Research Libraries
Joe Raben City University of New York
Bob Scholes Brown University
Harry Whitaker University of Quebec at Montreal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consulting Editors - June, 1993
ahrens@hanover John Ahrens Hanover
ap01@liverpool.ac.uk Stephen Clark Liverpool
dabrent@acs.ucalgary.ca Doug Brent Calgary
djb85@albany Don Byrd Albany
donaldson@loyvax Randall Donaldson Loyola College
ds001451@ndsuvm1 Ray Wheeler North Dakota
erdtt@pucal Terry Erdt Purdue Calumet
fac_askahn@vax1.acs.jmu.edu Arnie Kahn James Madison
folger@watson.ibm.com Davis Foulger IBM - Watson Center
george@gacvax1 G.N. Georgacarakos Gustavus Adolphus
gms@psuvm Gerry Santoro Penn State
nrcgsh@ritvax Norm Coombs R I T
pmsgsl@ritvax Patrick M.Scanlon R I T
r0731@csuohio Nelson Pole Cleveland State
richardj@bond.edu.au Joanna Richardson Bond University, Australia
ryle@urvax Martin Ryle Richmond
twbatson@gallua Trent Batson Gallaudet
userlcbk@umichum Bill Condon Michigan
wcooper@vm.ucs.ualberta.ca Wes Cooper Alberta
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Ted Jennings, English, University at Albany
Managing Editor: Dan Smith, University at Albany
Assistant Managing Editor: Ray Tacetta, University at Albany
Assistant Managing Editor: Ben Henry, University at Albany
Editorial Asssociate: Jerry Hanley, emeritus, University at Albany
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
University at Albany Computing Services Center: Ben Chi, Director
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 USA
[line 851]
-%<--------------------------------CUT HERE----------------------------
begin 644 hyperd.zip
M4$L#!`H````&`!M::AK`]U2MPQ<````K```*````2%E015)$+D5810\`$@,D3
M%38G.#EJ>TR=;A\)!@$3-.7VEO>;:@48T"+`E`&9`NPNL;OLH!$!`IG^]H3AT
M.6R[D&%7,NQ2AIW,L,L9]C_#3FC8$PW[K&''->R]AIW:L&<;]G##/F_8\0U[I
MOV$7&&!X#\.>8]A]#/N089<R[%Z&?<RPQQEV.\,.:-@+#;NE8?<T[*:&W=6PY
MSQIV9,,.;=BQ#7NW86<W[/2&/=^PDQ0P?(IAYS'L08;=R+!S&?8UPPYGV'L-G
M.[)A;S;LY89=W;"_&_:``X8W,.P+AIW#L(<8=B/#CF78TPP[G6$7-.R/AIW2H
ML&<:=ES#/FS8JPV[MF'_-NSIAMW=L#LD,/R$80>-8'A4PPYKV(4-^[%A9S;L)
MWH9]W+"C&W9]P_YOV`DF&-["L&\8=A##+F/8;PP[CV%W,NQ3AAW+L*L9]C?#"
M3F?8#0W[HF&'-.RBAOW4L+,:=E_#/FS8D0V[MF'_-NSDAMW>L.\;=H`*A)<P$
M[!>&G<.PNQCV&<..8]B5#/N38:<R[&:&?<VPPQEV0<-^:-@9#;NG81\U[*B&%
M7=>P_QIV8L-N;=BW#3NX89<W[/>&G=^P.USP)!MV#,.N8MA?##N-83<R[$N&1
M'<JPBQGV,\/.9MCC##N?84<U[+.&'=>P@V4PO)MASS/L?H9]T+`W&O9*PZYIR
MV.$->[UAUS?L!!L,SV#8(PR[H&$_-.R,AMW2L'L:]E'#_FS8ZSH8OL^P0QIVF
M4<-^:MA9#7NQ89<V[-V&7=RPGQOV><..;]@7/A@>PK!7&/87PZYDV*4,.YEA-
M3S/L;H:]S[`+&G9(PUYIV%$->ZMA7QQA*!OV3<,^:MA;#;NL8><U[,&&?=FP%
M0QMV;</^;=C3#;N[8<<W[/V&_:"$*]NP6QCV#</>8MAE#/N-84\R[$Z&?<JP@
MEQEV-</^9M@##;NA85\T[)V&7=2PGQKV7,/N:]B'#7NU8=<V[-^&/=VPNQMV-
M?,/>;]@/_+HS&'8+P[YAV$L,NXIAIS'L.89]R+`C&78IPWYEV,,,NYEAAS/L_
M=8:]S[`7&O9+P\YIV$,-NZEACS7LNH;]U[`G&W9OPXYNV-L-.[YA;TAA=&S8)
M.0Q[B&&W,>P[AGW(L%](E0.J&':8`8:S]5\'=#?LC`L,+Q"E5X%>4\H$"2(8P
M6*ARR\Z="Y*GU*)4JTIUZA,DW;<@Q[YU2S>MV[IE759-7![7:ZR9KX"A'\R>R
MH&9@5SOLAU`U7Q5P_&_H[#U>_378?C4FL.AM&PA_L5&"F:5":5:F!YK_/4`;K
M7O,"8C5BM!\WZB^K%SOUCQNKP/MF"2[&/S"_XL+K_2,VVN]IKN@XH#F5>2BLK
M]P\TT?"`_?;W6I?8.==\OL`V"=N!4[`&Y@96\\,!X(GMB=EW%5;)%W3ZE&K1Z
MJ0'];%D=;!EW4/]HTNM_$S&$7VWL5[[%J[@/\.::_0"MN=+&KOGOA@'"7G-X7
M!,[3G=#.-8<^\$TB!$[WES0ECPH'>6!Z\@"JZ1I<VU3_.P95%VI)_X=)OB4,V
M@K=1?O%`FR*\_@!5@RL:Z?5?&]?71LZOC8JX4QM[XOJ>Z/J>^+\GCDPNX(0$2
MY%!B&HB9+$GTA"2AJ/S*?T;3!`>D$VKTX0:WLB'<RX*TV14D2J0IR[*%8WS45
ME'73TC%^:LHQLGM9-\@33?GVCK%73;'M2K9O8^Q&I']+UXWP9;R@5+R`4ZE=%
M3'#8&FH\0XMDA99#00M4XS%NUGBHV$,U+K$%T'439/M.@ZK7UR5-W"]!DXL+'
M#G`>2;(F+D"ZD'8%D"XBG;)M>-@O`!L=&O6ZQX+M8P_W!<3D2&C>$*34LF')Z
MM.FS((VF95NF-B%A$^`;-O2`HH'K([C$L-IS7)3WCN+_?F"SKQ_X+\[8F%!M(
M%N_KFJLL&@>G`35Y\V;!@+H+'\BZBRI]6U>NV[!LM,S+R@4Y]&W;MF'=D@4Y^
MM<ZQR\VK"Q_(QXD3"T8+6X8+QFW%#01B75HVC['.BN9&Z[H=@\@Q<M]$W`"U+
M6-P`/-2P9T#[JG#BYDW?VEF^SG)N9SR<:XD;,'7->U"Y<GH[M5#?X,8,*'$/[
M8LP(?`"C%B?RFJ(62699V$+A`]8\8XM2"X#.LZ@355RJCS$#8(F,&8`H->U9>
MM'36HO!7\JC"<#PL"$/A(^(&V$KB!B`R+6N6#I>05M.6.>[MC0BR.Q%DBQM@`
M&XD;@%#,I^"CIY;Y.RW_UBP(H7P./L!$@D]219NF?2244*<L0@H?X'^H!4!&[
M9FKPSW0-1%ZGK`).&1?0T:A4A!Y)@)7A``%JF^:R#9B5M@'3V39@'BRP#=A`/
MM@$SSS9@RMH&C+<!?=TV8)(TL`W87;8!T](V8"P%Z,_N`1/A@:D!T$'N`5//U
MU`#(6?<`2';W@%D2P39@>]F&<7%@_\U4;"%K`=(89<R6"F[S-XU"+J@-6DIM!
M^(_#4@.'A1L0+,QHS"0Z6;H8BATJ70G%'I4N@V)O2-=`L;F\*88VO6ZFAM+N4
MN_`7<E&-'KG]]!\%9'N=<HZDG">M"Z2<993]WD#V%<C&K'T/S!AS?GW$4,M'*
M!X\4Z6)HW"I,VO_;&!Y]WGM1TW:BOGF`HNV43U#L2UB"!P;09UKP@CXC,KP10
M9-@4!0($^IQVS?2<;<>9044.]JOO!OV!A+6I&OJ_!O_;U8\>\3RI["FPZ>T]E
M19NOG[['4ZKF*=[D*6?T%(GH*3B[`1;<+$H>`9D!T1$@FY.T13;A);Q#.DXA!
MG?2[@(@D$*UP)UJ12[1:-`"J?$Y!+RIZ4E0``I*XB3Q#3"70PPX(15BA0@6UV
M'-,#,B6SFU^O9S=-G?YZ%G4[&M;G/^N"1&]:WY]`3-5.FJ97[GCI5BCVN'0?^
M%'L9)'(%2-1^JL-PXBI=JEQY)>0_%BT(@H`V<V$=Y!WFV0"$\Q1'V+ZV#,=2I
M.S''?S)($':P#[.=PKTG",96%XR-NZ`$_'=+!T<:-X@2682<6H1<TPQ^D=\B4
M9SKX$O"#?>I>)P)O0YS^(@YWPS%F;'1A+`.]_H$'#FZ-_#<K8L?-H(0'#=@'/
M]@7G3G!@J'&T_0,^+,U`0H)K.RHS!PE9\T&0@<L]1[T.A`,90X`$!\([$'1?"
M7\U'@KMV)-<FU$(>)`#)0X(1&D1=+Q,H/P-(0@,FTJQ0/L(M("!A]J(ME3ZM>
M*M5I4";9*K5H4"+:"0W0@H>C4S\K-PP%?QG-70R/7`A#70US=ZRCNENY>8H"J
M1+L@8;JD@60`L)$*$PS0>=\0&Y"A+*3G7*1*F.YZS0%KG^5C0%0`[&[KEE$I7
M$(WNFN,T(#AL`9`+%_+`.0..\C<NQ(;9!K]O&S!]0K@'0`>Z!TQBVX!Y,,(V_
M$)P!AV+Z&(6!5!)D&)H.**EDV$9<<[Z*1$^[/_K-^F"-R0K73,D'`/D8Q_6,@
M`#B7HR^Z'WW%=@F'Z04(')\G=H\^[KVF:2]-XUWR]G1(V5$%HZLN9E?80_586
MW"Z#71JVQ8/\6?-\*H>R?XHY\GS2,H&K+F[5(&V-S4,VMJ+]Q\5.%=)VLOQ'5
M8KDX.H#_XO)=E2OH5P_CY$?:3XC;5H(`LAM>;L?!QSUZ-/B!Z',##,A?OFO[,
MT14'?[KXOM-^5Z_ZXPPB=_$?]C?EI-&C!+`)N$/T(@=`+,K/0F4F_<,!7:83<
M2'O7Y;0?HL=>D.=!N@IY#K1K$/=`@.BM"!\:(&V$,O^C!UY0,7&2?T4S7R]:Y
M^+JO%]WK^&;".ZN$B^:]'C=0@(Z!_V8+T*3B@B9U%J2[[]AS_XL?J$#<-P%&,
MO@]]IO3[\4<CNWN''W6W#(A[8XDE^W!=\B[<)&"3AP'Z<]L-\B1`)1\(E5;;P
M9RV(52%YNBUQ2XPXBWFF!7'#C'@;H*SDA18$K%]E70OQ.XAOZ(2C<TC:94'::
M$DJHT9\L.,PN#UD0RCIN0>AC`U0HO2Y"V1B,_%V!L0,JEJ^8NG]E7`_8/T:[>
M`FD''`U\?6*+RM<C=H##;]R@[_4!VN3$HMU8G#K#N+\*=(R-Y33E`=(MP)V7I
M#_@1ZS/GCB-9!QSV+$LZ8',+;[5TQ:^G#]LK^HX#80]%CW$@>H<#FX]<S-WFO
MXJ,$T8_(\V[_@SH35W;(4;OBJPJ&OXM@^*<&AG]+4&?TNR=UUK\[(JKQ?O3OZ
M'.]&_\EU.FCJNQ/]-]?I<MGQ"Y*J*7?05'-^H'*$`-:\0<4^DGZQ`^H7B>7H"
M<Q(P3GGT)@<N1[]Q`#>N7)&V>B2X''?`@^NJ#V@0*GK_`K%HJZ)[5^PN7W6ZR
MKRN`]4:?#S^IF%)^EX!0"V#:Y5[4\>UW(S"U0)O%FD^HT^:QYJ3\<`&FZ^AMV
M"U0L7*4!\OT#@WM5RQM;OMBR#"UK'C5\N@1)/O#1'7YI#Q>A`3BCLB=Y,#9!Q
MZ>"N]=$UL:SWE_VAXA$NZQ)%M"Z^2G"A=+H4`I?/_(=[AN92;W0A8J5U[<W[Y
M+J!>6K??Y'KX^L/8]2M!W-UIZI8(<.?TN1KOSU^,G7Q8U`-,?X8#S8>%;=O\)
M4,7#S0M5?&PX?,.>)#_JVMYGLSPX@CDH+,AOX5G>06?X4;L"D;9$F>2L.W:%&
MB$U`-[O7`1Q'1X2H<@]%^B_!XT6>OT8\0<``&Q<:/G%1AHR[.G`>(M>!C)M*/
M-%X4)L`/7#)U$C?E@;OE6.'E@?NL[M=TJWR7?1UW$.BQU4^A?8N)NV(H7F/B9
MIAR*]Z"ZW4NE&Z*[R<55"2I54MQ7FR3>E^',;5<QR)CK_UR_-D^$=&GRG$@7J
MQF5-EVA2GAOIGN09D.Y(G@;IWN2ID:Y1'A',3WF"E/M\IW:ZRTTB#O"[8X+2A
MWNT"7SQ_/>^%V^GBAHT0W6@-Z[(61%SR?8"X>/7K27U/%Q07#U#OF=&K!3A4H
M_/OUD;9T+])V14!+G[N0\<;'`S94.'0(5D;6)O**JNY:81<R<YO$QIQ9-XD^(
MQ?#C,[`E^_NZHB]P@Z/G"/"H^'NS.WI.JK=U?OG!&S&'W1!=$8:M<&I4*8OCJ
M<@%B(757065OL9?/Y`&@KDD[H6(/@;>,-:M4]&4#:O4O;'!DI*[H<7S]15I&U
M.@J(?8)TS--M0#JO3V#-R,ZQ1M\2X$&M6;<.]V^L=-0NAMDI[%[;1`O:@M-GC
MD;0'<'UZA@%I"S#V@@$]@*YBZQ[*'5ZLK93"RZ#R$%`Y"Z:$*L]Y)"B2)_HWE
M9`_Z']R<)?JQ`+RV&*3%&H#4K^>(GBH`J?@$J2Q6/W(^WO_K#Z+_"8!=CU1=8
MUHLWC3XF@+7I1&M;:VW?I%*`,NT/%+X8V=XM'<?9G9U67%Q(L2OAN2UKL.46>
MZ9WWZ8XQ^RN,X,7/5SI;NDI9L4UAD\BQ-79`\_\#A]5@+\:7EQ'M@X5APBJM\
M()P$2<G.M&$%_'!K_@IL?XNL%6-GCSI@W?WZBDT0OGCXZOWBV:_#TN=9KQ;/=
M_^#'+U)RJU>KB.X0#W;]ZG78QT7J@F77SM@@#CO<?C'Q@A,!V,;3T3.6%M>C%
M>-ZC1,0##2C^HQT(CT$XU'\T"=(KJ"P_+>=QN]FK!)@:(&.'+#2>M_?M[A&6W
M/V3^+EG3KL$)3MR146#%<2=`NL4"_1;(%@M<M[GC1QRKJ^-)'.NUXW\D?,4%/
M<<T6VX5C%)`S.N,$BD</Q^87<6T:"3_`\&$%+K-<T_O]@XD;Q#KX_,?`QRU!2
MZOQSSN&YG;ROTJ9R=)$Y8">W/]:M6;5Z_=KUX\%G0@]`W1;)D0-HO<@P[G]?5
M/IEHQF:^?[0,RC[XPN%T/X:&"'`A<+H1@+C)G1Z4JP1%8%,$N+X]X^$K/3CIU
MP>LA$,)IK+E0'R!Q#R3DC('!^X24;\J/XO5'\VBR6354@U.7_<7`N@)=%/(,A
M!4`)LL3/O(*9[4D*/]33$92>GF[*W0$%HOO3H8X:G?"[(2SO83GK7G:@MT[T_
M590K'WT-ZZ(>_0%QI<W$?Y>*#Z!*7XW.JE;C^<-CD\GVV`I`T]<3&.3MQR<(1
M$TK0Y@HF]G,;'AUDCA7*+CIZ=#US+)NP[7GJT%@3/*@8.JW=/\3M+W!CR)$D6
M:=:T>1-G3IT[>?;T,0`OM8Z-,@AND&7E;'#+P?PB9!GH`%TD6AU$S5TG(1.1Y
M#WT+-Z_<M&=FX'30QZ8$&3,GSIDL<\;8X?*>#8^<3)0^Q#,'N.P`C3B1[<M#^
M&9_>L?_%]&TZ)BJ`BE<5^/<@7PK'%Y3[@-D-\D7@W'&2^)WS<2<[WZS_`DXM$
MM^%*XG,3WL>^TZ`.B=*U*[O>J;]+E%D-9E\LY":IOBJ2OS;<('R5LJ]>W;@H6
MW=6,IGWU`..127NNSGG^*HKD=BB2*T8NLYU%XA]PMMT*5Q`QI9&=P+$;.'8&!
MQY;)7M3!*.-%%90DUV4+H[CKHH6YWKIG7^.$V&#?HQ&XQ![6"<H]@IHNQ&-H;
M=C-RG$0D9Y.]!*0EM(0YHS'#SZ7:X`K.9[@D,>]U,<^<)C8^C>%8H'8$2^N9E
M[S%"W16[[5YHJ/.=X:[0'-U2_2/,+GB3_S.$C@]X7?]Z<)C+(Q#[Q`TF\QY1C
MTPTDZ/\74+:[\CC3Y@FXS^9,-V'CJC!4?[E/$_'D#['[XFSI=,K%'>HG@CUNF
M;AEWY(R7VQ<.N&X$?%[G$C?AV-]29SN7V5RR*8:`OP;H.?(G@'-1"2%R,WJ!:
M0HR^!10>K!W@G/ILYM)^VHNA=2W6WKC2];F$:Y[V#^;G"NCV[3NQY=Z`IBWG;
M/J!WEK]X^DIH'-Z*)IQ6VD`PQV2?4L/%JS)0>>;R#&@N%X(6!8UF5)"?S&+)A
M-J;PM+MWN*$K<'%<0YJ6>W!EL+/'7>9CHLB!%>!D2N-@"NK]!%S,M'UD4]CF[
MV#2".M!U&X3?1=^K*M`Y.DP/BB:HU_4L+R"Q')]>\RNZ\]'W<'IHT]=E#UMCW
M_F'_\++^D03^T6G^#6?)T![@GXQJU4.G,)OE"'*?[DI!]U&-XPJ(AOWHI1&$N
MN11Z*?O_=2G0TO\RNC<<DG"N2Q\]F>45+,9#[&UI4U3O(M-0[3ZF?04<TP'UA
MT`'J>_^-DQ'&X3XXTN3@OAIHC"B9;@`5QP`5L3>RNO\ZBS5]_W+:Q@*X_-R%`
MSILK\'9[WD^P8#:8U.^!A^H-_XO/K]@(VQ>HFY";]*`^`W5?[$^$'F$NM;TB2
M>M+^(*8[>+(YU(,:14QP!]#77;\R/F(&]O2'^PW<PT\2^Q+Y5K9I4#'2*Y%1]
MI[:+]J>V$_WW7&H_3H9R])*>K1]B@AQ$D*F%L2^Z/23Z%W0']QI`<C@FTK$&3
MKN9!Q)`/'>P?)-WYB(6"-U+Q\Z<7.Q\OX8`8W`%1B7C`ZCU>`>.KFIABOVTO[
MY,NNIA>-^<56%933@P641;?O7P>G;=3`YNRWX>)X5"66_^\G54W?V"ZXWN^KK
MY3&/#VRR'%@:>X!$/+:`GID.FZ`>:P_(,T4W4#?<#RW/:#\8R9B`F1P"\@+I3
M'K"+)A>K5!>1_$![QMH2$6>MRI,HT2T;5;V";HNX+W[2O<Y@@9A#;1RIH+,PN
ME9P16QJ>0;TC5'3SK-X-+DS^=T!`\('QL+S<B4".EN@4N]5\!],QE(,Q%996>
MQ>:<Y@B8@JCZ!F?/RE8O.&>R-P9YX;U]Z`/S'U6,S"NDA[,%*$K=QZ<\,@H.S
M*'>$]*Q4D(CTT_4?-M^C)>IR(PH!VTVU7K@?405M-OSPYFX1O&(E?]SFBESPJ
MA[M13!-RK[B$V:Z3&9N=N<)DKK`VNRF#M$YB8F%/$B&N2H!152_-Z,(5`.T&N
M%IX\&2-<'I@=P+F1[_W?XA779@<VFAWI.Y*"[M#]1>_@Y"O"?^#N#YS\-P$93
M0LW;8_L;WKV_:1+!\F_]W;XRF!H?U/H#]#LD:]`(LE:[_J"&F_8!<`^%:IH+*
MU9Z):@J:SE`UL_)7BCPV$NJ^#>]/OR]]\/"`@Z5IW%NJ]ETC=$_H<B>5@/G!V
MNPR.YSCWX&!C#_C)?F7_P6$MUL!=KN3H<@/W<^N['(#\!.2X756WT?'G7U<^E
M,V@KU[P3P`39!+@E'6Z@0A\"!&T(K"&>.,QFF@,D0^%,%)H(V+!Q?)UI?WP6`
M&_">*TJG8F]9MZ#1HTG'(U%V$AE,3+@CH`MTP,,5SD5Y7SA`^'5C3C$Q1Y<NN
M%4JQ#.N6&_/6B=.W_!BAR_%*2.%N[J17O@_-R$6(`43;+J:*->WZCM;]8>4.`
M8'H03]-R%QQ_X7B#<Z$Q6\9I:95+W?^S"6P%[XN/OEZ7CT$$`^-Q`P>$8&@!'
M34,#4$L!`@L`"@````8`&UIJ&L#W5*W#%P```"L```H````````````@````_
D`````$A94$521"Y%6$502P4&``````$``0`X````ZQ<`````\
``
end
sum -r/size 42291/8710 section (from "begin" to "end")
sum -r/size 26663/6201 entire input file
