Who was Steve Miller's father?
Bob Selfinger
Many years ago, (probably in the late 1970s) there
was an interview with famous rock singer/song writer
Steve Miller in the Rolling Stone magazine. Some
questions from the interviewer concerned the father
of Steve Miller. They were things like, "It must
be hard for you to talk about your father because
of his tragic death."
In the same interview or else in another one I read
or else heard somewhere, Steve Miller brought up the
fact that he was exposed to the concept of multi
track recording at a very early age because he was
at home with his father one day when Leo Fender
brought an early multi track recorder to the house
and demonstrated it. (Steve Miller is today a master
of multi track recording.)
I got the idea that his father must be Glen Miller.
I don't know if I heard this from someone or else
just made the guess myself.
Well, I was at a Steve Miller concert a few days ago,
(It was excellent and slick to say the least.) and
after his encore, when the lights came on and the
show was over, Glen Miller music was piped in while
the crowd dispersed. Either this is yet another
clue to his father's identity, or else it is a
hilarious reaction to an urban legend.
Please don't tell me that everyone else already
knows about this and that it is "in the faq!" or
something like that. Oh well, I guess if that is
the case, then you should tell me so. In any event,
I don't already know and I am curious.
Bob Selfinger
self...@ee.net
*****************************************************
Views expressed here may not actually be views.
*****************************************************
Tom Bernard
In article <5tdt0q$b...@news2.ee.net>,
You've got Leo Fender confused with Les Paul, I think. The following
excerpt from the "Unofficial Steve Miller Homepage"
(http://www.ser.com/joker/)
Steve Miller was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 5, 1943. His
mother was an accomplished singer, and his father, Dr. George "Sonny"
Miller, was a physician by profession and an amateur recording engineer
in his spare time. Many members of Steve's family were musicians, and he
received his first guitar at age 4. Steve put it to good use performing
songs for his family and playmates. Les Paul, the inventor of the
electric guitar and multi-track recording, and his wife, Mary Ford, were
regular visitors at the Miller house. In fact, Steve's father was best
man at their wedding. Les and Mary taught Steve his first chords when he
was five years old. Steve still uses some of the techniques they taught
him at that time. The Miller family moved to Dallas, Texas in 1950.
Steve's dad continued recording various styles of music. Great musicians
of the time continued to appear at the Miller house, including legendary
blues man T-Bone Walker.
<snip more stuff about how cool Steve Miller's childhood was>
So, while Glen Miller's death on Dec. 15, 1944 doesn't preclude him from
being Steve's father, it doesn't leave much time to spare. He was
probably already shipped out(o.k., planed out) when the Space Cowboy was
conceived.
Tom "Fly Like an Eagle, Swingtown Jet Airliner" Bernard
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
David Martin
(snip)
The Steve Miller Band has a web site:
http://www.stevemillerband.com
In the section for band members it has this information:
"his father, Dr. George "Sonny" Miller, was a physician
by profession and an amateur recording engineer in his
spare time."
So, no. Steve isn't Glen's kid. It also says that Sonny
was Les Paul's best man when Les and Mary Ford got married.
Steve apparently learned his first cords from Les and Mary.
Since the blurb says that Les was the inventor of multi-track
recording, you probably just got your guitar guys mixed up.
David "that guitar has my name on it" Martin
--
For the alt.folklore.urban FAQ see:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/afu.faq/ or
http://www.panix.com/~sean/afu/ or
E-mail mail-...@rtfm.mit.edu with "send
usenet/news.answers/folklore-faq/*" in the body of your message.
Greg Hartman
I think you may be confusing Leo Fender with guitarist Les Paul, who
pioneered multitrack recording.
--
Christian Humor!
http://christianhumor.miningco.com
"Do We Have To Give Up Our Brains For Jesus?"
http://www.aracnet.com/~ghartman/index.shtml
(Return address modified to block unsolicited commercial e-mail; remove
"nospam")
Lon Stowell
Doug <dmc...@paragon-networks.com> wrote:
>
>Thought that in the special with Steve Miller in it,
>he said he learned overdubbing from Les Paul. A
>friend of his dad's.
No, Les Paul was Steve Miller's guitar instructor at the
ripe old age of 5.
Geez, is a search engine a foreign concept? This took all of
3 seconds to cough up his biography and the relationships with
Les Paul and Mary Ford and T-Bone Walker.
Madeleine Page
Lon Stowell wrote:
: Geez, is a search engine a foreign concept? This took all of
: 3 seconds to cough up
Ease up a bit, Lon. Apart from anything else, some of us (me included) are
Web challenged.
Madeleine "whole lotta woofing going on" Page
Lon Stowell
Madeleine Page <mp...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Ease up a bit, Lon. Apart from anything else, some of us (me included) are
>Web challenged.
And this is your problem or ours?
Is there any real philosophical difference between the constant
parroting of "ack ack, read the faq" and suggesting that the
poster, no matter how hatted, may wish to learn how to do a quick
bit of web check that could have answered their question?
If you can handle a newsreader, a web browser is kinda like moving
to an automatic from a 5 speed relatively.
Craig S. Thom
Paraic O'Donnell wrote:
> Usenet was originally created by and for users of text-based operating
> systems. UNIX users kept the home fires burning long before Netscape
> was so much as a glint in a venture capitalist's eye. Many such users
> still connect in this way. Distinctly non-GUI shell accounts are still
> available (when I was at university, that was all we got).
One does not need a graphics interface to access the web. The search
engines and dejanews are readily available to users of shell accounts
who can run Lynx.
I'm not saying that anyone can get to the web, just that a graphical web
browser is not a requirement.
--
Craig S. Thom
http://www.trailerpark.com/juarez/thom
Doug
Lon Stowell <lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com> wrote in article
<5tgatc$8...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>...
Actually Lon, your point to me was well taken
and no I'm not web or search engine challenged.
The simple fact is I don't put all my faith in
websites that contain some information that's
"rock-solid-end-all-fact". As you are most
likely NOT web challenged, you would know that
nearly anyone can create a website to say almost
anything as fact. I really don't trust websites
as the end-all for any fact. That I heard what
I stated on a TV show from Steve's own lips and
that it was some time ago that I did see this show,
made me doubt memory over a long period of time as
I think everyone should.
That it's on a website somewhere?
Well ... maybe Ok.
Bif
Damion Dishart (ba...@central.susx.ac.uk) wrote:
: Funnily enough, even though I have Netscape 3 on my lowly 386,
: I prefer to access the 'net through my shell account. I use tin for
: news, elm for mail and lynx for the WWW. They do all the things that
Hear hear! I'm a tin/pine/lynx on a shell man myself. So fast! No
mousing! And like you mentioned, the only real problem are heavy graphics
or framed web sites. Right now, I prefer the speed.
Bif - "In this style 10|6"
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. Unless you use all CAPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lon Stowell
Paraic O'Donnell <par...@antispam.indigo.ie> wrote:
>Usenet was originally created by and for users of text-based operating
>systems. UNIX users kept the home fires burning long before Netscape
>was so much as a glint in a venture capitalist's eye. Many such users
>still connect in this way. Distinctly non-GUI shell accounts are still
>available (when I was at university, that was all we got).
Oh please. My day job has consisted of design and support of
computers for in excess of 3 decades. I frankly could care
less about keeping a foddering old fuddyduddy alive and blathering
needlessly. There are text based web browsers. There is
also no Unix variant that does not have a graphic web browser
available if the Unix variant is at all recent.
I still say there is no moral difference between failure to read
the FAQ and failure to perform an elementary web search. IMNHO, this
is an egregious application of a double standard.
Now if you'd like to claim that AFU must always refrain from
use of any technology more modern than the 60's, start that
discussion and see how many more double standards are hidden
in it.
>For the reasons outlined above, it is still considered good netiquette
>not to assume that other Usenet posters belong to the majority
>category of Windows PC (or Macintosh) users, and hence have access to
>the WWW. Some diehards profess not to even _like_ the Web.
So, readily available sources of information are to be ignored
just because some Luddites refuse to learn how to use them?
Next you are gonna tell me that you were born learning how to
use a character based newsreader and that scientists have
finally isolated and identified the FAQ-reading gene.
Bob Selfinger
In message <33FB6A...@aracnet.com.NOSPAM> - Greg Hartman
<ghar...@aracnet.com.NOSPAM> writes:
:>
:>I think you may be confusing Leo Fender with guitarist Les Paul, who
Yes, this is very likely. Thank you.
Stacy
Jason F. McBrayer wrote:
>
> >>>>> "m" == mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> m> Craig S. Thom wrote:
>
> >> I'm not saying that anyone can get to the web, just that a
> >> graphical web browser is not a requirement.
>
> m> (http://www.guinness.ie/). Now Mitcho practically lives on
> m> Guinness, but whoever is in charge of their Web site really needs
> m> to get a clue.
>
> I was able to access it with Lynx 2.7.1. It was greatly annoying,
> because virtually every page consisted of only an imagemap.
> Fortunately, they were client-side imagemaps, which modern versions of
> Lynx handle -- it's just that getting to any text took at least two
> jumps. That said, the site seems to be pretty content-free.
More "less filling" than "tastes great"?
Ray Depew
I always heard it this way:
- the "A" grade journalism graduates went to work for the NYTimes, WashPost,
WSJ and other globally respected newspapers.
- the "B" grade j-school graduates went to work for big city papers like
the Chicago Sun-Times, the SF Chronicle and the Denver Post.
- the "C" grade (and lower) ones went to work for small-town papers like
the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, the Loveland Daily Distorter-Harold,
and the Scranton Whatever.
No mention was made of non-newspaper and non-USA news sources.
Regards
Ray "and the dropouts went to work for USA Today" D.
Lon Stowell
Dave Wilton <dwi...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Categorizing the accuracy of sources by the media type is a pointless
>exercise. There are high-quality TV shows, magazines, newspapers, and
>web sites. There are also egregiously inaccurate examples of each. I
>would lump a NY Times article in the same category as McNeil-Lehrer
>(ObTWIAVBP: A USAn public TV news show) and not in the same category
>as the National Enquirer (a USAn tabloid).
Are you talking about the New York Times that has printed such
hysterical articles on the internet as characterizing it as
a porno-laden technology engaged in a massive campaign to corrupt
our youth? Or the article where they characterize the Web as
a dangerous addiction that keeps college students from having
such normal things as sex? Their anti-technology hysteria
history dates waaaay back...remember their articles on rock, TV,
and any other new technology their editors hadn't figured out
how to operate yet?
Lon Stowell
Dave Wilton <dwi...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>And lets not forget that there is lots of porn on the net and there
>are people who are "addicted" to the net. While the hysteria over
>these issues is utterly unjustified and the internet should not be
>categorized as a tool of Satan because of them, the problems do exist.
And there are a lot of rock fans on drugs, too right?
Perhaps we just have different standards of integrity for a
newspaper that sets itself in the manner of the NYT with their
influence on the even less knowledgable. Hysteria spreading is
not journalistic integrity and the internet is not the first
boogyman figured prominently in NYT front-page hysteria attacks.
To say that "experts in the field" disagree, is getting marginal,
more like only those who don't know anything do agree is a
lot closer...and those who blame everything else, particularly
a hot new craze, for their own personal problems are well fed
by the NYT.
Note that their coverage has been so lopsided that it is now
considered news that they have finally hired someone with a clue
about the internet and the tone of their articles has taken
a marked turn toward the middle ground.
Worse, by focusing on the 'sin and fixation' areas of the internet
they help pull serious attention away from the far more damaging
issues of negligently poor security on most mail transport
interchanges that allow trivial forging of damaging mail campaigns
and the very expensive issues of needing to clean up after spam
and malicious UCE attacks.
Dave Wilton
On 28 Aug 1997 10:23:42 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
Stowell) wrote:
Yes, I am. In a portion of the post that you did not quote, I said
that news organizations like the NYT were *generally* accurate, but
that experts in the subject could almost always find grounds to
criticize the accuracy of the reporting. Also, while the NYT is
subject to error--like any group of humans--they do employ fact
checking and editorial protocols and standards that make them far less
subject to error than organizations like the _Enquirer_. My point was
that newspapers were not necessarily better than the web, but rather
that accuracy is a function of the publisher, not the medium.
Granted, the NYT has been bitten by the anti-internet bug from time to
time, but it has also published articles extolling the benefits of the
computer and the internet and lots of articles that praise the wonders
of high technology. Their science reporting is probably the best of
all mainstream news organizations.
And lets not forget that there is lots of porn on the net and there
are people who are "addicted" to the net. While the hysteria over
these issues is utterly unjustified and the internet should not be
categorized as a tool of Satan because of them, the problems do exist.
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, he...@panix.com (Harry MF Teasley) said:
>Lon Stowell (lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com) wrote:
>
>> Note that their coverage has been so lopsided that it is now
>> considered news that they have finally hired someone with a clue
>> about the internet and the tone of their articles has taken
>> a marked turn toward the middle ground.
>
>expertise on a subject, and took steps to get that expertise. Things have
>subsequently improved. Is there a problem here?
The problem is that they decided to find out something about the subject at
hand AFTER they had already written about it. Don't know about you, but I
usually try and make sure I know something about a subject *before* I write
about it.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been, there you long to return." -- Leonardo da Vinci.
Harry MF Teasley
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) wrote:
> The problem is that they decided to find out something about the subject at
> hand AFTER they had already written about it. Don't know about you, but I
> usually try and make sure I know something about a subject *before* I write
> about it.
Yeah, well, given the amount of things the NYT reports, if they fail to be
perfect in one area, I can be forgiving and understand, especially if they
fix the problem. Given that many respected news organizations apparently
do not try so hard to identify their own failings and rectify them, I end
up thinking the NYT is OK.
It is irrational to expect 100% accuracy from any source of information,
especially if that source is made up of many, many people.
Harry "take AFU, for example..." Teasley
--
"Your hate would be but a guttering birthday candle to the Martian Death
Ray of my ire." -SC
Visit the AFU archives at www.urbanlegends.com
Paul Tomblin
>
>> The problem is that they decided to find out something about the subject at
>> hand AFTER they had already written about it. Don't know about you, but I
>> usually try and make sure I know something about a subject *before* I write
>> about it.
>
>Yeah, well, given the amount of things the NYT reports, if they fail to be
>perfect in one area, I can be forgiving and understand, especially if they
>fix the problem. Given that many respected news organizations apparently
The problem is that all media seems to get things wrong to greater or
lesser degree when they are dealing with any subject that you have any
detailed knowledge of. So the logical conclusion has to be that they are
making similar mistakes in subjects you don't know anything about.
Lon Stowell
Harry MF Teasley <he...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah, well, given the amount of things the NYT reports, if they fail to be
>perfect in one area, I can be forgiving and understand, especially if they
>fix the problem. Given that many respected news organizations apparently
>up thinking the NYT is OK.
So their long history of hysteria campaigns doesn't bother you.
The internet is just their latest. I take it you aren't old
enough to remember the rock music hysteria campaign.
We aren't talking about a minor Outback Idaho daily here, we are
talking about the self-reverential allegedly most influential
newspaper in the US, with a fairly significant following worldwide.
Perhaps the Washington Post has more influence or the London Times,
but even that is arguable.
Shouldn't such a newspaper be aware of their influence
[particularly since they tout it] and be just a tad more
careful than the average comic book or demagogue politician?
>
>It is irrational to expect 100% accuracy from any source of information,
>especially if that source is made up of many, many people.
We obviously have radically different standards for integrity.
Mine doesn't include near 100% inaccuracy or hysteria campaigns.
Nice set of articles just this week in the San Jose Mercury Snooze
taking the NYT to task, complete with cites, noting their long
history of what appears to be willful negligence and the resulting
negative impact on lawmakers who place too much credence in
a highly flawed self-styled authoritarian voice.
Trudi Marrapodi
I got As in journalism school. What the heck am I doing on the 'Net?
Oh, that's right, forgot. Those Cs in economics.
Trudi "should have worked it the other way around" Marrapodi
--
Trudi
President for Life, International Skate-Trolling Union
www...@forgetaboutit.net
To mail me, replace "forgetaboutit" with "frontiernet"
---------------
"Ohfercrissakes. I'm amazed at the degree of bloviated crap that people will come up with to make it seem as though some person special to them has not committed an error, and if they did, that it's such a small error that only meanyheaded jerks will pick on it."
--JoAnne Schmitz, alt.folklore.urban poster, unwittingly tapping right into one of my pet peeves
Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com
dwi...@sprynet.com (Dave Wilton) writes:
> And lets not forget that there is lots of porn on the net and there
> are people who are "addicted" to the net.
I have some thoughts on the whole question of how the Net gets
reported. Brace yourself, this is a long one-- originally intended
for email rather than USENET, but what the hell.
Subject: The Chomsky Olympics: July 1997
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:40:34 -0700
Our text for today, straight from the AP newsfeed:
AP.national (07-05) 09:06:53
Mother charged with murder after hitting child with computer keyboard
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- A woman who admitted hitting her 4-year-old
son with a computer keyboard has been charged with murder.
Eddiesenior Jones McLauchlin, 45, was charged Friday with felony child
abuse as well as first-degree murder. She was jailed without bond and
scheduled to appear in court Monday.
The child, Cory McLauchlin, was pronounced brain-dead Friday. His
mother had told police that Cory stumbled in the middle of the night,
struck his temple and then acted ``goofy.'' She later noticed he was
unconscious and called for help, police said.
The mother admitted that she struck the child with a computer keyboard
on Wednesday but did not believe she hit him hard enough to cause
serious injury or death, Lt. Cliff Massengill said.
The child is being kept alive on a life-support system until his
father, a soldier, returns from Bosnia this weekend to spend a few
minutes with him. Then the life support will be turned off.
Step one when contemplating The News: ask the question, "Why is this
item deemed important enough to disseminate?" The Associated Press
has finite bandwidth, after all-- what their editors decide goes on
the wire becomes the "national" news for every paper that doesn't
maintain correspondents throughout the nation, which is nearly all of
them.
So here we have a routine child-abuse-related homicide. Not every one
makes the wire-- they'd have to use a daily box score format, anyway,
like they did with the soldiers during the Vietnam War. So why did
THIS story make it?
The detail about the husband returning from Bosnia to see the child
before the life support goes off is poignant, but it didn't make the
headline-- the computer keyboard did. Now, as with other violent
crimes, all manner of household items are employed in child abuse.
But when the weapon is a piece of computer equipment, a local story
becomes a national story.
Stephan has a theory about this.
In the great Collective Unconscious, the combination of women and
computers is bad luck.
Perhaps you're familiar with the old English superstition that women
are bad luck for ocean vessels. (Opie & Tatum's _Dictionary of
Superstitions_ cites occurrences of this one as recently as 1980 and
1985.) Workplace gender-related taboos are not uncommon; certain
items and objects become strongly associated with one gender or
another, and even physical contact with a gender-specific item can be
disturbing. Who would have though a mere apron would come to
symbolize so much?
(This isn't relevant to my argument, but it's fun. Ladies, the next
time you're in the supermarket with a male SO or family member, send
him down the aisle to pick up a box of Tampax. Bonus points if he
unconsciously wipes his hands after handling the package.)
The pattern is for women to struggle to break down the taboos that
restrict them. For example, early feminists started with clothing
reforms, adopting masculine trousers for their utility value.
Advertisements for Virginia Slims explicitly linked feminist progress
with a particular brand of a product originally thought of as
exclusively masculine-- and even today, a woman smoking a pipe or
cigar will draw strange looks. (I saw something very Freudian in a
bar last week. A couple sat down and pulled two identical large
cigars out of a case. The man lit his; the woman cut hers in two and
returned half to the case before lighting up. You may use this scene
as a Rorschach test-- WHICH Freudian interpretation occurred to you
first?)
Heavy industrial technology is so strongly associated with masculinity
that during World War Two, the government turned to propaganda to get
women into the factories-- see
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/wwii/powers/wecan.html . Note how feminine
the figure appears-- long eyelashes, curl escaping from under bandana,
full bust, no biceps despite the cocked arm-- in comparison to the
Rockwell painting that gave us the name "Rosie the Riveter," at
http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/WWII_Women/Rosie.html . The obvious
implication is that it *is* possible to maintain an appropriate level
of femininity, even in a blue-collar setting.
(Note that for the most part, men have not responded by attempting to
break down the taboos *they* face. This is because there aren't many
of them, and they're not particularly restrictive. As a matter of
fact, the only one I can think of that's rigidly enforced is no
wearing women's outer clothing in the workplace.)
Computers have always been a primarily masculine technology. Of the
Great Names in computer science, only two are women-- and both ended
up associated with computer languages actively despised during the
Macintosh and PC revolutions. Most industry workers are men.
As recently as 1986, the idea of involving the net in matters of the
heart was not only seen as foolish, it provoked actual disgust-- an
unacceptable eroticization of the machine.
Nowadays, though, more and more people-- both men and women-- are
taking advantage of the reasonably mature technology of inexpensive
personal computers and modems. The gender distribution of Usenet and
Internet users has shifted wildly; men and women are thoroughly mixed.
Further, our culture seems to be assuming that the next generation of
children will have computer skills as routinely as they once had
typing or woodworking skills. (For example, during the pilot of the
television series _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_, there's a scene where
the school's most popular girl is unhappily struggling to complete a
programming assignment-- implying that basic computer literacy is an
essential part of a genteel secondary education.)
However, I claim that people still think of computer skills as
masculine-- and the news media reflects the vague dread that people
feel when they contemplate the potential disasters entailed in
allowing women to work with them.
Specifically, the text about Eddiesenior Jones McLauchlin is the third
news story I've seen involving women and computers that would seem to
be of mere local interest, but were unaccountably elevated to national
stature.
On June 16, 1997, this article appeared in the AP feed:
Woman diagnosed with Net addiction disorder
CINCINNATI - An old story of abuse with a new, high-tech twist.
Cincinnati woman Sandra Hacker allegedly locked her three children in
a room with broken glass, debris and child handprints of human feces
on the wall.
The reason? Police say she was so addicted to cruising the Internet
that she didn't want to be disturbed.
Hacker faces a court appearance Monday on three counts of child
endangering. Her estranged husband turned her in Saturday. The
children - ages two, three and five - are in police custody.
Experts already have a name for Hacker's problem: Internet addiction
disorder. Just like any other addiction, they say it can displace the
drive to eat, sleep or earn a living.
Of course, nobody would think to make national news of a woman who
neglected her children as a result of a cocaine addiction.
Finally, back in October 1996, there was the case of Sharon Lopatka,
who apparently died at the hands of a man she met through the
net. (It's still not clear whether the case is murder, death by
misadventure during rough sex, or a bizarre form of assisted suicide.)
To demonstrate that the theme is also found outside the news media,
allow me to present two (popular) fictional examples of women and
computers. First, the _X-Files_ episode "2Shy" puts a mild spin on
the traditional vampire tale: the monster stalks overweight women by
chatting with them over the net.
More significant is the Dave Barry short story "MsPtato and
RayAdverb," found in his book _Dave Barry In Cyberspace._ Barry
depicts a housewife whose husband brings home a computer. Repelled at
first, she gradually becomes familiar with it, learns the terminology,
and becomes mildly addicted to chatting over the net. She then meets
a particularly literate and humorous man, and begins to fall in love
with him-- much to her distress. As the tale closes, they've
exchanged photographs, confessed their powerful mutual attraction, and
are about to speak to each other over the telephone for the first
time. Barry carefully does not imply where the relationship is going
to go; both constructive disengagement and adultery are possible
outcomes.
Finally, there's a folktale on the net itself about the dangers of
chat rooms. A computer science major pseudonymed "Jen" breaks up with
her boyfriend, and "decided to get onto a chat line, being the wild
psycho she is she decided to get onto a sex line." She meets a fellow
pseudonymed "Jeremy," and they have cybersex. (That is, they type
first-person erotica to each other in real time, possibly while
masturbating. [Incidently, it really pains me to even SEE the word
`cybersex', let alone use it myself, but I know of no dignified
alternative.]) The relationship lasts about a year, and they decide
they're in love; Jeremy is so smitten as to suggest marriage.
Although they've never so much as spoken on the phone, they decide to
meet in a hotel room in Colorado. Jen arrives first, undresses, and
climbs into bed. The tale ends:
The time soon came. The lights were out, the mood was right, and she
heard a key in the door, she heard someone walk in and around the
corner, and she whispered, "Jeremy", Jeremy said, "Katie?" (this was
the false name she had given him.) Yes she said, so he fumbled for the
light, and turned it on to see Jen on the bed naked before him. Then
next thing heard around the world were two blood curling screams. Jen
covered herself up, and with her most humiliated voice said, "Dad?"
and Jeremy said, "JEN!!!"
Think of what you would do in this situation. Now realize this really
did happen. Their lives will never be the same.
Note that "Jen" is specifically identified as a computer science
major. This makes little logical sense-- computer science students
understand the net better than anybody else, and are the LEAST likely
to get into such a mess. Bolsters my thesis nicely, though.
If you reflect on all six of these tales, you'll note that in all of
them, there is an implied causal relationship between women working
with computers and Bad Things happening. (That is: child abuse,
bizarre sex, marriage trouble, virtual incest, and/or death.)
Consider the Hindu diety Kali. Bozos who get their anthropology from
_Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom_ know only of the negative
aspect of Kali: the destroyer, the mother who eats her own young. But
Kali is also a fertility diety, and can take on an aspect that is
soothing and maternal as well. Assuming Joseph Cambell is onto
something, the ambiguity people (particularly men) feel about the
nature of women should be something similar.
On the one hand, the patriarchal view of the ideal woman would have
her making love monogamously, bearing and raising children, limiting
her social interactions to family (nuclear or extended,) and staying
sane and cooperative throughout the process. The corresponding fear
is that she'll refuse sexual relations with her husband, neglect or
murder the children, socialize widely and have a variety of sexual
contacts, and possibly go mad (thus becoming an embarrassing and
expensive burden.)
Hence, men are always watching for signs that the women in their lives
are about to turn down the path of evil.
Along comes the computer. When computers were the size of
refrigerators and cost millions of dollars, society's fear about their
impact on our lives emphasized their inhumanity and our resultant
dehumanization. But now, everybody has one-- and they're not using
them to do their taxes or play Donkey Kong. They're using them to
flirt.
Hence-- and for those of you who are dozing off, wake up, here comes
the thesis-- I claim that men are afraid that women, particularly
women in their families, are going to use the computers to make
acquaintances all over the world and consummate them, resulting in
total disintegration of individual mens' personal lives.
And now a bonus: the feedback loop between the media and superstition.
Editors learn very quickly what sells. A routine atrocity-- child
neglect or abuse in the underclass-- doesn't sell *because* it's
routine. But involve computers, and the story suddenly becomes
gossip. When people think of computers, they still think of white,
middle-class people; while everybody drones on about the incredible
diversity of the net, everybody also knows that to become part of this
"diversity," you have to blow three grand of hard currency on a
machine that'll be a boat anchor in five years.
Now consider the view of the world this engenders. People know that
child abuse is occurring, but they tend to ignore it. But when they
trip over one of these gossipy tales they will read it-- gossip is
fun. The problem is, they then associate details of the case with the
category of the atrocity itself. That is, they hear, "My wife was
talking in a chat room the other day," and they remember, "I read a
story about a woman who got into that and ended up neglecting her
kids." (Fellow pedants will recognize this as a common error in logic
technically known as "category error.")
Feedback sets in when editors work to address the specific concerns of
their readers. Their readers are worried about what computers could
do to family life, so the editors watch out for stories about the
combination-- and since no AP stringer ever submits an article
headlined "LOCAL FAMILY PURCHASES COMPUTER, PLAYS SIM CITY," the only
articles the editor has to chose from all focus on atrocities. This
completes a positive feedback loop, and so things get progressively
worse.
(Historically, such loops only go away when they're superceded by
others. Seen a piece about the dangers afternoon coffee klatches pose
to family stability lately? [No, I'm not kidding. They caused
lesbianism or something. If tomorrow morning the women of America all
decided to get together with their friends and paint smiley faces on
each others noses with clam juice, by sunset some damned fool or
another would thunder from the pulpit that Clam Juice Nose Smileys Are
Destroying The Family.])
The superstition that computers are bad for women or their families is
chilling. Consider the fishing village I mentioned earlier. If it's
bad luck for women to be on fishing boats, the only people who can
fish are men. This gives them control of the wages and the profits
from the sale of the fish. Women are frozen out of an important sector
of the economy, and their dependence on men increases.
If it's bad luck for women to play with computers, disapproval and
outright intrafamilial bans on the activity will fall the hardest on
female children and adolescents. This cuts back on the number of
women entering college with good computer skills-- and nowadays,
practitioners in EVERY FIELD use computers.
Tales of fishing boats that sank because a woman touched it kept women
down in previous eras; tales of madness and death that result from a
woman using a computer keep women down in this era.
The Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban tracks modern folklore. The
consensus of the group is that most urban legends are harmless, and
there's no reason to forcibly debunk them. If somebody wants to
believe that a ghostly hitchhiker vanished from their aunt's
hairdresser's car, let them. But a small subset are deemed harmful.
Perhaps you've heard tales of Vegas travelers waking in hotel rooms
with kidneys missing and "CALL 911" in lipstick on the mirror. The
folks who handle organ donations say that such stories hurt
donations-- and when organ donations drop, people die. Hence, members
of alt.folklore.urban are enjoined to debunk the tale when they hear
it-- even if it means being a little rude.
Hence, please consider this a preemptive debunk of a harmful
superstition I see forming on the horizon. And if you happen to be at
a party and somebody says, "I'd never let my daughter on that Internet
thing; there are some real psychos out there," you might want to
consider saying, "Oh, I read a thing by an Internet expert that said
the press is blowing that all out of proportion because it makes a
good story." If you've gotten this far, it's even true.
--
Stephan "I used `cybersex' and `patriarchy' in the same essay; there
goes my reputation" Zielinski
Charles A. Lieberman
Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com <sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> jebgr:
| Of the
| Great Names in computer science, only two are women-- and both ended
| up associated with computer languages actively despised during the
| Macintosh and PC revolutions.
Ada and what else? Or, in other words, Lovelace and who else? I'm not
challenging you, I honestly can't think of the name--which, I suppose,
provides another example.
| Nowadays, though, more and more people-- both men and women-- are
| taking advantage of the reasonably mature technology of inexpensive
| personal computers and modems. The gender distribution of Usenet and
| Internet users has shifted wildly; men and women are thoroughly mixed.
OTOH, in chats at least I tend to assume that someone without a distinctly
masculine name is female. This has only once led me to refer to a young woman
as "he"--she had named herself after a male character in a well-known novel
| Finally, there's a folktale on the net itself about the dangers of
| chat rooms. A computer science major pseudonymed "Jen" breaks up with
| her boyfriend, and "decided to get onto a chat line, being the wild
| psycho she is she decided to get onto a sex line."
[snip]
| and she whispered, "Jeremy", Jeremy said, "Katie?" (this was
| the false name she had given him.) Yes she said, so he fumbled for the
| light, and turned it on to see Jen on the bed naked before him. Then
| next thing heard around the world were two blood curling screams. Jen
| covered herself up, and with her most humiliated voice said, "Dad?"
| and Jeremy said, "JEN!!!"
Sounds like an update of "The Sheriff's Daughter"
| computer science students
| understand the net better than anybody else, and are the LEAST likely
| to get into such a mess.
I'm a political science major. Can I extrapolate from what you said to
conclude that my wife isn't going to be president?
Charles A. Lieberman http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/WhiteCat/25/index.html
Brooklyn, New York, USA
guess what my email address is
If intellect is outlawed, only outlaws will have intellect
Wim Lewis
In article <5udebn$est$2...@news1.bu.edu>,
Charles A. Lieberman <cali...@bu.ed.u> wrote:
>Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com <sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> jebgr:
>| up associated with computer languages actively despised during the
>| Macintosh and PC revolutions.
>challenging you, I honestly can't think of the name--which, I suppose,
>provides another example.
The other Famous Woman In Computer Science who comes to mind is
R Adm Grace Hopper; I'm not aware of a language named for her, offhand.
(The only other language named after a person that was popular
enough to be despised that I can think of is Pascal. I'd always
assumed it was named after Blaise. Who predates computers anyway.)
>OTOH, in chats at least I tend to assume that someone without a distinctly
>masculine name is female. This has only once led me to refer to a young woman
>as "he"--she had named herself after a male character in a well-known novel
Hm, at one time ISTM one could assume that anyone with a distinctly
feminine name was male. At least, according to the folklore of
the time. But the demographic might have shifted a bit since then.
Cautionary tales about some guy flirting with "Betty" who turns
out to be male (and probably three terminals over) have dropped
off in frequency at any rate.
Anyway, that was an interesting and thought provoking essay (thanks,
Stephan) though I'm not at all convinced that the evidence supports the
jump from "women involved with computers is seen as unlucky/unnatural"
to "...because the increased social freedom makes men fear for the
integrity of their nuclear family structure."
--
Wim Lewis * wi...@hhhh.org * Seattle, WA, USA
PGP 0x27F772C1: 0C 0D 10 D5 FC 73 D1 35 26 46 42 9E DC 6E 0A 88
Dave Wilton
On 29 Aug 1997 12:40:23 -0700, lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com (Lon
Stowell) wrote:
> Shouldn't such a newspaper be aware of their influence
> [particularly since they tout it] and be just a tad more
> careful than the average comic book or demagogue politician?
Yes, major newspapers should be aware of their influence and be
careful in their reporting because of it--and the NYT *generally* is.
You then compare the NYT to a comic book and a demagogic
politician--who is being hysterical here? My original point (and
Harry's too I believe, although I hesitate to speak for him) was that
as mass media dailies go, the NYT is by far the best. They employ high
editorial standards and make honest attempts at being unbiased and in
correcting errors.
This is not to say that the NYT is perfect, that it is always right,
that it does not sometimes get carried away with the perceived
importance of issues. You must approach any publication with a healthy
degree of skepticism and critical thought--and that degree varies with
the publication. Perhaps the difference is that Harry and I do not
expect to find perfection, and therefore we do not get overly upset
when the NYT fails to measure up to impossibly high standards.
> Nice set of articles just this week in the San Jose Mercury Snooze
> taking the NYT to task, complete with cites, noting their long
> history of what appears to be willful negligence and the resulting
> negative impact on lawmakers who place too much credence in
> a highly flawed self-styled authoritarian voice.
First, the record of the SJ Mercury News is none too good[1]--talk
about publishing sensational articles without proper research
(ObTWIAVBP: I am referring to the infamous SJMN's articles that
claimed the CIA was responsible for the crack epidemic in the US). And
if we have lawmakers who are stupid enough to take the word of any
mass media daily without question, then perhaps it's time we elected
new lawmakers. If you are taken in by a newspaper, then it's as much
your fault as the newspaper's. It's the age old credo: "Don't believe
everything you read."
[1] Regarding an article about Silicon Valley, I would tend to give
more credence to the SJMN, perhaps as much as the NYT. On other
subjects, I would treat it as the local rag that it is.
Dave Wilton
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 03:54:08 GMT, cali...@bu.ed.u (Charles A.
Lieberman) wrote:
>Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com <sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> jebgr:
>| Of the
>| Great Names in computer science, only two are women-- and both ended
>| up associated with computer languages actively despised during the
>| Macintosh and PC revolutions.
>
>Ada and what else? Or, in other words, Lovelace and who else? I'm not
>challenging you, I honestly can't think of the name--which, I suppose,
>provides another example.
Grace Hopper, associated with--but not eponymously--COBOL. Also, I
would not call Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, a great name in
computer science. A great name perhaps, but not in computer science
since computers weren't around until about a century after her death.
George Byrd
Speaking about "Re: Journalism & the Net (was Re: Who was Steve
Miller's father?)"
In <alt.folklore.urban> On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 15:37:47 GMT,
<dwi...@sprynet.com (Dave Wilton)> said:
>On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 03:54:08 GMT, cali...@bu.ed.u (Charles A.
>Lieberman) wrote:
>>Ada and what else? Or, in other words, Lovelace and who else? I'm not
>>challenging you, I honestly can't think of the name--which, I suppose,
>>provides another example.
Hopper, as Dave Wilton notes below.
What of Amalie Emmy Noether (1882-1935)? Algebraist, Univ. of
Erlangen. Studied under Paul Gordon, Max Noether (her father) and
Ernst Fischer.
That's virtually all I know of Noether. I'm not sufficiently well
versed to know whether her work on formal computation is taught in CS
schools, or whether it is even applicable.
Limiting the inquiry to women in computing, and not in more general
mathematics, forces omission of many mathematicians.
>Grace Hopper, associated with--but not eponymously--COBOL. Also, I
>would not call Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, a great name in
>computer science. A great name perhaps, but not in computer science
>since computers weren't around until about a century after her death.
Are we talking about the same Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace? The
same Ada Byron in 1844 according to Donald Knuth[1], wrote:
"Many persons who are not conversant with mathematical studies imagine
that because the business of [Babbage's Analytical Engine] is to give
its results in numerical notation, the nature of its processes must
consequently be arithmetical and numerical, rather than algebraical
and analytical. This is error. The engine can arrange and combine
its numerical quantities exactly as if they were letters or any other
general symbols; and in fact it might bring out its results in
algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly."
Ada Byron wrote code for Babbage's engine before partial construction
was completed. How many programmers these days write applications for
new machines before the prototype is built? Just what does it take to
be considered "a great name in computer science"?
George "and is it science or art?"
[1] _The_Art_of_Computer_Programming_, Vol. I, p1, Donald E. Knuth,
Addison-Wesley, 1968, 1973. LC 73-1830.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc.and are NOT legal advice.
"I am not arguing with you -- I am telling you."
<< J. McN. Whistler, _The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemies_ >>
F Andrew McMichael
StephanV.Zielinski wrote:
: Brace yourself, this is a long one-- originally intended
: for email rather than USENET, but what the hell.
Have they reopened the motto contest?
Harry MF Teasley
Lon Stowell (lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com) wrote:
> Shouldn't such a newspaper be aware of their influence
> [particularly since they tout it] and be just a tad more
> careful than the average comic book or demagogue politician?
I find this comment interesting (at least more interesting than your
attack on my integrity, a facile tactic to take when debating someone you
disagree with). Where does culpability for misinformation begin, given an
acknowledged lack of perfection? We know they're not going to be perfect,
but at what point do you get to accuse them of reckless imperfection?
Just try to quantify that, because I'll rip holes in it. Paul's
simplistic "don't write what you don't know about" is inexcusably utopian:
just like everyone thinks they have a good sense of humor, everyone also
thinks they always know what they're talking about. To blow the crime of
being wrong so out of proportion because it is the NYT is, to me,
ridiculous.
There are great blurbs of praise from the NYT and Newsweek on the cover of
one of my favorite toilet books, _Masters of Deceit_. Clearly, the NYT
(along with the rest of the nation, I guess) was under an incredible
delusion to so highly praise this book. Do I hold them accountable for
McCarthyism? No. Did they contribute to it? I guess. Were they
irresponsible about it, or were they reflecting society at the time? I
would guess the latter, but I'm "too young to remember" (another fine
tactic you showed; had me on the ropes with that, you did).
You're very quick to blame a group of people who publish a newspaper for
the investment of trust made in them by others. The fact that they
correct their errors in something resembling a faster-than-glacial pace
is, given the state of American media, reassuring. (It's better than TIME
magazine: I wrote them correcting many factual errors in an article about
the Internet a couple of years ago. It was a real scare article, and they
so horribly misrepresented or outright lied about so many things that I
was compelled to write. They're response was <summarized>, "Thanks for
your opinion. We stand by our article. Glad you like reading TIME!")
Harry "I stand by my post. Glad you like reading Harry Teasley!" Teasley
Charles Lieberman
George Byrd (geo...@apan.org.NO_UCE) jebgr:
| Are we talking about the same Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace? The
snipped]
| Ada Byron wrote code for Babbage's engine before partial construction
| was completed. How many programmers these days write applications for
| new machines before the prototype is built? Just what does it take to
| be considered "a great name in computer science"?
A penis, a y-chromosome...
Or did you mean "what *should* it take..."?
x-posted from alt.folklore.urban to alt.feminism
--
Charles A. Lieberman
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/whitecat/25/index.html
Brooklyn, New York, USA
Joseph J. Yuska
I've added alt.folklore.computers to the followups, and suggest this
discussion be moved there. I have no argument with Ada Lovelace's
intellectual accomplishments, but I think your statement concerning
computer programming displays your ignorance of the process.
1. Most modern computers exists in simulations and emulations ( for
which one writes code) long before a "prototype" is built.
2. "applications", as opposed to OS code or microcode, exist mostly
independently of a given architecture (MS pro and con flames
discouraged)
3. Writing code does not mean it will work. Since there was never a
real "difference engine", we'll never know if her code worked (unless
they finish the reproduction)
Joe
JoAnne Schmitz
On 31 Aug 1997 19:21:01 -0700, Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com
<sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> wrote:
>(Historically, such loops only go away when they're superceded by
>others. Seen a piece about the dangers afternoon coffee klatches pose
>to family stability lately? [No, I'm not kidding. They caused
>lesbianism or something. If tomorrow morning the women of America all
>decided to get together with their friends and paint smiley faces on
>each others noses with clam juice, by sunset some damned fool or
>another would thunder from the pulpit that Clam Juice Nose Smileys Are
>Destroying The Family.])
That's the most interesting euphemism for cunnilingus I've seen on
this froup.
JoAnne "smiling" Schmitz
-----------
when replying to me personally please note that my email address
must be modified slightly to work. Remove the letter "k" from my name.
Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com
With regards to which two women I was referring to in the essay: Countess
Ada King Lovelace was the first, famed in the folklore of computing as the
first computer programmer. And while Knuth vectors the notion eloquently,
the historical community debunks it hard. Dorothy Stein's _Ada, a life
and a legacy_ (ISBN 026219242X) demonstrates that while Lovelace was
enthusiastic, she had little to no idea what she was talking about. It's
ironic that one of the subjects the LOC files the text under is
"Mathematicians--Great Britain--Biography"; Stein analyzes a mathematics
paper she "translated", and points out errors that could only result from
not understanding basic trigonometry. When the name Ada was first
attached to the programming language, computer scientists the world wide
winced-- but in retrospect, the association is quite apropos.
The second was, in fact, Admiral Grace Hopper, the author of COBOL,
about whom I know nearly nothing.
I'm not up on who's who in the modern computer science field, but there
are two women renowned in the UNIX System Administration community: Evi
Nemeth and Elizabeth Zwicky. (Nemeth is the primary author of the
standard textbook we used when O'Reilly had less than a dozen titles out,
and half of those were about X; Zwicky produces ideas and papers
prolificly.) But us sysads aren't exactly respected members of the
academic computer science community.
--
Stephan "Which is why we're out here in industry snorking up cash before
UNIX becomes totally obsolete" Zielinski
J Shearer
Thanks, Joe! And, I hereby second, third, and nine-hundred eighty-second
his suggestion that you--who have a clue--TAKE IT TO alt.folklore.
computers!!! Thank you! :-> Jan
------------------------------------------
Rick Tyler
On 2 Sep 1997 01:15:03 GMT, Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com
<sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> wrote:
<snip>
:The second was, in fact, Admiral Grace Hopper, the author of COBOL,
:about whom I know nearly nothing.
<snip>
Easily remedied. I found a nice little mini-biography of her at
http://www.norfolk.navy.mil/chips/grace_hopper/brobio.htm.
-- Rick "The first US Navy vessel named after a computer geek?" Tyler
-------------------------------------------------
The Microsoft motto is, "Quality is Job 1.1."
Visit the FAQ and TAFKAC at www.urbanlegends.com.
George Byrd
Speaking about
"Re: Journalism & the Net (was Re: Who was Steve Miller's father?)"
<"Joseph J. Yuska" <yu...@mail.dec.com>> said:
>Charles Lieberman wrote:
>>
>> George Byrd (geo...@apan.org.NO_UCE) jebgr:
>> | Are we talking about the same Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace? The
>> | same Ada Byron in 1844 according to Donald Knuth[1], wrote [something I
>> snipped]
>>
>> | Ada Byron wrote code for Babbage's engine before partial construction
>> | was completed. How many programmers these days write applications for
>> | new machines before the prototype is built? Just what does it take to
>> | be considered "a great name in computer science"?
>>
>> A penis, a y-chromosome...
>> Or did you mean "what *should* it take..."?
>>
>> x-posted from alt.folklore.urban to alt.feminism
[sig snipped]
>I've added alt.folklore.computers to the followups, and suggest this
>discussion be moved there. I have no argument with Ada Lovelace's
>intellectual accomplishments, but I think your statement concerning
>computer programming displays your ignorance of the process.
Ahh, September again.
>1. Most modern computers exists in simulations and emulations ( for
>which one writes code) long before a "prototype" is built.
Granted that a strict literalism might lead one to distinguish
"simulations and emulations" from "prototype" even in a 19th C.
historical context, the fact remains that Ada Byron had none of the
above available.
>2. "applications", as opposed to OS code or microcode, exist mostly
>independently of a given architecture (MS pro and con flames
>discouraged)
And what was the state of the art of "architecturally independent"
apps at the time (1968) when Knuth saw fit to honor Ada Byron by
quoting her writing as the epigram for volume one, chapter one, of a
multivolume treatise?
Anyone who ever ported so much as a single FORTRAN app among say, IBM
360 series to CDC 6000 series to Burros 5000 series at the time, might
note numerous exceptions to blanket assessments that apps "exist
mostly independently of a given architecture".
>3. Writing code does not mean it will work.
Thanks for the insight.
> Since there was never a
>real "difference engine", we'll never know if her code worked (unless
>they finish the reproduction)
Interestingly inconsistent with the most elementary inferences from
point (1) above.
But these are all insignificant side issues. The original issue was
whether Ada Byron was a "great name in computer science".
That issue arose from the following statement:
-----begin quote originating this subthread -----
Speaking about
"Re: Journalism & the Net (was Re: Who was Steve Miller's father?)"
In <alt.folklore.urban> On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 15:37:47 GMT,
<dwi...@sprynet.com (Dave Wilton)> said:
>Grace Hopper, associated with--but not eponymously--COBOL. Also, I
>would not call Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace, a great name in
>computer science. A great name perhaps, but not in computer science
>since computers weren't around until about a century after her death.
----- end quote of post originating this subthread -----
On that issue, I took the position that Ada Byron is indeed a great
name in CS. Surely her algorithmically expressed plan to compute
Bernoulli numbers on Babbage's proposed machine establishes her
insight into the nature of digital computing along similar lines as
say, Leibnitz, Babbage & Boole, who, like Ada Byron, never saw a
modern digital computer.
I've yet to see a cogent argument to the contrary in this subthread.
For some of Ada Byron's insights into the nature of digital computing,
see
<http://www.scottlan.edu/lriddle/women/ada-love.htm>.
For a synoptic bio, see <http://cs.fit.edu/~ryan/ada/lovelace.html>.
George "malloc whose mind is pure machinery! malloc whose fingers are
ten armies!"
Michael Driscoll
In article <5udebn$est$2...@news1.bu.edu>, Charles A. Lieberman wrote:
>Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com <sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> jebgr:
>| Of the
>| Great Names in computer science, only two are women-- and both ended
>| up associated with computer languages actively despised during the
>| Macintosh and PC revolutions.
>
>challenging you, I honestly can't think of the name--which, I suppose,
>provides another example.
Grace Hopper is the other one referenced above, I believe. She invented
COBOL. See the Jargon File, under "bug".
Mike
--
---.-- Thinking of Maud you forget everything else.--More--
|{.... Michael Driscoll, Student of Engineering
|.d.@| <fen...@frob.ml.org>
------ <mdri...@mines.edu> http://frob.base.org/
Simon Slavin
In article <340C71...@mail.dec.com>,
"Joseph J. Yuska" <yu...@mail.dec.com> wrote:
> Charles Lieberman wrote:
> >
> > George Byrd (geo...@apan.org.NO_UCE) jebgr:
> > | Ada Byron wrote code for Babbage's engine before partial construction
> > | was completed. How many programmers these days write applications for
> > | new machines before the prototype is built? Just what does it take to
> > | be considered "a great name in computer science"? [snip]
>
> [snip] I have no argument with Ada Lovelace's
> intellectual accomplishments, but I think your statement concerning
> computer programming displays your ignorance of the process.
>
> 1. Most modern computers exists in simulations and emulations ( for
> which one writes code) long before a "prototype" is built.
>
> 2. "applications", as opposed to OS code or microcode, exist mostly
> independently of a given architecture (MS pro and con flames
> discouraged)
>
> 3. Writing code does not mean it will work. Since there was never a
> real "difference engine", we'll never know if her code worked (unless
> they finish the reproduction)
I feel that Ada was a programmer. There are two aspects to
programming (hereafter referred to as 'Slavin's requirements'):
a) The ability to break down a real-world task into instructions
that your platform can perform.
b) The ability to predict what your platform will do when
presented with a particular collection of instructions.
Part (a) is analysis. Part (b) is dry-running. To master them
both you must understand some aspects about how the real world
operates and some aspects about how your platform (hardware,
firmware, OS, programming language, etc.) works.
Ada demonstrated that she understood both. She programmed
based on the design specifications she was given and if someone
builds a machine as specified her programs would run on it.
They may or may not work, but I don't know any programmer who's
never written a program with a bug.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | Oh, sorry, you neglected to
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | mention above that the child
Check email address for spam-guard. | was the antichrist. -- sharkey@
Junk email not welcome at this site. | ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nicholas MOORE)
Michael F. Coyle
paul & maxine in ri <phos...@addressinsig.com> wrote in article <340aae08...@newsserver.uri.edu>...
> On 31 Aug 1997 19:21:01 -0700, Stephan V. Zielinski, at well dot com
> <sszziiee...@wweell.ccoomm> wrote:
> [gulp]
> ** When people think of computers, they still think of white,
> **middle-class people; while everybody drones on about the incredible
> **diversity of the net, everybody also knows that to become part of
> this
> **"diversity," you have to blow three grand of hard currency on a
> **machine that'll be a boat anchor in five years.
> **
> [gulp]
> not to quibble with your otherwise cogent post, but if you pay 3 grand
> for a home PC, you're a sucker. Half that will do fine. In fact you
> can surf the net fine for 1/6th of it.
Not to quibble with _your_ otherwise cogent post, but you
have missed the point. Compare the cost of a PC, say
1.5 grand, to the median household income of most of
the world. Internetting is basically an activity for the
"haves", cheap PCs and WebTV notwithstanding.
(On the same note, it's curious that no matter how poor
a family is, there's still a TV set around. At least in the USA.)
-- Michael "gotta go, Baywatch is on" Coyle
Charles A. Lieberman
"Michael F. Coyle" <mjc...@erols.com> jebgr:
| (On the same note, it's curious that no matter how poor
| a family is, there's still a TV set around. At least in the USA.)
On the famous other hand, some alrightniks decide that television is
unintellectual[1] or something, and refuse to have one. But that's not a
question of money, it's a question of looking good to your
friends^W^W^W^W^Wtaste
[1] not that it isn't
Charles A. Lieberman http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/WhiteCat/25/index.html
Angus Johnston
In article <5ufj3u$a...@panix2.panix.com>, he...@panix.com (Harry MF Teasley)
wrote:
> Lon Stowell (lsto...@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com) wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't such a newspaper be aware of their influence
> > [particularly since they tout it] and be just a tad more
> > careful than the average comic book or demagogue politician?
>
> I find this comment interesting (at least more interesting than your
> attack on my integrity, a facile tactic to take when debating someone you
> disagree with). Where does culpability for misinformation begin, given an
> acknowledged lack of perfection? We know they're not going to be perfect,
> but at what point do you get to accuse them of reckless imperfection?
>
> There are great blurbs of praise from the NYT and Newsweek on the cover of
> one of my favorite toilet books, _Masters of Deceit_. Clearly, the NYT
> (along with the rest of the nation, I guess) was under an incredible
> delusion to so highly praise this book. Do I hold them accountable for
> McCarthyism? No. Did they contribute to it? I guess. Were they
> irresponsible about it, or were they reflecting society at the time? I
> would guess the latter...
I want to pick up on this last bit as a way of getting back to the larger
question.
To my mind, the contention that historical figures weaknesses merely
"reflect society at the time" is a cop out. Those who would excuse the
Founding Fathers' acceptance of slavery have to answer to Tom Paine (to say
nothing of Benjamin Banneker), and any justification of the role the Times'
reviewer may have played in building up Hoover has to face up to the fact
that a lot of people who took up positions on the other side of that fence.
But that said, it would be a mistake to jump to the _other_
conclusion---that Banneker was a good man and Washington a bad man; that
Hoover's critics were all noble and his supporters all craven; that the
Times is irresponsible because it doesn't know diddly about the 'net and
Wired a paragon of journalistic excellence because it does. Anyone who
reads _any_ source uncritically is setting himself up to be snookered, and
anyone who expects the New York Times to rise above its historical context
to provide The Truth about world events doesn't know much about the news.
If, as Lon suggests, my nation's legislators have been going around passing
dunderheaded laws because of wrongheaded crap they read in the Times, that
says more about the politicos than the on-deadline rag they put such blind
faith in. And just for the record, I'd offer that right now citing the Jan
Jose Mercury News to prove a point about another paper's "hysteria
campaigns" strikes this reader as, well, a black fly in _somebody's_
chardonnay.
--
Angus Johnston
"What is the average depth of the ocean?"
"12,450 feet."
---The Answer Man