Madison, Nebraska is reportedly in the midst of automating is mail system, but the automation has reportedly force people to change their addresses repeatedly. The conversion will reportedly be finished by 1995! Meanwhile residents are not usre if they're getting all their mail. Residents of the town of Madison are forced to have their mail delivered to boxes rather than their homes, but some rural routes have street addresses. One resident, Mary Duby, has three addresses listed in the phone book due to the apparently due to the postal automation: two boxes and a street address. Duby said, "What a mess. Originally I had a street address. Then I had a mailbox put up and I was put on the rural route." [Source: an AP story reported in the San Jose Mercury News 2Sep91]
Many of us have become dependent on electronic mail as vehicle for serious discussions. Our addresses become widely distributed and stored in many colleague's mail files. This is a serious exposure to risk. If one moves one may find that one's former employer feels insulted by the announcement that one has moved on to other pastures and refuses to forward electronic mail. The incorrect mail address may persist in electronic files for many years and those who write to you may find that you are an "unknown user". What is needed is a personal communication system, one where the individual's address is independent of his (or her) location on the computer network. David Lorge Parnas (no longer at qucis.queensu.ca)
There have been various proposals for life-time unique IDs -- for EMail, for telephone numbers, and even for Postal Delivery, that would transcend geographical locations and relocations, etc. All sorts of interesting problems are raised regarding decentralized implementations and whom you have to trust with what, what happens if one of the decentralized sites is down and whether the implementations are suffiently fault tolerant to survive multiple outages, what to do about authorizations and junk mail, revocation, etc. But it certainly would be nice. This reminds me of some of the problems experienced long ago in designing capability based systems where capabilities have identifiers that are unique for the lifetime of the system. So, there is actually significant experience in dealing with David's suggestion, in a broader context -- but not yet in the Internet, that wonderful sandbox of the past that is still the sandbox of the future.
In RISKS-FORUM Digest (Saturday 31 August 1991 Volume 12 : Issue 21), you asked about "+&*#$" as a possible New Hampshire license plate. While it's true that "+" (plus) and "&" (ampersand) are valid characters on a New Hampshire license plate, as is "-" (dash or minus), I'm pretty sure that the other characters you surmise (*, #, and $) are NOT permitted. I'd have to ask the DMV to be sure, however, which I can do if it's important. I'm amused by your reference to "other nonASCII graphics" -- while it's true that some other states use bizarre characters on license plates (such as the Lone Star on the Texas plates, or the lobster on Maine plates), usually this is not "user selectable". New York State allows an embedded space character in license plates. This is as big a problem, I'm sure, for some other states as New Hampshire's use of the printing but unusual characters that are accepted here. [Live Free Or Die!] Dr. Thomas P. Blinn, Digital Equipment Corporation, Digital Drive -- MKO2-2/F10 Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054 ...!decwrl!dr.enet.dec.com!blinn (603) 884-4865
``More seriously, this poses all sorts of interesting RISKs issues.'' In a previous life I had occasion to work with someone who had worked on such a project in California. The system apparently went quite far through the development life-cycle, but then, at the very end was dumped without being deployed. Such a system could be used to lower fire risks by shutting down natural gas and power distribution networks, to protect computer systems by retracting disk heads, to start a controlled shut down of factory processes, to divert aircraft,etc. What happened instead was that many of those people responsible for performing these vital functions took advantage of the early warning to leave work to be with and protect their families. Thus, the system ended at "proof of concept", due to the significant risks associated with loss of key personnel at exactly the worst possible time. Incidentally, the system apparently did use a network of sensors, but took advantage of the fact that the shock wave moves relatively slowly (45 - 60 mph comes to mind, but it has been a few years). Floyd Ferguson email@example.com
Phil Agre (firstname.lastname@example.org) provides some welcome warnings about misinterpretations of risk perception research. I share his concern that findings that lay people evaluate risks differently than experts are often viewed as evidence that ``ordinary people are irrational.'' There are usually several explanations for the discrepancy between lay and expert judgments and the data are rarely conclusive as to which explanation is best. Premature attributions of irrationality are a significant risk in risk perception research because, as Agre suggests, attributing irrational judgment to ordinary people can make them seem responsible for the morbidity and mortality they suffer. This said, Agre's diagnosis of a ``hidden agenda inside the notion of `risk''' was inaccurate. Agre says that ``The whole rhetoric of `risk' started out as corporate PR'' specifically the well-known advertisements by Mobil Oil. The concept of risk in the sense used in risk perception studies dates (at least) from the beginnings of epidemiology and from the integration of probability into the theory of insurance in the 18th century. Psychological research on risk perception and probability judgments was well established when Mobil ran its ads. Agre believes that it is a conclusion of risk perception research that ``ordinary people are unwilling to accept any risk at all.'' I have never seen a statement like this in the risk perception literature and I wonder if Agre can find one. Agre says that ``talk about `levels of risk' and the like erases the distinction between the experts' assessments of risk and the assessments that ordinary people are in a position to make.'' The point of this field is to understand how one aspect of our positions in the world -- our cognitive limitations and our limited access to information -- force us to construct simplified models of the world. All of us need to make decisions without the benefit of professional knowledge: how do we cope? Risk assessment research _begins_ with a distinction between the cognitive position of the expert and lay person, it doesn't erase it. By the way, it isn't just ordinary people who construct simplified models: there are many studies showing that experts also have great difficulty in judging probabilities and coping with uncertainty. Agre describes risk perception research as ``ideology, made into a profession.'' I hope he sees that there are also significant empirical phenomena that need explanations, and quickly if possible. For example, it appears that adolescent gay males have not adopted the safe sex norms accepted by older gay male cohorts. If so, why not? Health psychologists working with these young men think that these kids believe (inaccurately!) that HIV infection risks apply only to older gay men. This is readily understandable: the long incubation period of HIV infection means that an adolescent will rarely encounter a peer with AIDS, and therefore does not perceive himself to be at risk. This explanation is an example of the availability heuristic, the idea that probability judgments are affected by our ability to recall vivid exemplars of the risk in question. Is this really why these kids engage in risk taking? I don't know: it is hard to design a study that can powerfully discriminate among many competing plausible explanations. Agre says that the findings of discrepancies between expert and lay judgments are ``easily explained''. But if he wants us to believe his explanations, as opposed to the others on offer, he will need some data that show why they are better. Agre oversimplifies when he reduces the political implication of risk perception research to ``corporate PR''. Many risk perception researchers share his desire for a ``socially responsible'' technology in which people are ``told the truth, ...able to find the world intelligible and sane, [are] consulted about things that change their lives, [are not] subjected to hazards without their consent, and generally [are] able to participate in collective decisions about issues of technology and social change''. All of these goals will require that technical information be communicated to people who are not specialists in the relevant technologies. If risk perception research can clarify how non-specialists understand risk information, we may get an idea about how to communicate the information more clearly. William Gardner, Law & Psychiatry Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (email@example.com)
Phil Agre's posting reminded me of a table in "The Mission Profile," in _IEEE Spectrum_, October, 1981. It describes "consumer" expectations for various systems. I summarize (the original table had more words and a column for availability): System Representative Useful Life Failure Rates of System ------------------------------------------------------------- Automatic Teller 1 per 18mo. >15 years Teller Telephone 3 min/yr >15 years Chemical Plant Less than 3% >15 years Electric 12 min/mo. during >15 years Power sys. excessive demand or storms Television Set 3-10% during warranty 7-10 years period. May continue (based on use) with degraded perf. Auto: engine 1% during warranty life of car control Air Traffic 2.9 unsched. interrupts >15 years Control per month lasting >1 min. Minuteman III 1 per 1.9 billion part up to time missle is missile hours in system with capable of striking a 8000 critical parts prescribed target Pacemaker 1 per month among 8-15 years depending 170,000 devices on type of pacemaker [I'm tempted to say "lifetime" but that would probably be crude--CHS] Operating System 1/hr to 1/mo runtime of program I think these figures, although subjective and somewhat dated, illustrate the range of acceptance of failure for various systems. They are not necessarily rational or related to any more objective ratings, such as the number of deaths caused per year by each system (a figure hard to interpret for a Minuteman III). But, isn't *acceptance* of risk by *definition* a social phenomenon rather than a scientific one? Death is not the only metric. The corporate PR firms that started advertising based on risk reduction believed that safety was marketable. Wouldn't our jobs be much easier if more people believed that risk reduction was worth paying for? Craig Seidel, SRI International
I am forwarding this from the Symposium chair, Luca Simoncini. [Suggestion: use E-mail or fax for correspondence, regular mail to/from Italy may be very slow. Lorenzo] THE FOLLOWING IS THE ADVANCE PROGRAM OF SRDS10 COMPLETE WITH REGISTRATION FORM AND HOTEL RESERVATION FORM. THESE FORMS CAN BE USED FOR REGISTRATION AND RESERVATIONS IF YOU NEED WE WILL MAIL REGULAR PAPER ADVANCE PROGRAMS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY REGULAR MAIL IN A FEW DAYS TO ALL COUNTRIES. INFORMATION AND ENQUIRIES TO: ETTORE RICCIARDI, IEI-CNR, Via S. Maria 46, 56126 Pisa, Italy. tel.: +39 50 553 454, +39 50 553 443 fax: +39 50 554 342 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ADVANCE PROGRAM Tenth Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems - SRDS10, September 30, October 1-2, 1991, Palazzo dei Congressi, Pisa, Italy sponsored by: IEEE Computer Society, TC on Distributed Processing, AICA in cooperation with: TC on Fault-Tolerant Computing, IFIP W.G. 10.4, IEI-CNR, Universita' di Bologna, Universita' di Pisa, with the support of: Olivetti S.p.A, Italy, TANDEM Computers S.p.A., Italy, ANSALDO TRASPORTI, Italy SUNDAY, September 29, 1991 16.00 - 20.00 Registration MONDAY, September 30, 1991 08.00 - 09.00 Registration 09.00 - 09.30 Opening Remarks: Luca Simoncini, University of Pisa Ozalp Babaoglu, University of Bologna Richard D. Schlichting, Univ. of Arizona 09.30 - 10.30 Keynote Speaker:Brian Randell, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 10.30 - 11.00 Coffee Break 11.00 - 12.30 Session 1: Checkpointing & Logging Algorithms Chair: Shaula Yemini, IBM, Yorktown Heights, USA "Checkpointing Multicomputer Applications" Kai Li, Jeffrey F. Naughton, James S. Plank, Princeton University, USA "A Timestamp-Based Checkpointing Protocol for Long-Lived Distributed Computations" Farnam Jahanian, Flaviu Cristian, IBM, San Jose', USA "File System Measurements and their Applications to the Design of Efficient Operation Logging Algorithms" David F. Bacon, University of California Berkeley,USA 12.30 - 14.00 Lunch 14.00 - 15.30 Session 2: Real-Time Chair: Hermann Kopetz, Technical University of Vienna Austria "Masking Failures of Multidimensional Sensors" Keith Marzullo, Paul Chew, Cornell University, USA "A Statistical Clock Synchronization Algorithm for Anisotropic Networks" G. Florin, D. Couvet, S. Natkin, Centre D'Etude et De Recherche En Informatique, France "On the Testability of Distributed Real-Time Systems" Werner Schuetz, Technical University of Vienna Austria 15.30 - 16.00 Coffee Break 16.00 - 17.30 Panel Session: "Fault-Tolerance in Distributed Systems: how transparent can you get ?" Coordinator: Shaula Yemini, IBM, Yorktown Heights USA 19.00 Concert 20.30 Welcome Party TUESDAY, October 1 08.00 - 09.00 Registration 09.00 - 10.30 Session 3: Backward Recovery Schemes Chair: Edgar Nett, GMD, Germany "Optimistic Failure Recovery for Very Large Networks" Andy Lowry, James R. Russell, Arthur P. Goldberg, IBM, Yorktown Heights, USA "Efficient Communication of Commitment-Dependency Information in the PTC Scheme for Cooperative Recovery" Kane Kim, J. H. You, University of California Irvine USA "Flexible Schemes for Application-level Fault Tolerance" Lorenzo Strigini, Felicita Di Giandomenico, IEI-CNR Italy 10.30 - 11.00 Coffee Break 11.00 - 12.30 Session 4: Replication & Parallelism Chair: Fabio Panzieri, University of Bologna, Italy "A Model for Interface Groups" Ed Oskiewicz, Michael H. Olsen, John Warne, ANSA, UK "Formalising Replicated Distributed Processing" Maciej Koutny, Luigi V. Mancini, Giuseppe Pappalardo, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK "On Tolerating Faults in Naturally Redundant Algorithms" Luiz A. Laranjeira, Miroslaw Malek, Roy Jenevain, University of Texas Austin, USA 12.30 - 14.00 Lunch 14.00 - 15.30 Session 5: Dependability Modelling Chair: Jean-Claude Laprie, LAAS-CNRS, France "Evaluation of Bus and Ring Communication Topologies for the Delta-4 Distributed Fault Tolerant Architecture" David Powell, Karama Kanoun, LAAS-CNRS, France "Flexible Handling of Diverse Dependability Requirements in MARS" Heinz Kantz, Technical University of Vienna, Austria "Efficient Transient Simulation of Failure/Repair Markovian Models" Juan A. Carrasco, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya Spain 15.30 - 16.00 Coffee Break 16.00 - 18.00 Session 6: Work in Progress Chair: Miroslaw Malek, University of Texas Austin,USA (Submissions will be solicited on the spot, for short presentations; there will be a selection) 20.30 Banquet WEDNESDAY, October 2 09.00 - 10.00 Session 7: Dependability Assessment Chair: David Powell, LAAS-CNRS, France "Performability Evaluation of CSMA/CD and CSMA/DCR Protocols under Transient Fault Conditions" William Sanders, K. H. Prodromides, University of Arizona, USA "A study of the Reliability of Internet Sites" Darrell Long, J. L. Carroll, C. J. Park, University of California Santa Cruz, USA 10.00 - 10.30 Coffee Break 10.30 - 11.30 Session 8: Agreement Chair: Paulo Verissimo, INESC, Portugal "Ordered Broadcasts for Large Applications" Tony P. Ng, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign USA "Keeping Processes under Surveillance" Thomas Becker, University of Kaiserslautern Germany 11.30 - 12.30 Session 9: Garbage Collection Chair: Paolo Ancilotti, University of Pisa, Italy "A Fault-Tolerant, Scalable, Low-Overhead Garbage Detection Protocol" Marc Shapiro, INRIA, France "Copying Garbage Collection for Distributed Object Stores" Luigi Mancini, Vittoria Rotella, Simonetta Venosa, Universita' di Pisa, Italy 12.30 - 14.00 Lunch 14.00 Symposium end. ============================================================================= SRDS10 will be held at the Palazzo dei Congressi di Pisa. SRDS10 is in connection with the 5th International Conference on Fault-Tolerant Computing Systems (the German FTCS), Nurnberg, 25-27 Sept. 1991 (contact Mario Dal Cin E-mail: DALCIN@INFORMATIK.UNI-ERLANGEN.DE), and with the International Workshop on Responsive Computer Systems, Nice, France, 3-4 October 1991 (contact either Gerard Le Lann E-mail: GLL@SCORE.INRIA.FR or Miroslaw Malek E-mail: MALEK@EMX.UTEXAS.EDU) INFORMATION and ADVANCE PROGRAM complete with registration form and hotel reservation form for SRDS10: contact: Luca Simoncini, IEI-CNR, Via S.Maria 46, 56126 Pisa Italy fax: +39 50 554342 E-mail:SIMON@ICNUCEVM.CNUCE.CNR.IT =============================================================================== ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION FORM SRDS-10 SURNAME: NAME: AFFILIATION: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: TEL.: FAX: E-MAIL: REGISTRATION FEES: Before September 10,1991: Members: Lit. 430.000 Non Members: Lit. 550.000 FullTime Students: Lit. 260.000 After September 10, 1991: Members: Lit. 520.000 Non Members: Lit. 650.000 FullTime Students: Lit. 400.000 IEEE/CS Membership number:__________________ AICA Membership Number:_____________________ Registration fee includes: the Proceedings, three working lunches, coffee breaks, participation to the Concert and Welcome Party on Monday night and Gala Dinner on Tuesday night. Students do not participate to the Social Program. PAYMENT AMOUNT OF LIT.______________________________ __ I ENCLOSE AN INTERNATIONAL BANK CHEQUE FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT __ I ENCLOSE PHOTOCOPY OF A BANK TRANSFER ORDER PAYABLE TO : SRDS-10 ETTORE RICCIARDI BANK ACCOUNT N. 13676 BANCA POPOLARE DI NOVARA AG.1 - VIA S.FRANCESCO, 54 - PISA SEND IN AN ENVELOPE TO: ETTORE RICCIARDI IEI-CNR VIA S.MARIA 46 56126 PISA, ITALY =================================================================== SRDS-10 HOTEL RESERVATION FORM SURNAME ________________________________ NAME ___________________________________ AFFILIATION ____________________________ ________________________________________ ADDRESS ________________________________ ________________________________________ CITY ___________________________________ STATE __________________ ZIP ___________ TEL _______________ FAX ________________ ACCOMPANIED BY (SURNAME AND NAME) ______ ________________________________________ I WISH TO SHARE A DOUBLE ROOM WITH _____ ________________________________________ DATE OF ARRIVAL ________________________ DATE OF DEPARTURE ______________________ TOTAL NIGHTS ___________________________ I AM ENCLOSING INTERNATIONAL CHECQUE N. ________________________________________ MADE PAYABLE TO: TRE EMME CONGRESSI PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH DEPOSIT (P.T.O) BEFORE SEPTEMBER 2, 1991 TO: TRE EMME CONGRESSI VIA RISORGIMENTO 4 56126 PISA, ITALY =========================================== COST OF ACCOMODATIONS HOTEL CAT SINGLE DOUBLE DOUBLE AS SINGLE **** LIT.163.500 LIT. 228900 LIT. 190750 *** LIT. 74500 LIT. 105000 LIT. 95000 ** LIT. 51000 LIT. 80000 LIT. 65000 PRICES INDICATED ARE PER ROOM AND INCLUDE BREAKFAST, SERVICE CHARGES, TAXES AND VAT. WHEN SINGLE ROOMS ARE NO MORE AVAILABLE DOUBLE ROOMS FOR SINGLE USE WILL BE RESERVED. THE DEPOSIT WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE HOTEL BILL UPON DISPLAY OF THE VOUCHER SENT BY TRE EMME CONGRESSI. MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ARE ACCEPTED AT ALL HOTEL IN PISA. NOTIFY TRE EMME CONGRESSI OF LATE ARRIVAL TO HAVE GUARANTEED RESERVATION. Lorenzo Strigini, IEI del CNR Via Santa Maria 46 I-56126 Pisa ITALY Tel: +39-50-553159 ; Fax: +39-50-554342 ; Telex: 590305 IEICNR I email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org
Call for Papers and Proposals DIRECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCED COMPUTING DIAC-92 Berkeley, California May 2 - 3, 1992 Computer technology significantly affects most activities in society, including schooling, health care, military practice, work, communication, and laws and law enforcement. The DIAC conference considers the implications of technical advancements on society in a broad social context that encompasses ethics, economics, and politics. The conference seeks to address the the relationship between technology and society. Papers that address directly the relationship between technology and policy, and papers on the ethics and values of computing are especially desired. Papers and workshop proposals that build on previous DIAC presentations are encouraged. Reports on work in progress or suggestions for future work as well as appropriate surveys and applications will also be considered. The following topics should be regarded as general guidelines for paper or workshop topics: RESEARCH DIRECTIONS DEFENSE APPLICATIONS + Research Funding + AI & Neural Net Applications + Software Development + Autonomous Weapons Systems Methodologies + Virtual Reality + Professional responsibility + Uses of Models & Simulations COMPUTING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY COMPUTERS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST + Community Access + Computing for the Disabled + Computerized Voting + Computers and the Environment + Civil Liberties + Arbitration & Conflict Resolution + Computing & the Law + Computing in Education + Computing & Workplace + Software Safety Submissions will be read by members of the program committee, with the assistance of outside referees. The program committee includes David Bellin (consultant), Eric Gutstein (U. WI), Batya Friedman (Mills College), Jonathan Jacky (U. WA), Deborah Johnson (Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.), Richard Ladner (U. WA), Dianne Martin (George Washington U.), Judith Perrolle (Northeastern U.) Marc Rotenberg (CPSR), Douglas Schuler (Boeing Computer Services), Barbara Simons (IBM), Lucy Suchman (Xerox), Karen Wieckert (U. CA. Irvine), and Terry Winograd (Stanford). Accepted papers will be presented on May 2. Accepted workshops will be conducted on May 3. Complete papers should include an abstract and should not exceed 6000 words. Proposals for workshops should include title, purpose, intended agenda, and references. Workshops will be two hours in length. Submissions will be judged on significance, clarity, insight, and originality. Papers and/or proposals (4 copies) are due by November 1, 1991. Notices of acceptance or rejection will be mailed by January 15, 1992. Camera ready copy is due by March 1, 1992. Send papers to Douglas Schuler, Boeing Computer Services, MS 7L-64, P.O. 24346, Seattle, WA 98124-0346. For more information contact Doug Schuler (206-632-1659 (H), 206-865-3832 (W) email@example.com). Proceedings will be distributed at the symposium, and will be available by mail. The DIAC-87, DIAC-88, and DIAC-90 proceedings are published by Ablex Publishing Company. Publishing the DIAC-92 proceedings is also planned. Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94301 DIAC-92 is co-sponsored by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, and the Boston Computer Society Social Impact Group, in cooperation with ACM SIGCHI and ACM SIGCAS.
Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer