Paper on Pioneering Vision behind the Net (pt 2/3)

Paper on Pioneering Vision behind the Net (pt 2/3)

Post by Ronda Haub » Thu, 12 Jan 1995 15:50:26

  Cybernetics, Human-Computer Symbiosis and On-line Communities:
                      The Pioneering Vision
         and The Future of the Global Computer Network"
                                             by Ronda Hauben

                      (Draft for Comment)
                         (Part 2 of 3)

Part III - CTSS and Project MAC

     One of those who was to play an important role in
implementing the vision of human-computer symbiosis was Robert
Fano. Robert Fano worked at RLE (the Research Lab for
Electronics) after doing his Ph.D. at MIT in June 1947. In his
introduction to his book on "Transmission of Information"
published by the MIT press, he described his early contact with
Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon. He explained how he had taken
seriously theoretical questions raised by Wiener and Shannon and
went on to do research to help explore the theory they had

     By 1960, Fano was a senior faculty member at MIT. Gordon
Brown, then Dean of the Engineering School of MIT, arranged for
several faculty members to take a course in computing taught by
Fernando Corbato and John McCarthy. Fano, remembering his
excitement in taking their course recalled, "I wrote a program
that worked," while taking the course.(23)

     Gordon Brown, Fano explained, understood that the computer
was going to be very important and encouraged his senior faculty
to become familiar with it.

     In 1960, the MIT administration appointed a committee to
make recommendations about the future needs of MIT regarding
computers. Fano was one of the faculty members appointed to the
committee. This committee created a technical committee made up
of Fernando Corbato, John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Doug Ross,
Jack Dennis, with Herb Teager acting as Chair.

     In Spring of 1961, the celebration of the MIT centennial
described earlier in this paper, was held.  There were eight talks
planned, and when one of the speakers cancelled at the last
minute, John McCarthy from The Long Range Planning Committee was
invited to speak.

     In his talk, McCarthy described the rationale behind time
sharing and the important vision for the future of computing that
it represented. Other participants at the conference included
Norbert Wiener, John Kemeny, Robert Fano, Alan Perlis, and J.C.R.
Licklider.(24)  In the course of the conference, Wiener explained
that "a computing machine is a general-purpose device that can be
programmed to do very specific jobs." But, Wiener warned, if you
fail to give a necessary instruction to a computer, "you cannot
expect the machine itself to think of this restriction."(25)
Wiener explained that humans had to oversee the computer.

     "An unsafe act thus," Wiener cautioned, "may not show its
danger until it is too late to do anything about it."(26)

     J.C.R. Licklider described how a human being "must not so
clutter his mind with codes and formats that he cannot think
about his substantative problem."(27)

     In his comments as a discussant at the Conference, Licklider
described his vision of the future of the computer:

     "In due course it will be part of the formulation of
     problems; part of real-time thinking, problem solving, doing
     of research, conducting of experiments, getting into the
     literature and finding references...And it will mediate and
     facilitate communication among human beings."(28)

     He expressed his hope that the computer "through its
contribution to formulative thinking...will help us understand
the structure of ideas, the nature of intellectual
processes."(29) And he proposed that the "most important present
function of the digital computer in the university should be to
catalyze the development of computer science."(30)

     A participant at the conference, the linquist Y. Bar-Hillel,
pointed out that with regard to computer development, no one at
the conference knew what was going to happen in the long term
future, or even in the short term. Despite this uncertainty, he
maintained that it was important to decide what type of future it
would be worthwhile to encourage. He observed that there were two
paths to choose from and posed the question as to which path
should be taken. "Do we want computers that will compete with
human beings and achieve intelligent behavior autonomously, or do
we want what has been called man-machine symbiosis?"(31)

     "I think computer people have the obligation to decide which
of the two aims they are going to adopt," he proposed. He
recommended that the best path was that of man-machine symbiosis
because he held that the human brain was more developed than it
would be possible to make a machine brain at the current stage of
technological development. "I admit that these two aims do not
definitely exclude each other," he acknowledged. However, he
added, "but there has been an enormous waste during the last few
years in trying to achieve what I regard as the wrong aim at this
stage, namely, computers that will autonomously work as well as
the human brain with its billion years of evolution."

     Robert Fano went on a sabbatical in the Summer of 1961 to
Lincoln Labs because he hoped to learn more about digital
computers there. "I had become convinced," he explained, "that
one ought to start thinking about communications no longer in the
form of `How can I put together certain communication components,
like an amplifier, or oscillator to make a communication
system'."(32) Instead he felt one had to think about
communication in the general purpose way that the digital
computer was making possible.

     In the meantime, the Long Term Computation Study Group
published its reports. There were two proposals for how to
proceed. One, from Herbert Teager, who had been Chairman of the
Committee, and a second Report from the rest of the committee.
Fernando Corbato, a member of the committee and then Associate
Director of the MIT Computing Center set out to implement an
"interim" solution to the kind of computer the majority report
proposed. Corbato describes the subsequent events, "I started up
with just a couple of my staff people Marjorie Daggett...and Bob
Daley. We hammered out a very primitive prototype. We started
thinking about it in Spring of 1961. I remember that by the
summer of 1961 we were in the heat of trying to work out the
intricacies of the interrupts."(33)

      He explains how he and the other programmers were acting
on the vision that had been developed by the majority of the Long
Term Study Group Committee. "I sketched out what we would try to
do," he explains, "and Marjorie, Daley and I worked out the hairy
details of trying to cope with this kind of poor hardware. By
November, 1961," he notes, "we were able to demonstrate a really
crude prototype of the system. What we had done was [that] we had
wedged out 5K words of the user address space and inserted a
little operating system that was going to manage the four
typewriters. We did not have any disk storage, so we took
advantage of the fact that it was a large machine and we had a
lot of tape drives. We assigned one tape drive per typewriter."

     They gave a seminar and demonstration with their crude
operating system in November 1961. "That's the date that's
branded in my mind," Corbato notes. "It was only a four-Flexowriter
system. People were pleased that there were finally examples
surfacing from [the work]. They did not view [it-ed] as an answer
to anybody's problem. We made the [first] demo in November 1961
on an [IBM] 709," he recalls. "The switch to the [IBM] 7090
occurred in the spring of 1962 at the Computation Center."(35)

     Corbato describes how CTSS (Compatible Time Sharing System)
as the operating system he was working on was called, couldn't go
into operation until the programmers made massive changes. It was
only when the [IBM] 7090 hardware could be used and had arrived
in early spring of 1962 that they could begin to deal with the
real problems to make a working system.

     Corbato gave a talk at a Conference about CTSS in May, 1962,
but they still didn't have a working system running.

     However, by October, 1962, J.C.R. Licklider had accepted a
position with ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) under the
U.S. Department of Defense on the condition that he would be
allowed to implement the vision of interactive computing and time

     In November, 1962, Licklider and Fano both attended an
unclassified meeting held for the Air Force in Hot Springs,
Virginia, outside of Washington D.C. Fano had been invited to
chair a session on Communication. And he and Licklider both
attended some of the sessions on command and control. On the way
back from the conference on the train returning to Washington
D.C., several people from the meeting were in the same car. They
all chatted about what had happened and moved from seat to seat
to talk to different people. "And I did spend quite a bit of time
with Lick," Fano recalled, "and I understood better what he had
in mind."(36)

     Fano spent Thanksgiving Day 1962 thinking over the
discussion he had had with Licklider. The day after Thanksgiving
he had a meeting set up with the Provost at MIT, Charlie Townes.
When he told the Provost what he had been thinking, he was told
"Go ahead."

     Fano wrote out his thoughts in a 2 page memorandum that he
distributed broadly around MIT. In the proposal he put forward
three goals: 1) time sharing 2) a community using it and 3)
education, which meant supporting research projects.

     The following Tuesday he met with the Dean and he was
surprised that the question posed was what building he would use
for the project, thus encouraging him to go ahead with it.

     In reviewing the period, Corbato described how Licklider
went to ARPA with "a mission,"  that of developing time sharing
and interactive computing. Lick added that while his superiors
called for Command and Control, he made clear he was going to be
involved with "interactive computing."(37)

     "I just wanted to make it clear," Lick noted, "that I wasn't
going to be running battle planning missions or something. I was
going to be dealing with the engineering substratum that [would]
make it possible to do that stuff [command and control]."

     When asked how he felt when he learned that there would be
funding to develop CTSS as part of the Project MAC program that
Licklider was funding at MIT, Corbato recalled, "Well, it was a
cooperative thing. Nobody had license to run wild -- but you had
license to try to make something happen."(38)

    "My goal," he clarified, "was to exhibit it. I wasn't
trying to start a company or anything like that; my goal was to
exhibit it."

     Fano developed a proposal for Project MAC. It was submitted.
The contract was signed by July 1, 1963, the day the 1963 summer
study began at MIT to demonstrate and create enthusiasm for time
sharing and interactive computing. "Time sharing," Martin
Greenberger recalled, "on the Computation Center machine was
available on the opening day of the summer study project."(39)

     By mid October a second time sharing computer was available
for Project MAC. And it was operating within a week.

     Reviewing the reasons for the success of Project MAC,
Greenberger explained, "CTSS was an open system. It challenged
the user to design his own subsystem, no matter what discipline
he came from, no matter what his research interests."(40)

     Fano acknowledged one of their failures. "One of our goals,"
he explained, "was to make the computer truly accessible to
people wherever they were. We did not succeed. For people who
lived in the community that used the system, it was fine. In any
system like that, you keep learning things, you keep using new
things, and so you keep having troubles. If you can go next door
and say, `Hey, I was doing this and something strange happened,
do you know what I did wrong?' usually somebody in your
neighborhood will be able to help you. If instead you are far
away, you are stuck....We tried to develop some way of helping
remote users.... Well, we never did. So in fact, we failed to
make the computer truly accessible regardless of the location of
the user."(41)

     Despite the problems, Greenberger observed, "I think one of
the greatest successes was that CTSS gave so many people, with
such widely different backgrounds, a system and experience that
they would not have gotten any other way at that point."

     Recalling how Project MAC created an on-line community, Fano
remembered, "friendships being born out of using somebody else's
program, people communicating through the system and then meeting
by accident and say `Oh, that's you.' All sorts of things. It was
a nonreproducible community phenomenon," he concluded. (42)

     Offering his summary of the achievements, Corbato
explained: "Two aspects strike me as being important. One is the
kind of open system quality, which allowed everyone to make the
system kind of their thing rather than what somebody else imposed
on them....So people were tailoring it to mesh with their
interests. And the other thing is, I think, we deliberately kept
the system model relatively unsophisticated (maybe that's the
wrong word - uncomplicated), so we could explain it easily."(43)

     Licklider's observations, described in a paper he published
in 1968 with Robert Taylor, show how the achievements of Project
MAC and the other time-sharing systems built as a result of
Lick's tenure at ARPA, led to the vision that helped to guide the
development of the ARPANET.

     In the paper, "The Computer as a Communication Device,"
Licklider and Taylor predicted, "In a few years, men will be able
to communicate more effectively through a machine than face to

     "To communicate is more than to send and receive," they
wrote, "We believe that communicators have to do something
nontrivial with the information they send and receive....We
believe that we are entering into a technological age in which we
will be able to interact with the richness of living information
-- not merely in the passive way that we have become accustomed
to using books and libraries, but as active participants in an
ongoing process, bringing something to it through our interaction
with it, and not simply receiving something from it by our
connection to it."

     While they acknowledged that the switching function was
important in the transfer of information, that was not the aspect
they were interested in. Instead they proposed that there was a
power and responsiveness that online interaction with a computer
made possible that would significantly affect the communication
possible between humans using the computer.

     Though they were familiar with commercial facilities that
called themselves "multiaccess,"  they explained that these had
not succeeded in creating the kind of multiaccess computer
communities that the noncommercial timesharing systems spawned.

     They described these time-sharing communities, of which
Project MAC was one of the early examples:

     "These communities are socio-technical pioneers, in several
     ways, out ahead of the rest of the computer world: What
     makes them so? First some of their members are computer
     scientists and engineers who understand the concept of man-
     computer interaction and the technology of interactive
     multiaccess systems. Second, others of their members are
     creative people in other fields and disciplines who
     recognize the usefulness and who sense the impact of
     interactive multiaccess computers on their work. Third, the
     communities have large multiaccess computers and have
     learned to use them. And fourth, their efforts are

     Elaborating on what they meant by regenerative, they wrote,
"In the half-dozen communities, the computer systems research
and development and the development of substantative applications
mutually support each other. They are producing large and growing
resources of programs, data, and know-how, but we have seen only
the beginning. There is much more programming and data collection
-- and much more learning how to cooperate -- to be done before
the full potential of the concept can be realized."

     They go on to caution that, "Obviously multiactive systems
must be developed interactively." And they explain that "The
systems being built must remain flexible and open-ended
throughout the process of development, which is evolutionary."

     They also describe how there were systems that were
advertising themselves via the same labels as "interactive,"
"time-sharing" and "multiaccess." But these were commercial
systems and they describe the distinct difference between the
commercial systems and the noncommercial ones. The noncommercial
"differ by having a greater degree of open-endedness, by
rendering more service, and above all by providing facilities
that foster a working sense of community among their users."

     "The commercially available time-sharing services," they
observed, "do not yet offer the power and flexibility of software
resources -- the `general purposeness' -- of the interactive
multiaccess systems of Systems Development Corporation in Santa
Monica, the University of California at Berkeley, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge,
Mass. -- which have been collectively serving over a thousand
people for several years."(pg 31)

     They discussed their vision of the future. They predicted
that linking up the existing communities would create a still
more powerful and important development -- supercommunities made
up of the existing communities created by the time-sharing
systems. "The hope," they explained, "is that interconnection
will make available to all the communities the programs and data
resources of the entire supercommunity."

     "This collection of people, hardware and software," they
wrote, "the multiaccess computer together with its local
community of users -- will become a node in a geographically
distributed computer network...Through the network of message
processors, therefore, all the large computers can communicate
with one another. And through them, all the members of the
supercommunity can communicate with other people, with programs,
with data, or with selected combinations of these resources."

     They predict that the future will bring "a mobile network of
networks -- ever changing in both content and configuration."

     And just as Licklider realized that a timesharing system
was more than a collection of computers and software, Fano
recognized that "a time sharing system was more than just a set
of people using common resources; it was also a means of
communicating and sharing ideas."(45)

     Another time-sharing pioneer, Doug Ross, observed that
Project MAC made CTSS available rather than waiting for the ideal
technical system as others had favored. By producing a prototype
and encouraging others to contribute to it, CTSS had a
significant impact on others who therefore had the ability to
build into the system what they needed and to contribute so it
would serve their needs. "I always say," Ross concluded, "you can't
design an interface from just one side."(46) This quality of
putting an open system out and encouraging people to contribute
to it to make it what they needed, was building a human centered
rather than technology centered system.(47)

     Summing up the achievement of the Project MAC pioneers,
John A. N. Lee, editor of the two special issues of "The IEEE
Annals of the History of Computing" about the development of
time-sharing and Project MAC at MIT, writes: "With the
development of computer networking, which almost naturally
followed on the development of time-sharing and interactive
computing, it is as if the whole world now time shares myriad
computers, providing facilities which were beyond the dreams of
even the MIT researchers of 1960...But this is where it started
-- with the ideas of John McCarthy, the implementation skills of
Fernando Corbato, the vision of J.C.R. Licklider, and the
organizational skills of Robert Fano."(48)

Part IV - The Implications

     What is the significance of these early days of cybernetics
and the development of time-sharing and interactive computing
toward the current developments in networking in the U.S. and
towards U.S. policy to direct those developments?

     The pioneers of cybernetics and multiaccess computing who
gathered at the MIT centennial in the Spring of 1961 to discuss
the future of computing, proposed that the crucial issue one must
determine in trying to solve a problem is how to formulate the
question. They expressed concern that the computer would bring
great changes into our world and that people who understood the
issues involved be part of setting government policy regarding
these developments.

     The pioneers also observed that there were opposing
directions in contention with regard to what the future should
be. One road was that of human-computer symbiosis, of a close
interaction between the human and the computer so each could
function more effectively. "The hope is that, in not too many
years," J.C.R. Licklider wrote, "human brains and computing
machines will be coupled together very tightly, and that the
resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever
thought and process data in a way not approached by the
information-handling machines we know today."(49) The other road
was that of creating computers that would be able to do the
thinking or problem solving without human assistance. Though
pioneers like Lick explained that "man-computer symbiosis is
probably not the ultimate paradigm for complex technological
systems" and that in the future at some point "electronic or
chemical `machines' will outdo the human brain in most of the
functions we now consider exclusively within its province...There
will nevertheless be a fairly long interim during which the main
intellectual advances will be made by men and computers working
together in intimate association."(50) Thus though Lick was
willing to concede, "dominance in the distant future of
celebration to machines alone," he recognized the creative and
important developments that such a partnership between the human
and computer would make possible. The years of human-computer
symbiosis, Licklider predicted "should be intellectually the most
creative and exciting in the history of mankind."(51)

     The vision of human-computer symbiosis as an intellectual
advance for humans was presented. And online human-computer, and
computer facilitated human to human communication was seen as the
embodiment of this symbiosis.

     In the years following the development of CTSS and Project
MAC and the linking of different time-sharing systems to create a
super-community of on-line communities which became known as the
ARPANET, the firm foundation set by Project MAC and the helpful
vision and direction set by Licklider and Fano gave birth to the
sprawling and impressive networking communities that today we
call the Internet. Though commercial time-sharing systems
appearing in the later part of the 1960's used the same labels as
the academic and open multiaccess systems, these commercial
operations didn't form the same sort of community that Project
MAC pioneered. Today, in the mid 1990's, there are commercial
systems that are claiming they are the inheritors of the
community networking tradition, but though these commercial on-
line services may for a fee provide an email account or access to
read Netnews, they don't make possible the same kind of open
access multiaccess community that has built the Internet and will
be necessary to sustain it and continue its development.

     Instead of proposing that networking in the U.S. be expanded
by building on the experience of the past where the connecting of
the multiaccess communities into one supercommunity network made
it possible to build the Arpanet and then the Internet, the NII
(National Information Infrastructure of the U.S. government) has
falsified the history claiming that commercial sites built the
Internet and has encouraged commercial sites and interests to
swamp the Internet and attack the cooperative culture and
community that has taken such a hard effort over many long years
to build.

     Rather than encouraging such commercial activity, the U.S.
government policy should be one of identifying the community of
users who exist on the Net and who have made efforts to help to
build the Net. There should be funding to study the successful
sites that have built cooperative multiuser community. The
problems of such sites need to be identified so they can be
solved. And the achievements need to be documented so they can be
extended and built upon.

     In the same way as Licklider, a person with both experience
and enthusiasm for human-symbiosis, was put in charge of
a government program to develop time-sharing and interactive
computing, those with an understanding of human-computer
symbiosis and how it has shaped the history and development of
networking advances, with a vision of how to continue to apply
this foundation to future network developments, and with a love
for the cooperative online community that has been built via the
Internet and other Network achievements like Usenet News, need to
be put in charge of helping to build and extend the Net.  Instead
the U.S. government appointed to the NII a committee of people,
many of whom had little or no networking experience and are not
online and those few who have had networking experience are only
interested in converting the Internet into a forprofit model
pioneered by Compuserve. And the NII is funding projects which
aim to remove the human-computer partnership foundation of the
Net and replace it with the commercial model of providing the
user with entertainment or supposed services.

     In contrast to the meeting of people at MIT to discuss the
future of the computer in 1961, the future of the network was
discussed at a "by invitation only meeting " held at Harvard
University at the Kennedy School of Government in March 1990.
Plans were made at the meeting to commercialize the Internet.
Instead of that meeting searching for the question and principles
to help advance development of the Net, those invited to the
meeting met with a preconceived agenda of commercializing the
Internet and only discussed how to carry it out.(52)

     Norbert Wiener often warned that the age of the computer
would bring with it situations where it was possible to make big
mistakes and that it was therefore necessary for human society to
apply more intellect not less to the problems raised by the
computer. He also encouraged the governed to fight to make their
views known to those governing if there is not to be disaster.
There have been people challenging the narrow pro commercial view
of the future of the Net. In November, 1994, the U.S. government
responded to some of these challenges by holding an online
virtual conference to discuss the future of the Net. The comments
expressed in several of the newsgroups created as part of this
online conference demonstrate that there is a vision for the
future of networking that would make access available to all at
little or no cost.(See summary of online conference in appendix)

     This online conference showed that the vision of the
computer pioneers of the 1960's of human-computer symbiois, and
of creating a multiaccess, interactive, network of networks, or a
supercommunity network as they termed it, is the vision that
still should be guiding our work in building and extending the
computer network in the U.S. today.


(1) IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol 14, no 2, 1992
p 15.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Martin Greenberger, ed, "Management and Computers of the
Future", Cambridge, 1962, p. 8.

(4) John R. Pierce, "Communication," "Scientific American", Sept.
1972, vol 227, no 3.

(5) Ibid., p. 33.

(6) He gives the example of a large community "where the Lords of
Things as They Are protect themselves from hunger by wealth, from
public opinion by privacy and anonymity, from private criticism
by the laws of libel and the possession of the means of

     It is in such a society, he explains, that "ruthlessness can
reach its most sublime levels." And he points out that the
creation of such an unstable society requires "the control of the
means of communication" as "the most effective and important"
element."(from Pierce, p. 41)

(7) Norbert Wiener, "Cybernetics: or Control and Communication
in the Animal and the Machine", Cambridge, MA, pg. 11-12.

(8) from "Challenge Interview: Norbert Wiener: Man and the
Machine", June 1959, in "Collected Works of Norbert Wiener with
Commentaries", vol 4, 1985, p. 717.

(9) "God and Golem," p. 71.

(10) "A Scientist's Dilemma in a Materialist World," by Norbert
Wiener, p. 707, in "Collected Works," p. 709.

(11) Norbert Wiener, "I Am A Mathematician," Cambridge, 1956, p.

(12) Norbert Wiener, "Cybernetics," Cambridge, 1948, p. 1.

(13) from "The Legacy of Norbert Wiener: A Centennial Symposium,"
1994, p. 19.

(14) Chronology from IEEE Annals of the History of Computing,
Vol. 14, No 1, 1994, p. 18

(15) See "Annals", vol 14, no. 1, 1992, p. 38 for a description
of the frustrations of batch processing.

(16) See Annals, vol 14, no. 1, 1992, " John McCarthy's 1959
memorandum, p. 20-21.
See also J.A.N. Lee "Claims to the Term Time-Sharing", p. 16-17.

(17) John Mc Carthy's 1959 memorandum, p. 20.

(18) Annals, vol. 14, no. 2, 1992, p. 16.

(19) Ibid.

(20) Ibid.

(21) Interview with J.C.R. Licklider conducted by the Charles
Babbage Institute.

(22) J.C.R. Licklider, "Man Computer Symbiosis," IRE Transactions
on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. HGR-2, pagesT 4-11, March
1960, in "In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider 1915-1990", Palo Alto,
August 7, 1990.

(23) Interview with Fano by the Charles Babbage Institute.

(24) The book was first published under the title "Management anb
the Future of the Computer" by MIT press in 1962 and later in
in hardback and paperback under the title "Computers and the
World of the Future". It was edited by Martin Greenberger.

(25) "Management and the Future of the Computer", ed by Martin
Greenberger, Cambridge, 1962, p. 24.

(26) Ibid., p. 32.

(27) Ibid., p. 204-5.

(28) Ibid. p. 205.

(29) Ibid., p. 206.

(30) Ibid., p. 207.

(31) Ibid., p. 324.

(32) Annals, vol 14, no 2, 1992, p. 20.

(33) Annals vol 14 no 1, p. 44. Teager's recommendations are
described in "IEEE Annals of the History of Computing," vol 14,
No. 1, 1992, p. 24-27. Excerpts from the Long Range Computation
Study Group's recommendation for a time-sharing systems which
resulted in Corbato's work on CTSS are in the same issue on page

(34) Ibid., p. 45.

(35) Ibid., p.45-46. Corbato describes how he thought CTSS would
be running on the IBM 7090 by the time he was to give a talk on it
at the AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference in May, 1962. But
that they were not able to get it running by the time the paper
was presented. Despite his disappointment, the paper is an
important historical document. See "An Experimental Time-Sharing
System," by Fernando J. Corbato, Jarjorie Merwin-Daggett, Robert
C. Daley, "Proceedings of the American Federation of Information
Processing Societies," Spring Joint Computer Conference, May 1-3,
1962, vol 21, pg. 335-344.

(36) Annals, no 2, p. 21-22

(37) Ibid., p. 24

(38) Ibid.

(39) Ibid., p. 26.

(40) Ibid.

(41) Ibid., p. 31.

(42) Ibid.

(43) Ibid. Annals, no. 2, p. 33.

(44) "The Computer as a Communication Device," IRE Transactions
on Human Factors in Electronics, volume HFE-1, pages 4-11, March
1960, and reprinted in "In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider: 1915-
1990", Palo Alto, August 7, 1990,  p. 21.

(45) Annals, Vol 14, no 1, p. 48.

(46) Ibid., p. 51.

(47) Ibid., one of the interviewers, Robert Rosin noted, "You
see, if what you're trying to do is optimize technical resources
(physical resources), Herb's point of view was exactly right. If
you try to optimize the use of human resources, then the point of
view you were taking was a lot closer to reality."

(48) Ibid, p. 3-4.

(49) "Man Computer Symbiosis," p. 3. Licklider proposes the role
that each partner will play in the symbiotic relationship. The
human partner will "set the golas, formulate the hypotheses,
determine the criteria, and perform the evaluations." The
computers "will do the routinizable work that must be done to
prepare the way for insights and decisions in technical and
scientific thinking." ("Man-Computer Symbiosis", p. 1)

(50) Ibid., p. 2-3.

(51) Ibid.,

(52) See RFC (Request for Comments) 1192 describing the meeting.

(See pt3/3 for appendix)

       Ronda Hauben, or
"The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: An Anthology on the History
and Impact of the Net" via