- Members - lists.sigcis.org

'U.S. lawmakers unveil bold $100 billion plan to remake NSF'
by David Ribes 27 May '20

27 May '20

For those of you interested in US science policy, especially about IT and computation, this is not to be missed: U.S. lawmakers unveil bold $100 billion plan to remake NSF https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-lawmakers-unveil-bold-100-billio… It's just a senate proposal for now, but it looks like it has legs. While I was caught off guard by the SCOPE of what they are proposing, the SHAPE is unsurprising to me, and looks a much like the NSF may be reorganized according to what I've been writing about recently as 'the logic of domains <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306312719849709>': a vast and empowered new 'technology' directorate orbited by the various domains, with a support role articulated for social science. Too soon to say for sure, but it sure smells like it. Regardless, it may of interest to members of this list, and I'd be curious if anyone knows more. I'll be following closely. Here is another article, and then the somewhat inscrutable Senate doc itself: https://www.hpcwire.com/2020/05/27/100b-plan-submitted-for-massive-remake-a… https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/aipcorp/images/fyi/pdf/endless-fron… -- David Ribes Associate Professor Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering (HCDE) University of Washington http://davidribes.com

3 2

Early History of the Domain Name System [Paper]
by Eric Gade 27 May '20

27 May '20

Hello all, After procrastinating for nearly a decade I've decided to publish my MA/MSc thesis online. It covers the genesis and early administration of the Domain Name System, taking a special interest in the decisions that led to the split gTLD/ccTLD structure. Perhaps a scholar looking into DNS history might find it useful. You can find the HTML version here: http://gade.us/thesis/ There is also a PDF version available here: http://gade.us/thesis/naming-the-net.pdf (Apologies ahead of time if it is inappropriate to post such things to this list) -- Eric

2 1

Computing Curricula CC2020
by Jordi 27 May '20

27 May '20

Dear colleagues, Anybody involved in the www.cc2020.net? There is a lot of history on "computing curricula" in this document. History of computing in the curricula is collocated in the "Ethics" topic and scaterred along some competencies. By the way, the draft is open for comments. Bestregards, -- Jordi Fornés C6-216

1 0

History of AI in China
by David C. Brock 20 May '20

20 May '20

I was wondering if anyone on the list is working on the history of AI in China, or could point me to references? +++++++++++++++ David C. Brock dcb(a)dcbrock.net 40 Russell Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 Mobile: 413-522-3578 Skype: dcbrock Twitter: @dcbrock Pronouns: he, him, his

3 2

Hagley Blog Post on Photographer of ENIAC, William M. Rittase
by Erik Rau 18 May '20

18 May '20

Some members of this list may know of, or be interested in, the photography of William M. Rittase<https://www.hagley.org/librarynews/photographer-william-m-rittase-and-his-i…> who took the iconic photographs that introduced the world to the ENIAC. He was also a contemporary of Dorothea Lange and Margaret Bourke-White and shared some stylistic sensibilities with them. Rittase’s work is scattered in several of our collections and has appeared in a few art photography exhibitions (MoMA in 1932, Philadelphia Museum of Art in 2001), but despite its artistic merit, Rittase is relatively obscure. As Hagley’s curator Kevin J. Martin notes in a current blog post on Rittase<https://www.hagley.org/librarynews/photographer-william-m-rittase-and-his-i…> not much is know about his life and even the contours of his career aren’t well known in detail. Even major photography repositories like the PMA, Chicago Arts Institute, the Getty, etc., have only sporadic pieces of his output. Industrial photography is in Hagley’s collecting mission. If you know of any Rittase photographs, or any photographic collections describing American and international business, technology, or industrial design, that are currently not being preserved and publicly accessible, please consider contacting me. -- Erik P. Rau, PhD Director, Library Services Hagley Museum & Library P.O. Box 3630, 298 Buck Road Wilmington, DE 19807 302.658.2400, ext. 344 erau(a)hagley.org<mailto:erau@hagley.org> www.hagley.org www.hagleyheritage.com<http://www.hagleyheritage.com> Sign up for Hagley Library’s monthly newsletter<https://www.hagley.org/research/news/subscribe> to receive the latest research news, collection updates, upcoming events, and more. You can unsubscribe at any time.

1 0

Digital Soviet Union (a new PhD from Finland)
by Petri Paju 15 May '20

15 May '20

Hello all, This phd dissertation from Finland might be of interest for some people on the list. It's from the (Finnish) National defence university so has current military related interest but is using history research, including some from people on this list to understand Russia's present policy regarding the internet: Digital Soviet Union: the Russian national segment of the Internet as a closed national network shaped by strategic cultural ideas, by Juha Kukkola. Downloadable from: https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/177157 As yet I can't say much of the content and results, but I'll be interested to hear thoughts from someone who is better informed. (I've been planning a side project on IT "businesses" (yes, widely undertood) between the West and the Soviet Union in the late cold war.) Best wishes, Petri from University of Turku, Finland

1 0

Interfaces: Essays and Reviews in Computing and Culture (CFP)
by Jeffrey Yost 14 May '20

14 May '20

Dear Colleagues, Want to announce a new journal and its call: ******* *Interfaces: Essays and Reviews in Computing and Culture* *General Call for Submissions * *(Short Essays and Review Essays)* The Charles Babbage Institute for Computing, Information, and Culture (CBI) is launching a new eJournal. It is entitled *Interfaces: Essays and Reviews in Computing and Culture*. It will have a continuous publication model with publication date for each essay/article (no waiting in queue) and push email to subscribers (and volumes by calendar year).* Interfaces will exclusively publish short essay articles (1,500 to 3,000 words) and review essays (books, film, physical/virtual exhibits, other media) on computer/software/internet studies.* *Interfaces* will be co-edited by CBI Director Jeffrey Yost and CBI Archivist Amanda Wick. The editors are especially interested in content connecting the history of computing/IT studies with contemporary social, cultural, political, legal, economic, and environmental issues--e.g. essays on gender, race, class, users, human computer interaction, identity, labor, gaming, automation, capitalism, inequality, AI, algorithmic thinking, local or global environmental ecosystems, law/criminal justice, cryptocurrencies, security, leisure, and privacy. It, however, is not limited to these (any computing history or historically grounded or contextualized IT studies topics/themes are in scope). The journal seeks to be an interface between disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences/medicine (including/especially CS, HCI, information science, and sciences of the artificial); as well as an interface between academic and broader audiences--our reasoning for keeping essays short, strongly encouraging use of images (CBI has thousands digitized and online, and more than 150,000 overall), being timely (quick response, relatively rapid submission to publication), and pushing for highly accessible writing. Types of* computing history/IT studies essays* could include (but definitely are not limited to): - Essays connecting historical literature (your work and/or that of others) to contemporary societal issues - Essays presenting a case history/study you developed that resonated with students - Editorial-style essay that draws from history or makes fundamental historical connections - Review essay on two or more books on a topic/theme - Review essay on film, museum exhibit/virtual exhibit, gaming, art, music, or other media - Essays on imaginative literature, science fiction - Essays on historiography and/or archival theory - Essays on social, cultural, or economic theory CBI is a leading archives and research institute, and for decades has hosted web publications, including serials of our own (we are experienced in archiving and providing access to digital content over the very long term). *To submit *to* Interfaces: *Send a Word file (1,500 words to 3,000 words) of your essay, which includes a bibliography/sources at the end (bib., image captions, and 75 word or shorter bio, do not count to word maximum). Authors should use in-text parenthetical cites (MLA) with no footnotes/endnotes/note text. Essays should be broadly accessible and seek to avoid, or greatly limit, disciplinary jargon (and if used, done sparingly and clearly defined). Authors retain copyright and only sign a license form allowing *Interfaces* to publish (and the journal is open/free access). Send to Jeffrey Yost (yostx003(a)umn.edu) Amanda Wick ( abwick(a)umn.edu) or the general email cbi(a)umn.edu Authors are strongly encouraged to touch base with Jeffrey or Amanda for feedback on an essay idea, but this is not required and if you prefer, you can just send a submission. ****** With it being continuous publication, and to kick it off, I wrote an essay (PDF is attached--journal will present in both a mobile optimized web version and PDF) entitled "Where Dinosaurs Roam and Programmers Play: Reflections on Infrastructure, Maintenance, and Inequality." PDF attached and Web version and PDF link at https://justcode.cbi.umn.edu/interfaces If you are not already, Amanda and I encourage signing on to CBI's email list. To be added to our email list which includes Interfaces notifications, simply email cbi(a)umn.edu with "subscribe" in the subject line We hope you will consider submitting a short essay to this new publication (articles are reviewed by editors), and/or encourage colleagues to do so. Please forward to potentially interested people. Please email us with any questions. Best, Jeff Jeffrey R. Yost, Ph.D. Director, Charles Babbage Institute Research Professor, Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine 222 21st Avenue South University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 612 624 5050 Phone 612 625 8054 Fax

3 2

Virtual exhibit on "Computer pays its Debt"
by Ceruzzi, Paul 13 May '20

13 May '20

A fascinating exhibition on gender issues in computing at the Center for Craft in Asheville. Too bad the exhibit is not live, but they've done a good job of making it available on the Web. Scroll to the link "learn more" for details, including about the Apollo Guidance Computer. https://www.centerforcraft.org/event/computer-pays-its-debt-opening-recepti… Paul Ceruzzi Co-author, with Tom Haigh, A History of Modern Computing, Third Edition, forthcoming 2021.

1 0

Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware developer vs. software engineer
by McMillan, William W 11 May '20

11 May '20

Hello, SIGCIS folks. The ruminations below might have little scholarly importance, but I think the subject is interesting at least in regard to the culture of computing. What do we call people who design and implement computer programs? Nowadays, the term coder is used, maybe most often. My understanding is that this used to refer to the job of translating a detailed flow chart, which was created by a programmer, into an implementation language. I.e., the coder was sort of like a human compiler who translated a detailed algorithm into a computer language like Fortran, Cobol, or assembly language. The coder didn't design algorithms. Later, the coder dropped out of the loop and a programmer implemented algorithms directly in a computer language (possibly after creating a flow chart or pseudo-code). The term software developer has been used, possibly implying that the job is broader than just programming, including gathering requirements, testing, and integration with existing systems. Starting in the late 1960s, the title software engineer became common. At least initially, this implied a very broad scope, as well as specialized training in requirements analysis, system design, programming style, verification and validation, risk assessment, maintenance techniques, UI design, and other aspects of software development. I believe that Texas even licenses professional engineers in software engineering, and a detailed curriculum has been defined: https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/se2014.pdf The title software engineer implied that the person at least had a solid university course specifically in software engineering, as well as a good foundation in computer science or information systems. The term systems analyst sometimes implies a similar role, though it might mean something more akin to requirements analysis. Currently, anyone who writes computer programs might identify as a software engineer, even if he or she has no background beyond computer programming. Companies use the title willy-nilly. This inflates the prestige of the job, I suppose. At the same time, we call developers coders, which to me sounds like it deflates prestige. What professionals call themselves does matter. If a medical assistant calls himself a physician, the risks are obvious. If a physician (true software engineer) calls herself a technician (coder), then at least confusion results. Of course governments regulate the use of job titles in medical professions, while software development as it exists today is very libertarian. Has there been much consideration of the common use of job titles in the history of computing? Certainly there's been a lot of work in the history of software engineering, programming, systems analysis, etc., but I'm asking about the use and misuse of job titles by individuals and organizations. Thanks. Bill

17 21

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware developer vs. software, engineer
by D. Schmudde 07 May '20

07 May '20

Hello all - I've enjoyed the discussion. I offer a further note on the changing foundations of computing and its potential impact on the title of "programmer," etc... MIT significantly shifted their approach to educating incoming students around the turn of the century. At that time, Professor Gerald Sussman considered his own classic text, "Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (1985 (1st ed)), no longer appropriate for MIT freshmen. From his remarks at the NYC Lisp meetup [i]: > The Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP) curriculum no longer prepared engineers for what engineering is like today. Sussman said that in the 80s and 90s, engineers built complex systems by combining simple and well-understood parts. > Today, this is no longer the case. Sussman pointed out that engineers now routinely write code for complicated hardware that they don’t fully understand (and often can’t understand because of trade secrecy.) The same is true at the software level, since programming environments consist of gigantic libraries with enormous functionality. According to Sussman, his students spend most of their time reading manuals for these libraries to figure out how to stitch them together to get a job done. He said that programming today is “More like science. You grab this piece of library and you poke at it. You write programs that poke it and see what it does. And you say, ‘Can I tweak it to do the thing I want?'”. The “analysis-by-synthesis” view of SICP — where you build a larger system out of smaller, simple parts — became irrelevant. Nowadays, we do programming by poking. Many people who write instructions for computers today "develop" an idea through experimentation - simply a better way of saying "programming by poking." They do not "engineer" a solution. Often the instructions are "encoded" to simply fit a platform or library's API. The APIs may be Twitter and Facebook, Windows and OS X, or a Python library running in a Java Virtual machine in Clojure. In each of these cases the software is essentially the same from a behavioral perspective, but encoded slightly differently depending on the platform. So these titles may have distinct meaning, rather than just reflect some arbitrary fashion. I would also argue that an uncertified Google engineer knows as much about the underlying mechanics of their system as the Missouri-certified civil engineer that builds your bridge. In both cases, the underlying mechanics are so abstracted by the software that the individual probably cannot tell you what's actually happening in detail. At least this is what I understand from talking to older civil engineers about what engineering is like today. In other words, "engineering" of all stripes has changed as quickly as computing itself. /David [i] Lisp NYC Meetup (2016): https://vimeo.com/151465912, ~59:35 On 5/7/20 22:37, members-request(a)lists.sigcis.org wrote: > Send Members mailing list submissions to > members(a)lists.sigcis.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > members-request(a)lists.sigcis.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > members-owner(a)lists.sigcis.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Members digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware developer vs. software > engineer (Deborah Douglas) > 2. Re: Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware developer vs. software > engineer (Erik Rau) > 3. [updated cfp] Histories of Computing in Asia workshop > (Christopher Leslie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 21:11:36 +0000 > From: Deborah Douglas <ddouglas(a)mit.edu> > To: Marc Weber <marc(a)webhistory.org> > Cc: Janet Abbate <abbate(a)vt.edu>, "treese(a)acm.org" <treese(a)acm.org>, > "members(a)sigcis.org" <members(a)sigcis.org> > Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware > developer vs. software engineer > Message-ID: <6C046E68-A0E6-4D20-87D4-1A9FF04AD5A5(a)mit.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > And anyone can call themselves a historian! (-: > > Debbie Douglas > > > > On May 6, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Marc Weber <marc(a)webhistory.org<mailto:marc@webhistory.org>> wrote: > > Speaking of title creep, at the Computer History Museum we?ve found it amusing to see how the uses of ?curator? and ?to curate? have expanded in the last few years. For instance, "How to Upgrade Your Social Media Marketing Strategy as a Social Curator<https://quuu.co/blog/social-curator/>," or ?How to curate your personal style through Instagram<https://beingboss.club/articles/curate-personal-style-instagram>.? > > ?Electrician? is an old example of title creep. In the late 19th century as the first power grids were being built it was roughly equivalent to ?Electrical Engineer? today, and apparently felt as mysterious and futuristic as ?AI Curator<https://www.gallereo.com/blog-the-ai-curator-post-2109-55.html>? might now. W. Bernard Carlson?s biography of Tesla gives a number of contemporary examples of usage. > > Best, Marc > > Marc Weber<http://www.computerhistory.org/staff/Marc,Weber/> | marc(a)webhistory.org<mailto:marc@webhistory.org> | +1 415 282 6868 > Curatorial Director, Internet History Program > Computer History Museum, 1401 N Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View CA 94043 > computerhistory.org/nethistory<http://computerhistory.org/nethistory> | Co-founder, Web History Center and Project > > > On May 6, 2020, at 10:21, Janet Abbate <abbate(a)vt.edu<mailto:abbate@vt.edu>> wrote: > > Hi Win, > > Your mention of the ?Learn to code? movement brings to mind the 2013 video by Code.org<http://code.org/> (link below), which ushered in a lot of that coding discourse. They imply that superstars like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg identify as ?coders.? Maybe that helped raise the status of the term. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKIu9yen5nc > > best, > Janet > > Dr. Janet Abbate > Professor, Science, Technology and Society > Virginia Tech > Co-director, VT National Capital Region STS program > liberalarts.vt.edu/sts<http://liberalarts.vt.edu/sts> > www.facebook.com/VirginiaTechSTS<http://www.facebook.com/VirginiaTechSTS> > https://sites.google.com/vt.edu/stsconnect/ > > On May 5, 2020, at 10:20 PM, Win Treese <treese(a)acm.org> wrote: > > Hi, all. I?ve been enjoying the discussion so far. > > I'm not a historian, but I've worked in the software world since the mid-1980s. This is personal recollection and thoughts from that experience; perhaps it is helpful. > > From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, pretty much the only job title for people developing software that I encountered was "software engineer" in various forms. The term "developer", near as I can recall, would typically be used in the context of specific kinds of software: "Windows developer", "application developer", "UNIX developer", etc. In other words, "developer" wasn't a job title, but was just a way of categorizing by the kind of software you worked on. I was in the UNIX/workstation/systems/research parts of the world, and areas like mainframes, business applications, and PC/Windows may have had different terminology. > > What changed things was the web, in the late 90s. The changes came in a couple of ways. First, creating web applications meant a lot of work in HTML, which doesn't seem much like writing program in C, C++, or Java. Even the server code at the time was written in "scripting languages", most commonly Perl and PHP at that time. Second, the demand for people to write those applications exploded, and it brought a lot of people into the work who didn't have a computer science background. > > In the job market, this was kind of complicated. There was a time when someone who could work with Perl and HTML wasn't really considered to be a "software engineer". Indeed, the work practices usually didn't resemble what we normally think of as software engineering. So terms like "application developer" and "web developer" came to be used even as job titles. To some extent it was status, yet it was also trying to draw a distinction in the level of training and professional methods that different kinds of people "writing code" would use. (This was also the day of the "code monkey", doing the web work, although that has fortunately faded.) > > This gets us into the early 2000s. Large numbers of people are now "developers" of various kinds. It's the hot area, so the terms are more in the public media, and it's a lot easier to say than "software engineer". So the term largely takes over. This accelerates as smart phones appear, and Steve Jobs gives us the term "app", which, of course, requires "app developers". Again, it's the hot thing. > > I think this is also the time that gave us new meanings for "coding" and "coders". Writing HTML clearly wasn't "programming" in a traditional sense. But it was also important work to be done, and working with HTML is a kind of coding activity if you are willing to loosen your notion of what its. But it's also not "HTML programming". Beyond that, I suspect that for many people at the time, "programming" had negative connotations: it was hard, the people (by far mostly male, at that point) who did it were serious nerds, and so on. "Coding" was more approachable. "Coding a web application" seemed like something many people could do; "programming in C" sounded hard and mysterious. > > As with "developer", "coding" starts to dominate. It's also easier to say than "programming" or "developing software". "Learn to code" spreads, first as a way to retrain to get a job, then as an activity for everyone. It's short and sweet, and seems like it might be accessible. > > All of this is muddled up with status, salaries, job classification and tracks within companies, and the continued battles over which kinds of people who write software are better than others. > > Of course, "software engineer" struggles in terms of methodology and principles when lined up against older engineering disciplines, both in terms of professional definition and the rigor of practice, but that's another story. > > I'm sure that investigating this further would turn up a lot that I have no idea about. > > If this is out of line/out of scope for the list, I apologize. > > Best, > Win > > Win Treese > treese(a)acm.org > > > > On May 5, 2020, at 3:50 PM, McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan(a)cuaa.edu> wrote: > > Thanks to those who sent suggestions for background info on this topic! > > My own interest in the history of computing is really more about understanding the present, and my concern about the use and misuse of professional titles, though informed by history, leads to questions such as: > > - Why do we call programmers and software developers coders nowadays, when that term has long been used to label those with quite limited intellectual involvement in software development, and even considered to be carrying out a clerical task (as explained well in Nathan's book)? > > - Why do we apply the term software engineer to those who can program, but who really know very little about software engineering in the broader sense? > > To me this suggests that our society, and the enterprises that create the software we use, have extremely limited understanding of software development and what it entails. This is a failure of those of us who teach computing and software engineering and maybe of professional societies. > > The risks to society are immense. Imagine if a machinist or even a self-taught tinkerer could adopt the title mechanical engineer at will and be tasked with designing the critical devices of our civilization. Or if anyone with some knowledge of biochemistry could serve as a pharmacist? > > Maybe SIGCIS members don't believe that this topic belongs on this list, but I feel that historians might be better positioned to address it than many in the technical and commercial communities who are consumed by immediate demands, and who have very limited understanding of their profession's past. > > OK, end of rant! > > Thanks, > Bill > > ________________________________________ > From: Members [members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of McMillan, William W [william.mcmillan(a)cuaa.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 04, 2020 11:28 AM > To: members(a)sigcis.org > Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Programmer vs. coder vs. sofware developer vs. software engineer > > Hello, SIGCIS folks. > > The ruminations below might have little scholarly importance, but I think the subject is interesting at least in regard to the culture of computing. > > What do we call people who design and implement computer programs? > > Nowadays, the term coder is used, maybe most often. My understanding is that this used to refer to the job of translating a detailed flow chart, which was created by a programmer, into an implementation language. I.e., the coder was sort of like a human compiler who translated a detailed algorithm into a computer language like Fortran, Cobol, or assembly language. The coder didn't design algorithms. > > Later, the coder dropped out of the loop and a programmer implemented algorithms directly in a computer language (possibly after creating a flow chart or pseudo-code). > > The term software developer has been used, possibly implying that the job is broader than just programming, including gathering requirements, testing, and integration with existing systems. > > Starting in the late 1960s, the title software engineer became common. At least initially, this implied a very broad scope, as well as specialized training in requirements analysis, system design, programming style, verification and validation, risk assessment, maintenance techniques, UI design, and other aspects of software development. I believe that Texas even licenses professional engineers in software engineering, and a detailed curriculum has been defined: > https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/se2014.pdf > > The title software engineer implied that the person at least had a solid university course specifically in software engineering, as well as a good foundation in computer science or information systems. > > The term systems analyst sometimes implies a similar role, though it might mean something more akin to requirements analysis. > > Currently, anyone who writes computer programs might identify as a software engineer, even if he or she has no background beyond computer programming. Companies use the title willy-nilly. This inflates the prestige of the job, I suppose. > > At the same time, we call developers coders, which to me sounds like it deflates prestige. > > What professionals call themselves does matter. If a medical assistant calls himself a physician, the risks are obvious. If a physician (true software engineer) calls herself a technician (coder), then at least confusion results. Of course governments regulate the use of job titles in medical professions, while software development as it exists today is very libertarian. > > Has there been much consideration of the common use of job titles in the history of computing? Certainly there's been a lot of work in the history of software engineering, programming, systems analysis, etc., but I'm asking about the use and misuse of job titles by individuals and organizations. > > Thanks. > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > > > > Marc Weber<http://www.computerhistory.org/staff/Marc,Weber/> | marc(a)webhistory.org<mailto:marc@webhistory.org> | +1 415 282 6868 > Internet History Program Curatorial Director, Computer History Museum > 1401 N Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View CA 94043 computerhistory.org/nethistory<http://computerhistory.org/nethistory> > Co-founder, Web History Center and Project, webhistory.org<http://webhistory.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org > > Deborah G. Douglas, PhD ? Director of Collections and Curator of Science and Technology, MIT Museum; Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology, and Society ? Room N51-209 ? 265 Massachusetts Avenue ? Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 ? ddouglas(a)mit.edu<mailto:ddouglas@mit.edu> ? 617-253-1766 telephone ? 617-253-8994 facsimile ? http://mitmuseum.mit.edu ? she/her/hers > > > > > >

1 0