- Members - lists.sigcis.org

FemTechNet at Allied Media Conference
by Irish, Sharon Lee 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

Please circulate…Thanks, Sharon Irish FemTechNet at Allied Media Conference FemTechNet will be organizing a network gathering<https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/femtechnet-network-gathering> at the Allied Media Conference this year, it will take place on the campus of Wayne State University in Detroit on Thursday, June 15, 2017. You can register specifically for this network gathering at this google form<https://goo.gl/forms/ka0hf7yzjbYGanct1>. If you will require help with funding registration, we request that you register by Tuesday, March 21. Filling out this form does not register you for the Allied Media Conference; it only applies to and registers you for the FemTechNet Network Gathering. In order to attend the network gathering, you also have to officially register for the Allied Media Conference. Registration fees are paid on a sliding scale, but the early bird price of $60 <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/allied-media-conference-2017-tickets-301020660…> expires on Saturday, April 1. If you will be attending the FemTechNet network gathering, we ask you consider proposing a session<https://www.alliedmedia.org/news/2017/01/20/propose-session-amc2017> for the conference as well. Proposals for sessions are due Sunday, March 12. While you can always propose a session for the general track, here are some tracks you may consider applying to: Securing Our Spaces Track<https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/securing-our-spaces-track> “Digital and physical security in our communities” Radical Libraries, Archives, and Museums Track <https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/rad-libraries-archives-museums-track> “Strengthening our knowledge, culture, and collective memory” <https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/design-justice-track> Design Justice Track<https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/design-justice-track> Making design more just General Track<https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc2017/general-track> March 12 at 10:59 CT - Proposal Deadline for tracks<https://www.alliedmedia.org/amc/tracks-practice-spaces-network-gatherings> To recap, here are important dates: March 12 Deadline to propose a session to the Allied Media Conference March 21 Internal FemTechNet deadline to register for the conference and network gathering to gain assistance in registration fees April 1 Early bird AMC conference registration of $60 expires June 15 Day of the FemTechNet Network Gathering at AMC

1 0

Call for papers: Colors in Technology – Technology of Colors
by david nofre 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

Dear SIGCISers, The following conference might be of interest to some of you doing research on graphics and visual displays. Best, David Nofre -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Call for papers: Colors in Technology – Technology of Colors Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:02:02 +0100 From: Steinle <friedrich.steinle(a)TU-BERLIN.DE> Reply-To: Steinle <friedrich.steinle(a)TU-BERLIN.DE> To: MERSENNE(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK Colors in Technology – Technology of Colors *Call for Papers** *The 40th History of Technology Conference will be held at the Klostergut Paradies in Schlatt near Schaffhausen, Switzerland on 17 and 18 November 2017. The Conference has served as an out-standing platform for the exchange of ideas between research, teaching and industry since 1978. The speakers and the invited guests come from universities, libraries, collections and museums or contribute their business and industrial experience. The conferences are renowned for the breadth and topicality of the papers presented. You can find information on previous conferences at: www.eisenbibliothek.ch. This international and interdisciplinary event is organized by the Iron Library (Eisenbibliothek), Foundation of Georg Fischer Ltd. Responsibility for the content of the conference is in the hands of a scientific advisory board consisting of Dr. Gisela Hürlimann (ETH Zurich), Prof. Reinhold Reith (University of Salzburg) and Prof. Friedrich Steinle (TU Berlin), and it is they who decide on the selection of the speakers. We kindly invite interested persons involved in research, teaching and practice to apply to present a paper. Conference topic in 2017: Colors in Technology – Technology of Colors Throughout history, human cultures have used color to decorate their artifacts – amphorae and motor cars, textiles and smartphones – and technological processes have always been involved in obtaining and producing these colors, whether they are dyestuffs, pigments or paints. The 2017 Conference on the History of Technology will focus on Colors in Technology and Technology (or Technologies) of Colors, both in a European perspective and from a global-historical viewpoint. The subject raises a host of different questions and aspects. How were such 'colors' manufactured? By whom and for whom? And how was trade organized? What is the social status associated with specific colors (dyes, pigments, and paints), with the painter's or dyer's trade and with other related trades? What are the gender-specific roles? Dyeing textiles and leather has long played an important role in society. Indigo and madder, to take but one example, have undergone societal and economic ups and downs depending on the particular constellation of requirements, resources, processes and markets. In early modern times, for instance, indigo production in India, along with the commercial network that grew up around it, spelt the end for the flourishing woad trade in Europe, but in turn it largely collapsed under the onslaught of the chemical synthesis of indigo in the 19th century. Is this pattern repeated elsewhere? How and when were hazards to health and the environment detected, and what was the impact on the manufacture and use of dyestuffs? The early modern age began to standardize colors, starting with 17th and 18th century color charts to the binding norms, say, of the RAL color chart – what was the background to this standardization in terms of natural history, trade and fashion? How were color standards designed and developed and how did they gain acceptance given the well-known difficulties of quantifying color? When did people start coloring – painting and dyeing – technical artifacts? Which individuals – if any – were involved in the decision to do so? What viewpoints are important here, in terms of the societal situation and cultural emblems on the one hand and technical or economic possibilities and scientific results on the other? Where and how was color expertise developed? These and similar questions apply to colors used in architecture and on vehicles, colors used in signaling and on uniforms and clothing, and colors applied to machinery and objects of everyday use. How did the economic, social, and scientific dynamics develop that underlie the now ubiquitous use of colors to distinguish goods and trademarks with their distinctively gender-specific component? Lastly, how have colors been used – and how are they used today – in painting, in other figurative arts, and in the media, starting with medieval manuscript production to color printing, photography and film right up to modern-day display technologies? The reconstruction and restoration of historical coloring is becoming increasingly important, be it in works of art, in architecture or on technical objects. In what circumstances are such issues of interest? What practices and techniques, what historiographical and natural science research findings are in-volved, and how do the results affect science and society in turn? Proposals for papers on these and other color-related subjects are welcome. Format: The papers may be read in English or in German. Papers in German will be translated simultaneously into English at the Conference. The papers should not be more than 20 minutes in length. Papers that have been prepared to scientific standards may be selected for publication in the specialized journal Ferrum, which is published annually by the Iron Library. Interested applicants are kindly invited to submit a synopsis of their paper – no longer than two A4 pages (4'000 characters) – in English or German, along with an up-to-date resume, by 30 April 2017 to the Head of the Iron Library, lic. phil. Franziska Eggimann (franziska.eggimann(a)georgfischer.com) Organizational matters: The Iron Library, Foundation of Georg Fischer Ltd, will assume speakers' travel expenses and the cost of room and board during the Conference. We expect that speakers will attend the entire Conference. We request you to submit your synopsis by 30 April 2017. The selection of the speakers will be completed by the end of May 2017. Date: 17–18 November 2017 Venue: Klostergut Paradies, Schlatt, Switzerland Organizer: Iron Library, Foundation of Georg Fischer Ltd Deadline: 30 April 2017 Contact person Franziska Eggimann Head Iron Library and Corporate Archivist Georg Fischer Ltd franziska.eggimann(a)georgfischer.com www.eisenbibliothek.ch -- Prof. Dr. Friedrich Steinle Wissenschaftsgeschichte Inst. f. Philosophie, Literatur-, Wissenschafts- und Technikgeschichte Technische Universitaet Berlin, Sekr. H 23 Strasse des 17.Juni 135 10623 Berlin/ Germany Tel. (+49/ 0)-30-314-24016/-73815/-24841 Fax (+49/ 0)-30-314-25962

1 0

figures hidden in a new book on Dutch pioneers
by Alberts, Gerard 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

Dear SIGCIS, my new book, co-authored with Bas van Vlijmen, is in Dutch: Computerpioniers. Het begin van het computertijdperk in Nederland. An issue which easily crosses the language barrier, however, is portraying Dutch "hidden figures". The local women computers called themselves "Van Wijngaarden's girls" as they had been recruited and taught to become expert computers by Aad van Wijngaarden, head of the Mathematical Center's computing department from 1947. The nickname sounds just as ill-placed in Dutch as in English, politically incorrect if you want, but was explained to me when I heard it first-hand in the 1980s, i.e. 30 years after date, as an expression of mutual pride. We are offering the first copy of the book to the lady who was in the newspaper with the ARRA computer 1952 and who is again on the cover of our book. An other key figure is Willem van der Poel, known for his microprogramming and "simple" computers like the ZEBRA. Here is the announcement in English http://www.basvanvlijmen.com/Invitation-Computerpioniers-March6-1.pdf and in Dutch http://www.basvanvlijmen.com/uitnodiging-boekpresentatie-Computerpioniers.p… The book covers the 1950s in The Netherlands. It follows the style of culturally contextualised histories of computers, automation and their users. For example, we make an issue of what it implies that these early actors were considered "pioneers". On the other hand we follow the example of Haigh, Priestley and Rope in sorting out how such early automatic calculators were handled and -in as far as that word is appropriate- programmed. Kind regards, Gerard Alberts

1 0

Techdirt selling "I Invented Email" t-shirts (until tomorrow only?)
by Thomas Haigh 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Techdirt has a rather fun new line of merchandise, featuring the logo "I Invented Email" which, as its official announcement notes, allows you "to express your opinion on certain events." Also mugs, hoodies, etc. Obviously I was hoping for something more like "Fake historians for Raytheon," but what can you do? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170209/13555136678/some-new-techdirt-t-s hirts-hoodies-more.shtml https://teespring.com/i-invented-email#pid=369 <https://teespring.com/i-invented-email#pid=369&cid=6521&sid=front> &cid=6521&sid=front BTW: I see that SIGCIS is featured, along with IEEE Annals and Wikipedia, prominently the "media kit" Ayyadurai's launched when he filed the lawsuit against Techdirt. http://inventorofemail.com/thefacts/ It's interesting that he continues to avoid using my name. Raytheon and Tomlinson's supporters -- the ARPANET cabal -- used the occasion of Dr. Ayyadurai gaining global recognition in 2012 for the invention of email to discredit him. They unleashed vitriol on the Washington Post reporter and forced the editors to print a completely nebulous correction that Shiva Ayyadurai was ".not the inventor of electronic messaging." However, Dr. Ayyadurai never claimed to be the inventor of "electronic messaging," whose history goes back to the Morse Code telegraph of the 1800s. Part of this cabal is a group called Special Interest Group for Computers, Information and Society (SIGCIS). Under the aegis of its "scholarly" blog, its chief spokesperson attacked Dr. Ayyadurai as well as any other experts and journalists who dared to share the historical facts about email's origin from Newark, New Jersey. At the same time, this "scholar" thanked "special interests" from Raytheon/BBN and the ARPANET community for supporting and contributing to his verbal lynching of Dr. Ayyadurai. The blog continued to write defamatory comments calling Dr. Ayyadurai a self-promoter and even attacking Dr. Ayyadurai's seminal research in the systems biology of genetically engineered foods (GMOs) - a topic that this group has absolutely no expertise. All of this took place, while these "scholars" and "historians" deliberately ignored the plagiaristic and truly self-promotional history of Raytheon, and praised the "aw shucks" humility of Ray Tomlinson, the non-inventor of email. Other unethical individuals and internet rags colluded to simply erase the facts and ridiculed journalists such as Mo Rocca of CBS' Henry Ford's Innovation Nation Show and Doug Aamoth of Time Magazine, who shared the truth about email's origin. These individuals included trolls at TechDirt, who parroted false histories of email history to create bogus citations for the heavily censored and manipulated Wikipedia, with its constant revisionism and purges. Typical revisionism included vengeful and retaliatory Wikipedia edits. For example, following the initial announcement, on November 3, 2016 of Dr. Ayyadurai's victory over Gawker Media, this cabal enforced a "consensus," in Wikipedia parlance, so as to denigrate Dr. Ayyadurai, in the first sentence of his Wikipedia article, as someone merely "notable for his controversial claim to be the 'inventor of email'." Other surrogates in this attack included none other than David Crocker, and the online "Museum of Email & Digital Communications," where Crocker is listed as an "Analyst" along with Richi Jennings, another "Analyst" at this "museum," who is an active Wikipedia editor removing and manipulating facts on Dr. Ayyadurai's Wikipedia page. Along the same lines, Raytheon's Chief Scientist, who has collegial relations with Crocker, is on the Editorial Board of the journal IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, which publishes false histories of email, while ignoring the 1978 invention of email in Newark, NJ. The nexus of collusion among the "internet pioneers and historians," and their surrogates is deliberate, as evident in their efforts to create fake news on their blogs, and "scholarly journals" for documenting a false and revisionist history, which trolls on Wikipedia then reference as "fact." This insidious system of generating fake news provides an incredibly tight-knit engine for falsifying the history of email. Best wishes, Tom

2 1

Reminder: 4S 2017 CfP - Autonomous Technologies 40 Years Later
by Colin K Garvey 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Hi all — Tiny reminder that the deadline for 4S 2017 is tomorrow, March 1st. Hoping to have a nice panel reflecting on Landon Winner’s classic, Autonomous Technologies (1977). Please see CfP below. Looking forward to your proposals! 44. Making Sense of Autonomous Technologies, 40 Years Later Organized by: Colin Garvey, RPI <garvec(a)rpi.edu <mailto:garvec@rpi.edu>> ; Langdon Winner The 40th anniversary of the publication of Langdon Winner’s seminal work, Autonomous Technologies: Technics-out-of-Control (1977), provides an opportunity to reflect both on an increasingly automated Anthropocene as well as the field of STS itself at the opening of the 21st century. In 1977, when electronic digital computers still occupied entire rooms within the citadels of the military-industrial-university complex, AI and robotics were still largely arcane avocations of a few research teams and entrepreneurs. Today, smartphones with millions of times the power of those machines reside in the pockets of billions of people around the world; robotic beasts crawl over rubble to win prizes from DARPA; and consumer automobiles are (finally) beginning to drive themselves. Forbes magazine has already named 2017 “The Year of AI,” and China is poised to outpace the US and Japan combined in total numbers of industrial robots. R&D funding for autonomous technologies is at an all-time high, as are both optimism and fear about the futures they promise. Meanwhile, some of the world’s leading democracies struggle to function under conditions of electronically mediated information overload. How are we making sense of these technological transformations forty years after Autonomous Technologies? And how should we be? What still applies? What has changed? What have we learned since, and what remains insensible to us? This panel welcomes contributions on autonomous technologies, broadly construed to include historical and contemporary reflections as well as speculative and future-oriented pieces. http://www.4sonline.org/meeting/open_panel_topics_34_66 <http://www.4sonline.org/meeting/open_panel_topics_34_66> Submission link: http://www.4sonline.org/meeting <http://www.4sonline.org/meeting> Best regards and see you in Boston! Colin Garvey PhD candidate, STS @ RPI

1 0

Fwd: Society for the History of Technology CFP, October 2017
by Andrew Russell 27 Feb '17

27 Feb '17

Dear friends - In case you did not receive the message below from SHOT, I am forwarding it to bring it to your attention. In past years, SIGCIS has served as a “sponsor” for panel submissions for the main SHOT conference. If you are going to submit a panel and would like the SIGCIS seal of approval, please contact me. Also, individual scholars can and should use this mailing list to float ideas and recruit panelists. If you’re feeling shy, or want some feedback/suggestions before reaching out to the whole list, please feel free to contact me. Finally, SIGCIS will continue its tradition of hosting a Sunday workshop on the final day of the SHOT conference - this year, the date is October 29, 2017. We will issue a call for papers in the coming months, so please keep that in mind. And if you are craving more SIGCIS in the meantime, stay tuned for the program and other announcements related to the SIGCIS meeting at the Computer History Museum on March 18-19, 2017! Thanks, Andy > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Society for the History of Technology <shot.secretariaat(a)tue.nl> > Subject: Society for the History of Technology Event > Date: February 3, 2017 at 1:04:06 AM EST > To: arussell(a)arussell.org > Reply-To: shot.secretariaat(a)tue.nl > > > Having trouble viewing this email? http://www.historyoftechnology.org/call_for_papers <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1103106318472&ca=f8ae2d1a-…> > > <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=7qKxO2ED0jE&c=1&r=1> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=7qKxO2ED0jE&c=3&r=1> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=7qKxO2ED0jE&c=4&r=1> <http://s.rs6.net/t?e=7qKxO2ED0jE&c=5&r=1> <http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Society-for-the-History-of-Technology-Ev…> > > 2 februari 2017 > Greetings! > > Annual Meeting - Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA) > 26-29 October 2017 > > Call for Papers and Sessions > > The Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) is an interdisciplinary and international organization concerned not only with the history of technological devices and processes but also with technology in history and society. We explore the production, circulation, appropriation, maintenance and abandonment of technology under specific historical circumstances. And we scrutinize the epistemic, economic, social, cultural and political conditions of this development. Our approaches are informed by a broad concept of technology encompassing knowledge resources, practices, artefacts and biofacts, i.e. artefacts in the realm of the living. Accordingly, the Program Committee invites paper and session proposals on any topic in a broadly defined history of technology, including topics that push the boundaries of the discipline. Submitters are encouraged to propose sessions that include a diverse mix of participants: multinational origins, gender, graduate students and junior scholars with senior scholars, significantly diverse institutional affiliations, etc. > > To pay tribute to the venue of the 2017 annual meeting - Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed - we want to encourage proposals that engage topics related to technology, democracy and participation. The birthplace of the oldest participatory democracy is the ideal setting for reflecting on, and interrogating, the overlapping subjects of technology, democracy, and participation. Philadelphia was not only the first capital of the United States, but also an early capital of industrialization and the accompanying transformations of work, skill, creation and maintenance, all of which continue to shape modern participation in the world. Commercial systems, slave economies, and immigration patterns developed locally alongside complex technologies of production and infrastructure in Philadelphia. Industrialization also led to an era of increased human intervention in the environment, now referred to as the Anthropocene. City and region participated in the cyclical expansion and contraction of global trade and supply chains of commodities, labor, and cultures. As other urban and rural, industrialized and agricultural polities have historically contended with similar forces of change, and transnational networks have carried the impacts of modernization agendas to both willing and unwilling communities, the cultural embrace of technology, notions of democracy, and ideologies of participation have played out in myriad ways around the world. These cultural commitments and their interactions, as seen in Philadelphia's history and across a wide range of other global settings, thus form an appropriate theme for the 2017 SHOT meeting. > > > For the 2017 meeting the Program Committee welcomes proposals of three types: > * Traditional sessions of 3 or 4 papers, with a chair and a commentator. Deadline: March 31, 2017. > * Unconventional sessions, with formats that diverge in useful ways from the typical 3 or 4 papers with comment. These might include round-table sessions and workshop-style sessions with pre-circulated papers. Deadline: March 31, 2017. > * Open sessions: Individuals interested in finding others to join panel sessions for the Annual Meeting may propose Open Sessions, started January 20, with a final deadline of March 15. Open Sessions descriptions, along with organizer contact information, will appear as soon as possible on the SHOT website. (The earlier the proposal, the earlier it will be posted to the website.) To join a proposed panel from the Open Sessions list, contact the organizer for that panel, not the Program Committee. Open Session organizers will then assemble full panel sessions and submit them to SHOT by the end of the regular call for papers on March 31, 2017. The Program Committee will review the resulting fully formed session proposals, whether traditional or unconventional, for quality and adherence to SHOT standards of gender, geographic, and institutional diversity. > * In special cases, proposals for individual papers will be considered, but the Program Committee will give preference to organized sessions, either Traditional or Untraditional. Those scholars who might ordinarily propose an individual paper are instead requested to propose Open Sessions themselves or to join an Open Session that is posted between January 15 and March 15. > > SHOT allows paper presentations at consecutive meetings but rejects submissions of papers that are substantially the same as previous accepted submissions. Submissions covering the same fundamental topic should explain the difference(s) with the prior presentation. > The SHOT Executive Council is formulating its response to US Presidential measures to restrict access to the United States for select foreign nationals, including to our annual meeting. Please keep an eye open for this statement and, if possible, do not be discouraged from submitting a paper by the current situation. > > For more information on preparing and submitting a proposal > please visit the SHOT website at > www.historyoftechnology.org <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ULWrfdYZSbi06ktcHMQEZWiNp-QHJk9jLLiLJnLfW1Ps…> > > The deadline for proposals is 31 March 2017, but please see special instructions for Open Sessions > > > Please forward this call! > > > Jan Korsten > Society for the History of Technology > > Society for the History of Technology, Jan Korsten, Po box 513,TU/e IPO building 2.31, Eindhoven, Netherlands 5600 MB Netherlands > SafeUnsubscribe™ arussell(a)arussell.org <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=001Xz26gWD0CDOi01mES8w44A%3D%…> > Forward this email <http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=ieifeldab&m=1103106318472&ea=…> | About our service provider <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/service-provider?cc=about-service-prov…> > Sent by shot.secretariaat(a)tue.nl <mailto:shot.secretariaat@tue.nl> in collaboration with > <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_BusLet_003> > Try it free today <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_BusLet_003>

4 3

Techdirt motions seeking to have Ayyadurai case dismissed
by Thomas Haigh 26 Feb '17

26 Feb '17

The other interesting news last week on the email invention front was reporting of several motions filed by Techdirt in response to Ayyadurai's lawsuit. There's analysis and links to the motions from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/techdirt-lawyers-ask-judge-to-th row-out-defamation-suit-over-inventor-of-e-mail/. One of them tries to move the case to California. Among other things, California has relatively strong anti-SLAPP measures designed to deter frivolous defamation lawsuits. Another asks for the case to be dismissed immediately. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3468184-13-Main.html Some interesting arguments there. I'm not by any means a legal expert but they do seem to point to a high bar in a case like this. The things said need to be provably false, and according to the motion subjective opinions are therefore inherently not actionable. The motion claims that Ayyadurai's complaint doesn't dispute facts presented by Techdirt, only disagree with opinions. To win damages Ayyadurai would need to document actual economic harm, which the motion suggests was not documented in his complaint. The motion also points out that as a public figure, a fairly low bar to reach, Ayyadurai would apparently to show malice - not just that Techdirt made false and damaging claims but that Masnick either recklessly failed to check the claims or knew what he was saying to be false. It's certainly noticeable to me, as a non-lawyer, that the Techdirt motion is full of legal specifics and citations to case law, whereas Ayyadurai's complaint instead has many pages full of character witness statements and media quotes it claims support the idea that he invented email. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3252883/Techdirt-Emaillawsuit.pdf I was also interested in analysis of the case by Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/what-a-s trange-allegation-in-alleged-inventor-of-e-mail-vs-techdirt-lawsuit/?utm_ter m=.ee68f735aac4 Volookh expressed surprise that a legal filing would claim that "Ayyadurai was legally recognized by the United States government as the inventor of email through the issuance of the first U.S. Copyright registration for "Email" ". Volokh writes No - a copyright registration for a program named "email" is not the U.S. government recognizing Ayyadurai "as the inventor of email." No-one at the Copyright Office determines whether a program (or any other work) is a new invention. (Patent examiners may do that, but the Copyright Office doesn't.) Indeed, no-one at the Copyright Office runs the program, reads the source code, or tries to compare the program's description to those of other programs.. That's why I'm surprised that Ayyadurai's lawyers, Timothy Cornell and noted libel lawyer Charles Harder, even included this paragraph in their Complaint - it just seems to me likely to lessen the credibility of the claim with the judge. I had e-mailed them for their comments several days ago, but have not heard back from them. Best wishes, Tom

3 2

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Email "inventor" claimant to run for U.S. Senate -- alternative facts about technology and democracy collide
by Jonathan Grudin 25 Feb '17

25 Feb '17

A few more: Congresswoman (in her third term) Suzan Del Bene of Washington: past includes 12 years at Microsoft including VP level, co-founder of drugstore.com, CEO and President of Nimble Technology. Michael Bloomberg is arguably in the technology business. On a local level, as evidence of more crossover, I share a patent with Chad Magendanz, who left full-time technology work and went into politics, serving as a state representative in Washington for two terms. In November he lost a bid for the state Senate. (For the record, he and I agreed on technology but not politics.) Jonathan From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Haigh Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:31 AM To: members(a)sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Email "inventor" claimant to run for U.S. Senate -- alternative facts about technology and democracy collide So funny fact: when I look for stories confirming this on Google news the only one that comes up so far is from Sputnik News, the Russian government’s foreign language propaganda outlet. https://sputniknews.com/us/201702251051029951-boston-enterpreneur-challenge…<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsputniknew…> Doesn’t say which party nomination he’s seeking, does mention he announced it at a party “hosted by controversial figure Mike Cernovich, who organized the January "Deplora-ball" event at the National Press Club.” So if this turns into an actual campaign it will be interesting to see his political positions. On the one hand: friend of Chomsky, self-proclaimed victim of endemic racism, enemy of the military-industrial complex, anti-GMO activist, etc. On the other: vocal Trump supporter, partying with the alt-right. According to the Russians: "For me, its about defending the American dream… a real fighter and a real innovator exposing a fake fighter, which is what Elizabeth Warren is all about. I look forward to all your support because this is going to be a grassroots movement … delivering a Senate victory for a real Indian versus a fake Indian in Massachusetts," Ayyadurai said on Friday.” Tom From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meade McGee Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 11:17 AM To: McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan(a)cuaa.edu<mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu>> Cc: members(a)sigcis.org<mailto:members@sigcis.org> hosted by controversial figure Mike Cernovich, who organized the January "Deplora-ball" event at the National Press Club Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Email "inventor" claimant to run for U.S. Senate -- alternative facts about technology and democracy collide That's very interesting, Bill. Thank you for passing this along. I will look more into Snyder. The SPARK aspect sounds fascinating, given how much governors and gubernatorial candidates over the past fifteen years have linked themselves to "high tech" innovation and job growth. That he called himself a tough nerd is fascinating. Gateway is definitely a name with "Tech" connotations for much of America -- I remember in the 90s and early 2000s when you would see cow-patterned boxes littering my small town streets on trash days. This gets at an interesting aspect of the computer industry -- when is a figure a "tech" person, and when just a "business" person? The way John Sculley from Pepsi is slotted into the Steve Jobs/Apple narrative suggests there is a difference. A figure like Ross Perot seemed to straddle the difference when he sold himself as a businessman and a technologist when running for president. Thanks, Andrew -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Andrew Meade McGee Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall Charlottesville, VA 22904 On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:34 AM, McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan(a)cuaa.edu<mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu>> wrote: The governor of Michigan is Rick Snyder, formerly the CEO and Chairman of Gateway Inc., a maker of personal computers and other electronic products (Gateway was acquired by Acer). The governorship is Snyder's first elective position. He also chaired Ann Arbor SPARK, a tech-heavy economic development organization Though Snyder refers to himself as "one tough nerd," I think it's fair to say that he's not a technical person (other than in law and accounting). He's more a business leader and investment expert, so maybe not the kind of example you're looking for, Andrew. - Bill ________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces(a)lists.sigcis.org<mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meade McGee [amm5ae(a)virginia.edu<mailto:amm5ae@virginia.edu>] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:41 AM To: members(a)sigcis.org<mailto:members@sigcis.org> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Email "inventor" claimant to run for U.S. Senate -- alternative facts about technology and democracy collide As a follow up to Ayyadurai's candidacy -- have there been any previous instances of people who identify with the software industry running for major political office in the United states or internationally? --Andrew -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Andrew Meade McGee Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall Charlottesville, VA 22904 On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Andrew Meade McGee <amm5ae(a)virginia.edu<mailto:amm5ae@virginia.edu><mailto:amm5ae@virginia.edu<mailto:amm5ae@virginia.edu>>> wrote: Continuing with the ongoing saga of V. A. Shiva and his claims regarding the invention of e-mail, that gentleman has just announced his candidacy for the United States Senate. https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/835420061993218048<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.co…> As several SIGCIS contributors noted earlier this month, this nicely parallels the upcoming SHOT themes of technology and democracy. "Alternate facts" about the history of technology will play a major public element of this campaign next year. --Andrew

1 0

BCS Computer Conservation Society/ National Museum of Computing Special Event
by Brian Randell 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Hi: From the BCS Computer Conservation Society mailing list: > The CCS and TNMoC are jointly running a two day meeting on Monday May 22nd and Tuesday May 23rd to bring together worldwide experience of computer and software conservation practice. The meeting will be over two days, with the first day in London at the BCS and the second day at TNMoC. > > There will be a modest fee of £22.50 for attendance at this conference to cover lunch, printing and other costs. Dinner on the 22nd is optional and will cost an additional £25 (drinks payable on the day). > > Booking and pre-payment of the fee is essential. > > Full details of the programme are at http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/miw.htm and also a link to complete the booking. > > Places are limited due to space restrictions at TNMoC so book early to secure your place. Abstracts of the papers to be given, in London on the first day, and Bletchley Park on the second day, can be found at: http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/miwsyn.htm Cheers Brian Randell — School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell(a)ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 URL = http://www.ncl.ac.uk/computing/people/profile/brianrandell.html

1 0

Mahoney Prize reminder (deadline is April 15)
by Jeffrey Yost 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

Dear Colleagues, Just a reminder that the deadline to submit articles for consideration for the 2017 Mahoney Prize is less than two months away--April 15, 2017. Info is pasted below and is on the SIGCIS site. Any questions, please contact me. Nominations, of course, can be for your own scholarship or you can nominate a fellow scholar's article for consideration. Best, Jeff The Mahoney Prize recognizes an outstanding article in the history of computing and information technology, broadly conceived. The Mahoney Prize commemorates the late Princeton scholar Michael S. Mahoney, whose profound contributions to the history of computing came from his many articles and book chapters. The prize consists of a $500 award and a certificate. For the 2017 prize, articles published in the preceding three years (2014, 2015, and 2016) are eligible for nomination. The Mahoney Prize is awarded by the Special Interest Group in Computers, Information, and Society (SIGCIS) and is presented during the annual meeting of our parent group, the Society for the History of Technology. The deadline for submission for the 2017 Mahoney Prize is April 15, 2017. To nominate an article, send an electronic copy to all three committee members using the email address below. All questions should be directed to the 2017 Mahoney Prize Committee Chair, Dr. Jeffrey Yost (yostx003(a)umn.edu) *2017 Mahoney Prize Committee:* *James Cortada* (term ends 2017) Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota 2917 Irvington Way Madison, WI 53713 USA jcortada(a)umn.edu *Jeffrey R. Yost*, Chair (term ends 2018) Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota 211 Andersen Library 222 21st Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA yostx003(a)umn.edu *Melanie Swalwell* (term ends 2019) Screen and Media Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia melanie.swalwell(a)flinders.edu.au -- Jeffrey R. Yost, Ph.D. Associate Director, Charles Babbage Institute Faculty, 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

1 0