informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/telecomputing.txt

1288 lines
66 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T E L E C O M P U T I N G M A G A Z I N E
Electronic Edition
October/November 1990
(C) 1990 Galaxy Telecomm Corporation
800-477-1788
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1 ... Superdemocracy - Tim Stryker
2 ... Joining the Online World - Victor Baron
3 ... The FBI Comes Rapping, Rapping at Your BBS -
Brock N. Meeks
4 ... What's New in ZMODEM - Chuck Forsberg
5 ... Under the Boardwalk - Dean Kerl
6 ... Requirements To Display Telecomputing Magazine
On Electronic Bulletin Board Systems
7 ... Table Of Contents From Our Printed Edition
(What's Missing From The Electronic Edition!)
CALL 800-477-1788 AND REQUEST A FREE COPY OF OUR LATEST ISSUE!
Telecomputing Magazine, The Online Authority

SUPERDEMOCRACY
by Tim Stryker
Online technology offers the promise of a fundamentally new form of
government: a government truly of the people, by the people, for the people.
The form of government under which we now live is technically known as
a "representative democracy". This means that we the people do not directly
act as the government... we democratically elect representatives who act on
our behalf to create laws, enforce them, and resolve disputes. These three
functions correspond to the hallowed "separation of powers" everyone knows
from grade school: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
government.
The shortcomings of this system are many. It is generally acknowledged
that although it is the best system yet developed for government on a large
scale (and I for one agree), it fails in several key respects, among them:
1. Vulnerability to special interests. Any economic group, such as
real estate developers or tobacco companies, has a much higher stake in the
passage of legislation favorable to the group than the average citizen has
in its defeat. The proposal to re-zone a property outside a five-mile
radius from your house, for example, is something that you personally can
only get incensed about in the abstract, whereas the real estate agents,
lawyers, and developers involved stand to make or lose millions of dollars
on the outcome. Therefore they have an enormously higher incentive than you
do to put pressure on the city or county commisioners making the decision.
2. Domination by busybodies. Politics tends to take into account to a
disproportionate extent the opinions of those with nothing better to do, and
single-issue constituencies. The mechanisms for candidate identification,
conducting public hearings, jury selection and so forth are all so
cumbersome and time-consuming that the average citizen has little motivation
to participate. The result is often that the outputs of these processes
suffer from the Milquetoast Effect. In particular, the only candidates
presented to the general public for voting are those that have not been
winnowed out by offending a single one of a host of highly vocal
sub-minorities.
3. Getting involved is too much work for the average person. You are
unusual if you even know the names of your representatives to the U.S.
Congress, much less the names of your state congresspersons, much much less
the qualifications of each of the hordes of local judges you may be asked to
vote on every few years. The reason is that, although you know exactly how
you feel about each specific issue, it would take vast research for you to
find out how each candidate feels or has voted on each of the issues
important to you, and to form, for each post, a weighted probability of the
likelihood that each candidate will perform as you wish them to. (On top of
this, if you register to vote, you are penalized with jury duty!) The
result is widespread voter "apathy", especially at the state and local
levels. This isn't really a lack of caring, it's just a sense among the
populace that voting as it stands is too indirect and requires research on
each individual's part far out of proportion to the benefit that they will
individually derive from it.
4. Corruption. This is just a more extreme form of vulnerability to
special interests. The incentive to influence legislation or enforcement is
often high enough that a lobby will succeed in "stocking" elective posts
with its own hirelings. The amount of money needed for a campaign,
especially lately, is huge, and it can only be expected that a successful
candidate will look more favorably on the concerns of his or her big
contributors. There is a continuum of possibilities between this state of
affairs and outright payoffs for votes or favors. All of this flies in the
face of the ideal that elected officials and representatives are supposed to
act in the best interests of the community that elected them, as a whole.
5. Capriciousness of justice. This concern applies mainly to the
judicial branch of government. The fact that diverse individuals are
elected or appointed to positions of coequal power means that a case may be
decided very differently, depending on which particular judge you happen to
get. The use of juries for the more serious cases is an attempt in the
right direction, but an awful lot still depends on the particular jury,
judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney you happen to wind up with.
6. Horse trading and smoke-filled rooms. So much of the actual
mechanics of government takes place outside public knowledge or control that
a lot of the decisions made have nothing to do with what is best for the
community at large, but only what is best for the personal agendas of the
participants. The fact that the participants are subject to removal from
office at the next election keeps them from getting too outrageously
flagrant, but the continuous on-going exchange of favors among lawmakers in
service of their personal ambitions does not exactly constitute government
of the people, by the people, for the people.
There Must Be A Better Way
--------------------------
Suppose that society could decide every issue by simple majority vote.
This tends to work well on a small scale. For example, in the city-states
of ancient Greece, the entire populace got together from time to time and
enacted the "will of the people" into law, with no man's voice given any
more authority than any other. Another example would be the "town meetings"
of early New England, at which the townspeople got together and formulated
the laws by which they regulated themselves. Today, small non-governmental
organizations such as professional societies often decide policy by direct
vote of the members.
The reason this works well (on a small scale) is that it eliminates the
role of the "representative". You no longer have a fallible human being,
with his or her own agenda, ambitions, and preconceptions acting on behalf
of the group. The group votes directly on the issues before it, not on a
personality or a suit.
The reasons this hasn't worked before on a larger scale are mostly
practical. The entire populace cannot physically gather in continuous
session, deciding every detail of policy and law... nothing else in the
world would get done!
What you *could* have, though, is a continuous networked hierarchy of
online referenda, open to all. The idea would be to create an environment
in which any citizen is free to propose new laws, amend old ones, and to
vote or contribute to ongoing discussions on proposals or amendments
introduced by others at any time. I call this "Superdemocracy".
Superdemocracy would be continuous in the sense that anyone could tap
into the system any time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It would be
networked in the sense that anything posted about any issue, anywhere in the
system, would be accessible to anyone else. It would be a hierarchy in the
sense that each citizen could access his or her own local, county,
statewide, or national referenda through a single mechanism: a "tree" of
nodes able to collate discussion and voting at all appropriate levels.
The sorts of things that people could vote on includes everything
currently decided by our legislative and judicial branches, city councils,
policy-forming bodies in the executive branch, and so on. The
implementational portion of each of these branches would be retained, and
all aspects of national life requiring instant decisions would continue to
operate under the control of executive branch personnel. The military would
retain full autonomy under civilian oversight, just as it does now, and
there would still be a President, a Cabinet, police forces, an FBI and a
CIA, and so on.
But the broad, strategic decision-making power would be vested in the
people directly: the making of new laws, resolutions, and policies, the
amendment or repeal of old ones, the selection of the necessary executive
personnel, and the resolution of conflicts and disagreements. Let's call
these things, in general, "measures". Some key provisions of Superdemocracy
would be:
1. Constitutional priority. All measures passed would still be
subject to a consistency test against a statement of underlying principles.
The statement of underlying principles would require much broader levels of
support to modify or overturn. This would help to keep us from wildly
gyrating about the legal landscape as current events shape public opinion.
2. Instant delegation and revocation of proxy powers. Each citizen
would have the option to delegate his or her voting powers to other people
(their "representatives", if you will) in various ways, and to override or
revoke these powers at any time. This would provide for a healthy
proportion of the public's voting power to be present in even the smallest
decisions of government, without paralyzing the country in an orgy of
continuous individual voting. The flexibility of these proxy powers would
give each citizen the ability to say to a representative, "I trust your
judgement, overall, on matters within a given area that I personally don't
have enough interest in to bother with the details; however I reserve the
right to change my mind about you at any time or to override your judgement
on occasions when my opinion happens to differ from yours."
3. Minimum quorum requirements on every measure. By requiring a
minimum proportion of the overall voting power available to be active in
each vote, we help ensure that happenstantial distortion of the people's
will, due to low participation in a low-profile issue, will not occur. If
quorum requirements are not met in a given vote, it means that not enough
people (or their proxies) feel strongly enough about it one way or the other
to be worth their time.
4. Minimum debate-time requirements on every measure. After a measure
reaches quorum, there needs to be sufficient time, around 30 days or so, for
everyone to talk it over and think about it before finalizing the vote.
Each person could continue to update his or her vote status throughout this
period, and only the tally of votes at the end of this period would be
decisive.
5. Minimum hold-time requirements on every measure. Further
protection against wild gyrations about the legal landscape can be provided
by establishing a minimum time period, after a measure is passed, before it
can take effect. This would be on the order of 30 days. During this time,
opponents of the measure could try to repeal it or amend it, which, if
successful, would yield another 30-day period for the population to be
really sure that *this* is what it wants, and so on. Any oscillations would
quickly die down, and the true "will of the people" would then take effect.
Several practical considerations arise. Everyone would have to have
access to a communications link and the knowledge of how to use it, just as
now everyone must have eyes, hands, and a basic ability to read and punch
holes in order to vote (special provisions for the handicapped would of
course apply). Airtight protection against fraud and invasion of privacy
would have to be developed. And, the cost of creating and maintaining this
colossal network of computers would be high.
Historic Trends
---------------
Technology, strangely enough, has always driven the development of
democracy. Think about it. Democracy has only existed when the overall
level of affluence in a population permitted a significant number of people
to take nose from grindstone long enough to consider the larger issues.
During the Dark Ages, there were no large-scale democracies,
representative or otherwise, because travel over distances of more than a
few tens of miles was too arduous to make practical the congregation of
representatives from widely separated regions for purposes of timely
decision-making. Also, before Gutenberg, communications technology was so
poorly developed that the knowledgeability of the average villager about
anything outside a ten-mile radius from home was effectively zero.
Our current model of representative democracy derives from conditions
in the 1700's. At that time, the technology of physical transport had
reached the point at which it was practical for representatives from
communities across the nation to commute to and from a central meeting
place. The entire communities themselves couldn't travel, of course, but at
least their elected representatives could. Similarly, the entire community
couldn't sit in on every 2-bit larceny trial, but they could elect a judge
to oversee the process for them (or, they could elect a governor who would
appoint a judge, etc.).
As technology has improved, so has the demand for wider and more direct
participation in the democratic process. As created by our Founding
Fathers, it was not possible to vote in most states in the late 1700's
unless you were white, free, male, *and* owned a certain amount of property.
The property requirement fell away in the early 1800's, as technological
advancement brought the affluence of the average freeman -- and thus his
perceived awareness and ability to be informed about political issues --
above a certain threshold. The race requirement was theoretically
eliminated in 1870 with the Fifteenth Amendment, once the pre-technological
abomination of slavery was forever buried... but further technological
advancements in communications and education were necessary before the poll
tax, which had been used to prevent many blacks from voting, was banned by
the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. Meanwhile, women gained the vote in
1920, after great agitation and improvements in technology sufficient to
emancipate them from the continuous servitude of housework.
The particulars of *what* we have been able to vote about has evolved,
too. Originally, the public (as restrictively as the term was defined!) was
not considered competent to elect the President of the United States
directly. It was not even entitled to elect the electors directly! The
public elected the members of the State legislatures, among whose duties it
was to elect the members of the "Electoral College", which elected the
President.
In this century, a growing tide of "direct democracy" has been sweeping
the nation. This movement, an outgrowth of the Populist and Progressive
movements around the turn of the century, has empowered citizens in most
states with the tools of the "initiative", the "referendum", and the
"recall". An "initiative" is a citizen-sponsored piece of legislation; a
"referendum" refers a proposed or existing law to voters for their approval
or rejection; a "recall" vote is an attempt to remove an elected official
from office prematurely.
All developments up to this point, though, have centered around the
same cumbersome, bureaucratic methods of vote-gathering that were used in
the 1700's. Voters must first register, months in advance. Then, on the
appointed day, tens of thousands of polling places open in every village and
city neighborhood. Voters then walk or drive, typically several miles, to
their particular polling place, and wait in line while dedicated public
servants pore through mountains of paper, checking off names and handing out
ballots which are voted upon and then reverently placed in the sacred Ballot
Box. It is actually a wonderful thing, and vastly preferable to the
despotic and corrupt systems it replaced.
An Example of Operation
-----------------------
Wouldn't it be incredible, though, if the people's participation in
government were to operate something like this:
You come home from the office after a hard day's work, kick your shoes
off, and, flipping on the tube, decide to take a quick glance at the city's
pending resolutions. You notice that today is the last day to vote on the
street-repair proposal, the referendum on funding low-income housing on the
north side of town, and the decision whether or not to permit someone named
John Hosiger to operate a liquor store downtown. The display shows you the
votes that your proxy, Sharon Imeld, will cast for you if you don't do
anything. Sharon's already fine on the street-repair thing, but she's way
off base on the low-income housing issue, so you override her there. You
never heard of John Hosiger so you figure Sharon probably looked into his
background for you and you leave that one alone.
You flip over to the "coming-up" screen and find that the next week
contains votes on school bus purchases, giving the "Key to the City" to a
certain Mark Havrelman, a proposal to re-zone a tract of farmland nearby to
commercial, the firemen's annual contract renewal, and scores of other
items. Cosby's on in 5 minutes, but you feel intrigued by the school bus
thing, so you select that for a moment. Up on your screen comes a listing
of messages on this topic from neighbors, school administrators, and bus
manufacturers. Selecting one of the latter, you are drawn into a discussion
of the impact of different transaxle designs on fuel economy. You read
several messages containing claims and rebuttals, and you leave a
sharply-worded message of your own to one of the bus companies, contesting
one of their statements.
Next, you pop out to the statewide level and glance through the issues
there: a debate on introducing a new form of Lottery, a proposal to reduce
state sales tax, another proposal to increase it, a new regulation on
offshore oil platforms, and many more. You've already registered your votes
on most of these, and your statewide proxy, Irwin Marsh, seems to have the
others under control.
Next, you pop over to Trials and note with satisfaction that the 3-time
murderer and child molester, Ted Goondy, has been voted into the electric
chair. Up for decision statewide today are Blanche Newald, accused of grand
larceny, and Abe Newman, 2nd-degree manslaughter. You select Abe's case and
begin poring through the state's evidence and the defense's counterpoints.
It's a complex issue, and you decide after a few minutes' review to make a
snap decision. Whoops, the box reminds you, in capital cases a review of at
least 3 hours of the evidence is required in order to vote.
Cosby's already started and you don't have the time, so you figure that
wiser minds will prevail on Abe's case and you pop out to National for a
quick look. Under debate are sanctions against Irate, confirmation of the
new ambassador to France, funding for fusion research, and a proposal to
eliminate the penny, among other things. You happen to feel strongly about
fusion research, so you select it and jump into the ongoing discussion.
And ongoing it is! At the national level, with new messages coming in
at a rate of thousands every second, it is nothing like your relatively
tranquil school bus debate! You select a keyword search on "pellet", which
responds saying that 7,455 messages are on file with that word. You specify
an additional keyword of "comparison", which cuts the number down to 104.
Scrolling through these quickly, you see a number of diagrams flash by which
you recognize as comparing the pellet-implosion method to the magnetic
containment method. Examining one of these closely, you realize that one of
your previous assumptions about fusion technology is untrue! You begin a
series of hypertext jumps through the database, winding up at last in the
quaintly named Library of Congress CD-ROM archives, gleaning more
information with which to make your decision.
Finally, sated with information and power, you indicate your vote on
the tally-screen and head for bed. You've missed Cosby but you've gained
something immeasurably greater: a sense of control over your own destiny.
Maybe tomorrow you'll write up that proposal for a new school gym you've
been thinking about, and send it up on the local node... who knows, maybe
others have been thinking about it too, and you'll hit quorum!
Objections
----------
A proposal like this is sure to stir up a hornet's nest of resistance,
if seriously considered. Some of the more likely objections are:
1. The "tyranny of the majority": the contention that minority rights
will be trampled in the mad lust of majority rule. This objection has been
applied to democracies throughout history, and is no more valid now than it
was before. If anything, the wider the empowerment, the less likely the
elite are to be able to force their effete and/or status-quo-oriented ideas
upon the rest of us. The lesson of small-scale democracies, and the trend
of history, is that the more a given decision can partake of the joint
common sense of everyday people, as opposed to their charismatic or
power-crazed leaders, the fairer and more equitable the decision is likely
to be.
2. Incompetence and/or apathy of the public. This is another
hold-over from bygone eras in which the aristocracy had an innate distrust
of the "lower classes". Another way this objection might be stated is that
Superdemocracy violates the Principle of Representation. This is a fancy
way of saying that people are better at deciding who should decide things
for them, than they are at deciding things themselves. This is false,
because the decision to elect a given politician can only be based on an
imperfect projection of the probabilities that the politician will act in
accordance with one's future desires. As for "apathy", the apathy that
currently exists is directly engendered by our hidebound mechanisms for
participation in government on the part of the populace.
3. Greater bamboozlement by special interests. Columnist George Will
recently denounced a proposal to allow nationwide "initiatives" to be voted
by the public directly into law: "Any national initiative would be dominated
by an intense, unelected minority using direct mail, television commercials,
and other techniques of mass persuasion." This is of course exactly how
modern-day election campaigns work, except that what is being voted upon is
not a policy or law, but a fallible human being who, once elected,
personally becomes the focus of a whole procession of "intense, unelected
minorities", behind closed doors, for the duration of his or her term in
office.
4. Fragility of high-tech underpinnings. It might be argued that the
country could be thrown into permanent confusion by a single well-placed
bomb or computer virus, if it has no other means of governing itself than
this consensual one. The solution is of course a manual "backup"
government, voted into being in the standard way, which would take over in
the event of a catastrophe.
5. Fickleness of public sentiment. Episodes of McCarthyism and the
recent "flag-burning amendment" furor make us wonder if the laws under
Superdemocracy would not change chaotically. I think that the dual measures
of adherence to a Constitution and the "30-day rules" would damp out any
wild oscillations. Those it doesn't can be regarded as the natural
consequence of a body governing itself, correcting imbalances as feedback is
obtained. They would at least not be due to a small minority of its leading
citizens behaving erratically, as is often the case now.
6. Greater divisiveness. This is a criticism more aptly aimed at the
proponents of "direct democracy", not Superdemocracy. By bringing complex
issues down to a simple yes/no vote, existing methods of initiative and
referendum can polarize communities, whereas due legislative process
encourages discussion, moderation, compromise, and consensus.
Superdemocracy would preserve and enhance this moderating,
consensus-building aspect of the legislative process by extending it to all
the people. Topical message bases are only one possible tool for doing
this -- to be sure, a much higher level of overall political awareness and
discussion would exist under Superdemocracy, and new tools and techniques
would inevitably spring into being. In the future, bidirectional recorded
video or other more exotic technologies could come into play.
7. Proxy battles: the fight for control of large delegated blocs of
votes, granted by proxy, may loom ominously large in some people's eyes.
This is a laudable objection, because it demonstrates a perceptiveness and
an ability to extrapolate into uncharted territory. Certainly, there will
be proxy battles, and individuals will seek to enhance their social status
by garnering "authority" over large numbers of votes. But the saving grace
here is the instant revocability of proxy powers, and their entirely
voluntary nature. It would be vital to have laws in place prohibiting abuse
of the proxy relationship, such as the sale of powers, or the commitment of
one's votes to another for a fixed time period, etc. If each voter is free
to change his or her mind about the attractiveness of a given proxy at any
time for any reason, then proxy abuse cannot occur.
8. Difficulty of reaching quorum. This is another excellent
objection, since it demonstrates insight into the process. The contention
is that many important or urgent measures will languish below quorum
indefinitely, due to insufficient voter interest or energy, thus clogging up
the wheels of government. The reason this would not be a problem is that
large proxy-holders would naturally tend to spend more time than the average
voter in the sub-quorum "pool", since their influence may be decisive there
(this pool, by the way, is expected to be *huge*). By definition, truly
important issues could not help but be significant to large numbers of
voters, so if the proxies were not doing their jobs, the public would take
charge directly. Both within the message databases and outside, in the
public media, commentary and exchange of opinions could not help but bring
all genuinely important measures into widespread play, with exactly the
speed and to exactly the extent that each in some sense "deserves".
9. Dominance by technocrats. A valid concern is that the high-tech
nature of the process will scare away computerphobes, or create barriers for
the less technically adept, which would lead to disproportionately high
representation of the technocracy in the voting tallies. It is an absolute
requirement that the designers of the system eliminate this concern by
making it as easy to use as a bank auto-teller. Also, a network of human
"facilitators" and manual-interaction "pavilions" should be established
nationwide to service the needs of those for whom the proficiency barrier is
insuperable. No system of voting can ever be perfect in this regard (the
current system requires at least a modicum of intelligence and initiative),
but Superdemocracy can and should be made as simple to deal with as a
banking machine, or simpler. Touch screens, voice recognition, and
progressively more advanced AI technologies can be harnessed for this
purpose as time goes by.
10. High cost. Certainly, to install and maintain all of the computers
and networks we are talking about would be expensive. There would also be a
need to provide communications link equipment (presumably terminals and
modems at first) to those unable to afford them, or perhaps to everybody.
The high cost is beyond dispute. But we need to weigh this against the not
insignificant costs of the current system, with its state and national
capitol buildings, representative's salaries and perks, staffers, and
colossal infrastructure. Some of those smoke-filled rooms are pretty big!
And computer and communications costs are dropping day by day, with no end
in sight.
Conclusions
-----------
Superdemocracy is defined as a continuous networked hierarchy of online
referenda, open to all.
Special interests would be able to sway the decisions of a group run
this way only by catering to the interests of a majority of the group -- in
which case they would no longer, by definition, be special interests.
Busybodies would be able to sway the decisions of a group run this way
only by making themselves the "proxies" of large blocs of people. Even so,
they would merely be performing a public service by voting on those people's
behalf exactly as those people would, themselves, have voted anyhow -- or
the busybody would find him- or herself quickly out of votes.
Citizen participation and morale would be dramatically improved because
each citizen would be voting on the issues that are important to that
citizen, directly. The guessing game of figuring out what somebody else is
going to do over a multi-year period, on the basis of schmoozy campaign ads
and zoot suits, is eliminated.
Corruption would be limited to the tactical, implementational end of
government. Never again would we have to worry about corruption on the
grand scale of Teapot Dome or the S&L scandal.
Justice would be less capricious because the same group of human beings
would review evidence and deliver a verdict in each case. This group,
instead of being just 12 people who could all happen to misconstrue a fact
the same wrong way, would be thousands or millions of everyday people, the
very people whose welfare depends on the right decisions being made in the
courtroom.
And finally, the expense, waste, and mismanagement of smoke-filled
rooms and their seedy inhabitants would be laid to rest for once and for
all. People would begin to have some reason for optimism about the future,
and some sense of control over their own destinies.
I don't expect any of this to happen anytime soon, but if you know
anyone who is thinking of setting up a new country, please show him or her a
copy of this article. It's certainly worth a try.
The World Online...
Copyright 1990 Victor Baron
Through the years, computers have been a tremendous source of
enjoyment for me, starting with playing StarTrek on a *printer*
terminal for many hours at a time, continuing with the building of a
kit IMSAI 8080 with it's seemingly hundreds of LED's on to writing and
marketing my own programs. I can't recall anything that gave me more
enjoyment, however, than the first time I went online and connected
with another computer in the city. There are still many of you out
there who lurk in the background, afraid to make the step, possibly
fearing that the experience is way beyond your level of expertise.
Hopefully, this little article can alleviate some of those fears and
open up a new world online.
There are a *few* things to learn and some equipment to acquire but
nothing exceptionally complicated nor expensive. Depending upon your
budget, you can go from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand with
plenty of steps in between. I will try to alleviate the frustrations
that usually accompany the first attempts and computer communication.
Since this will be your first trek into the world of computer
communications, you'll need some minimal equipment in addition to your
computer. You'll need a modem, some communication software, possibly a
serial cable and a telephone extension cord. Your computer essentially
telephones another computer and talks to it over your regular
telephone lines. The modem is the go-between. It converts the signals
from your computer to a form the telephone can understand and
vice-versa. Your standard telephone line should suffice (unless you
have a teenage daughter) with a little cooperation from other members
of your household. It is difficult to describe the visual and
emotional impact you receive when someone picks up the telephone while
you are online.
Looking at the specifications of the many modems on the market can
cause your eyeballs to spin violently but when all the frills are
removed, you initially start with 2 types, Internal and external. The
internal modem requires only a connection to the telephone line and an
available slot in your computer. The external requires an external
source of power, a connection to the telephone line and a serial cable
that you may have to purchase separately. As in automobiles, the
features vary widely but the basics are fairly standardized.
The final piece in your online travel kit is the communications or
terminal software. There is a wide choice of available packages
ranging from some of the more popular and inexpensive shareware
packages to the more expensive commercial packages. This remains
largely a matter of choice but it would be wise to start with one of
the simpler shareware packages until your skills develop. Simply put,
the terminal software controls what is sent and received by your
system.
Now that you've acquired the proper equipment and software, the
next step is to install your modem. Whether internal or external, this
procedure is relatively simple and most manufacturers provide ample
guidance in their documentation. The serial cable is connected between
the modem and the serial port on your computer, the telephone cord is
connected between the modem and the telephone outlet and the modem is
plugged in. An internal modem requires only the telephone connection,
all other needs are supplied by the system.
Before you try out your new modem you must set a few parameters
from within your communication program that will make your system
compatible with the computer you'll be calling. Most communication
programs have a 'Setup' area or a 'Port Parameter' area. This will be
your first stop.
COM1 or COM2-- Although there is increasing support for
additional COM ports, COM1 and COM2 are the most used. Generally your
computer documentation will indicate the available ports on your
system. Start by selecting COM1, you can always go back and change it
later if needed.
BPS or BAUD--Bits per Second is the rate of speed of data
transmission and reception through the selected com port.
Although incorrect in this instance, baudrate or baud are
generally used interchangeably with bps. The most common rate is 2400
bps, although the decreasing cost of higher speed modems has resulted in
many non commercial systems communicating at 9600 bps and higher.
Slower speeds of 1200 bps are still generally available on some
systems and you might still find an occasional 300 bps system out
there. The main function of the 'setup' area is to assure that both
systems are communicating at the same rate. Therefore if the system
you are calling will be at 2400 bps, then your system must be set the
same or you will be unable to establish decent communications. The
most common cause of communication problems is improper parameter
setup. It's much like speaking Greek to an Italian over a long
distance telephone line, no communication is possible.
DATA BITS--This setting determines the number of bits that make up
each byte of information. Sometimes referred to as word length.
Most BBS (Bulletin Board System) normally use a setting of 8 bits while
most commercial systems use a setting of 7 bits.
PARITY is an error detection method used to check the validity of a
transmitted character. If the computer is using 8 *data* bits, the
parity is usually *none*, indicated by an 'N' while systems using 7
data bits usually use *even*, indicated by an 'E'.
STOP BITS are signaling bits attached to a character before it is
transmitted which indicate when the character ends. Each character
transmitted is preceded by one start bit and followed by one or two
stop bits and possibly a parity bit. The most common setting is to
use 1 stop bit. Therefore, your most common settings for a PC based BBS
would be 8 data bits - No parity - 1 stop bit (8N1) and for
commercial systems, 7 data bits - Even parity - 1 Stop bit (7E1).
FULL/HALF DUPLEX also called local/remote echo is the setting that
determines which system (local/remote) is responsible for displaying
characters on the screen. Most BBS systems supply the remote echo so
the usual setting for your system should be remote echo (no local
echo). If you can't see what you type on your screen when you are
connected to another system, then you should turn your local echo on.
If your screen should ddiissppllaayy cchhaarraacctteerrss lliikkee
tthhiiss, then you know that both the local and remote systems are
echoing the characters and you should turn your local echo off (remote
on).
Now you should be ready to give this thing a try. Your modem is
connected and your communication program is loaded. Following the
documentation for your specific program, enter the dialing directory
and select the number you wish to dial. At this point, if you press
return, most programs will dial the selected number. If your modem has
a speaker you should hear phone go off hook, dial the number and start
ringing. When the remote system answers, you will hear the modems try
to establish a connection with appropriate squealing and hissing. When
connected, you will see a message that says CONNECT or CONNECT 2400.
Congratulations! You are online! Depending on the type of system you
have called, you may have to press the carriage return a few times to
'wake up' the BBS or it may start 'talking' to you automatically.
Online etiquette is beyond the scope of this article but remember,
you are essentially a guest in someone's home. Please act as you would
have a guest act in your home. Profane language is a no-no. Finally,
when the time comes to leave the BBS, there is usually a command
similar to GO or BYE or EXIT or OFF that will take care of some
housekeeping and politely let you leave the system and hang up. Only
in an extreme case should you just HANG UP without signing off the
BBS. Doing that is similar to walking out and slamming the door
without even a goodbye. Extremely rude! On some of the old time
systems, this could hang a system thus preventing other callers from
calling in. The newer systems don't have a problem with this any
longer but it's still tacky.
This should give you enough information to get you started
exploring the world online. The majority of the people you meet are
very friendly and helpful. When you log on to a new BBS, I recommend
that you go directly to the message base and read some of the
messages. You can get a lot of initial questions answered this way.
If you have a specific question, most BBS's will allow you to leave a
comment to the sysop (SYStem OPerator) on your first call.
Remember, you can't hurt anything and the people you contact all
started the same way as you, so relax, happy calling and enjoy the
world online.
The FBI Comes Rapping, Rapping At Your BBS
Brock N. Meeks
The dog-eared manila envelope spilled a coffee stained report onto
my cluttered desk. The title, "The FBI and Your BBS" sounded a little
too nefarious, even for this curmudgeon of the information age. But I
figured the report was worth at least a quick read. After all,
somebody had gone to the effort to track down my address and forward a
copy of the report to me. That someone turns out to be the report's
author, Glen L. Roberts, director of The FBI Project an organization
which publishes a newsletter, Full Disclosure, under the self-defined
category "privacy/surveillance.
The report is chilling, almost paranoid. And if more people had
known about its existence, a lot of grief might have been saved. As
I read I remembered an old, coffee-ringed file folder I'd squirreled
away. I remembered something about it's containing information on
what I'd off-handedly labeled "FBI Computer Hit Squad." When I found
the file, Roberts' report didn't seem so paranoid and knew I was in
for a long night of research and bunch of early morning wake up
interviews.
If you dig, you hit dirt
In 1984 a short series of discreet advertisements, placed by the
FBI, appeared in a few computer trade publications and in The Wall
Street Journal. The message was simple, and went something like:
"We're looking for computer literate persons to join the Bureau."
There was no mention of any special task force; however, it was clear
that the Bureau wanted to upgrade their high-tech prowess.
Although the FBI won't confirm the existence of a computerized "hit
squad," an FBI public relations officer did confirm that they "have
made an extraordinary effort to recruit more technically oriented
personnel" since 1984.
If you dig hard enough, you'll find substantial evidence that the
FBI is most definitely working overtime in its efforts to monitor the
electronic community. "They are desperately wary of the way
information flows so freely in this medium," says Roberts.
Indeed, one has only to recall this past May when some 150 Secret
Service agents, assisted by local police (backed up with electronic
"intelligence gathered and provided by the FBI) served some 27 search
warrants in a dozen cities across the U.S.
The bust, code-named Operation Sun Devil, was patterned after the
tactics used to take down suspected drug rings: simultaneous busts,
synchronized arrests. All in an effort to preclude any "early
warnings" reaching the West via grapevine information moving from the
East.
I was curious about all these high tech hit tactics and armed with
my file folder and Roberts' report I called a number scrawled on the
inside flap of my file folder. It was annotated "Former agent;
possible source." I called the number, and got a story.
"I was recruited in 1983 by the FBI for my computer skills."
"I was recruited in 1983 by the FBI for my computer skills," the
former agent told me. Because he still does some consulting for the
Bureau, he asked not to be identified, but he laid out a very
specific plan by the FBI to increase their knowledge of the electronic
communications world. He confided, "During my time the Bureau's
monitoring of BBSs was extremely limited; we just didn't know how." In
those days, he said, the FBI drew on the expertise of a small band of
high-tech freelance snoops to augment their staff, "while we all honed
our own skills."
Tradition
Certainly the FBI has a tradition of "investigating" groups of
people it deems "unsavory" or threatening.
In Roberts' The FBI and Your BBS, there's a brief history of the
FBI's willingness to gather all known information on a target group.
Pulling from the Final Report of the Select (Senate) Committee to
Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities,
Book IV, Supplementary Reports on Intelligence Activities, Roberts
includes this excerpt:
"Detectives were sent to local radical publishing houses to take their
books. In addition, they were to find every private collection or
library in the possession of any radical, and to make the arrangements
for obtaining them in their entirety. Thus, when the GID (General
Intelligence Division) discovered an obscure Italian born philosopher
who had a unique collection of books on the theory of anarchism, his
lodgings were raided by the Bureau and his valuable collection become
one more involuntary contribution to the huge and ever-growing library
of the GID. [pages 87-88]."
Change "any radical" to "any BBS" and "book" to "disk" and quite
suddenly the electronic landscape turns into a winter still-life.
Data collection
Roberts, quoting from his report, says, "Unlike other
communications media, information on a BBS does not get read by anyone
before its instantaneous publication. Therefore, the FBI has much
less of a possibility of intimidating the owner of a BBS into not
publishing certain information. The FBI also acts as if BBSs have a
monopoly on the distribution of so-called 'illegal information.' The
FBI often uses this 'danger' as justification to monitor the
activities on these systems. In reality, however, BBSs transfer much
less 'illegal information' than the phone system."
Roberts statements are worth noting in light of the government's
increased interest in the marriage of criminal activity and electronic
communications.
Crime has moved into the high-tech arena.
A 455-page report issued by the President's Commission on Organized
Crime, dealing with drug abuse and trafficking cites that fact that
crime has moved into the high-tech arena. The report states "To the
extent that law enforcement agencies' capabilities and equipment are
inferior to those of drug traffickers, immediate steps should be taken
to rectify the situation." The report then recommends that
data-gathering efforts of several agencies (including the FBI) should
be tied together in one "all-source intelligence and operations
center."
Any problem here?
There are no laws prohibiting the FBI (or other agencies) from
monitoring the public message traffic on a BBS; the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 protects private messages and
privately stored files only. But what about an FBI agent monitoring a
BBS solely for the purpose of gathering information on the board's
users? Any problem here?
The former FBI agent I spoke with raised the concern that such
casual monitoring might be a violation of the 1968 Wiretap Act. "In
order for a wire tap, you have to get a court order. Now if an FBI
agent is monitoring a BBS to gather information, that becomes an
interesting question, because there are very specific federal rules
about a wire tap. My question to you about a BBS [being monitored]
is: "At what point does monitoring turn into a wiretap-like act?"
Good point. The reality is, however, that there are no rules.
Unless that agent is asking for private message traffic, he can,
without impunity, monitor, store, and otherwise manipulate your public
messages as he sees fit.
Roberts points out that a BBS with public access is fair game for
any kind of governmental snooping. But there is a way to make such
casual snooping by a federal agent a crime.
"If you want your BBS readily accessible to the public but want to
protect against unwarranted monitoring, you have to provide a warning
to prospective users," says Roberts. "It should read: 'This BBS is a
private system. Only private citizens who are not involved in
government or law enforcement activities are authorized to use it. The
users are not authorized to divulge any information gained from this
system to any government or law enforcement agency or employee.'"
This does two things. It makes the entire board "private." Second,
it makes any kind of monitoring by the FBI (or other agencies, such as
the Secret Service) a criminal offense (because they are would be
guilty of unauthorized access; it also forces them to use the
established guidelines of gaining information via a court ordered
search warrant. The warning also protects you in another way: it
stops "freelancers" from doing the Bureau's work.
Get real
How real is the possibility of the FBI monitoring your BBS? Much
more than I'd like to believe. Although details of Operation Sun
Devil are still sketchy, it's clear that the FBI, working in tandem
with the Secret Service, is monitoring several hundred "suspected"
boards across the electronic landscape. What kind of board is a
potential monitoring target? "Any board that advocates hacking," said
a Secret Service spokesman. Yet when I asked for a definition of
hacking, all I was told was "illegal activity."
Are the "good guys" getting caught up with the bad?
The information provided here bears out, if nothing else, an
increased interest by the FBI in the hardball practice of going after
electronic criminals. But are the "good guys" getting caught up with
the bad?
How extensive is the FBI's actual fact gathering by monitoring
BBSs? No one knows really knows. However, given the history of
Bureau, and the hard facts that crime in the information age makes
full use of all the technology it can get its hands on, it's a small
leap to believe that at least specific monitoring, of certain target
groups, is taking place.
Where does that leave you and me in all this? Back to square one,
watching carefully what we say online. If you're a member of a
"controversial" BBS, you might pass the concerns of Roberts on to your
sysop. If you are a sysop, you might want to consider adding a bit of
protection to the board . . . for the rest of us.
Brock Meeks is a Washington, D.C.-based columnist whose articles have
appeared in several publications including Byte Magazine. His
favorite radical BBS is . . . well . . . private.

What's NEW in ZMODEM
by Chuck Forsberg
In early 1986, Telenet funded a project to develop a new file
transfer protocol to alleviate the throughput problems network
customers were experiencing with XMODEM and Kermit file transfers.
Designing ZMODEM from scratch allowed me to use the best ideas from
X.PC, HDLC, BISYNC, Kermit, and dozens of other protocols, while
avoiding many of their shortcomings.
Since then ZMODEM has been incorporated into hundreds of programs.
ZMODEM's speed, reliability, and ease of use has made it the protocol
of choice for thousands of bulletin boards, GEnie, BIX, Portal,
Delphi, and other information utilities.
From the beginning, ZMODEM was designed to be extended. Important
reliability, performance and compatibility extensions have been
developed since the Telenet project. These extensions accelerate
downloads by 5 to 30 percent in many applications, with some files
downloading many times faster.
New programs can exploit these extensions without sacrificing
downward compatibility with older programs. This article summarizes
the most important of these ZMODEM extensions.
CRC-32
Ease of implementation was one of ZMODEM's original design goals.
XMODEM CRC technology was used because XMODEM routines were widely
available in many programming languages.
XMODEM's CRC polynomial is many times less reliable than good 16
bit CRC's. This wasn't an issue with XMODEM because XMODEM itself was
inherently unreliable under stress. When ZMODEM's speed and
"bullet-proof" robustness soon found use in applications too harsh for
XMODEM, ZMODEM's robustness revealed XMODEM CRC to be too inaccurate.
The first major extension to ZMODEM was the adoption of 32 bit CRC.
ZMODEM uses the 32-bit CRC specified by ANSI X3.66, FIPS PUB 71,
and FED-STD-1003. A table driven calculation keeps processing
overhead low. ZMODEM CRC-32 is five orders of magnitude more accurate
than XMODEM CRC, and billions of times more sensitive than 1 byte
XMODEM and Kermit checksums. The extra protection of CRC-32 is vital
in high speed applications.
ZMODEM retains XMODEM CRC capability to accommodate old programs.
Compression
Compression techniques compact the redundant information in data
files to reduce storage and transmission time. ZMODEM-90(TM)
extensions include "on the fly" compression that boosts throughput on
listings and other suitable files. Compression percentages range from
-1% on already compressed files to more than 1000 percent (10 times
speedup) on the Personal Computing Magazine text file benchmark.
Moby Turbo(tm) Accelerator
Many files downloaded from bulletin boards are already compressed
with PKZIP or other compression programs.
ZMODEM was developed to operate over packet switched networks that
use control characters for network control. When one of these
characters appears in the data, ZMODEM protects the network by
replacing the offending character with a two character sequence
(quoting). Standard ZMODEM quoting increases overhead on compressed
files by about 3 percent.
The protection of control character quoting and its overhead are
not needed in many applications. ZMODEM-90(TM) offers MobyTurbo(TM)
to close the speed gap between ZMODEM and less reliable protocols
without sacrificing ZMODEM's historical robustness and reliability.
MobyTurbo reduces the character quoting overhead on compressed files
to 0.5%. In comparison tests the speed difference between YMODEM-g
and MobyTurbo(TM) is less than 1 percent. Many users feel 1% is a low
price to pay to get Crash Recovery, automatic downloads, and the
safety of 32 bit CRC error checking,
______________________________
| OVERHEAD FACTORS |
| (Compressed Files) |
------------------------------
|1024 Byte Subpackets | .5% |
|Character Quoting | 3% |
|MobyTurbo Quoting | .5% |
------------------------------
Reduced Overhead
Some networks and modem concentrators reserve control characters
not protected by ZMODEM defaults. Previously the solution was to
protect all control characters, resulting in protocol overhead
approaching that of Kermit.
ZMODEM-90(TM) extensions provide individual control of the
protected control characters, avoiding the high overhead of quoting
all control characters.
Window Management
Many information utilities are accessed via complex packet switched
networks. These networks may behave more like a balloon than a pipe
as they pass data from a fast mainframe to a relatively slow modem.
Undelivered kilobytes swell the network's memory banks, and error
correction is impaired.
ZMODEM allows the sender to limit this ballooning by regulating the
rate of transmission to accommodate the slowest segment of the
network. ZMODEM accomplishes this by commanding the receiver to
acknowledge data sub-blocks as they are received, and waiting for more
acknowledgements when the receiver is too far behind (window too
large).
The optimum window size depends on the network characteristics and
modem error rate. With ZMODEM-90 the receiver can override the
sender's window size according to local conditions. Users with error
correcting modems can increase throughput by increasing the window
size.
These ZMODEM-90 extensions give GEnie downloads 5 to 30 percent
faster than public domain ZMODEM.
7-Bit Environments
A pair of ZMODEM-90 programs with 7-bit support will automatically
detect a 7-bit environment and switch to one of two 7-bit path
compatible encodings.
The default 7-bit ZMODEM uses RLE compression and 8th bit quoting.
This mode resembles Kermit encoding, but is more efficient because the
RLE encoding is optimized and fewer control characters are quoted.
This default is well suited for text files.
ZMODEM Pack-7 packs 4 bytes into 5 printing characters. This is
more efficient than quoting for sending compressed files. ZMODEM
Pack-7 is efficient enough to beat Kermit on ZIP files, even when
Kermit is allowed to use all 8 bits.
A 75136 byte ZIP file was sent between two adjacent machines
directly connected at 2400 bps. These tests demonstrate the difference
in protocol performance under ideal conditions.
Kermit transfers used one byte checksum and 2000 byte packets.
ZMODEM used 32 Bit (four byte) CRC.
______________________________
| 7-BIT LINE |
------------------------------
|CPS| Protocol |
|156| Kermit long packet=2000|
|190| ZMODEM-90tm PACK-7 |
------------------------------
Intelligent Crash Recovery
Crash Recovery allows an interrupted file transfer to be completed
without throwing away the portion transferred before the interruption.
Crash Recovery has been a favorite ZMODEM feature since 1986.
Accurate crash recovery requires that the receiver's copy of the
file match the sender's copy up to the point where the transfer was
cut off. If you don't call back instantly the file may change, and
simply resuming the transfer will corrupt the file. If this is a
concern, choose a program that verifies the accuracy of Crash
Recovery.
Intelligent Crash Recovery(TM) (-rr option) allows files to be
compared without transmitting the actual file contents. The sender and
receiver take a 32 bit CRC on the files and compare those numbers. The
"zmodem R" parameter controls how much of the files to compare. The
default of 0 compares the entire file. The chance of different files
producing the same 32 bit CRC is small; an independent comparison of
another segment further enhances reliability.
Currently, ASCII file translation (Unix to DOS format, etc.) does
not allow Crash Recovery.
A future extension should remove this restriction.
Total Transfer Display
ZMODEM and YMODEM now support a count of the files remaining and
their total size to the receiver. This allows the receiver to
estimate remaining transfer time, updated as conditions change. This
information is optional and may not be provided when its collection
would cause an unacceptable delay starting a transfer.
VAX/VMS Specific Programs
Previous versions of the RZ (Receive ZMODEM) and SZ (Send ZMODEM)
file transfer programs were poorly adapted for Digital Equipment's
VAX/VMS minicomputer operating system.
A new VMS RZ writes variable length CR terminated records for ASCII
files and fixed 512 byte records for binary files. These record
formats are better suited for standard VMS utilities.
A -i option may be given to the sender or receiver to force VMS
Stream_LF record format. Stream_LF format preserves the exact data
and file length. Stream_LF is suitable for C programs and PC oriented
file server and archive applications.
VMS SZ now supports wild cards and subdirectories.
These programs are available from Omen Technology Incorporated.
ZMODEM-90(TM), MobyTurbo(TM), and Intelligent Crash Recovery(TM)
are Omen Technology trademarks.
UNDER THE BOARDWALK
"Hello, Dean speaking."
"I'm going to quit my job, start a BBS, make a fortune and live
happily ever after."
"Excuse me? That's impossible!"
"No really, I'm going to make my living running a BBS."
I never thought I'd have phone conversations like this a year ago, now it
happens once a week. One enthusiastic caller was dead serious when he told
me "I'm going to put CompuServe out of business." As ridiculous as these
statements sound, it should. It tells me that the BBS world is starting to
evolve in a big way.
A schism is forming between the FREE and the PAY BBS systems. The hardcore
sysop of the past will tell you "Until they pry my cold dead fingers from
my keyboard, my system will always have free access." The enterprising
sysop of today will tell you "I'm offering a service that my customers
enjoy, and I'm not embarrassed to be compensated for it." I hope there will
always be a place for the FREE BBS. However, the pay as you go BBS system
is todays item of interest. What does it take to make real money running a
BBS?
As an example, we'll start a fictitious BBS called OPERATION OVERKILL, or
OK BBS for short. We're going to charge $45 per year, run 4 lines at 9600
Bps and use PCBoard on a 386 Novell Network. Congratulations, OK BBS just
consumed $10,000 like it was light beer, and nobody calls.
Across town, HUMBLE BEGINNINGS BBS (HB BBS for short) starts up using a
spare XT, 1 phone line at 2400 Bps, runs the shareware version of PCBoard
and charges NOTHING. The new sysop of HB BBS, Horatio A., has been calling
BBS's for years and finally decides to give it a try. Six months later HB
BBS has 500 steady callers, but they complain that the BBS is busier than
the men's room at Joe's Bar on Saturday night.
After many sleepless nights and countless cans of Jolt Cola, Horatio
asks for $20 donations to add another phone line, get a 386, buy the
multinode version of PCBoard and increase the hard drive storage.
Enough money comes in to cover half of the upgrade. Horatio digs
into his pockets for the rest and HUMBLE BEGINNINGS is now running 2
nodes under Desqview on the new 386. He adds more file areas, throws
in some DOORS, and answers the mail from his users 3 times a day.
In order to recoup the investment in the upgrade, Horatio adds
an Adult file section available to paying users only. He imposes
a 20:1 download/upload ratio for non-paying callers. As a bonus,
he allows callers with a 5:1 download/upload ratio full
privileges. His file area becomes inundated with new uploads as
his non-paying callers realize the cheapest way to use the system
is to upload new files. There's even a few long distance callers
which he gives full access for no charge. Heck, they're already paying
good money to our favorite charity THE PHONE COMPANY, so why not?
HUMBLE BEGINNINGS is now busy all the time! The free callers keep
the file library bursting with new software while the paying
callers are happy to rape this fantastic software resource for
only $20 per year. In fact, HUMBLE BEGINNINGS is making a little more
money each month. A third phone line is added to keep up with the
demand.
Horatio decides to attempt to make some real money with his BBS.
HUMBLE BEGINNINGS has been online for 2 years, pays the phone bill,
and even makes more of a profit each month. He borrows $5,000 from his
brother Donald to bring his system to 6 lines running on a Novell
network. He figures 6 lines will keep everyone happy for at least a
year. He raises the price to $45 per year, but still allows callers
with a 5:1 download/upload ratio full access.
HUMBLE BEGINNINGS is now on it's way to possibly becoming a very
large system. Who knows, maybe in another year Horatio will be
able to quit his real job to devote 24 hours a day to his BBS. More
likely, HB BBS will become a mildly profitable small business. Is
there a moral to this story? Not really, but all the would be
entrepreneurs out there might want to memorize the countless cliches
related to starting your own business.
BBS's must do the same as any successful small business, provide a
needed product or service, provide excellent customer service, price
it reasonably, and continue to improve while keeping one eye on the
competition.
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T E L E C O M P U T I N G M A G A Z I N E
Electronic Edition
Summer 1990
(C) 1990 Galaxy Telecomm Corporation
All Rights Reserved
800-477-1788, 505-881-6988 - Voice
505-881-6964 - BBS - 64 Lines
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Requirements To Display Telecomputing Magazine
No Nonsense Copyright Statement
Telecomputing Magazine is copyrighted material and must be treated as
such. Telecomputing Magazine's Electronic Edition may be transmitted
and displayed on Electronic Bulletin Board Systems. Alterations,
additions, or ommissions of material will be considered a copyright
violation.
DON'T CHANGE ANY OF THE FILES! IF YOU DISPLAY ONE FILE, YOU MUST
DISPLAY THEM ALL.
Feel free to pass this Electronic Edition of our magazine along to
your friends and favorite BBS's. For a free copy of our 4 color glossy
magazine, give us a call at 800-477-1788 and request a copy!
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T E L E C O M P U T I N G M A G A Z I N E
Electronic Edition
October/November 1990
(C) 1990 Galaxy Telecomm Corporation
All Rights Reserved
800-477-1788
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TELECOMPUTING MAGAZINE'S PRINTED EDITION
COVER STORY - Tim Stryker
Superdemocracy
FEATURES
News from the Online World - Nia Bennett
Where Is Everybody? - Jerry Pournelle/Mike Banks
The FBI Comes Rapping, Rapping at Your BBS - Brock N. Meeks
Electronic Government - Michael E. Marotta
TUTORIAL
What's New in ZMODEM - Chuck Forsberg
Worried About Viruses? - William Minus
PRODUCT REVIEW
Intel Goes After 9600 BPS Market - Tom Scott
TDBS: The Comfortable Revolution - Phil Becker
Telecommand System 100 by JDS Technologies - Tom Scott
The Metro BBS System P.D. and Plenty of Power - Jim Reyna
I*N*F*O
Aladdin - Genie's Magic Lamp - Dennis Fowler
The BBSers Guide to COMDEX - Tom Scott
Joining the Online World - Victor Baron
SOFTWARE REVIEW
BGFT: Background File Transfer System
Falcon F-16 by Mark Hiatt
Weight Loss Software by Nia Bennett
News from Oracomm - Running a Successful BBS by Gary Young
Wildcat! BBS News - Dawn of the Information Society
BOOK REVIEW
"Using Computer Bulletin Boards" by John V. Hedtke
- Review by Charles Stuart Klingman
COMMENTARY
Software Mania - John C. Dvorak
Power Suits and Pretty Dresses For BBSing on the Edge
- Bob Mahoney
Under The Boardwalk/Commentary - Dean Kerl
DEPARTMENTS
From The Editor
Letters To The Editor
EXEC-PC Top 20 Downloads
telecomputing's BBS Listings (classifieds)

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink