∂09-NOV-74  0301		S,LES AT TTY30 
 The current protection arrangements on [1,3], [3,2], and DOC, invite
 people to screw themselves by copying a protected file into one of
 those areas and then not being able to change it.  I suggest that
 copy use the default protection for the target area in these cases,
 unless one is given explicitly, and that the default protections be
 set to 015.  This would prevent inadvertent alterations with E by
 requiring explicit clearing of the write protection.
 
 Actually, I would prefer Copy to use the default protection at all times
 when not specified, but that would be too radical a change for you to
 consider, I suspect.
␈ CC: 



∂19-NOV-74  2000		1,BH
 re phone list, the Telco recommended (BH recommended too) format for
 phone numbers with area codes is "415 497-4971" rather than "415-" etc
 as you have it.

∂17-NOV-74  2057		S,LES
 Rooms 250A through 250D and the large Conference Room are currently
 very warm (high 80s).  There is a thermostat in Hieronymous' office,
 but I can't figure out a way to get the cover off.  Unless you can
 figure out something easy, I suggest you call Plant Services.
␈ CC: jxj


∂14-NOV-74  0243		105,SGK
 Why aren't we fighting this random move to campus more?  Why are we
 not threatening to leave stanford if they force us to move?  Is it
 true that CS thinks there is no reason to have the computers and the
 people in the same place?  Do they really plan to have the machine, and a few
 people to maintaine it in one place, and the researchers as a separate clearly
 defined class of people in another?  If they do it sounds like not only
 will this lab cease to attract new, good blood [as opposed to the typical
 computer freakish, space war playing cretin univs. seem to have plenty of these
 days], but lose everyone it has already.  Stanford is headed towards losing
 some of its greatness in CS. Making a move similar to the one I understand
 is going to take place will only speed this process.


∂08-NOV-74  1809		100,100: reg @ SAIL
 goddammit, what the fuck are we running here?
 There are 6 goddam copies of PARRY running.  1 from tty10, 2 from UCSD,
 2 from rutgers tip and one from nbs tip.
 :
 I am pissed off.  I'm tring to run a tiny job and I'm getting screwed by
 these multiple gargantuan jobs.  What the hell are they (KMC etc) trying
 to prove?  That they can suck in users?


∂02-NOV-74  0543		S,LES
 Vint Cerf (CRF here) is trying to dazzle some people in Johannesburg,
 South Africa by running various programs here, including TECH2.
 Unforturnately, whenever he tries to print out the board, using
 ↑B, our system gobbles it up and suspends (or resumes) output.
 
 It would seem sensible to have a Stanford version that uses another
 character.  Is that easy to do?  He plans a demo Monday night.
␈ CC: sgk

∂02-NOV-74  0543		S,LES
 There is no simple "permanent" fix to the ↑B problem, alas:  it is an
 incompatibility between a program from a different timesharing system
 (ITS) and our system.  To our system, ↑B means "suspend output temporarily"
 or "resume output" (i. e. it toggles).  Since people use this, we can't
 flush it permanently.
 
 Changing the program to use another character would be sensible, but
 not necessarily easy.  I'll try to get something done and send you a
 message.
␈ CC: crf


∂30-OCT-74  1339		SHO,REF
 Les --
 	I wish to state my objection to the lastest messages from the pony system.
 While it is true that some things around here (the 10, or maybe the vending
 machines) eat numbers, I certainly do not. (Though maybe my words, sometimes.)
 To be more gramactically correct, the pony might say, "Bo_`ate $.15 worth of
 food", though this, too, contains an implicit advertisement for the products
 sold in the pony, which some customers might dispute.
 					Bob.

∂2-NOV-74  1339		001,MJH
							November 2, 1974
Les:
	I have had ANOTHER complaint about the local phone service.
A business-person tried to reach me on 497-3824 several times during 
working hours on Thursday and Friday.  Each time, she was put on hold 
while I was supposedly paged.  However, no one EVER came back
onto the line--either she was cut off after a while or simply left on 
hold (she timed it, out of curiosity, but gave up after 10 minutes).
On retry, she complained to the phone answerer about being abandoned,
but STILL couldn't get them to come back on the line so she could leave
a message.

	This was not the first such incident.  The people who share our
house refuse to call us at work, no matter how important the call, because
of having received just that sort of treatment.  The lawyer involved in
the property we're buying once couldn't get hold of us for a week.  Quam
has had NASA people and electronics parts people returning his inquiries
make similar complaints.

	There should really be something done about our phone answering
system.  It is personally rude to abandon people on hold; it gives them
a bad impression of the lab and, by association, anyone who works here.
It also is bad for business--pissing off one's funding agencies and
parts contacts is not recommended.

	One fix is to give everyone his own extension, which rings
in his office.  If he's not in, the phone just rings on.  One still misses
calls when out under this system, but at least the caller isn't subjected
to the rudeness of our current system.  An intermediate fix would be to 
give a few more key people private extensions.

	Another fix would be to hire a phone answerer--person or persons
whose job is to sit by a call director from 8 to 5, taking calls and messages.
This would not only fix the rudeness problem (such coolies would be told that
their business is to be polite; rudeness ≡ no job), it would also free the
secretaries to concentrate on their real jobs, instead of having to
drop everything to grab the phone every 30 seconds.
Most places employing this many people have a receptionist, why not us?
Such a fix need not be too expensive, especially if we use student
part-time help recommended by the University--minimum wage people.

	Of course, the quickest fix would be to chew some people's tails
about the problem.  However, unless this is accompanied by a sustained 
spot-check campaign on your part, it probably will yield only temporary
benefits, if any.  And it doesn't solve the basic problem, which is 
(off the record) that our secretaries resent having other work interrupted 
by having to answer phones.  And, frankly, I don't blame them.
 
					Jo Hannah