Print

Print


I forgot to include the computer science part of my cv.

In my first job in 1968-69, at Codon Corporation (now defunct), I developed 
the first algorithm and representation for the handling of decimal numbers 
and arithmetic by a binary computer, using excess-1000 arithmetic on the 
PDP-8 (12 bits), excess-100,000 arithmetic on the PDP-9, and 
excess-10,000,000 arithmetic on the PDP-10.

At Digital Equipment Corporation (now HP), I worked with Mary Payne on 
Digital's mathematics committee, and developed the algorithm for efficient 
input and printing of large-scale floating-point numbers (~10**-300 to 
10**300). I later developed a unique method for scheduling and maintaining 
automatic full and incremental backups of networked systems (for which I was 
part of a Digital team granted a US Patent) and developed an efficient 
method for remotely bootstrapping and downloading an operating system to a 
bare computer, many years before Microsoft. Since then I've just gotten 
myself in continual trouble by informing people that they cannot do accurate 
decimal arithmetic using binary floating point calculations, and that lying 
to customers or the government is a bad business practice.

Jonathan

From: "Jonathan Campbell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus


>I was trained in physics at MIT.
>
> I decided to become a computer programmer instead. Physics just wasn't 
> what I wanted to do with my life. I found it interesting, but I was not 
> passionate about it like my roommate Jerry Sussman or my lab partner Alan 
> Guth or my friend Frank Feinberg, all of whom stayed and became brilliant 
> scientists.
>
> In my first software engineering job, I wrote a compiler for a simple 
> business language called RPG, drawing on software engineering skills that 
> I had learned at MIT.
>
> In the 70s, I became involved in the anti-nuclear movement, and I was 
> technical consultant to the organization that stopped any further nuclear 
> power development in Massachusetts (by popular vote). It was then that I 
> found a groundbreaking book by Brodsky on the health effects of 
> radioactive substances, and the protection needed for them in laboratories 
> based on those health effects. I also began to learn about other 
> environmental degradation, and met Bob Park, who was involved in 
> SESPA/SftP and Computer Professionals for Peace, and, eventually, Herb 
> Fox.
>
> I learned as much as I could about carcinogenesis, and how actions as 
> disparate as chemical toxicity and radioactivity could cause it. (Of 
> course we now believe that it is caused by double-chain breaks of DNA that 
> are not repaired correctly.)
>
> In the late 90s I learned about the bases of genetic engineering, wrote 
> about it, and helped to organize BioDevastation 2000 conference at 
> Northeastern Univ, culminating in the largest anti-GMO demonstration in 
> the US to date or since.
>
> In the late 90s I also discovered the work of Pauling and Rath, and 
> followed Rath's work closely as he developed an effective natural therapy 
> for cancer. I also attended one of his lectures. After the lecture, he 
> spoke to some pharmacy majors about the roots of the US and European 
> pharmaceutical industry, and, in particular, BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst, 
> which came from Farben AG, the manufacturer of Cyclon B.
>
> In 2002, given that the market for computer programmers had tanked, I 
> decided to go back to school and get formal training in the life science, 
> in preparation for an eventual masters degree in nutrition. I got a 
> psychology degree, and wrote about the origins of autism (oddly enough, 
> completely in parallel with a similar article that appeared in Mother 
> Jones, without my knowledge), depression and its connection with omega-3 
> essential fatty acid deficiency, and serotonin syndrome from interaction 
> of drugs used for mental disorders (especially SSRI anti-depressants).
>
> Is this sufficient "scientific training"? Do I need a Ph.D. to be able to 
> read scientific literature and tell whether it is blowing smoke or not? 
> And, if so, how come an archeologist can throw water on the debate by 
> name-calling?
> (Yes, I too was engaged in name-calling in the case of someone who I 
> considered a disrupter, and apologized for it afterwards.)
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Larry Romsted" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
>
>
>> Eric:
>>
>> Not sure what you are responding to in what I wrote.
>>
>> I was writing about the upcoming possibility of having a discussion 
>> online
>> by the "two sides".  I do not remember the words Campbell and Cohen used,
>> but they could have been name calling as well.  Not helpful.  I was 
>> hoping
>> that type of thing could be tamped down a bit in a online 
>> discussion/debate.
>>
>> I will let Cohen and Campbell speak about their science backgrounds and
>> their views on leftist scientists.
>>
>> I still distrust the science establishment, although I would probably be
>> labeled a member.  Not sure what to do about that.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/07 12:16 PM, "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I have to assume that Cohen and Campbell have little science background,
>>> given some of their remarks.  What is most disturbing is their lack of
>>> respect, not for scientists in general, but leftist scientists.  After 
>>> all,
>>> Science for the People was all about the justifiable distrust that 
>>> leftist
>>> scientists had toward the science establishment.
>>>
>>> And, if memory serves, it was Campbell that started the name-calling, 
>>> not
>>> that that justifies others doing the same.
>>>
>>> ----Original Message Follows----
>>> From: Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:27:01 -0500
>>>
>>> Michael:
>>>
>>> The last sentence is a bunch of pejorative labels, not analysis of 
>>> anything.
>>> They can be used by anyone from any political position attacking another
>>> (except maybe infantile leftism).  You wrote:
>>>
>>> ≥But do I think their HIV denialism is a sign of clueless, knee-jerk,
>>> stereotypical, infantile leftism on their part? Yes I do. That is a
>>> political statement, or a political attack if you like.≤
>>>
>>> As you wrote, they are feelings; to me feelings expressed as pejorative
>>> labels.  They are not political analysis or evidence.  If you feel that 
>>> way,
>>> then what is the point of discussion?
>>>
>>> If I was in a discussion/debate with you and you made one or more of 
>>> those
>>> statements about me, I would know that all discussion was over.
>>>
>>> Personally, I recommend that you not participate in any such online
>>> discussion/debate.
>>>
>>> Me, I am not so concerned about the number of posts.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/19/07 5:14 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry, since this is my second and last post of the day, I will use it 
>>>> to
>>>> respond briefly to yours.
>>>>
>>>> I am not asking to reserve my right to make personal attacks on people,
>>> but to
>>>> engage in sharp political responses to folks such as Cohen and 
>>>> Campbell.
>>> This
>>>> may be interpreted by some as personal attacks, but I don't think they
>>> are.
>>>> For example, I would like to be able to argue not just the detailed
>>> points
>>>> about 9/11 conspiracies and HIV and HPV denial, which we have seen 
>>>> plenty
>>> of
>>>> recently on this list, but about the broader issues that concern me 
>>>> most:
>>> The
>>>> damage that this kind of flaky nonsense does to the left, its
>>> credibility, and
>>>> its ability to be persuasive to others. This might even extend to doing
>>>> something you probably would not appreciate, which would be to 
>>>> criticize
>>> WBAI
>>>> and other Pacifica stations that spend a lot of air time on this kind 
>>>> of
>>>> nonsense (especially 9/11) and thus limit their audiences to a fairly
>>> small
>>>> number of true believers in many cases (the audience for these stations
>>> has
>>>> not grown, and I think the wrong side won in the Pacifica wars. That is
>>> not
>>>> going to be popular with some people here, such as yourself, and it may
>>> be
>>>> taken as a personal attack, but it's not.)
>>>>
>>>> So while requests to keep the number of posts down seem reasonable to 
>>>> me,
>>>> attempts to censor, inhibit, restrict, or otherwise limit political
>>> expression
>>>> seem unhealthy and unwise. I never said that Mitchel Cohen or Jonathan
>>>> Campbell were ugly or stupid or had bad breath, because I have never 
>>>> met
>>> them.
>>>> Those would be personal attacks. But do I think their HIV denialism is 
>>>> a
>>> sign
>>>> of clueless, knee-jerk, stereotypical, infantile leftism on their part?
>>> Yes I
>>>> do. That is a political statement, or a political attack if you like.
>>>> Perfectly legitimate.
>>>>
>>>> best, Michael
>>>>
>>>> On 2/19/07, Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Michael:
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that the two sides in this potential debate will convince each
>>>>> other >> us who
>>>>> are just reading (the email equivalent of listening quietly because we
>>> may do
>>>>> not know much).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if you want to reach me, for example, appeals to authority will 
>>>>> not
>>> help
>>>>> because I will probably not know who they are.  Likewise, personal
>>> attacks
>>>>> will not help because I will not get the reasons for the personal
>>> attack.  In
>>>>> that sense a personal attack is like raising your voice in an argument
>>> to try
>>>>> to convince the other person when they are not convinced by your more
>>>>> measured presentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I will understand discussion about a critique of the basic
>>>>> assumptions behind the referenced paper, especially if I have time to
>>> read
>>>>> it.  A critique of basic assumptions gets at the politics.  Politics 
>>>>> may
>>> be
>>>>> in part about polemics, but I will not be convince by polemics that 
>>>>> are
>>>>> without substance.  It is, again, like raising your voice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also know that sometimes words I write that I think are descriptive
>>> others
>>>>> feel are personal attacks.  Tough to express feelings in a written
>>> messages
>>>>> to a diverse audience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not know if I am typical of the readers of this list, but that is 
>>>>> my
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have participated in fierce email exchanges and I know how useless
>>> they are
>>>>> because the rest of the list appears to be using their delete keys. 
>>>>> (If
>>> they
>>>>> do not participate, one is never quite sure.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Romsted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/07 12:36 AM, "Michael Balter" <[log in to unmask]> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "that all comments regarding this particular discussion (the 
>>>>>> so-called
>>>>>> "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques of the articles
>>>>>> (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on the authors 
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> their supporters."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the reasons I outlined in my post yesterday, I think that this
>>>>>> particular restriction would basically take the politics out of
>>> political
>>>>>> discussions of science. In the example of 9/11 conspiracy theories, 
>>>>>> it
>>> would
>>>>>> require posters to disprove the theory point by point and could
>>> disallow
>>>>>> comment on the politics and psychology behind these theories; same 
>>>>>> with
>>> HIV
>>>>>> denialism. Politics is about polemics and analysis, and sometimes
>>> broader
>>>>>> interpretations--some would call them attacks--are necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/19/07, Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> George,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       I didn't pay enough attention to that aspect of Jose's 
>>>>>>> proposal;
>>> I
>>>>>>> interpreted it as the people who comment would be doing so with the
>>> intent
>>>>>>> of critique of the article rather than the person who wrote it. That
>>> is,
>>>>>>> comments like "xxx is a known quack" would be disallowed as part of
>>> the
>>>>>>> discussion because it does not relate to the article at hand. But 
>>>>>>> now
>>> that
>>>>>>> I look at the wording more carefully I agree with you, and I would
>>> propose,
>>>>>>> in substitution, that all comments regarding this particular
>>> discussion
>>>>>>> (the so-called "anti-science left") be restricted to valid critiques
>>> of the
>>>>>>> articles (scientific analysis) rather than broad-based attacks on 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> authors or their supporters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From:  George  Salzman <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:01  PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy  virus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Josť,
>>>>>>>>       I realize you  proposed some rules in an attempt to resolve
>>>>>>>> disagreements. A priori  not a bad idea, if the rules are not 
>>>>>>>> rigid.
>>> One
>>>>>>>> of the things you wrote  is: " I say that we agree up front that 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> people who choose to participate  speak for the whole list.  Anyone
>>> who
>>>>>>>> disagrees, say so up front.   No second guessers."
>>>>>>>>       To me that's  unacceptable. Only I can speak for myself. And
>>> whether
>>>>>>>> or not others on the  listserv answer you is irrelevant, because no
>>> mature
>>>>>>>> person can willingly  surrender the right to speak for 
>>>>>>>> him/herself.
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>> George
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more..then map the best 
>>> route!
>>> http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
>>
>