JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE Archives


CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE Archives

CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE Archives


CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE Home

CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE Home

CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE  2002

CYBER-SOCIETY-LIVE 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

[CSL]: NetFuture #132

From:

John Armitage <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Cyber-Society-Live mailing list is a moderated discussion list for those interested <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 May 2002 09:34:49 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (656 lines)

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Talbott
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 21/05/02 17:23
Subject: NetFuture #132

                                 NETFUTURE

                    Technology and Human Responsibility

 =======================================================================
==
Issue #132     A Publication of The Nature Institute          May 21,
2002
 =======================================================================
==
             Editor:  Stephen L. Talbott ([log in to unmask])

                  On the Web: http://www.netfuture.org/
     You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.

Can we take responsibility for technology, or must we sleepwalk
in submission to its inevitabilities?  NetFuture is a voice for
responsibility.  It depends on the generosity of those who support its
goals.  To make a contribution:  http://www.netfuture.org/support.html.


CONTENTS:
---------

Editor's Note

Quotes and Provocations
   Sex, the Internet, and Educational Reform
   Requiem for Distant Educators
   High Noon at the DB Corral
   On Giving Rats a Virtual Life

DEPARTMENTS

Announcements and Resources
   Genetic Engineering and the Intrinsic Value of Organisms

About this newsletter

 =======================================================================
==

                              EDITOR'S NOTE

A series of news items this month have brought the primary thrust of
digital technologies into uncommonly clear perspective.  We're seeing
some
vivid pictures of the fruition of it all.  See how well your own
interpretations agree with mine.

SLT

 =======================================================================
==

                         QUOTES AND PROVOCATIONS


Sex, the Internet, and Educational Reform
-----------------------------------------

"One of the most thorough reports ever produced on protecting children
from Internet pornography has concluded that neither tougher laws nor
new
technology alone can solve the problem" -- so the *New York Times* led
off
a story headlined, "No Easy Fixes Are Seen to Curb Sex-Site Access" (May
3, 2002).  The mentioned report, "Youth, Pornography, and the Internet",
was issued this month by the National Research Council.

Former U.S. attorney general Dick Thornburgh, chair of the committee
that
wrote the report, owned up to the obvious:

   It's not nearly as easy for an adult to supervise children who might
   seek or be inadvertently exposed to sexually explicit materials
online
   as it is when such images are available in books or on the family
   television set.

In many respects, the authors of the report have simply thrown in the
towel, while trying to sound helpful.  They offer this analogy:

   Swimming pools can be dangerous for children.  To protect them, one
can
   install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms.  All of these
   measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one
can
   do for one's children is to teach them to swim.

Sounds healthy, doesn't it?  The only problem is that the analogy
doesn't
carry over to the Internet very well.  Here, by the authors' admission,
the locks, fences, and alarms can't be made to work in a reliable and
socially acceptable way, and the remaining advice ("teach them to swim")
amounts to this:  force these children to become like adults as fast as
possible.  (Well, presumably not like all those adults who keep the
massive online pornography industry in business.)  In other words,
accept
a solution that doesn't apply to the people you were initially concerned
about -- namely, children suffering the lamentable backwardness and
misfortune of still being children.

The problem with the Internet as a classroom tool is that it has been
conceived as a universally accessible, public medium.  Very little about
it conduces to the organic emergence of a local, intentional environment
with the sort of character that an intimate, place-based community can
nurture and protect.  When a Virginia law made it illegal to send
pornography to children over the Internet, a U.S. District judge threw
the
law out on the ground that you cannot effectively deny this material to
children without in practice also denying it to adults.

Why not draw the obvious conclusion instead of walking around in circles
with our hands in our pockets, whistling innocently, and gazing vaguely
skyward as if to way, "Gee, isn't this a terrible puzzle?  I wonder
where
we'll find an answer?"  The real puzzle is why we have so resolutely
turned away from the simple answer that is being shouted at us:  the
Internet just doesn't seem to be a good candidate for mediating a
child's
education.

Even if this conclusion were not dictated from many other sides, it
would
be suggested by the dead end our society seems to have reached regarding
the control of Internet content.  Anyone whose ideas about education can
be taken seriously realizes that the child's educational environment
needs
to be "child-shaped" -- that is, it needs to be family- and community-
based, secure, and specially designed to serve children.  A medium that
can override all such design aims in unpredictable ways, including the
extreme of pornographic invasion, hardly seems a natural candidate for
classroom use.

All of which brings me to this.  Aren't we about due for a new, multi-
billion-dollar educational fad?  Well, I happen to have a program in
mind
that is neither faddish nor costly.  In fact, it would *reduce*
educational spending by many billions of dollars, simplify the
classroom,
remove from teachers the crushing burden and distraction of special
training unrelated to their educational interests, give students much
more
time to occupy themselves with educational content, increase teacher
pay,
allow for higher teacher-student ratios, and, incidentally, put an end
to
the absurdity whereby parents are asked to sign off on legal immunity
for
schools that deliberately put children in harm's way.

Think about it.  Educators can breathe again.  If anyone had
realistically
offered such an array of benefits ten years ago -- before the Internet
hit
the educational scene with full force -- it would have been considered
an
unparalleled gift from heaven.  Of course, the gift couldn't have been
offered ten years ago.  We needed a decade of collective insanity first.
But now the gift *can* be offered, it is perfectly realistic, and it
requires only the simplest imaginable reform: take all those computers
out
of the classroom and send them back to the manufacturers for recycling.


Requiem for Distant Educators
-----------------------------

Katie Hafner has written what looks like the official obituary for the
distance education bubble ("Lessons Learned at Dot-Com U", *New York
Times*, May 3).  Among other things, she notes that "since the
mid-1990's,
most of the purely virtual universities that sprang up -- from Hungry
Minds to California Virtual University -- have been sold or scaled back
or
have disappeared altogether".

Much the same holds for the spin-offs from established universities.
Most
recently, Columbia University's senate urged the school to cut spending
on
its Fathom venture.  The Fathom Consortium, led by Columbia in
partnership
with the University of Chicago, London School of Economics, and others,
has yet to generate significant revenue, let alone turn a profit,
according to the executive vice provost at Columbia.  The tale is
similar
for Western Governors' University, New York University online, the
online
masters program at SUNY Buffalo College of Business, and numerous other
ventures.

Hafner points to a fundamental problem that has been underscored in
NetFuture from the very beginning:

   Some critics say that university administrators confused tools with
   education.  "We figured a quick wave of the magic wand and we'd
   reinvent how people learned after 900 years of a traditional
university
   mode of instruction," Dr. [Lev A.] Gonick [of Case Western Reserve
   University] said.

The one success story Hafner offers is the technically oriented
University
of Phoenix, with an online enrollment exceeding 37,000.  This
illustrates
the self-referential aspect of much of the Net's progress.  If there's
one
place computers ought to be essential, it's in learning about computers.
And if there's one place the web ought to be essential, it's in learning
about web programming, website management, and all the rest.  From the
earliest days of its ascendancy, a great deal of the clamor and
enthusiasm
for the Net as a public good came from those who were making it their
private good -- namely, programmers and other technical types, writers
excited to be on the Net in order to write about it, anthropologists and
sociologists excited to be on the Net in order to study its culture,
educators excited to be on the Net in order to promote its use in the
classroom, policy-makers excited to be on the Net in order to formulate
information-infrastructure policy -- all the way down to the
self-serving
entrepreneurs whose mutually supporting energies gave us the Internet
bubble and a national recession.

It's perfectly fine to be excited about your work as a programmer or
student of cyberculture.  The problem occurs only when the broader
society
loses its ability to retain perspective in the presence of its more
technology-obsessed sectors -- and in particular when it extrapolates
from
the Net's value for promoting the Net to the Net's value for doing other
things.  This loss of perspective seems to have occurred with a
vengeance.
The question now is whether the sobering news from Dot-com University
and
various other high-tech domains will encourage the rest of us to begin
getting a life -- a life that we don't automatically feel must be
piggybacked upon the latest technological craze.

Related article:

"The New, Soulless University", in NF #104

   http://www.netfuture.org/2000/Mar2100_104.html


High Noon at the DB Corral
--------------------------

According to Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation, the problem in
fighting terrorists isn't that we have too few databases.  It's that we
have too many.  "The single thing we could do to make life tougher for
terrorists would be to ensure that all the information in myriad
government databases was integrated into a single national file".
Ellison, whose company develops database software, has offered to donate
the tools for that single national file to the government.  He explains
further:

   We already have this large centralized database to keep track of
where
   you work, how much you earn, where your kids go to school, were you
   late on your last mortgage payment, when's the last time you got a
   raise .... Well, my God, there are *hundreds* of places we have to
look
   to see if you're a security risk.

As for privacy issues, "I really don't understand.  Central databases
already exist.  Privacy is already gone".

Ellison was asked whether the legal restrictions preventing government
agencies from sharing data should be relaxed.  "Oh, absolutely.  I mean
*absolutely*.  The prohibitions are absurd.  It's this fear of an
all-too-
powerful government rising up and snatching away our liberties".  Since
September 11, after all, "it's our *lives* that are at stake, not our
liberties".  When pressed about the possibility of government abuse of
personal information, Ellison replied:

   I feel like Alice has fallen through the looking glass .... Does this
   *other* database bother you here?  We can't touch *that* database
   because I won't be able to use my credit card.  Like, I won't be able
   to go to the mall!  Like that's really *disturbing*.  Like, don't
mess
   with my mall experience.  O.K., so people have to die over here
without
   this, but that's not going to affect my experience going to the mall
   .... I mean, what the hell is going on?

Finally, Ellison was asked whether there were differences between
centralized databases at the Oracle Corporation and centralized
government
databases:

   From the information-science standpoint, there's no difference at
all.
   These central databases are cheaper and better and they solve all
these
   problems.  We can manage credit risks that way.  We should be
managing
   security risks in exactly the same way.

Security experts point out that credit profiles can be drawn up using
well-known, standardized, and readily available data, whereas there are
no
known or foreseeable standards for identifying security risks in today's
world.  *Everything* is potentially relevant.  That makes for one
helluvan
unwieldy database.

But, for some reason, Ellison's remarks sent me off in an entirely
different direction -- to the early comparisons of the Internet with the
Old West.  As John Perry Barlow put it in 1990:

   Cyberspace ... has a lot in common with the 19th century West.  It is
   vast, unmapped, culturally and legally ambiguous, verbally terse ....
   hard to get around in, and up for grabs.  Large institutions already
   claim to own the place, but most of the actual natives are solitary
and
   independent, sometimes to the point of sociopathy.  It is, of course,
a
   perfect breeding ground for both outlaws and new ideas about liberty.

Well, I guess you could say cyberspace now has a sheriff, and his name
is
Larry Ellison.

But, actually, it never made much sense to take the Old West as your
guiding metaphor for understanding the culture of the Net.  Clearly the
primary thing to look at was our own contemporary culture, and the most
relevant aspect of this culture was precisely its remarkable degree of
abstraction from all particular places.

The only way to make the Old West comparison work is to realize that our
abstraction from place was already well advanced in the nineteenth
century, accounting for our destructive attitude toward the land, its
inhabitants, and their culture -- so that in this regard we definitely
do
have something in common with that earlier time.  But our detachment
from
place didn't pass away with the end of the frontier.  It continued to
increase, and the cultural corrosiveness of the Net is therefore very
much
an expression of the reigning forces of our own time.

Our progressive detachment from place can be traced through the past
several centuries until, during the twentieth century, it was met by a
counter-movement.  This counter-movement comprised environmentalism, the
formation of land trusts and intentional communities, the preservation
of
wilderness, the development of a science of ecology, the pursuit of
localism and voluntary simplicity as new ideals, and much else.

So in our day we see two opposite movements, represented by the extreme,
placeless abstraction of the online world, on the one hand, and these
nascent efforts to rediscover the significance of place on the other.  A
great deal depends on our ability to find a fitting balance between the
two.

Don't however, look to Larry Ellison for this balance.  His remarks are
the unambiguous testimony of a pure citizen of cyberspace -- one for
whom
the human being has become simple in the way that only an abstraction
can
be simple.  He has, in his mind, reduced us to data, so that managing
complex social issues becomes primarily a matter of managing databases.
To conflate western heroes:  he is Wyatt Earp, with every bullet a
silver
one.  Perhaps not coincidentally, he also has a huge personal investment
in the bullet factory.

(Quotations are from "Silicon Valley's Spy Game" by Jeffrey Rosen, *New
York Times Magazine*, April 14, 2002.)

Related articles:

"Privacy in an Age of Data", parts 1 - 3, in NF #28, #29, 30

   http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Sep2596_28.html (part 1)
   http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Oct1796_29.html (part 2)
   http://www.netfuture.org/1996/Oct2496_30.html (part 3)


On Giving Rats a Virtual Life
-----------------------------

After implanting remote-controlled electrodes in a rat's brain,
scientists
have used a laptop computer to "accurately steer the animal, in real
time,
over any arbitrarily specified three-dimensional route and over a range
of
real-world terrains".  Writing in *Nature* (May 2, 2002), they inform us
that "a guided rat can be developed into an effective 'robot' that will
possess several natural advantages over current mobile robots".

Rats navigate in part based on sensations received through their
sensitive
whiskers.  So the scientists placed two of the electrodes in sites of
the
brain associated with left and right whisker sensations.  By stimulating
one or another of these sites, they were able to steer the rat.
Moreover,
stimulation of a different site in the brain can act as a cue or reward
for scientifically correct behavior.

So now you have a way to train rats that does not depend on a particular
mechanical or environmental set-up, and you can deliver rewards that are
(in the scientists' words) "relatively non-satiating" -- rewards that do
not require the rat to "initiate consummatory behavior" (that is, the
rat
needn't interrupt its activities by eating real rewards).  As a result
of
all this, the scientists at their laptops had rats "running forwards and
turning instantaneously on cue" -- and even navigating areas they would
normally avoid, such as open, brightly lit spaces.

Naturally, the technical report comes with a reminder of how useful
these
rats might be.  Due to their ability to explore "large, collapsed piles
of
concrete rubble", they could be used for "search and rescue in areas of
urban destruction".  You hear the intended resonance, of course.  We are
supposed to imagine robo-rats along with firemen and police as the
heroes
of our terrorized future.  (Will there be salesmen for *anything* over
the
next few years who do not employ this resonance in their advertising
slogans?)

I have stared at this report for a couple of weeks, at a loss for words.
I try not to write pieces that do little more than point at shameful
things and say, "Oh, how terrible!"  Yet, what else is there to say?
I'm
quite sure that some people will respond to this story with utter
abhorrence, while others will not have a clue as to why anyone should be
disturbed -- and neither group (one very small and the other enormous,
to
judge from the lack of response to the story) will have anything
meaningful to say to the other.  We really do seem to be coming to a
great
divide.

For what it's worth, however, here are a few brief observations:

** These scientists are engaged in a kind of practical Cartesianism:
the
animal organism is not only conceived as a machine, but treated as one
and
even partially reduced to one.  From the very beginning, such practice
has
been an essential support for the more philosophic Cartesianism.

** The rat research gives us a vivid picture of the direction and
significance of digital technologies.  Nothing within the technological
juggernaut itself seems capable of raising any ethical question about
this
technical accomplishment, whether it be applied to rats or humans.  We
find ourselves staring at the practical relation between technology and
the living organism, as this relation is seen from the side of
technology.
The problem is that by the time we gain a picture of such crystalline
clarity, most of us have already become so accustomed to many of its
features that we hardly notice it.

** A rat lives in a world that comes to it in part through its whiskers.
The researchers have removed it from this world, substituting a ghastly
nightmare spun out by technicians at keyboards.  Behold the virtual
life!
My colleague, Craig Holdrege, remarked on the irony that we have not
only
made these rats more like machines, but by doing so we have also made
them
more like humans.  That is, now we can disconnect rats from their
natural
environment as thoroughly as we have disconnected ourselves.

** A massive portion of our lives is spent watching television.  This
means that a substantial amount of our sensory input -- while still
mediated by our sense organs (unlike the virtual whisker sensations of
the
rats) -- is almost as radically disconnected from all the rest of our
lives as those experiences of the rats.  We lose ourselves in sense
experience without meaning or significance, in sensations designed to be
high-impact, but without any coherent relation to the meanings and
purposes we pursue, or once pursued, apart from the magical screen.  We
sit there passively sucked up into the disconnected, chaotic dreams spun
out by, yes, technicians at keyboards.  Except that these technicians
happen to reside, not in scientific laboratories, but on Madison Avenue,
in Hollywood, and in the high-tech industry.  With our concurrence, they
steal our senses from us.

** This was not a good day for me to receive, in a charitable mood, a
book
advertisement from MIT Press announcing Cynthia L. Breazeal's *Designing
Sociable Robots*.  The sociable robot of the future, I learned from the
announcement, will be "a synthetic creature and not merely a
sophisticated
tool .... Eventually sociable robots will assist us in our daily lives,
as
collaborators and companions".  The lifelike quality of a robot Breazeal
developed encourages us to treat it "as a social creature rather than
just
a machine".

Why in the world would we want to engage in the ditzy exercise of
pretending a robot is a living being, when we're also engaged in the
dead-
earnest exercise of converting living beings into robots?  But I guess
the
real meaning of both exercises is the same:  to train ourselves in
losing
awareness of any distinction between robots and living beings.  Most of
the "great philosophical issues" in cognitive science today come down
mainly to the question whether we are training ourselves toward greater
awareness of such distinctions, or toward reduced awareness.  Our
philosophical perspective naturally follows from, and is "proven" by,
the
limitations of our awareness.

** There was a time when this work on rats would have been universally
condemned as unnatural -- against nature.  If we can no longer condemn
anything at all as unnatural, it is because we have no clear notion of
the
nature of things.  And if we have no clear notion of the nature of
things,
it is because, in our pursuit of a purely quantitative ideal of science,
we have progressively been losing awareness of qualities.  It is only
the
qualitative character of an organism that expresses its way of being in
the world, and we cannot say what is fitting or not fitting in our
treatment of the organism without some sense for this character and this
way of being.  Scientists willfully ignoring the qualities of things
have
no basis for responding one way or another to the charge that they are
committing unnatural acts.  If they were true to their intellectual
commitments, they would simply hold silent in the face of the charge --
or
acknowledge their inability to respond meaningfully to it.  But as
things
look now, it appears unlikely they will even have to *hear* the charge.

Related articles:

"Toward a 'Final Theory' of the Sloth?" in *In Context* #3

   http://www.netfuture.org/ni/ic/ic3/sloth.html

"The Trouble with Qualities" in *In Context* #6:

   http://www.netfuture.org/ni/ic/ic6/qualities.html

SLT

 =======================================================================
==

                       ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RESOURCES


Genetic Engineering and the Intrinsic Value of Organisms
--------------------------------------------------------

The International Forum for Genetic Engineering will hold a workshop
September 18 - 21, 2002, in Edinburgh, Scotland, entitled "Genetic
Engineering and the Intrinsic Value and Integrity of Animals and
Plants".
Presenters at the workshop will include Harry Griffin, assistant
director
of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh (where Dolly was cloned), Craig
Holdrege, director of The Nature Institute (publisher of NetFuture), and
Holmes Rolston III, professor of philosophy at Colorado State
University.

The workshop's title already indicates something of its unusual nature,
as
scientific conferences on genetics go.  The aim is to bring together the
variety of viewpoints necessary in order to go beyond extremely
one-sided
and purely technical considerations.  So the disciplines represented at
the workshop will include, beside molecular biology:  farming and animal
husbandry, plant and animal breeding, ethics, law, economics, and
phenomenological science.

The Nature Institute's affiliate researcher, Johannes Wirz, was one of
the
group of Europeans who founded Ifgene in 1995.  The organization aims
"to
promote a deeper dialogue about genetic engineering by giving special
attention to:

** the worldviews out of which people approach science and its
application
   to genetic engineering (biotechnology)

** the moral and spiritual implications of genetic engineering."

For more information about the workshop, which will be held at
Edinburgh's
Royal Botanic Garden, contact David Heaf ([log in to unmask]) or
go to http://www.anth.org/ifgene/2002.htm.

 =======================================================================
==

                          ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER

NetFuture, a freely distributed newsletter dealing with technology and
human responsibility, is published by The Nature Institute, 169 Route
21C,
Ghent NY 12075 (tel: 518-672-0116; web: http://www.natureinstitute.org).
Postings occur roughly every three or four weeks.  The editor is Steve
Talbott, author of *The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the
Machines
in Our Midst* (http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/index.html).

Copyright 2002 by The Nature Institute.

You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes.  You
may
also redistribute individual articles in their entirety, provided the
NetFuture url and this paragraph are attached.

NetFuture is supported by freely given reader contributions, and could
not
survive without them.  For details and special offers, see
http://www.netfuture.org/support.html .

Current and past issues of NetFuture are available on the Web:

   http://www.netfuture.org/

To subscribe to NetFuture send the message, "subscribe netfuture
yourfirstname yourlastname", to [log in to unmask] .  No
subject line is needed.  To unsubscribe, send the message, "signoff
netfuture".

Send comments or material for publication to Steve Talbott
([log in to unmask]).

If you have problems subscribing or unsubscribing, send mail to:
[log in to unmask] .

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
March 2022
February 2022
October 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager