The role of the host in a cooperating mainframe and workstation environment, volumes 1 and 2

In recent years, advancements made in computer systems have prompted a move from centralized computing based on timesharing a large mainframe computer to distributed computing based on a connected set of engineering workstations. A major factor in this advancement is the increased performance and lower cost of engineering workstations. The shift to distributed computing from centralized computing has led to challenges associated with the residency of application programs within the system. In a combined system of multiple engineering workstations attached to a mainframe host, the question arises as to how does a system designer assign applications between the larger mainframe host and the smaller, yet powerful, workstation. The concepts related to real time data processing are analyzed and systems are displayed which use a host mainframe and a number of engineering workstations interconnected by a local area network. In most cases, distributed systems can be classified as having a single function or multiple functions and as executing programs in real time or nonreal time. In a system of multiple computers, the degree of autonomy of the computers is important; a system with one master control computer generally differs in reliability, performance, and complexity from a system in which all computers share the control. This research is concerned with generating general criteria principles for software residency decisions (host or workstation) for a diverse yet coupled group of users (the clustered workstations) which may need the use of a shared resource (the mainframe) to perform their functions

Mission Control Center (MCC) System Specification for the Shuttle Orbital Flight Test (OFT) Timeframe

System specifications to be used by the mission control center (MCC) for the shuttle orbital flight test (OFT) time frame were described. The three support systems discussed are the communication interface system (CIS), the data computation complex (DCC), and the display and control system (DCS), all of which may interfere with, and share processing facilities with other applications processing supporting current MCC programs. The MCC shall provide centralized control of the space shuttle OFT from launch through orbital flight, entry, and landing until the Orbiter comes to a stop on the runway. This control shall include the functions of vehicle management in the area of hardware configuration (verification), flight planning, communication and instrumentation configuration management, trajectory, software and consumables, payloads management, flight safety, and verification of test conditions/environment

Designating the Dangerous: From Blacklists to Watch Lists

This Article aims to remedy that gap with respect to one important component of the country\u27s current anti-terrorism strategy watch lists and to suggest some ways to avoid the worst excesses of the 1950s. A comparison of the two periods also serves to shed some light on the question of whether our institutions have learned from the experiences of the past in striking the balance between security and civil liberties. Part II of this Article gives a brief and broad-brush description of the McCarthy era blacklists and loyalty-security programs. Part III then describes the operation, bases for inclusion, and uses of today\u27s terrorist watch lists. Part IV compares the two eras\u27 labeling mechanisms along several axes. This Article focuses especially on the issue of false positives the identification of people as dangerous who in actuality are not. The task of watch listing is to find the very few real threats among the overwhelmingly innocent multitudes-the needle in the haystack, to use the familiar phrase. False positives are a concern of any adjudicatory system but have proven to be a particular problem with blacklists and watch lists. Part V draws some lessons from the past in order to address this question of accuracy. After rejecting the idea of abandoning watch lists entirely, this Article assesses three possible reforms: narrowing the substantive standard for selection; adding procedural protection, particularly some form of adversarial process; and restricting the uses of watch list results. Although these reforms are not mutually exclusive and some combination of all three could be adopted, this Article recommends that watch lists alone be used only to trigger investigation and other relatively minor impositions, along with visa and immigration admissions processing. In so doing, this Article highlights the relationship between substance, procedure, and effect in the law\u27s designation of the allegedly dangerous

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems

Based on their empirical study of New York\u27s computerized criminal history information system and on their national surveys of similar systems, Professors Doernberg and Zeigler conclude that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, or inappropriate, that information is routinely used by criminal justice officials and judges to make decisions affecting defendants\u27liberty. The authors argue that this practice is unconstitutional and suggest ways to regulate criminal history information suystems that would protect a defendant\u27s right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law

Due Process Versus Data Processing: An Analysis of Computerized Criminal History Information Systems

This article, based on a comprehensive empirical study of New York\u27s computerized criminal history information system and on national surveys of similar systems, concludes that current regulations governing the dispersion of criminal history information are grossly inadequate. Although information drawn from computerized criminal history files is often inaccurate, incomplete, ambiguous or inappropriate, criminal justice officials and judges routinely use such information in making decisions affecting defendants\u27 liberty. This practice is unconstitutional, and the article suggests ways to regulate criminal history information systems that would protect a defendant\u27s right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law

The Whitworthian 1997-1998

The Whitworthian student newspaper, September 1997-May 1998.https://digitalcommons.whitworth.edu/whitworthian/1081/thumbnail.jp