Time lapse doodle: Mark Weiser’s 1991 “Computer for the 21st Century” [video]

It failed because I had no prior experience of developing hardware, and had rather a lot of back luck with HW engineering contractors and contract manufacturers. Some of the story is recounted at https://changelog.com/posts/how-i-volunteered-to-rearchitect...

I was extremely lucky and privileged to be introduced to Mark when I was in high school, and he gave me an account on Mimsy, the UMD CS Department's Vax 11/780 running 4.1 BSD. Once I finally enrolled as an undergrad student, he hired me to work on the CS department systems staff, and invited me to join his Heterogeneous Systems Laboratory.

I enjoyed the the university people and environment so much, and had so many fun toys to play with, that it took me 6 years to finally get my shit together and graduate!

By then he'd left to run Xerox PARC. It was hard for the CS Department to lose him, but it was the perfect job for him.

I was offered an internship at PARC when I graduated in 1990, but after I was accepted, they belatedly told me I was required to submit to a pre-employment urine test.

So I took and passed the test, then turned the job down, by writing a letter to the CEO of Xerox explaining why, then went to work for Sun instead.

I certainly regret missing the opportunity to work at PARC and with Mark and other great people, but I don't regret my decision to take the test, turn down the job, and write a letter explaining why, and there were no hard feelings on either side.

I discussed it recently in the recent thread about "Amazon backs marijuana legalization, drops weed testing for some jobs":

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27365388

>They certainly used to, and still do in many places. I turned down a job at Xerox PARC in 1990 because of their ill conceived drug testing policy, after taking and passing their drug test. The actual employees at PARC were overwhelmingly against the corporate drug testing policy, and regretted but supported me turning down the job offer, and Xerox eventually changed their ill conceived policy.

I wrote Mark about the piss test, and this is his reply. I took his sagely advice, and wrote a letter explaining why I turned the job down, which I faxed to Paul Allaire (CEO of Xerox) and the ACLU:

Date: Mar 15, 1990, 6:14 PM From: Mark Weiser <mark@arisia.xerox.com> To: hopkins, weiser.pa

The piss test is horrible, awful, invades privacy, is the stupidest thing Xerox has ever done (even worse than fumbling the Alto, because that did not hurt anyone except stockholders pockets.) Asking questions about it certainly does not mean losing the job--we have great respect for people who ask such questions, as everyone here did and continues to do. The resistance has dropped to a dull roar, we are resigned to living it with it for awhile, and hoping it will go away (there is some chance, but not anytime this year or next).

But meanwhile, there is not much anyone can do. It has been appealed up and down, by me personally among others, and it just is going to stand for the time being.

If you felt so strongly about it that you felt you could not take the test, I would understand, but then PLEASE write a letter saying that is the reason you did not come. Ammunition.

Its hard for me to encourage you to take the test, since I also disagree with it. I don't know what I would do in your shoes. I would like to have you here this summer. That means you need to take the piss test. So I guess I hope you decide you will. But its got to be a personal decision. Honestly, no hard feelings either way.

You ask "I'd like to talk about it, to find out what is going on and why, and who I can direct the questions to, in order to do the most good".

There probably is not anyone like that. Everyone at PARC seems to think the test is a terrible idea, from the top management on down, including the personnel people. You could talk to our personnel guy, bill skinner, with your questions. Phone him at 415-xxx-xxxx, if you like. He'll give you the standard institutional answers, but he is a nice guy and it is his job to know all the details about the tests, why, etc. Absolutely no bad consequences from asking questions.

-mark

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 17:01:40 PDT From: Bill_Skinner:PARC:xerox To: Weiser:PARC:xerox Subject: Hopkins passes drug test

Mark/Joe (Charlton):

Xerox Medical emailed Mae this morning to say that Don Hopkins' drug test results were negative. I called and left a message for him at home.

Bill

Urine Saga:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/urine-saga.html

>I sent a letter to Paul Allair, CEO of Xerox Corporation, turning down a summer internship that I had been offered at Xerox PARC, because of their pre-employment urine testing policy -- after I had taken and passed the urine test. But it was not so easy -- the story follows... [...]

Conversation with Dan Calvin, UMD Urine Czar:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/urine-czar.html

>[...] He said that whatever I did, it would only be a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't mean anything.

>I said that at least it would be a drop in the right bucket.

Letter to Paul Allaire:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/xerox-letter.html

>[...] Even though I passed the drug test, and am completely qualified for the summer internship at Xerox PARC, I must turn it down because of the drug testing policy. I couldn't feel good about working for Xerox after the violation of my privacy, the ordeal I've been through, and the lack of respect I've been shown. The decision was a painful one: regardless of the cloud of urine testing hanging over it, Xerox PARC is a most prestigious place, where I could have been exposed to many great ideas, and met some of the best people in the profession.

>I wish I could have spent the summer at Xerox PARC, but instead I have taken a full time job at Sun Microsystems, a company that respects its employees enough to provide a drug free work place without invading their privacy. I won't be looking for other employment in the forseeable future, but I would be delighted to hear when Xerox has changed its drug testing policy. Until such a time, I hope that potential job applicants learn about the policy before they decide to apply.

>I sympathize with my colleagues who work in positions they would no longer be willing to accept on moral grounds, and who have been forced to compromise their principles because of other responsibilities.

>"What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?"

>-- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.