Computer underground Digest Sun Oct 23, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 92 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Sun Oct 23, 1994 Volume 6 : Issue 92 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Retiring Shadow Archivist: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Mini-biscuit editor: Guy Demau Passant CONTENTS, #6.92 (Sun, Oct 23, 1994) File 1--1994-10-17 Veep Gore on Telecommunications Reform (fwd) File 2--"Does Emily really need to read and write in 2020world? File 3--Re: More Gems from Spam-meister Siegel (NYT Excerpts) File 4--NSF/Internet changes (Computers in Physics reprint) File 5--Clipper T-shirts are ready File 6--Graduate and Postdoc Fellowship Opportunities. File 7--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 23 Oct 1994) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:58:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: File 1--1994-10-17 Veep Gore on Telecommunications Reform (fwd) From--Paul Evan Peters To--Multiple recipients of list Dear cni-announce subscribers: I am very pleased to share a hot-off-the-press and extremely powerful statement by VP Gore on the Administration's goals and strategies regarding telecommunications reform in light of the failure of legislation to pass in the last Congree. Best, Paul Paul Evan Peters Executive Director Coalition for Networked Information 21 Dupont Circle Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202-296-5098 Fax: 202-872-0884 Internet: paul@cni.org ================== Prepared Remarks by Vice President Al Gore to the Center for Communication New York, NY October 17, 1994 Good morning. About 120 years ago two Colorado mayors had a big decision to make. One was the Mayor of Aspen. The other: the Mayor of Ashcroft. The railroads were expanding through the West. The Union Pacific had to decide where to route its tracks through Colorado. Should they go through Ashcroft? Or should they go through that smaller town about twenty miles away? As the story goes, the Mayor of Aspen saw the future. He sold the Union Pacific on the virtues of his town. And that's why today, when you think of ski resorts, dinner theaters, buying jeans at Boogie's and vacation homes for Barbra Streisand, you think of Aspen. Ashcroft? Literally off the beaten track; it's a ghost town. The President has often said that the choice we face as a nation is whether to embrace the opportunity for change or try to hold it at arms' length, hoping we last long enough to survive. That's not much of a choice. And the President's decision has been clear. When the President fought successfully -- without a single Republican vote -- for a real program of budget deficit reduction, it was because he understood that the challenges we face require enormous change -- and concrete action. Action that has brought lower unemployment, low inflation, solid growth and more jobs. When the President fought successfully, against strong political opposition, for NAFTA, it was because he understood that our only hope in the marketplace of global competition is to compete, not retreat. And that's what we are doing. When Congress returns before the end of the year to approve the GATT agreement, it will follow the course that President Clinton has set out -- to base our future on the simple belief that American companies can be the most competitive and American workers the very best in the world -- and that we must master change if we are to be the masters of our fate. Are we prepared to take advantage of the coming information revolution? In today's -- and tomorrow's -- marketplace, no information company will be able to stand intransigently in the path of change. To be rooted in one spot will be, inevitably, to become rooted in the past. And among all the trends, there is one inexorable shift that we ignore at our peril --the shift from monopoly competition. In an era in which the Soviet Union has fallen and capitalism is ascendant in Eastern Europe, it should be no surprise that competition is about to reach even our local telephone exchanges. Competitive access providers are increasingly providing interstate telephony service to businesses that were once the sole domain of local telephone companies. Cable companies are seeking authority to provide local telephone service, and a recent survey reports that a third of cable subscribers would be willing to subscribe to comparably-priced telephone services provided by their cable company. New technologies offer the promise of competition. Consider the growth of wireless services. The number of cellular subscribers in the United States is expected to double by 1998, while entrepreneurs are planning to ring the Earth with satellites that will bring telephone services to people everywhere on the planet. The auction of PCS spectrum that begins in December, as a result of this Administration's leadership, may well reshape the structure of the marketplace by introducing wireless telephony competitive with traditional telephone wires. Some believe that, by the end of the decade, wireless telephone service could offer service at prices broadly competitive for some customers with traditional, wire-line telephone companies. That change alone would bring additional competition into the local and log-distance telephone markets. In the long run, competition will come. But we must confront, as well, the short run -- a time when significant regulatory monopolies exist and when policy makers must confront the choice: Towards competition or towards monopoly? What would happen if we tried to resist the trend to competition? First, technology and innovation would suffer. The opening of the long-distance market to competition drove down prices, improved quality, fostered innovative services and spurred the deployment of new national fiber-optic networks. Second, and perhaps more importantly, failure to end monopolies might, in fact, bring higher prices to residential telephone users. Surprised? You shouldn't be. State regulators are, quite rightly, permitting alternative carriers to provide telephone service to business customers == a trend that will continue even in the absence of new federal, deregulating regulation. But partial deregulation, if it stopped there, could actually lead to increased upward pressure on residential rates, as local telephone companies seek to replace lost business revenues. Residential customers could find themselves occupying the worst place in the marketplace -- isolated from the innovation and lower prices of competition but tied to an increasingly unprofitable monopoly provider That would not be in the public interest. We cannot return to the past and we cannot go halfway. The market for computers exemplifies the advantages of competition -- a high-technology product with increasing power and lower prices. Consumers for information products want what consumers always want --higher quality, lower prices and more choice. The only viable path is towards competition. But as we have recently discovered, the right course is not easy to attain. I was tremendously disappointed by the failure of reform legislation in this Congress. Throughout the year, the content of legislation increasingly conformed to the Administration's goals. The House of Representatives, led by Chairmen Dingell and Brooks, and Congressmen Markey and Fields, passed reform legislation by votes of 423 to 5 and 423 to 4. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1822 with strong, bi-partisan support. Then reform came to a stop under a barrage of special-interest attacks and "non- negotiable" demands. No one was immune from special-interest appeals. I have often talked about a little girl in my home town of Carthage, Tennessee sitting at her computer and traveling the information highway to explore the vast resources of the Library of Congress. But this September that little girl could have found in her parents' mail a letter from her local telephone company. "Please," it said, "keep S. 1822 from coming to a vote this year." Even as the telephone companies were engaged in what they described as serious, good-faith negotiations, this telephone company tried to disconnect its customers from the future. But those tactics won't work. Regulatory change will come. Because this fight is not being fought for the benefit of particular competitors, even competitors with entrenched market interests. It's being fought for consumers. It's not being fought for partisan advantage, either. One of the two main House bills was cosponsored by a Democrat, Ed Markey, and a Republican, Jack Fields; support on the House floor came from Democrats and Republicans, including Newt Gingrich. Seven of the nine Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee voted to approve S. 1822. But the change that we seek must truly lead us to a world of real competition. How do we do that? In particular, how can we resolve the interests of the Regional Bell Operating Companies and their potential competitors? The RBOCs legitimately want to use their expertise to compete in other markets --providing long-distance telephony, manufacturing equipment, supplying video programs. They worry that they will become "hollow monopolies" -- the purveyor of local telephone services, but only to customers that others do not wish to serve. On the other hand, their potential competitors, including long-distance and cable companies, are suspicious of the RBOCs. These companies fear that if the power of local telephone companies if unleashed before there is effective competition, they will become prey to RBOC monopolists. This debate is at the heart of the matter. Some would solve this conflict by having government declare "hands-off" and not trouble itself with the consequences. But unleashing monopoly power is not a path to competition. Senator Dole, in his list of "non-negotiable" amendments, proposed another approach. He suggests, for example, that regulatory monopolies be freed from most regulation when one -- just one -- competitor enters their marketplace. That means that a telephone company with 99% of the market would be treated as if it had no market power at all. That's not realistic, and it's certainly not real competition. We must do better than that, to protect the public interest and to promote private competition. We should begin with the basic principles that this Administration advocates as the basis for legislative reform -- private investment, real competition, open access, flexible governmental action and a commitment to universal service. Most fundamentally, we must remove barriers to entry, allowing competition for the delivery of local telephone service. But our experience, and the experience of regulators around the world, demonstrates that free entry will not by itself be enough. Interconnection and unbundling will be critical. Additional governmental action may be required to secure viable competitive opportunities for new entrants into local telephone markets. For example, we have proposed that companies lacking market power be exempt from the kind of price regulation that my be legitimately applied to companies that retain significant market power. The creation of competition in the local telephone exchanges is not just the business of Washington. Around the nation, progressive states -- New York is one -- are experimenting with methods of bringing the advantages of competition to their residents. Just last week, New York State approved the "Rochester Plan," which allows new competitors, like Time Warner, to provide local telephone service in Rochester while ensuring that local telephone rates will not rise for at least seven years. That's great. By bringing competition to consumers, states can help their consumers right now. By experimenting with different forms of regulation, states can provide valuable experience on how real competition can be achieved. By action now, states can demonstrate the inevitability of competition. That lesson is the most crucial of all. Because competition in the local telephone exchanges is a fundamental component of competition in the information marketplace at large. We do no impose competition as a punishment on those companies that have been granted regulatory monopolies, whether in telephony or cable or anywhere else. Rather we promote competition as an achievement in which they will be able to share. For example, local telephone companies must themselves be able to enter the long-distance markets, to manufacture equipment, and to supply video services. With safeguards to prevent the abuse of continuing market power, we will be on our way to the information marketplace that I described earlier this year -- one in which any company will be able to provide any service to any potential customer. But the marketplace, and the interests of consumers, cannot wait. That is why we must push forward on all fronts. Let me mention just a few. First, the Administration will work with the states -- with governors, state legislatures, and state regulatory commissions -- to encourage competition in the local loop. We are planning a Federal-State-Local Government Telecom Summit to take place in early 1995, an occasion to meet and voluntarily discuss both state and federal telecommunications policies. We will consider participating in state proceedings as well. Second, the Administration will also support measures by the FCC to promote competition by opening up interstate markets, promoting number assignments and portability, and fostering interstate interconnection. We will urge the Commission to move forward on these initiatives. We will also encourage the Commission to work with the States in order to facilitate an interoperable, accessible National Information Infrastructure. Both state and FCC action will help to create the conditions for reform. Businesses that face new markets and new competitors will be willing, I believe, to get down to the business of change. Third, we will continue to press for federal legislation in the next Congress. And we will join efforts with state governments and industry participants that have demonstrated their commitment to competition. The passage of federal legislation remains absolutely necessary. Technology may bring some additional competition in the near future, but not enough and certainly not fast enough. In a world of 18-month product cycles, innovation delayed is innovation denied. Legislation is necessary to serve the public interest in opening markets now, and to ensure the achievement of our other basic goals, including universal services and flexible government action. Legislation is necessary to ensure that the United States adopts national principles that permit it to remain a global leader in information technology. How ironic it would be if, from the vantage point of a Global Information Infrastructure, we faced a untied Europe but a fractured United States? Finally, we will continue to work toward our goal of connecting every classroom, library, hospital and clinic to the NII by the year 2000. Last January I challenged the private sector to work with us to realize this goal and I repeat that challenge today. The private sector, as much as any citizen, has a stake in the education and good health of every American. We must work together, if not voluntarily, then through progressive legislation. I have talked today about markets. But the impact of our reforms will be felt by people. This Administration will work hard to free up markets for competition and profits. This Administration will work equally hard to ensure that our children and our workers and our citizens in general enjoy the benefits of information technology to build better lives and better communities. We are not embarked just on grand technology policy nor even economic policy. When a pregnant mother can be monitored by her doctor from home, or parents buy educational software for their children, or workers are able to be more productive because of new information technologies, then we have used innovative technology to pursue the American dream. This is our tradition. We must make sure that our national information highway bypasses no one. We cannot allow this country, or any community within our country, to become a communications ghost town. For to be left off the beaten track in the information age is to be cut off from the future. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 11:15:00 EST From: "Straw, Scott F." Subject: File 2--"Does Emily really need to read and write in 2020world? "Does Emily really need to read and write in 2020world? I feel compelled to respond, although doing so launches me into a domain where I have little experience and a great deal of uneasiness. Yes, Emily will need to read and write in 2020world, and in my estimation, the need for those skills will be greater than her mother's today. I am a college graduate as a communications major. In my class of 1983, "electronic journalists" out numbered the print journalism grads easily 5 to 1. Appearance was everything and the ability to paint stories with pictures was paramount. In my classes content was more important than style; what you say, "the 5 W's," was more hotly debated than predicated nouns and dangling participles. Three years ago, I took a position with an organization that was on the cutting edge of digital communications and networking. Electronic mail has become a staple of daily life. As I peruse the ten or twenty e-mails I receive each day and digest their content, their lack of style can often be a stumbling block to their comprehension. Some of the more glaring boners actually cause me to grimmace as I read the "To:" line and realize their errors (or ignorance) have been mystically transported to the desks of all levels of the organization, and competency opinions are being formed based on the word chioce and sentence construction of the author. John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemmingway, John Grisham, Jackie Collins, Art Buchwald, Dave Barry, and Charley Stough (ever heard of BONG? Check it out on the Internet) are "wordsmiths" of stellar proportions. They, each in their own unique manner, draw us into their worlds and imaginations with words, not pictures. Electronic mail requires language skills of the same caliber. We use them to express ideas without benefit of pictures. Whether the message is a request for software assistance, directions to the location of the company picnic, a romantic proposal, or a message from the CEO, when it is in writing, it is available for a much deeper scrutiny than a video/audio recording. Word choice and sentence composition becomes so much more critical. And, when that message exists in the electronic realm, at the touch of a key, your error-filled attempt at lucid thought can be everywhere in the ether the infamous "Green Card Lawyers" have been. (One good reason why I ought to kill this creation right now.) In 2020world, Emily will need to be able to construct sentences, spell words, and punctuate paragraphs like never before. Spellcheckers and "Gramitik" only go so far. Here are some actual examples: "External E-mail is working again. Please let me know is you are still having a problem." "I will need to take an extra 30 minutes on my Lunch break today SO i WILL BEE OUT FORM 12-1:30PM......I have to take care of some personal businesss." Though they are benign enough errors, and the ideas they were trying to express were communicated, would you want to be the author of these messages sent through out your organization? To close with a line from those great philosophers, Crosby Stills, and Nash: "Teach your children well, their father's health will slowly vanish." (I beg mercy on those of you with greater English skills than I, who would critique this with the sole thought of flaunting the superiority of your academic prowess. I will concede your cerebral mass probably exceeds mine.) Scott Straw sfs0@phpmts1.em.cdc.gov ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 11:40:58 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: File 3--Re: More Gems from Spam-meister Siegel (NYT Excerpts) A question that is never asked of Canter and Siegel, hence never answered, is, "why should Internet advertising be treated differently than other advertising?" Specifically, those who advertise products on media ranging from billboards to television pay princely sums to put their wares before the public. Indeed, commercial television is supported chiefly upon the income derived from selling commercial time. Newspapers and magazines around the country would fold overnight if deprived of advertising revenue. So here we sit along the information superhighway wondering how it will all survive, when the answer is clearly printed on the Canter and Siegel truck that just roared by. Television advertisers do not get to go out, buy a TV set, hook it up to cable and then hawk their products for no additional charge to the vast TV audience. Rather, they are required to pay six, seven, and even eight-digit sums to entice us to drink Pepsi, or to ride in a Chevy, or even to call a lawyer. Canter and Siegel hook up to the Internet, probably paying less than I, a non-advertiser. Then they express entitlement to begin advertising. Whoa! The Internet costs money to maintain. The future of the funding for the backbone is up in the air. How about extracting some of that money from advertisers, real-world-style? Watching the late movie, I put up with ambulance-chasing lawyers drumming for business because I know they are paying the TV station's electric bill or even the kid running the video switcher. Not so when I have Canter and Siegel's ad covering my screen--they have not paid a dime to defray the costs of the Internet infrastructure. So how about a little change? If business-hungry lawyers (or any others) want to advertise on the Internet, let them. Then some volunteer could send them the rate card for that advertising and expect a deposit to an escrow account set up for the purpose. I suspect that anyone would be hard pressed to name another medium where advertising is free, or at no charge over and above the normal "subscriber" price. Why should it be so here? Particularly when there are major costs to be defrayed. Until a mechanism is created to allow potential (and real) Internet advertisers to carry the burden of the medium they wish to exploit, let us please hear less about any user's right to advertise on the net. Such advertising, without paying for it, is freeloading of the first magnitude. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:58:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "ter Meer, Dr. H.-U." Subject: File 4--NSF/Internet changes (Computers in Physics reprint) INTERNET TRAFFIC FOR THE 1984-1994 DECADE amounted to 3 x 10**14 bytes, half of that coming in the past year alone. To better accommodate future needs, the principal conduit for this flood of data, the National Science Foundation network, has just been restructured. According to Glenn Ricart of the University of Maryland, a number of changes in Internet traffic will result: (1) The price charged by the NSF network for participating institutions will go up but, because of the economy of scale, the expected price per usage should remain about the same. (2) Large institutions will probably still continue to pay for service at a flat rate but others may soon be billed by the byte. (3) Some institutions which formerly offered network access to individuals outside their immediate user group as a public service are now contracting or eliminating these services. Hereafter these popular services might be underwritten by corporate sponsorship (like public television) or made available through subscription. Ricart believes the impact of these changes will be small at first but will increase through the years: "The new Internet will not be free, but it is likely to get your dollars or ECUs faster by attracting them than by extracting them." (Computers in Physics, Sep/Oct 1994.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 00:14:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Norman J Harman Subject: File 5--Clipper T-shirts are ready The shirts are ready!!! Sizes available (S, M, L, XL) The price for one shirt mailed in the U.S. is $8.50 (International persons please E-mail me for postage cost normh@crl.com) Make checks/money orders payable to Smiley Publishing Company Send to: Smiley Publishing Company PO Box 420943 San Francisco, CA 94142-0943 Many of you who responed to my posts expressed the desire to have higher quality shirts. I talked to Zerolith and they where happy to provide 100% pre-shrunk cotton shirts that are not much more expensive than the 50/50 ones. The original price I quoted was for a one sided shirt. But there were many good ideas and I think this design will attrac t more people and thus discussion. These two factors combined caused the price increase. Hopefully you still thi nk it is a good deal. I would like to restate that this is the cost for the shirts and postage. I am not making a profit nor will I make any money to donate to a charity, although I am using one to silk-screen the shirts(see below). The shirts are white 100% pre-shrunk cotton The front has a "Big Brother Inside" Logo, and a chip with the word "clipper". The back has the following top-ten list (possibly with changed order or slight wording/spelling/grammer corrections); "Top 10 reasons to Say No to Clipper" #1 "Can't trust Clinton not to read McDonalds recipes for Big Mac secret sauce." #2 "We all know its just so the FBI can get free phone sex." #3 "The spies at NSA will get eyestrain reading all of Santa's mail." #4 "Because a policeman's job is only easy in a Police State." #5 "The Clipper chip will cause it to be slightly less convenient to plan protests, revolutions, conspiraces, and bake sales." #6 "The 4th Amendment was a pretty good idea. Read it." #7 "If the Feds listened to my conversations they would be too bored and sleepy to defend our country." #8 "Responsibility and Government don't mix. See #10" #9 "It will get the stupid crooks out of the way for the government sponsored ones." #10 "If they learn how unhappy we are with the government they might start shutting down BBS's, killing off divergent religious groups, illegalizing art, conducting radioactive tests with us, censoring books, and keeping files on us. Thanks to the following for their ideas. David Merriman Robert Herndon Doug Moore Rob Deairsto Jeff Holland Donald Alan Thanks to everyone else who made suggestions. Sorry they could not all be used A worthy cause is better if it benefits another good cause so the shirts will be silk-screened by Zerolith, part of a non-profit organization that employs, shelters, and assists homeless youth. If you would like to talk with Zerolith or donate money directly here is how to contact them. Zerolith 3075 21st Street San Francisco, CA 94110-2626 415.641.1014 voice 415.641.1474 fax ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 16:03:52 EST From: email list server Subject: File 6--Graduate and Postdoc Fellowship Opportunities. (CPSR NOTE: Andrew Knutsen of the National Research Council asked us to publish this list of graduate fellowship opportunities. Even though the posting is not directly related to CPSR, programs like these that open up opportunities in computer science will promote greater diversity in the field and therefore furthers our interest in social responsibility. Please pass word of these opportunities along to anyone you know who might be interested. -- CPSR-ANNOUNCE Editor.] ============= August 1994 The Fellowship Office of the National Research Council administers the predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship programs outlined briefly below. Additional information and application materials will become available in September 1994. Telephone: (202) 334-2872 E-mail: infofell@nas.edu Snail mail address: Fellowship Office, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418. 1. Ford Foundation Predoctoral and Dissertation Fellowships for Minorities Application deadline: November 4, 1994 - Open to United States citizens who are members of the following minority groups: Alaskan Natives (Eskimo or Aleut), American Indians, Black/African Americans, Mexican Americans/Chicanos, Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesian or Micronesian), and Puerto Ricans. - Awards are made for study in research-based doctoral programs (PhD or ScD) that will lead to careers in teaching and research at the university or college level in the behavioral and social sciences, humanities, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, and life sciences. - Study in programs that are practice-oriented is not supported. Awards are not made for work leading to degrees in areas related to business, administration, management, health sciences, home economics, library science, speech pathology, audiology, personnel, guidance, social work, fine arts, performing arts, or education. - Awards are not made for work leading to terminal masters degrees, doctorates in education (PhD or EdD), Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA) degrees, professional degrees in such areas as medicine, law, or public health, or for study in joint degree programs such as MD/PhD, JD/PhD, and MFA/PhD programs. - Persons holding a doctoral degree earned in any field at any time are not eligible to apply. Predoctoral Fellowships are intended for students who are at or near the beginning of their graduate study. - Applicants must not have completed, by the beginning of the fall 1994 term, more than 30 semester hours, 45 quarter hours, or equivalent, of graduate-level study in fields supported by this program whether or not credit for that study is applied toward another advanced degree (including a master's degree). "Graduate-level study" includes course work, research, and seminars. This guideline is applied to graduate study completed after October 1, 1984. - Predoctoral Fellowship applicants are required to submit GRE General Test scores from tests taken since October 1, 1989. Dissertation Fellowships are intended for PhD or ScD degree candidates who have finished all course work, examinations, language requirements, and all other departmental and institutional requirements except for the writing and defense of the dissertation, and who have gained approval of the dissertation proposal/topic. - Applicants must have satisfied all of the above conditions by February 14, 1995, and expect to complete the dissertation during the 1995-96 academic year, but in no case later than fall 1996. - Fellowship support is intended for the final year of dissertation writing. 2. Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowships for Minorities Application deadline: January 6, 1995 - Open to United States citizens who are members of the following minority groups: Alaskan Natives (Eskimo or Aleut), American Indians, Black/African Americans, Mexican Americans/Chicanos, Native Pacific Islanders (Polynesian or Micronesian), and Puerto Ricans. - Applicants are required to have earned the PhD or ScD degree by January 6, 1995, and may not have held the degree for more than seven years as of January 6, 1995. - Only those individuals already engaged in a teaching and research career or those planning such a career are eligible to apply in this program. - Awards are for postdoctoral research and will be made in the behavioral and social sciences, humanities, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences and life sciences, or for interdisciplinary programs composed of two or more eligible disciplines. - Awards will not be made in professions such as medicine, law, social work, library science, public health and in areas related to business, administration, management, fine arts, performing arts, speech pathology, audiology, health sciences, home economics, personnel, guidance, and education. 3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Predoctoral Fellowships in Biological Sciences Application deadline: November 4, 1994 - Open to citizens or nationals of the United States or foreign nationals for graduate work in research-based doctoral programs (PhD or ScD) in biological sciences. - The following fields are eligible for support: biochemistry, biophysics, biostatistics, cell biology and regulation, developmental biology, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, mathematical biology, microbiology, molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, physiology, structural biology, and virology. - These fellowships are intended for students at or near the beginning of their graduate study toward a PhD or ScD degree in the designated biological sciences. Applicants must not have completed, by the beginning of the fall 1994 term, one year or more of postbaccalaureate graduate study in biological sciences, whether or not that study was toward a master's or doctoral degree or was outside of a degree program. - The following will not preclude eligibility: 1) graduate study that took place more than 10 years prior to application, 2) graduate study toward a Master of Public Health degree, 3) study in biological sciences that was toward a medical or dental degree (MD, DO, DVM, or DDS), and 4) graduate study prior to entry into medical or dental school. - If study has been part time, the applicant must not have completed more than seven courses in a semester system or more than eight courses in a quarter system. To be considered part-time, the program of study must have been limited to no more than two courses each semester or quarter. - Individuals who are pursuing or who hold medical or dental degrees (MD, DO, DVM, or DDS) may also be eligible to apply for predoctoral fellowships. As in the case of other applicants, support is only for full-time study toward the PhD or ScD degree in the designated biological sciences and is intended for those at the beginning of their graduate study toward such a degree. These applicants also must not have completed, by the beginning of the fall 1994 term, the first year of a full-time graduate program in biological sciences, or the equivalent in part-time study. - Medical students who have received financial support through a funded MD/PhD program (whether formal or informal) are not eligible for these fellowships. - Applicants must have scores from the GRE General Test; if not provided, the fellowship application will be withdrawn from the competition. - Foreign nationals whose primary language is not English are required to submit scores from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). If a required TOEFL score is not provided to the NRC, the fellowship application will be withdrawn from the competition. 4. U.S. Department of Energy Integrated Manufacturing Predoctoral Fellowships Application deadline: November 4, 1994 - Open to United States citizens or nationals, or permanent resident aliens of the United States. - This program seeks to create a pool of PhDs trained in the integrated approach to manufacturing; it is anticipated that the program will result in the creation of new manufacturing methods that will contribute to improved energy efficiency, to better utilization of scarce resources, and to less degradation of the environment. - The program's emphasis will be on integrated systems of manufacturing, including but not limited to, large scale systems, and integration of product design with manufacturing processes. Typical generic frontier research issues are: How do the properties of a product--and hence its processing characteristics--depend on the structure of the product (i.e., the size and shape of its parts, their contacts and connectivity, and their composition)? How does the product structure depend on the starting materials and processing conditions by which the product is created? How should the product be designed and its manufacture controlled to achieve reliably the desired functions and properties? Proposed research may address related areas such as aspects of unit operations, tooling and equipment, intelligent sensors and manufacturing systems, as they relate to product design. - Individuals from engineering backgrounds as well as those from other applied science fields that can be related to the multidisciplinary nature of integrated manufacturing are encouraged to apply. - Eligible applicants must have received a master's degree before the beginning of the fall 1995 term. - The prerequisite of a master's degree will be waived for applicants with a bachelor's degree admitted to a doctoral program prior to the beginning of the fall 1995 term, as demonstrated by having passed a qualifying examination. - Evidence of postbaccalaureate professional industrial experience equivalent to an advanced degree may be offered by an applicant in lieu of the master's degree requirement. - Applicants must intend to work toward a PhD degree at an academic institution that offers a PhD degree program in which study related directly to an integrated approach to manufacturing can be pursued. - This fellowship program will not support work toward a terminal master's degree. Andrew Knutsen, Fellowship Office TJ2042, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington DC 20148, tel: 202-334-2413, email aknutsen@nas.edu. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Information (unchanged since 23 Oct 1994) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send a one-line message: SUB CUDIGEST your name Send it to LISTSERV@UIUCVMD.BITNET or LISTSERV@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) (203) 832-8441. CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893; In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 In BELGIUM: Virtual Access BBS: +32.69.45.51.77 (ringdown) UNITED STATES: etext.archive.umich.edu (192.131.22.8) in /pub/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ uceng.uc.edu in /pub/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) JAPAN: ftp.glocom.ac.jp /mirror/ftp.eff.org/Publications/CuD The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the NIU Sociology gopher at: tk0gphr.corn.cso.niu.edu (navigate to the "acad depts;" "liberal arts;" "sociology" menus, and it'll be in CuDs. COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #6.92 ************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank