The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud692.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 41.9 KB | 868 lines

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

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--1994-10-17 Veep Gore on Telecommunications Reform (fwd)

From--Paul Evan Peters <[e-mail]>
To--Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>

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:  [phone]
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

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." <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 11:40:58 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
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." <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail])

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 <[e-mail]>
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: [phone]
 E-mail: [e-mail]
 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: [phone], email [e-mail].

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1994 22:51:01 CDT
From: CuD Moderators <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail] or [e-mail]
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax [phone])
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 [phone] (and via Ripco on  internet);
and on Rune Stone BBS (IIRGWHQ) [phone].
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: [phone]
          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
************************************