Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (02/11/84)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 10 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 18
Today's Topics:
Query - Programming Aptitude Tests,
Computers and the Law - New Access Law (2 msgs) &
Database Entry Disclosure (3 msgs),
Computers and People - Big Computer is Watching You &
Hackers & Telecollaboration Simulation,
Computers and the Media - Hacker/ing,
Information - CMU Interaction Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 84 19:26:38 CST
From: Stan Barber <sob@rice>
Subject: Testing Programming Aptitude or Compentence
To: AIlist@SRI-ai, telecom@mit-mc
Cc: stan@RICE, wert@RICE, va@RICE, fbag@RICE, rbbb@RICE, dave@RICE,
Cc: dbj@RICE,
I am interested in information on the following tests that have been
or are currently administered to determine Programming Aptitude or
Compentence.
1. Aptitude Assessment Battery:Programming (AABP) created by Jack M.
Wolfe and made available to employers only from Programming
Specialists, Inc. Brooklyn NY.
2. Programmer Aptitude/Compentence Test System sold by Haverly
Systems, Inc. (Introduced in 1970)
3. Computer Programmer Aptitude Battery by SRA (Science Research
Associates), Inc. (Examined in by F.L. Schmidt et.al. in Journal of
Applied Psychology, Volume 65 [1980] p 643-661)
4. CLEP Exam on Computers and Data Processing. The College Board and
the Educational Testing Service.
5. Graudate Record Exam Advanced Test in Computer Science by the
Education Testing Service.
Please send the answers to the following questions if you have taken
or had experience with any of these tests:
1. How many scores and what titles did they used for the version of
the exam that you took?
2. Did you feel the test actually measured your ability to learn to
program or your current programming competence (that is, did you feel
it asked relevant questions)?
3. What are your general impressions about testing and more
specifically about testing special abilities or skills (like
programming, writing, etc.)
I will package up the results and send them to Human-nets.
My thanks.
Stan Barber
Department of Psychology
Rice University
Houston TX 77251
sob@rice (arapnet,csnet)
sob.rice@rand-relay (broken arpa mailers)
...!{parsec,lbl-csam}!rice!sob (uucp)
(713) 660-9252 (bulletin board)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Feb 1984 1939-PST
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: California Computer Crime Bill
To: human-nets at RUTGERS
A new computer crime bill just introduced in Sacramento could shut
down all free, public access computer-based bulletin board systems
(BBS) in California. The bill (AB2551) makes it a misdemeanor to
knowingly access a computer "without authorization" for any reason,
even with no malicious intent. The reason for the misdemeanor is to
make it easier to prosecute "hackers" who break into computers but do
no damage. Vandalism, theft of information, etc. are already felonies
under an existing California crime bill.
The problem free and open BBSs is that users cannot know if they are
committing a crime until they log on a BBS, and by then the crime has
occurred. The BBSs have neither $ nor personnel to mail notices to
users; even if they did there is no list of user addresses for the
mailing.
The bill was introduced by Sam Farr (D, Carmel). For more info
contact John James (author of the Communitree software used on many
BBSs), PO Box 1807 Los Gatos, CA 95031 (408))335-9250
The above appeared on the BBS I operate in Palo Alto, CA.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 13:33:19 PST
From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS>
Subject: More Laws?
[L A Times 2/3/84 p. 2]
``Computer "hackers", experts who electronically infiltrate
private computer systems, would be charged with misdemeanors
under legislation proposed in the state Assembly. The measure,
proposed by Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Monterey) and backed by Atty.
Gen. John Van de Kamp, is aimed at youthful computer enthusiasts
who enter computer systems without malicious intent. Current
laws provide felony penalties for those who infiltrate malicious-
ly. In recent months, authorities have investigated several
cases in which teenagers have gained entry into private computer
banks.''
------------------------------
Date: 6 February 1984 03:53 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Laws about keeping info about people in databases
Cc: DEVON @ MIT-MC
[MESSAGE FROM DEVON at MIT-MC 3:15am]
... I'd say that such laws generally only address information that
you give out to other people, not info that you keep for yourself.
Good point, and a relief if correct. So it's perfectly legal to keep
my personal name&address list on a computer, providing I don't start
distributing it to outsiders (especially if I sell it to anybody with
the money!!) and providing I take reasonable measures to read-protect
it.
That would seem to answer the fears about somebody raiding his prsonal
computer just because he keeps his personal mailing list on it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 84 08:38 EST
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Database notification and privacy
To: willis@Rand-Unix.ARPA
Cc: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA, MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
In response to Willis Ware's comments on the cost-benefit aspects of
REM's proposal for mandatory, annual notification of individuals by
database maintainers:
Your points are interesting, but I'm not sure that they are
convincing. Granted that a mailing of ~150 million is nontrivial,
it's not obvious to me how serious the incremental burden on the mail
system would be. (The IRS forms mailing is indeed similar; how about
Publishers' Clearing House or Reader's Digest promotions? Remember,
too, that we're talking about at most one or two additional pieces of
mail per household--how many do you get in a day already?)
The basic point is sound though; one does not have a good
mechanism for knowing where records about him exist or what
they contain. It's a hit and miss proposition and even
individuals who are well informed and adroit in tracking down
things will occasionally be startled to uncover a new and
unexpected collection of data.
Perhaps we have a basis for a clearly feasible proposal. If in fact
the burden of annual individual notification is determined (how?) to
be excessive relative to the {benefit of | public demand for} such
service, how about the establishment of a central facility, to which
all individual databases are required to make themselves known, which
forwards requests by individuals to all such databases, to which they
must respond (directly, or through some sort of pooling) "yes, we have
you/no, we've never heard of you"?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: 10 February 1984 05:23 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #16
To: TREITEL @ SUMEX-AIM
Cc: dehn @ MIT-MULTICS
people wioth eidetctic memories shall be lobotomized if they
learn anything about you...
How's that agin?
------------------------------
Date: 10 Feb 1984 1150-EST
From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP at MIT-EECS at MIT-MC>
Subject: A frightening Thought
The latest issue of "Infoworld" mentions that a think tank believes
that in a few years, all students will be required to have portables.
These (lap-sized, I guess) portables would have a "write-only memory"
recording all test scores and exams. Only school officials would be
able to read the results in the WOM and would use these results to
determine competency and graduation. They predict that this will
eventually replace SAT's and such; universities would recieve
transcripts of all this data and decide admissions on such a basis.
wz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 16:52:51 PST
From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS>
To: ddern@bbn-unix
Subject: A Hacker by Any Other Name ...
Other locales have developed names for the same (sane?) type of
behavior. When I was an undergrad, (real) hackers were often called
`munchers', and the verb was `to munch' (of course, we might have had
`munchkins', and you know what we did when we had `the munchies')...
- Matt
***Sender closed connection***
=== brl netread error from RUTGERS at Sat Feb 11 04:16:06 ===Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (02/11/84)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 10 Feb 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 18
Today's Topics:
Query - Programming Aptitude Tests,
Computers and the Law - New Access Law (2 msgs) &
Database Entry Disclosure (3 msgs),
Computers and People - Big Computer is Watching You &
Hackers & Telecollaboration Simulation,
Computers and the Media - Hacker/ing,
Information - CMU Interaction Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 84 19:26:38 CST
From: Stan Barber <sob@rice>
Subject: Testing Programming Aptitude or Compentence
To: AIlist@SRI-ai, telecom@mit-mc
Cc: stan@RICE, wert@RICE, va@RICE, fbag@RICE, rbbb@RICE, dave@RICE,
Cc: dbj@RICE,
I am interested in information on the following tests that have been
or are currently administered to determine Programming Aptitude or
Compentence.
1. Aptitude Assessment Battery:Programming (AABP) created by Jack M.
Wolfe and made available to employers only from Programming
Specialists, Inc. Brooklyn NY.
2. Programmer Aptitude/Compentence Test System sold by Haverly
Systems, Inc. (Introduced in 1970)
3. Computer Programmer Aptitude Battery by SRA (Science Research
Associates), Inc. (Examined in by F.L. Schmidt et.al. in Journal of
Applied Psychology, Volume 65 [1980] p 643-661)
4. CLEP Exam on Computers and Data Processing. The College Board and
the Educational Testing Service.
5. Graudate Record Exam Advanced Test in Computer Science by the
Education Testing Service.
Please send the answers to the following questions if you have taken
or had experience with any of these tests:
1. How many scores and what titles did they used for the version of
the exam that you took?
2. Did you feel the test actually measured your ability to learn to
program or your current programming competence (that is, did you feel
it asked relevant questions)?
3. What are your general impressions about testing and more
specifically about testing special abilities or skills (like
programming, writing, etc.)
I will package up the results and send them to Human-nets.
My thanks.
Stan Barber
Department of Psychology
Rice University
Houston TX 77251
sob@rice (arapnet,csnet)
sob.rice@rand-relay (broken arpa mailers)
...!{parsec,lbl-csam}!rice!sob (uucp)
(713) 660-9252 (bulletin board)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Feb 1984 1939-PST
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: California Computer Crime Bill
To: human-nets at RUTGERS
A new computer crime bill just introduced in Sacramento could shut
down all free, public access computer-based bulletin board systems
(BBS) in California. The bill (AB2551) makes it a misdemeanor to
knowingly access a computer "without authorization" for any reason,
even with no malicious intent. The reason for the misdemeanor is to
make it easier to prosecute "hackers" who break into computers but do
no damage. Vandalism, theft of information, etc. are already felonies
under an existing California crime bill.
The problem free and open BBSs is that users cannot know if they are
committing a crime until they log on a BBS, and by then the crime has
occurred. The BBSs have neither $ nor personnel to mail notices to
users; even if they did there is no list of user addresses for the
mailing.
The bill was introduced by Sam Farr (D, Carmel). For more info
contact John James (author of the Communitree software used on many
BBSs), PO Box 1807 Los Gatos, CA 95031 (408))335-9250
The above appeared on the BBS I operate in Palo Alto, CA.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 13:33:19 PST
From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS>
Subject: More Laws?
[L A Times 2/3/84 p. 2]
``Computer "hackers", experts who electronically infiltrate
private computer systems, would be charged with misdemeanors
under legislation proposed in the state Assembly. The measure,
proposed by Assemblyman Sam Farr (D-Monterey) and backed by Atty.
Gen. John Van de Kamp, is aimed at youthful computer enthusiasts
who enter computer systems without malicious intent. Current
laws provide felony penalties for those who infiltrate malicious-
ly. In recent months, authorities have investigated several
cases in which teenagers have gained entry into private computer
banks.''
------------------------------
Date: 6 February 1984 03:53 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Laws about keeping info about people in databases
Cc: DEVON @ MIT-MC
[MESSAGE FROM DEVON at MIT-MC 3:15am]
... I'd say that such laws generally only address information that
you give out to other people, not info that you keep for yourself.
Good point, and a relief if correct. So it's perfectly legal to keep
my personal name&address list on a computer, providing I don't start
distributing it to outsiders (especially if I sell it to anybody with
the money!!) and providing I take reasonable measures to read-protect
it.
That would seem to answer the fears about somebody raiding his prsonal
computer just because he keeps his personal mailing list on it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 84 08:38 EST
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Database notification and privacy
To: willis@Rand-Unix.ARPA
Cc: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA, MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
In response to Willis Ware's comments on the cost-benefit aspects of
REM's proposal for mandatory, annual notification of individuals by
database maintainers:
Your points are interesting, but I'm not sure that they are
convincing. Granted that a mailing of ~150 million is nontrivial,
it's not obvious to me how serious the incremental burden on the mail
system would be. (The IRS forms mailing is indeed similar; how about
Publishers' Clearing House or Reader's Digest promotions? Remember,
too, that we're talking about at most one or two additional pieces of
mail per household--how many do you get in a day already?)
The basic point is sound though; one does not have a good
mechanism for knowing where records about him exist or what
they contain. It's a hit and miss proposition and even
individuals who are well informed and adroit in tracking down
things will occasionally be startled to uncover a new and
unexpected collection of data.
Perhaps we have a basis for a clearly feasible proposal. If in fact
the burden of annual individual notification is determined (how?) to
be excessive relative to the {benefit of | public demand for} such
service, how about the establishment of a central facility, to which
all individual databases are required to make themselves known, which
forwards requests by individuals to all such databases, to which they
must respond (directly, or through some sort of pooling) "yes, we have
you/no, we've never heard of you"?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: 10 February 1984 05:23 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #16
To: TREITEL @ SUMEX-AIM
Cc: dehn @ MIT-MULTICS
people wioth eidetctic memories shall be lobotomized if they
learn anything about you...
How's that agin?
------------------------------
Date: 10 Feb 1984 1150-EST
From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP at MIT-EECS at MIT-MC>
Subject: A frightening Thought
The latest issue of "Infoworld" mentions that a think tank believes
that in a few years, all students will be required to have portables.
These (lap-sized, I guess) portables would have a "write-only memory"
recording all test scores and exams. Only school officials would be
able to read the results in the WOM and would use these results to
determine competency and graduation. They predict that this will
eventually replace SAT's and such; universities would recieve
transcripts of all this data and decide admissions on such a basis.
wz
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 16:52:51 PST
From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS>
To: ddern@bbn-unix
Subject: A Hacker by Any Other Name ...
Other locales have developed names for the same (sane?) type of
behavior. When I was an undergrad, (real) hackers were often called
`munchers', and the verb was `to munch' (of course, we might have had
`munchkins', and you know what we did when we had `the munchies')...
- Matt
------------------------------
Date: 9-Feb-84 00:36 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: Re: nuclear winter simulation collaboration
To: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Cc: Arms-D@MIT-MC
This refers to a dialogue in Human Nets V7 #14 - #16.
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Or quicker, just write one of those early-type BASIC programs that
simulates the volcano and WW3, so kiddies can play with the
parameters and get flamboyant printouts of the results.
World III (Limits to Growth) simulations in BASIC and Dynamo have
existed for Apples and TRS-80s for a few years now. But it is not
clear that, for disseminating simulations, the disk/cartridge
technology by itself is the best way to encourage user
support/collaboration on the simulation. Computer networking may need
to play an important part in such an augmented global consciousness.
At least, that is one of the things I would expect to find out from a
telecollaborated simulation project like the Gaia Adventure.
I went to the Palo Alto CPSR meeting tonight and listened to the talk
by one of the NASA Nuclear Winter modelers that published in Dec 23
Science. In a private conversation after the talk, I learned some
interesting facts. It is impossible to get any public funding to
build or improve a model because results take a year or more. They
had NO official support for any of their work! They even got their
budget cut because NASA decided they must have too much money if they
had time for such a project. Any future research may be done
exclusively by the DoD at Livermore (classified?). Their model takes
60 seconds on their Cray for one run but they have very primitive and
flaky network access to the Cray. None of the people on the project
have access to an electronic mailbox.
The effort it would take to make their simulation available for use
and collaboration by a paying (EM) public, such as in the Gaia
Adventure, would be great, but it could be the only way it will ever
get the resources necessary to produce convincing results.
-- kirk
------------------------------
Date: 5 February 1984 00:59 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Correct use of "hack" on "Whiz Kids" tonight, and wiretap
Ritchie said <approximately> "I'm going to try to hack something
together in 5 minutes" meaning he was going to do a rush job of
programming, not care about subtle bugs or user interface or
structured programing etc., just try to get it working in an
emergency. Indeed he found a way to transfer a digitized photo from
the Aethena-society computer over the phone to the newspaper
reporter's portable computer with printer. The Aethena-society fellow
whose computer he was going to do this on looked worried, and Ritchie
assured him he wasn't going to damage anything.
It sounds like the script writer is making some attempt to bring back
the correct definition of "hack" at least.
By the way, earlier in the program a maidservice pretended Ritchie's
mother had won a prize, a monty's maid service, and the "maid" planted
bugging devices including on Ritchie's phone, used for his modem. I
was thinking this would develop into some kind of plot to record the
data when Ritchie logs into remote hosts, obtaining login procedure
and passwords, but that part of the plot was dropped for no apparent
reason.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 03 Feb 84 23:41:02 EST
From: reiser (brian reiser) @ cmu-psy-a
Reply-to: Brian Reiser < Reiser%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT >
Subject: CMU Human-Computer Interaction Program
***** ANNOUNCEMENT *****
Graduate Program in Human-Computer Interaction
at Carnegie-Mellon University
The field of human-computer interaction brings to bear theories and
methodologies from cognitive psychology and computer science to the
design of computer systems, to instruction about computers, and to
computer-assisted instruction. The new Human-Computer Interaction
program at CMU is geared toward the development of cognitive models of
the complex interaction between learning, memory, and language
mechanisms involved in using computers. Students in the program apply
their psychology and computer science training to research in both
academic and industry settings.
Students in the Human-Computer Interaction program design their
educational curricula with the advice of three faculty members who
serve as the student's committee. The intent of the program is to
guarantee that students have the right combination of basic and
applied research experience and coursework so that they can do leading
research in the rapidly developing field of human-computer
interaction. Students typically take one psychology course and one
computer science course each semester for the first two years. In
addition, students participate in a seminar on human-computer
interaction held during the summer of the first year in which leading
industry researchers are invited to describe their current projects.
Students are also actively involved in research throughout their
graduate career. Research training begins with a collaborative and
apprentice relationship with a faculty member in laboratory research
for the first one or two years of the program. Such involvement
allows the student several repeated exposures to the whole sequence of
research in cognitive psychology and computer science, including
conceptualization of a problem, design and execution of experiments,
analyzing data, design and implementation of computer systems, and
writing scientific reports.
In the second half of their graduate career, students participate in
seminars, teaching, and an extensive research project culminating in a
dissertation. In addition, an important component of students'
training involves an internship working on an applied project outside
the academic setting. Students and faculty in the Human-Computer
Interaction program are currently studying many different cognitive
tasks involving computers, including: construction of algorithms,
design of instruction for computer users, design of user-friendly
systems, and the application of theories of learning and problem
solving to the design of systems for computer-assisted instruction.
Carnegie-Mellon University is exceptionally well suited for a program
in human-computer interaction. It combines a strong computer science
department with a strong psychology department and has many lines of
communication between them. There are many shared seminars and
research projects. They also share in a computational community
defined by a large network of computers. In addition, CMU and IBM
have committed to a major effort to integrate personal computers into
college education. By 1986, every student on campus will have a
powerful state-of-the-art personal computer. It is anticipated that
members of the Human-Computer Interaction program will be involved in
various aspects of this effort.
The following faculty from the CMU Psychology and Computer Science
departments are participating in the Human-Computer Interaction
Program: John R. Anderson, Jaime G. Carbonell, John R. Hayes, Elaine
Kant, David Klahr, Jill H. Larkin, Philip L. Miller, Alan Newell,
Lynne M. Reder, and Brian J. Reiser.
Our deadline for receiving applications, including letters of
recommendation, is March 1st. Further information about our program
and application materials may be obtained from:
John R. Anderson
Department of Psychology
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************