- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 7/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Tim writes about Ritalin: > >>I've been over visiting my friend to see some of this. The Ritalin-sodden >>kid arrives like a zombie. When the Ritalin wears off, he's rambunctuous, >Alex, our 8 year old son, uses Ritalin. He doesn't need Ritalin to >concentrate. He can get caught up in a building project for hours and >create a masterpiece. He can focus so thoroughly you can't pry him >loose. > >What Alex *can't* do is get comfortably through a day of grammar >school. I sympathise -- I was the same way when I was that age. I had Errrrr. Ever hear of home schooling? Seems like if your child needs drugs to go to school than perhaps school is the problem not that your child's body lacks Ritalin. Sheesh. So it happens that I was talking with a fellow Saturday who grew up on Ritalin. He's 36 now and strung out. Life with Ritalin prepared him for drugs, you know. They were natural. Like the body is made for different laboratory made molecules with dubious effects. He never got into the hard stuff (like the opiates) like the anti-drug people promised though. Also turns out that he now has a neurological disorder that is untreatable and uncurable. So now he's goes through his days in constant pain courtesy of the best childhood his wealthy Pacific Palisades Parents could buy. I wonder if there are any other Ritalin side affects that don't become prominent until 30 years later? But than someone who thinks milk is wholesome needs some lessons is nutrition, anatomy and physiology. --j

2 1

Dry Under the Waterfall
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I read *one* more bit of blather about the "information haves and have nots" I am going to take my Streetsweeper down to my local McDonalds and decrease the imbalance between these two groups by reducing the quantity of the latter. It would work just as well as any other solution. The latest blather was in a parting shot in David Kline's last "Market Forces" column in Hot Wired (www.wired.com) "How can we assure that the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, and tempest-tossed get onto the Net"? (My formulation -- not his.) The answer is we can't. I have been online every day since 1987 or so. Since that time I have begged, pleaded, cajoled, and threatened friends, relatives, casual acquaintances, and total strangers to get them on line. (We are talking here about people who have the cash to easily get wired if they care to.) Sometimes it has worked. Mostly it has not. It has gotten easier to dragoon people onto the net recently but it is still hard. I have taken to telling people who ask me for help setting up their computer systems that I will only help them on the condition that they obtain an ISP account and use it. The usual reason for resistance (beyond a reluctance to spend money) is a failure to appreciate the value of the online experience. No matter how much I plead, many people have not (in the past) been able to see what this all was good for. This was particularly true when online computing was a text-only experience. Non-readers have a problem with text. Now, even though the net is more graphical, it still lacks appeal for 95% of the population (or at least enough appeal to get them on to it). Even though we may know that many people could improve their lives and economic standing by learning to compute and telecommunicate, they don't *know* it and so they are not wired. Par example -- an auto mechanic of my acquaintance was assigned to the office where he worked to handle advanced paper shuffling involving auto parts. He started to use an XT to track parts and got to like it. He asked me for some advice and over the years bought an XT and other machines until he now has two desktops and a laptop networked at home. He's on the net as well. At work, he has become a supervisor in part because he can use computers. The original purchase of a computer has been paid for many times over by increased income. There is nothing new about this, of course. Even without computers, it is obvious that someone who can read and write can average more money in the modern world than one who can't. And yet many people refuse to learn to be good readers. Because they don't read, they also know less. Sans books and periodicals, you simply can't encounter a critical mass of ideas and information sufficient to achieve a self-sustaining intellectual life and the flexible abilities necessary to survive in the current economy. For readers, the modern economy is a piece of cake. And reading is not a "certification" it's a skill. You can get it with minor help. It takes no money and it can't be denied to you by a racist society. Without so much as a high school diploma, a good reader can succeed easily in today's America (credential-happy Europeans have to fend for themselves). Do you doubt this. Assume you are a good reader without credentials. 1) Learn to type. (Used manual portables cost $12 at the Sally Army.) 3) Get a temp job that requires typing. (Lie about your high school diploma. Since you are well dressed from the same Sally Army where you got your typewriter and have excellent communication skills -- these things are under your control -- it shouldn't be much trouble.) 2) Learn to word process. (Commodore 64's and used b/w TV sets cost $25 or less at flea markets. Running the tutorials at hourly PC rental places are pretty cheap as well. If you are a good typist, temp agencies will cross train you on PCs so they can rent your rear end out for more dough.) 4) Become an experienced (permanent) temp word processor on the night shift in the financial district of NYC making $22.50-$27.00/hour. ($18.00/hour -- days.) 5) Then become a (contract) tech writer and start to make more money. All that is necessary for the above is the ability to read and write fluently which is open to all persons of normal intelligence. But most choose not to learn those skills (which is why they pay so much in today's market). Similarly, most people are not interested in learning to compute and in getting wired. Instead they stand around an bitch about how their incomes are flat and they can't find work when they get laid off at 50. Hardly surprising. They've already established that they're dead from the neck up. I wouldn't hire them, why should anyone else. This is the phenomenon of the modern world. So many people one meets are pig ignorant. They are sitting under a waterfall of knowledge cascading over them in a volume unprecedented in human history and yet they contrive not to get wet. Meanwhile, we are told that the information have-nots are being denied access to the wonders of the information age. I'm very sorry but they have already rejected the wonders of the last information age that started 541 years ago with the publication of the Mazarin Bible. People who can't even bother to read and write will not be helped by our cash and Al Gore's preaching. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. DCF "So Louis Freeh wants expanded wiretap authority. What's the matter? Craig Livingstone short of reading material"?

5 5

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-07-08 23:10:44 EDT, perry(a)piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes: << > Youd be surprised at the # of requests from people who actually had a good > use for it, and didnt have the time to spend writing it themselves. Human stupidity is never a surprise. Perry >> Just goes to show.look at the name right above. It says PERRY Didnt I say it was rude to post private email to group? Guess an arrogant very self-opinionated asshole such as yourself doesnt care.

1 0

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:34 AM 7/9/96 -0400, you wrote: > >John F. Fricker writes: >> Seems like if your child needs drugs to go to school than perhaps school is >> the problem not that your child's body lacks Ritalin. >> >> Sheesh. >> >> So it happens that I was talking with a fellow Saturday who grew up on >> Ritalin. He's 36 now and strung out. Life with Ritalin prepared him for >> drugs, you know. They were natural. Like the body is made for different >> laboratory made molecules with dubious effects. > >Yeah, you know, I bet your body doesn't get infected for lack of >penicillin, either. I suspect that taking Penicillin prepares you for >drug dependancies. Why, next, you might take insulin to deal with >diabetes, or worse! > >Thank god most of those heroin addicts never had Ritalin as kids -- you >never know how much worse off they might be now. And if they'd gotten >antibiotics, why, forget it. > >Quit from modern medicine cold turkey. Its the only way. > >Perry > Perry, you're typically vitriolic wit fails you. What's up? Lost your prescription? Snide pills spill in the toilet again?

3 2

Re: Word lists for passphrases
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:10 PM 7/8/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Ben Holiday wrote: >> If you have access to a shell, and to the news spool, you can generate >> some quick lists by hopping into the directory of any newsgroup that >> interests you and doing: >> >> cat * | tr -cs A-Za-z '\n' | tr A-Z a-z | sort | uniq > my-big-ol-wordlist >> >> With most unixes that will generate an alphabetized list of all the unique >> words in your source text, converted to lowercase. I've had some problems >> with tr on a few machines, however. Adding a '-c' after 'uniq' will tell >> you how many times each word occured (useful for grepping out words that >> appear too infrequently, or too frequently) .. > >Actually I am fairly sure that your selection of words will be mediocre >at best. There are words (such as nethermost, insatiable, insufferable) >that are almost never used in news. If the purpose is for use with "Crack" or some similar program, it might be better than you would think. You won't get the "unusual" words, but you will also get the words in common usage that do not appear in dictionaries. (Such as fnord, jedi, killfile, and the like...) You will also get alot of proper names, which may have been used as passwords. The idea is that words in common usage may be more likely to be used as passwords. Another thing to look for when choosing dictionaries/wordlists for crack is not sticking to english. If you have a userbase that is known to have a certain percentage of people of a non-english background, you will want to find lists of words from that background. (I had a sysadmin asking me about Yiddish and Hebrew wordlists for just that reason.) These can be a bit harder. (Especially for unusual languages.) But knowing your userbase can make all the difference in what it might take to crack the passwords from the outside. --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

ACLU: NJ Alert! Personal Data Chip in DL! (fwd)
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From notes(a)igc.org Tue Jul 9 15:12:01 1996 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 19:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: Moderator of conference "justice.polabuse" <bwitanek(a)igc.apc.org> From: Bob Witanek <bwitanek(a)igc.apc.org> Subject: ACLU: NJ Alert! Personal Data Chip in DL! To: Recipients of pol-abuse <pol-abuse(a)igc.apc.org> Message-ID: <APC&1'0'a9f989e8'c0a(a)igc.apc.org> X-Gateway: conf2mail(a)igc.apc.org Errors-To: owner-pol-abuse(a)igc.apc.org Precedence: bulk Lines: 32 Posted: sspnj(a)exit109.com *Computer Chips in Driver Licenses?* NEWARK, N.J. -- The Associated Press reported today that drivers may soon be using a new high-tech driver's license to pay tolls and do banking in New Jersey. The soon to be tested "Smart Card" will carry a data packed computer chip that will provide authorities with access to private information including fingerprints and medical records. The pilot cards will be limited to standard driver's license information. By the time the cards are issued to all New Jersey drivers in July 1997, they would also contain fingerprints and an "electronic purse" to be used to pay bus and train fares, the AP said. Civil libertarians said the new licenses raise privacy concerns. Ultimately, the AP said, the license will contain arrest records, medical records, vehicle registration, and could be used as a debit card to pay for groceries and do banking. "I think citizens should be extremely scared about loss of privacy," David Rocah of the New Jersey ACLU told AP. "They could store tax data. They could store medical data. They could store driver's records, insurance data, virtually any data in the government's possession." The ACLU also warned that the potential for misuse of the information --government surveillance or telemarketing research - - could pose potential problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

1 0

A case for 2560 bit keys
by David F. Ogren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Jul 08 23:06:11 1996 Here is a few thoughts on RSA key sizes. There is nothing new or revolutionary herein, but I think it does provide a good case for using large RSA keysizes. Traditionally, we examine the threat model and determine the approximate ability of the attacker to factor secret keys. Then a keylength is selected that exceeds the attackers ability to factor in a reasonable amount of time. For example, if we assume that the NSA can factor any number with the speed of the special number sieve, and has 10^9 mips of computing power (doubling every 1.5 years) we can make the following estimations:_1_ Using these assumptions, the NSA could crack a 1024 bit key in ~11 days, a 1536 bit key in 10 years and a 2048 bit key in 26 years. _2_ Note that this would require the full resources of the NSA, however. Thus, even the mighty resources of the NSA could only crack 42 1024 bit keys in 1996 (including Moore's law). _3_, _4_ Similarly, a large corporation with 10^7 mips in computing power (and the same super-efficient factoring algorithm) could crack a 1024 bit key in 2 years, a 1536 bit key in 20 years, and a 2048 bit key in 36 years. My interpretation of these results: 1024 bit is probably safe for most reasonable threat models. Only individuals with extremely high threat models should be concerned about 1024 bit keys in 1996. Even those with extremely high threat models should be satisfied with 1536 bit keys. Despite the above, there are convincing arguments for longer RSA keys. Instead of asking "Why should we have longer keys?", perhaps we should be asking "Why _shouldn't_ we have longer keys?" In a hybrid cryptosystem such as PGP, very little of the computational process is consumed by RSA encryption. Only a tiny fraction of the message is RSA encrypted (the session key), and thus the time-critical operation is the symmetric crypto system (IDEA for PGP). As an experiment generate a 2047 bit PGP key and a 512 bit PGP key. Encrypt a file (preferably of a reasonable size) using both keys. Depending on the computer you are using, the time difference between the two keys will be a matter of few seconds or even a fraction of a second. And so we have to ask ourselves, why _not_ use a 2047+ bit key. It has greater longevity and greater security. Why not be overcautious when the cost is so small? It seems foolish that we use RSA keys that are less secure than our IDEA session keys. Our RSA keys are much more valuable than our session keys. I will use my RSA key to encode hundreds of messages. Each session key I will use only once. An attacker who learns one of my IDEA session keys can decrypt only that message. An attacker who learns my RSA key can decrypt any of my messages, past or present. (He can also impersonate my signature, but that's another discussion entirely.) If I send one message weekly that my attacker is interested in, and change my RSA key every two years, my RSA key is at least 104 times more valuable than any individual key. Does it not make sense that the RSA key should ideally be 104 times more difficult to crack? If increasing the RSA keylength was overly cumbersome to the process then designing the RSA keylength to meet minimum acceptable standards could be understood. But since increased RSA keylengths are cheap in terms of computing power, would it not be better to pick RSA keylengths that are more secure than the session keys? And thus, 2560 bit keys are not unreasonable. They are not significantly slower to use (most of PGP's time is spent IDEA encrypting), and yet are effectively invulnerable. By "invulnerable" I mean that any attacker capable of cracking your RSA key would have an easier time hacking your individual IDEA session keys, and would never have any need to hack the RSA key itself. And if you have threat models this severe you are a) hopelessly paranoid, b) SOL. Footnotes: _1_ These approximations of factoring difficulties and the computing resources are taken directly from Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier, page 161. _2_ Taking into account Moore's law, the amount of processing power spent during a period of time is the integral of Power * 2^(t/1.5)dt (from 0 to x) = Power * 1.5 / (ln 2) 2 ^(t/1.5) (also evaluated from 0 to x). Which is approximately equal to Power * 2.164 * (2^(x/1.5) - 1). Thus in three years a corporation starting with 10^7 mips could produce 10^7 * 2.164 * (2^(3/1.5)-1) = 6.492 * 10^7 mips-years. _3_ Any attempt to determine the computing power and cryptanalysis power of the NSA should be taken with a grain of salt. There are several very critical and arbitrary assumptions made in order to obtain these numbers. _4_ Additionally, any attempt to discern the future of cryptanalysis should also be taken with a grain of salt. Who can tell what computers will like be in ten years? - -- David F. Ogren | ogren(a)concentric.net | "A man without religion is like a fish PGP Key ID: 0x6458EB29 | without a bicycle" - ------------------------------|---------------------------------------- Don't know what PGP is? | Need my public key? It's available Send a message to me with the | by server or by sending me a message subject GETPGPINFO | with the subject GETPGPKEY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMeHMpOSLhCBkWOspAQH4gwf+NiP184ve2W06ClO92uEfjbaHpn3l9zAz 1ckt8PE8kMxkq8etcq/NM/IZ3QuTIBbeOr4ey6dIptQafmarb7sSMAx0KGgPALp8 v6a77as2RUCaJYjjviYlXh/0OIt+c7c+w9HbVZCmgpru/VQjT7++6eAa1f4K+225 K12wEX2TXou4s8+qYVUAT3B0iesuq/Z2iBzO942+v3u7rkCHLMghYlLIXR+SP43l E15IQRez5nHkMb7VB9kL8ku/aDlXfKjURDQji8LBm+V+3i/9tcR/9+4EjKAqo1nB qnXCFBKrzWRev4bbI9tbVnTc83VWeJRXGZxlpXhzc40kov7GbrT9Bg== =B0h0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Perry E. Metzger I suppose you don't understand what it might be like for someone to be unable to do their work no matter how heavy the threat against them if they don't, and no matter how easy it is. There are people out there who can't get themselves to pay a phone bill or throw out the newspapers for months on end -- they just can't get themselves to dance around into the task no matter how hard they try, no matter how great the threat (job loss, etc) to them is. ...................................................................... Drugs create a picture of coercion - where the mind is coerced into a state arrived at not by thoughtful consideration, but by round-about ways of achieving the desired result. This is what makes some people wary of them, but make them appealing to others who find this very feature attractive - that they can get results without having to think about it. There are times when people have been totally unmotivated to take care of themselves or the mundane matters in life because they were not involved in the pursuits which were of true value to them, and life "lost its meaning". Putting one's priorities into perspective can do a lot towards feeling motivated to attend to life's minor contingencies, while elevating the lesser items to the top of the hierarchy can totally dissipitate one's energies and interest. What if someone was working at a "practical" kind of job, living the kind of life prescribed by someone else, when what they really wanted to do was something related to fine art or other field, living a different kind of "life-style"? This could be so depressing that subconsciously they would finally rebel from supporting that false existence, and find themselves with no energy to move. Maybe Ritalin could make them forgot their true interest which was lying dormant, pushed away by who-knows-what kind of arguments against it, and help them to start paying attention again to those mundane, irrelevant aspects of existence. Maybe it could help them forget the *point* of their existence and they could attend to ordinary things which are easily understood and accomplished without too much creative energy. Maybe Ritalin could help force them to pay attention, in spite of the protest from their submerged psychology. Maybe. In taking 'beneficial' drugs there's always a question of whether someone's mind is being helped into awareness or overpowered into submission, even if the results seem to be acceptable to everyone. You're right, Perry, that no one should be making that decision for others. I do think, though, that achieving self-command by a conscious knowledge of what is right for one's nature is actually the most beneficial (and less controversial). (But I wonder how this would apply to crypto. Hmmmmmmm - only in reference to those evil old men in the govmt who......might allow it to be prescribed indiscriminately.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> says: >Timothy C. May writes: >> At 1:14 PM 7/7/96, Simon Spero wrote: >> >On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> >> >> When the mother (a single mother, as this is California) drops her son off >> >> with my friend (also single, of course), she includes several "Ritalin" >> >> capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this >> >> depressant/behavior modification drug. >> > >> >Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine. >> >> Whatever. It acts as a calmant/tranquilizer/depressant on many. > >Only those who have ADD, which you claim doesn't exist. > >> (As with many drugs, there are apparently paradoxical effects. Alcohol is a >> downer for some, and upper for others.) > >Alcohol is a CNS depressant for all. Lowering inhibitions tends to >make people relax and "party", but it doesn't have particularly >paradoxical effects. > >.pm > Sorry, but that's wrong. There must be some understanding of what's actually going on. Brain is not just a simple linear device. It's complex. And that goes to Tim's original point: Society is made by humans with brains that are complex but which try to use simple models to understand reality. Let me show with your own example. Alcohol *is* a depressant. But it doesn't act equally on all the CNS. It acts faster on one part of it whose role is to depress all the rest of the CNS. So, first alcohol depresses a depressor and therefore acts as a stimulant. If you maintain your levels of alcohol there the rest of your brain will be above its threshold and keep stimulated. Only if you pass that threshold the rest of the brain will be depressed. That's what alcohol drinking cultures like mine call "knowing how to drink". But then we don't know about taking cocaine (like some centroamerican cultures do) for instance. Same happens when you take other drugs (in their own context). It's only when you simplify or make a generalization that it gets dangerous. And same goes for society. If you have a society that teachs people how to drink you'll have less problems than one that doesn't. Or that teachs how to eat coca leaves avoiding the pure drug. Or that teaches you that curare is OK eaten -as it is- but letal in the blood (which allows survival for many tribes). That's were Tim's argument comes into cypherpunkish arena. If you teach people that it is easier to calm down hyperactive people, or solve all problems by increasing mind control and surveillance you can't complain of a police state. OTOH if you can teach people were to stop (as with alcohol) and that simple models just don't work you'll be on the road to a better system. I agree there is people that can benefit from drugs. But being a MD PhD myself too, I also know that the amount that really needs them is a minuscule proportion. Most times it is just a convenience for doctors, family, fathers or society. Though good doctors agree it would be better if they could avoid the drugs at all in most cases of mental disease. Same happens with surveillance: we benefit from some control to stop those few, exceptional, deep criminals that are better stopped in advance, but we don't really need as much as we have. There are better solutions, but it's far more convenient for power-holders to increase surveillance than to really address the underlying problems. But, IMHO, as long as we keep allowing many people to use simple and "convenience" models to quickly fix symptomps instead of addressing the real problem (like, e.g. making a greater effort in the education of their children), we are stating the basis for a future, more restrictive, controlling and "convenience" system. We need both, to educate people on a more responsible course of action, and develop tools to stop or make more difficult or less convenient the easy and fast solution of increasing surveillance instead of addressing the underlying problem. And that's where cryptography comes to help equate the balance and increases presure on power-holders into worrying more by decreasing the convenience of surveillance. That is, all in my most very humble opinion. jr

1 0

Re: [RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On July 8th, 1996 Herr Doctor Duvos wrote: >Medicating a disease is fine. Recreational uses of relatively >harmless intoxicants and are also fine. It is the inappropriate >use of strong medicines with serious side effects by clueless >people for vague criteria like "reaching his or her potential" >that I have a problem with. I have a problem with people like Mike Duvos who think that folks like myself and others on this list with ADD use having ADD as a crutch for being fidgety, not getting their work done on time, or worst yet, Fired. I wish people like Mr. Duvos could walk a mile in my shoes before making off the cuff remarks, I wish I could get jobs done on time, I wish that I could finish one project before starting three more! My office looks like someone tossed a hand grenade in it, Proposals to the left, Job quotes to the right, jobs is various states of completion, Lost jobs to my inattentivness to my clients, Lost good clients because of having ADD and not knowing it! I wish I would have known about ADD eariler than now, I might not have been the complete fuck-up that I was in school, and worst than that, The nearly ten years after high school. One of my wishes did come true, and that was finding out that I do have ADD. Ritalin has been a godsend, I am able to dialin when I have to. Ritalin is not the only drug for treating ADD, Prozac works for some. There are times when I need the boundless energy to find time to be creative and I stop taking my meds, but its only for short periods, I remember all too well what I was like without knowing what the problem was with work, love, and life in general. Below is a list of famous people with Attention Deficit Disorders and/or Learning Disorders, and I'd be willing to bet that Perry Metzger either has, or knows someone with ADD. Albert Einstein, Galileo, Mozart, Wright Brothers, Leonardo da Vinci, Bruce Jenner, Tom Cruise, Charles Schwab, Henry Winkler, Danny Glover, Walt Disney, John Lennon, Winston Churchill, Henry Ford, Stephen Hawkings, Jules Verne, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, Hans Christian Anderson,Beavis, Nelson Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, Gen. George Patton, Agatha Christie, John F. Kennedy, Whoopi Goldberg, Rodin, Thomas Thoreau, David H. Murdock, Dustin Hoffman, Pete Rose, Russell White, Jason Kidd, Russell Varian, Robin Williams, Louis Pasteur, Werner von Braun, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Robert Kennedy, alberto Tnmba Prince Charles, Gen. Westmoreland, Eddie Rickenbacker, Gregory Boyington, Harry Belafonte, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Steve McQueen, George C. Scott, Tom Smothers, Lindsay Wagner, George Bernard Shaw, Beethoven, Carl Lewis, Jackie Stewart, "Magic" Johnson, Weyerhauser family, Wrigley, John Corcoran. One can only wonder how much more great some of the people on this list would be today if they knew ADD back then. William Knowles erehwon(a)c2.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMeI+wgURbnwsNLz5AQHM6AP/Zln3eu50jKdhkER4Go3uBp0a4zlVUYti pW71AHLR8VydFaMM7iJFhYmv7vgFeuA1cAo27Hq1Pb8LZ/uucPRACKI8ku/XsVHh 9wdPsEKXMo0pHftnVHmuFb3dVtAA9jYKfGw3SwpktNkACQMvGHU2Z5+DkbetvSZm xrMSjCpxlvM= =ucXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- William Knowles <erehwon(a)c2.org> PGP mail welcome & prefered / KeyID 1024/2C34BCF9 PGP Fingerprint 55 0C 78 3C C9 C4 44 DE 5A 3C B4 60 9C 00 FB BD Finger for public key --

3 3