<p>ditto, I also hate going to such a competitive school.</p>
<p>Does anybody remember the question in the gardening/thoreau passage that you guys put “human inteference” for? </p>
<p>and some of the other choices?</p>
<p>I put human interference, was it incorrect?</p>
<p>nope it was correct. it was free of human interference.
don’t remember other choices, sorry. i do remember that that^ choice was B. 
hehe.</p>
<p>what was the question for the human interference one?..</p>
<p>It was something about what nature writers believed based on what was stated in lines _____.
The lines were like… " about artifical something and processes of such (human processes, dont quite remember, sorry)"
Yeah, which is why from those lines, one could infer that the nature writers believedn nature should have been pure and not artificial, thus free from human interference.</p>
<p>Dangggggg, I put the artificial thing…</p>
<p>I found the internet passage</p>
<p>“For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and theyve been widely described and duly applauded. The perfect recall of silicon memory, Wired’s Clive Thompson has written, can be an enormous boon to thinking. But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”</p>
<p>The guy who wrote this is Nicholas Carr. I believe this is a quote from his book.</p>
<p>Do I have any chance of getting above 180 with the following scores?</p>
<p>-3 math (0 omit), -2 writing (0 omit), -4 CR (2 omit)</p>
<p>Can anyone find the privacy passages?</p>
<p>Does anyone remember the exact question for the Walden question about human interference. Do you also remember some of the other answer choices for this same question? THanks…</p>
<p>chillbro, how do we find the passages that were on the test??? Aren’t they made up?</p>
<p>oh yeah, did anyone get an answer about how passage one woudl respond to specific lines in passage 2 (the lines about the economic benefits of databaasfkgjoiajk). i remember i put something about not talking about consequences? …something about forgetting to mention downsides? that’s far from exact phrasing but i remember that was the gist of it.</p>
<p>would a -1 cr -0 math -0 writing be a 240 or a 238/239?</p>
<p>It could be a 240, depending on the Reading Curve. I would say so.</p>
<p>:/ currently at a -4Cr -2M and -3W… i dont think im gonna make it. live in ny</p>
<p>Found passage 2:
it’s kind of parts of one large article pieced together however:</p>
<p>Is it any wonder that public concern about privacy has risen dramatically during the last decade? Self-help and advocacy books abound, with titles like I Love the Internet But I Want My Privacy Too! and Privacy for Sale: How Big Brother and Others Are Selling Your Private Secrets for Profit. Hundreds of privacy-related bills have been proposed in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures. In a February 2003 Harris poll, 69 percent of those surveyed agreed that “consumers have lost all control over how personal information is collected and used by companies.” That view was summed up with cynical certitude by Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy. “You have zero privacy anyway,” he said a few years ago. “Get over it.”</p>
<p>What McNealy didn’t mention, and polls and politicians don’t recognize, is the unsung benefits that have accompanied the databasification of American society. More precisely, they’re unacknowledged or invisible benefits. It’s easy to complain about a subjective loss of privacy. It’s more difficult to appreciate how information swapping accelerates economic activity. Like many other aspects of modern society, benefits are dispersed, amounting to a penny saved here or a dollar discounted there. But those sums add up quickly.</p>
<p>Markets function more efficiently when it costs little to identify and deliver the right product to the right consumer at the right time. Data collection and information sharing emerged not through chance but because they bring lower prices and more choices for consumers. The ability to identify customers who are not likely to pay their bills lets stores offer better deals to those people who will. In films like The Net and Changing Lanes, Hollywood tells us that databases can be very dangerous. The truth is more complex. Being a citizen of a database nation, it turns out, can be very good for you.</p>
<p>Databasification, in other words, does have a dark side: increasing government access to private collections of information. Some privacy activists cite this cooperation as a reason to regulate private databases, which makes as much sense as preventing companies from manufacturing binoculars simply because police can use them for unlawful surveillance. The more sensible approach is to restrict the power of the police to snoop in the first place. That means taking steps such as updating the Privacy Act of 1974 to limit government access to outsourced databases; increasing the authority of inspectors general at federal agencies to monitor data abuses; boosting criminal penalties for lawbreaking cops; requiring police to meet higher standards of proof before perusing databases; and, most important, rethinking the drug laws that invite snooping into Americans’ personal lives. (About 78 percent of domestic wiretaps conducted with court oversight in 2002 were for drug offenses. Investigations of violent crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and extortion accounted for just 6 percent.)</p>
<p>Focusing on government power would keep intact the undeniable advantages of databasification – lower prices, cheaper mortgages, and more-efficient uses of information – while limiting possible abuses by law enforcement. The aim should be to retain the tremendous benefits of living in a database nation while preventing it from devolving into a police state.</p>
<p>Found Passage 1 (from a book titled “Database Nation”)
It’s also in parts, so I might be missing some parts of the passage:</p>
<p>THIS IS THE future – not a far-off future, but one that’s just around the corner. It’s a future in which what little privacy we now have will be gone. Some people call this loss of privacy “Orwellian,” harking back to 1984, George Orwell’s classic work on privacy and autonomy. In that book, Orwell imagined a future in which privacy was decimated by a totalitarian state that used spies, video surveillance, historical revisionism, and control over the media to maintain its power. But the age of monolithic state control is over. The future we’re rushing towards isn’t one where our every move is watched and recorded by some all-knowing “Big Brother.” It is instead a future of a hundred kid brothers that constantly watch and interrupt our daily lives. George Orwell thought that the Communist system represented the ultimate threat to individual liberty. Over the next 50 years, we will see new kinds of threats to privacy that don’t find their roots in totalitarianism, but in capitalism, the free market, advanced technology, and the unbridled exchange of electronic information.</p>
<p>The problem with this word “privacy” is that it falls short of conveying the really big picture. Privacy isn’t just about hiding things. It’s about self-possession, autonomy and integrity. As we move into the computerized world of the 21st century, privacy will be one of our most important civil rights. But this right of privacy isn’t the right of people to close their doors and pull down their window shades – perhaps because they want to engage in some sort of illicit or illegal activity. It’s the right of people to control what details about their lives stay inside their own houses and what leaks to the outside.</p>
<p>TODAY’S WAR ON privacy is intimately related to the dramatic advances in technology we’ve seen in recent years. As we’ll see time and again in this book, unrestrained technology ends privacy. Video cameras observe personal moments; computers store personal facts; and communications networks make personal information widely available throughout the world. Although some specialty technology may be used to protect personal information and autonomy, the overwhelming tendency of advanced technology is to do the reverse.</p>
<p>Privacy is fundamentally about the power of the individual. In many ways, the story of technology’s attack on privacy is really the story of how institutions and the people who run them use technology to gain control over the human spirit, for good and ill. That’s because technology by itself doesn’t violate our privacy or anything else: it’s the people using this technology and the policies they carry out that create violations.</p>
<p>Many people today say that in order to enjoy the benefits of modern society, we must necessarily relinquish some degree of privacy. If we want the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card, or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on our rear-view mirror, then we must accept the routine collection of our purchases and driving habits in a large database over which we have no control. It’s a simple bargain, albeit a Faustian one.</p>
<p>I think this tradeoff is both unnecessary and wrong. It reminds me of another crisis our society faced back in the 1950s and 1960s – the environmental crisis. Then, advocates of big business said that poisoned rivers and lakes were the necessary costs of economic development, jobs, and an improved standard of living. Poison was progress: anybody who argued otherwise simply didn’t understand the facts.</p>
<p>Today we know better. Today we know that sustainable economic development depends on preserving the environment. Indeed, preserving the environment is a prerequisite to the survivability of the human race. Without clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, we will all surely die. Similarly, in order to reap the benefits of technology, it is more important than ever for us to use technology to protect personal freedom.</p>
<p>^Anyone remember any questions associated with this passage?</p>
<p>And how the heck do you guys manage to dig up these passages? I swear, the Collegeboard folks find the driest, dullest passages to throw at us…</p>
<p>we have amazing memories. :D</p>
<p>@Chinaboys: Clearly, College board uses published material (they do not write their own articles - just the questions).</p>
<p>Good job finding these, google works wonders(:</p>