HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Get Prescription Drugs Without Prescription - Mail Order
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:26:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr11.033044.4857@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.221726.9729@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:

>>                           Recommended Drugs

			..........................

>Hmmm.  Parents who drug their children without medical approval
>should be aware that they may face _severe_ legal liability if anything
>goes wrong, or possibly if the child simply decides after reaching
>adulthood that his rights were violated.

>How would _you_ feel if, all through your childhood, your parents had
>given you a mind-altering drug without the approval or supervision of
>a doctor, simply because they _thought_ it improved your performance?

			.......................

I also read the quoted article with great misgivings.  Now I am opposed
to requiring prescriptions for drugs unless there are really major public
health problems involved, so I disagree with the present law which would
make it any more legal to give such drugs with medical approval than
without, but I have stated many times that the manufacturer, purveyor,
etc., of a chemical should be required to present adequate information
about the known effects of the substance, and in particular the adverse
effects.  

But is the suggested use of these substances any less serious than the
present procedures to keep bright children from learning?  Keeping
children in situations where they are required to sit through repetitions
of what is obvious to them, and giving them drugs so that they will
remain attentive, is at least as bad.   I do not consider it any more
appropriate to use mind-altering drugs under the supervision of a 
physician than without such supervision, and especially not to allow
physicians to make the decisions to use such drugs.

Even the keeping of children in those situations, with or without drugs,
IS what the present sorry excuse for an educational system has been doing
for the past 50+ years.  With a decent educational system, those capable
of doing a creditable job in medical school should have more than they
presently learn through their undergraduate education before the present
time for completion of secondary school, without spending any more time
learning than they now waste.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: selling organs
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:50:36 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Apr12.142514.8891@grayhawk.rent.com> siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur) writes:

>There is already likely a black stock market of certain body parts out thre
>there now.  The question is who is doing this and what is really happening.
>

There certainly is in Asia and the Middle East.  The consequences
for any western surgeon transplanting such an organ are so great
that it is difficult to imagine anyone doing it.  One London surgeon
was caught and defrocked after he allowed a patient to purchase
a kidney in Egypt (the patient was a Saudi or Kuwaiti, I think)
and transplanted it.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bruno@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bruno Melli)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: need IBD info
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:11:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Does anybody know what kind of research has been going on in the last
10 years on IBD (especially ulceratice colitis).

Things like

- treatment
- findings about the cause of the disease

The few books I found at our local library were published 10 years ago 
or before.

Thanks,

bruno.
From: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:53:08 GMT
Organization: Indiana Univerity


From wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>

***my emulation goofed so I had to send the fist part of the article 
 on the No. 74 sticky grenade uncompleted. Here's the remainder:

Their redesign improved the striker, used plastic for the flask instead 
of glass, and connected handle and flask directly instead of through an
intermediate ring.

The operation of the grenade took some courage; while it could be thrown,
it was preferable to place it in position. The operator first released 
the pin holding the hemispheres, allowing them to fall away and expose the 
adhesive flask. He then ran to the tank, jabbed the bomb to the selected
spot, released the handle and then had 5 seconds in which to take cover.
The breaking of the flask released the nitroglcerin, but the stockinette
bag kept it in place until the detonation. When properly used it was an
effective weapon, but beyond being used by partisans for demolitions
in Europe, there is no record of it having been used in combat. Although
not officially obsolete until 1951, it was rarely seen after 1944.
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:48:06 GMT
Keywords: blackbird mach 3


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
>kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt) writes:
>
>>Also, NASA now has at least two SR-71 which will probably
>>be painted NASA white, thus making the plane the Whitebird.
>
>They have 3 SR71s but they are not white.  Remember they must be painted with
>the special black paint due to frictional heat at high speed. 

Back when the B-70 was developed (same general speed range as the SR-71),
there were two choices for paint:  Black or white.

The XB-70's went with white, since visibility during testing was useful.

The SR-71's didn't want to be easily seen.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Improved LA Class Changes
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:34:46 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

The main differences between the L.A. Class (SSN-688 through 750) and the
Improved L.A. (SSN-751 and after) are the following:

	1)BSY-1 Combat system in the Improved LA's vice the CCS Mk1 in the
	  older boats.
	2)Forward hydroplanes are on the sail in the old boats, moved to the
	  bow on the new ones for better maneuverability and under-ice
	  performance.  
	  (The Sail planes on the 688 boats cannot rotate to vertical to
	  penetrate ice nor is the sail strengthened to take the abuse.)
	3)Addition of "acoustic tile cladding" on the Improved LAs to lower
	  radiated noise.
	4)Addition of MIDAS (mine and ice avoidance system) to the new boats
	
12 Tomahawk vertical launch tubes have been fitted since SSN-719 (Providence)

Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91

Tom Schoene
WWO@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
"If you can't say something nice, say something trancendental"
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Gear door/speed brake question
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:04:15 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <1992Apr14.003227.22798@cbnews.cb.att.com> urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) writes:

>I happen to be a model builder, at the moment working on a
>Grumman Panther and a Cougar. First I thought "Rats! the kit
>maker hasn't made the main landing gear doors openable". On most
>aircraft, when the engine is stopped, hydraulic pressure
>disappears, and speed brakes, doors and whatnot just drop open.
>
>Then I checked my references, and found that indeed parked
>Panthers and Cougars actually had the gear doors closed, and most
>had closed speedbrakes too. Does this mean they were operated by
>an electric motor that turned gears or something?

The Cougar, at least, had hydraulics for just about everything. I
remember a Blue Angel crash when hydraulic pressure was lost (no
controls). I would suspect that the Panther did also, since manufacturers
tend to keep doing the same thing until it kills someone.

Most aircraft have some sort of locking mechanism for keeping gear doors
and speedbrakes in the up or down positions. Aircraft were occasionally
lost in WWII due to the landing gear opening a little too much pulling
out of a dive. And that was before G-suits.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | "Under Consideration": We never heard of it.
George Patterson -  | "Under Active Consideration": We're searching the
                    |    files for it.
                    |         Kelvin Throop - The Management Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Low altitude training
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:05:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)

>>From craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Craig Patten)

>hh> from flying at 200 feet that it takes considerable training
>hh> for pilots to fly effectively at the lower altitude, yet only two air
>hh> forces in the world train for it [the USAF not among them].

>Which air forces are these?

The Swedish air force in recent years raised the limit for over
water low flying from 10 m to 20 m, so it must be one of them.
The over land limit used to be 20 m, so I _guess_ it must have
been raised to 30, to keep 20 m over treetops. (I'm sure the
minimum altitude under combat conditions is secret.)

*If* there are only two, the other must be the Israeli.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson    Speaks for himself only
 urf@icl.se   <- In case 'reply' doesn't work
From: grex@world.std.com (Mark J Urbin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:39:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


From grex@world.std.com (Mark J Urbin)

In article <1992Apr13.034541.6737@cbnews.cb.att.com> dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths) writes:
>From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>In-Reply-To:  upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch  )
>> Actually a 9mm handgun would make a lot more sense, if we also had
>> a general issue 9mm SMG, like most of the NATO forces have.
>What do US forces use for an SMG at present ?
   Last I heard, the US military did not have a standard issue SMG.  There are
several models that see use by special units.  These include:  MAC-10, MAC-11,
H&K MP5, CAR-15 (short barrel, folding stock version on the M-16) and a couple
of others that I'm sure I missed.
  Remember that the standard Army and Marine Infantry Platoon TO&E does not 
include any SMGs.  Various books on HRT's (Hostage Rescue Team) state that
both Delta and SEAL Team Six use H&K MP5s.



-- 
Mark Urbin  grex@world.std.com     These opinions are mine.
Dictators free themselves by enslaving others.  They work not for your 
benefit, but their own.  -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Little Dictator"
From: urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Short news from Flight International
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:51:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)

Atlas Aviation i South Africa has shown a Cheetah with a drooped,
fixed leading edge. First it was planned be retractable, but
having it fixed is better as it is lighter, less complex and the
space for the actuators is filled with fuel.
The Cheetah R2 has flown at 80 kt, angle of attack of was 33 deg.
Max take off weight is 600 kg higher, range better, subsonic
acceleration better by 9%, supersonic drag lower, sustained turn
rate 14% better, energy loss during turns less and low speed
handling better.

An ad from Hughes mentions an electro-optical tracker for ground
vehicles, which can track helicopters and high-performance
aircraft in darkness, smoke, haze and inclement weather. It
combines thermal imaging, TV sensors and laser rangefinder. Its
automatic dual-mode tracker can lock onto them as they fly
through clutter, such as hills and trees.

The USAF has issued a classified request for a follow on to the
GBU-28 laser-guided ground-penetrator bomb. It must be usable
from low altitudes, so it will be rocket-boosted.

Alenia will develop an active-radar version of its Aspide
air-to-air missile for the EFA. The Mk.2 version will have the
same body and range (35 km) as the semi-active Mk.1.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se 'Reply' may not work.   I'm _not_ a spokesman!
 If you plan to read just one book this year...
 ...you read far too few books.
From: EGYED@LNS62.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Zoltan Egyed (607)-255-4882)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Armed RPV
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:26:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From "Zoltan Egyed (607)-255-4882" <EGYED@LNS62.TN.CORNELL.EDU>

After asking about the possibility of RPVs as cruise missiles, I've
found the following:
In the 1982 war in Lebanon (Operation Peace for Galilee) there is one
reported case of an armed RPV kill against a SAM site (SA-8).
After having the positions of almost every SAM site in the Beeka
valley (PHOTINT and ELINT from F-4 Phantoms and RPVs, HUMINT from
friendly Arabs), at the beginning they sent RPVs and Samson drones
from F-4, modified to give radar cross section and speed close to
Israeli fighters. It made the Syrians to switch on their radars and
sending missiles after these. Then the Israelis used Wild Weasels and
F-16s with Shrike ARM, cluster bombs, iron bombs, ground artillery fire,
and at one case, an armed RPV to take the SAMs out. They killed
17 out of 19 SA-6 Syrian missile sites in the Beeka and several SA-2
and SA-3 sites in no more than 10 to 20 minutes of active combat.
(Source: A. Cordesman: The Lessons of Modern War, Vol. 1., Page 186-193.)

  Zoltan Egyed
  Egyed@lns61.tn.cornell.edu
From: davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:38:37 GMT
Organization: Interop Company, Mountian View, CA


From davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich)

In article <1992Apr11.001049.17728@cbnews.cb.att.com> patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>From patter@dasher.uucp (24224-guthrie)
>
>In article <1992Apr10.013550.9278@cbnews.cb.att.com> davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich) writes:
>
>>Do you have any data on stopping power comparisons between .45 and 9mm?  It
>>apprears that there is a book out there, whose name and and author escapes me atthe moment, that details actual shooting statistics for various calibers.
>
>There was an article recently in the American Rifleman on the FBI's
>comparison study of the 9mm, 10mm, and .45 pistols. That study showed
>clear superiority in stopping power of the 10mm and .45 over the 9mm.
>Up to that point, there had been a fairly even split between FBI men
>over the .45 and 9mm, some preferring the .45, some the 9mm.

An article in a recent Guns and Ammo, quoting a new book on actual shooting
statistics (sorry I can't be more specific - lost the issue) pretty
much makes salad of FBI's decision.  FBI used simulation tests.  Actual
shooting statistcs say ~70% first-shot stops for both .45 and 9mm, and only
a little better for the .357 and .44 Mag.  If you recall, the reason the .45
was picked in the first place was that it could break bones in cows best.
The original test, and all the subsequent ones failed to measure ACTUAL
field performance.

>The FBI selected the 10mm as their new official weapon. According to
>their tests, it packs the same power as the .45 and the 9mm doesn't.
>There is suspicion that they selected the 10mm instead of the .45
>because they didn't want the .45 afficianados saying "told you so" to
>the 9mm people.

The caliber FBI picked was not the "10", but the .41 S&W.  It is a much
wimpified 10mm, with muzzle energy about equal to the .45.  The 10mm is 
really in the magnum class, and (congecture - no actual data in yet) can
probably stop a manas well as a .41 Mag - they have about the same ballistics.

The reason FBI made the switch from the 9mm, as I have heard, was all the
flack they got from that Miami shootout, where a drug-crazed gunman
with a mini-14 and a dozen 9mm slugs in his body took out a couple of
incompetent feds.
-- 

                                        David Gimpelevich
                                       	Interop Company
                                        davidg@interop.com
From: baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:35:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)


|> There was an article recently in the American Rifleman on the FBI's
|> comparison study of the 9mm, 10mm, and .45 pistols. That study showed
|> clear superiority in stopping power of the 10mm and .45 over the 9mm.
|> Up to that point, there had been a fairly even split between FBI men
|> over the .45 and 9mm, some preferring the .45, some the 9mm.

The FBI's study was basically driven by their "a priori" will to reject
the 9mm. The best (or less worse) measure of hadgun ammo efficiency are
the statistics of Evans Marshall, based on actual cases, and measuring the
probability of single shot stops. The absolute winner is the .357Mag
125 grains JHP (around 96%). The very best 9mm and .45 have the same 
performcances and are rated around 86%. They are all JHP and are rated
+p(+) by their manufacturers and are not available to everyone. The
.40S&W looks to have similar performances, except that you don`t need
+P ammo to get an efficiency similar to the best 9mm and .45.

The efficiency of FMJ .45 and 9mm are both far lower. One can argue that,
if you are limited to FMJ ammunition, for CIVILIAN self defense the FMJ
.45 has to be preferred over the 9mm because of its lower penetration power
(you are less likely to do unwanted victims). The 9mm is however a prefectly
efficient sidearm for most military purposes.


-- 
Emmanuel Baechler.				e-mail: baechler@liasun6.epfl.ch
Laboratoire d'Intelligence Artificielle		Tel.: ++41-21-693-2732
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne	Standard Disclaimer
MA-Ecublens
CH-1015 Lausanne	Switzerland
From: hhm@ihlpe.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Present locations of surviving German WWII U-Boats?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:35:53 GMT
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged


From hhm@ihlpe.att.com (Herschel H Mayo)

> 
> I recently watched "Murphy's War" (a Peter O'Toole WWII film from 1971) for
> the first time.  If the German U-Boat in that film wasn't a real one, they
> sure could have fooled me.

No offence, but you must be easily fooled. The sub was, I think, a guppy
conversion, and not even close to a type VII or IX.


> Anyone know who owned/owns that U-Boat (if it was indeed real)?  Anyone
> know the disposition of the other surviving U-Boats from WWII??

    There is a type VII on display in Hamburg Germany, also I think one
exists in England also. Although I don't know if it's on display.

                                                 Larry
From: campnest@lonestar.utsa.edu (Armando F. Campnest)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:07:19 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


From campnest@lonestar.utsa.edu (Armando F. Campnest)

That's like saying that becuase a .32 Mauser and a Smith .357 are in the same
caliber range that the effects are virtually the same. Other than a hole,
nothing could be further from the truth.
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How smart are U.S./Russian Sonobuoys?
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:46:41 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


From rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)


Most sonobuoys (ours and theirs) are relatively dumb.

The simplest (or dumbest) are literally a hydrophone hooked up to
a radio transmitter.  Some have multi-hydrophone arrays used for
vertical and horizontal beamforming or direction idication.

*Most* processing is still done in the aircraft, not the buoy.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Low-flying B-52s
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:45:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From brims@bnkl01.astro.ucla.edu


I once photographed a B52 over Watten, Scotland (very small place, may
not be in your atlas). All day these damn things had been approaching
from the SW, then turning NW directly over the village. The noise was
really bad and you could even smell them! I called the Lossiemouth RAF
station (the B52s were flying from there in some huge NATO N Atlantic
exercise) and politely asked how low they were supposed to be. I was
told in very patronising terms that there was (a) no way they could be
flying as low as I said (under 500 ft) and (b) civilians have no idea
about the real height of an airplane anyway. So out came the camera and
I got one during a turn a few hundred yards away. I made sure I got the
ground in too. Consulting a friend's reference book and measuring the
length of the fuselage on the photo I worked out the lower wingtip was
180ft off the ground.
  Now this didn't bother me but the patronising nerd on the phone did
so I sent a letter to Lossiemouth with an 8*10. Got a nice apology "on
behalf of our American colleagues" from the station adjutant.
Apparently the turns were supposed to occur to the west of the village,
not right over it. I didn't bother to write back about the Starfighter
that went over the previous summer raising dust off the soccer field....

George Brims

------- End of Forwarded Message
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: torpedo firing depth
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:46:23 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP)

In article <1992Apr4.013142.13719@cbnews.cb.att.com>, dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes...

>They have to be pushed out pretty much completely for
>the props to generate any thrust (a prop spinning in the tube just
>churns up the water in the tube). If the sub is too deep, the outside
>water pressure makes it impossible to eject the torpedo.

Isn't the above mentioned problem the reason for flooding the torpedo tubes 
prior to launch?  It would seem the limiting factor would be the pressure 
that the tubes themselves could endure, since it indirectly compromises
the pressure hull when they flood.    

Isn't this also something that would be solved by the design of the 
swimout torpedo?

SJRD