HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edso@watson.ibm.com (Edward So)
Subject: Re: One of the difference btwn Xiangqi & JangGi
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: edso@watson.ibm.com		
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep8.181030.24345@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, umin@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Un-Sig Min) writes:
|> In article <Bu8G4G.2Cx@newcastle.ac.uk> S.L.F.Cheng@newcastle.ac.uk (S. Cheng) writes:
|> 
|> In korean version, "JangGi", there is no river such as row 4 & 5.
|> Therefore  Shang (korea version elephant ?)
|>  can go everywhere.
|> Another difference between Xiang (china version) and Shang is movement.
|>       Xiang (x,y)= (+/-2,+/-2),  Shang (x,y)=(+/-2,+/-3) , (+/-3,+/-2).
|> 
|>       O---- ---- ---- ----O        ----O---- ---- ---- ----O----
|>       |    |    |    |    |       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>        ---- ---- ---- ----        O---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----O
|>       |    |    |    |    |       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>        ---- ----X---- ----         ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 
|>       |    |    |    |    |       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>        ---- ---- ---- ----         ---- ---- ----S---- ---- ----
|>       |    |    |    |    |       |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>       O---- ---- ---- ----O        ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
|>                                   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>                                   O---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----O
|>                                   |    |    |    |    |    |    |
|>                                    ----O---- ---- ---- ----O---- 
|>      X : Xiang,     S : Shang,   O : possible destination.

Other differences in Korean janggi include
1. The pawn can move sideways as well as forward at any time.  (There's
   no river in janggi, so this makes sense.)
2. The king and the guards can move in any direction in the
   courtyard - up/down, left/right, and diagonally.
3. The cannon MUST jump over another piece even when it is just positioning
   itself.  An exception: a cannon cannot jump over another cannon.
4. The chariot(rook) can move diagonally once inside a king's courtyard.

Like in the chinese version, the horse(knight) or the elephant(minister)
cannot move if the path is not clear.  The path of a knight is the same:
move one grid forward and one diagonally.  An elephant moves one grid
forward and then sweeps across a 2x2 square.

Finally, a word about the initial layout of the board: the knight and
the minister can switch positions, and the king can start at the center
of the court, or inbetween the guards.

I haven't played either version of this game for quite a while,
did I miss anything?  Is everything I said correct?
 
-- 
Edward So,  Computing Systems, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
IBM VNET: EDSO at WATSON       Internet: edso@watson.ibm.com
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25336 soc.culture.taiwan:13187
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:33:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.173558.19374@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>In article <92Sep11.115523edt.121@orasis.vis.toronto.edu>,
>liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Sep11.142630.7956@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>> > 
>> >>   PROC(Mainland)
>> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
>> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
>> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >
>> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
>> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
>> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
>> >
>> Maybe they are much more concerned about develop interceptors to defend its own
>> airspace rather than carpeting bombing Taiwan or others like lots of people 
>> would like you to believe.  
>> 
> I still can not understand the logic even they want to "develop
>interceptors to defend its own airspace rather than carpeting bombing
>Taiwan."  Usually, four MiG-31's in formation can cover an area equivalent
>to a US AWACS does.  Finding enemy warplanes, the MiG-31 will conduct
>air-superiority fighters (MiG-29 or Su-27) to approach and attact them. 
>Without enough air-superiority fighters how to control (defend) their own
>airspace?

I don't know much about airplanes, but are you saying the Mig-31 cannot
fight a dog-fight at all?  

The biggest disadvantage with soviet fighters is their inferior radar
/electronics equipment in comparisons to US planes.  It might not
be a bad idea to have MIGs that have more electronic gadges than the
average ones.  


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: zdlin@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (ZhongDong Lin)
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:38:32 GMT



     I donot think Taiwan or China should be the main issues of F-16 deal.
Taiwan should not be blamed for its fear of security, and PRC should not be
blamed for its protest (pretend or not).  The real guilty part is George Bush
and his government.  They made this deal out of pure political reason in a    
clear violation of 1982 Sino-America treaties.  His government then tried to  
justify its wrongdoing by overriding a international law by a domestic law.   
This just proves that politicans anywhere are the same, it is not the
interests of people they care about, it is their personal gains.  If selling  
weapons is for the purpose of stabilizing a region, why they objected the     
Chinese arm sales to the third world countries? 


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: falk2@seas.gwu.edu (James Falk)
Subject: test
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 10:31:49 GMT

Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: OR dept

Keywords: 

test, please ignore ...




Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yu@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Fan Yu)
Subject: Re: anonymous posting
Keywords: anonymous posting
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:30:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.180057.10579@math.utexas.edu> txu@lab2.ma.utexas.edu (Tao Xu) writes:
>Path: beijing!china
>From: a@b.c.d
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
>
>Message-ID: <0010@b.c.d>
>
>Sender: a@b.c.d
>Originator: a@b.c.d 
>Nntp-Posting-Host: nntp-server

Hey! It looked like you didn't succeed this time! My deep condolence!

You should at least have a few test-runs on alt.test before doing it here.
Now everybody can see how shoddy your "anonymous posting" is.

					Fan
From: zliu@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Zhong Liu)
Subject: Re: Michael Chang in US Open Semi-Final!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:43:55 GMT

>>
>>     Does Lendl become a citizen of US?
>>    I guess he is still keeping Czech citizenship
>>    even though he lives here over 10 years. Patriot?
>

No. Just save some incoming tax.

Z. Liu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: elelyc@nuscc.nus.sg (Y.C. Liang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 03:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.140232.23653@tamsun.tamu.edu> x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang) writes:
>>
>>- Allan
>Allan:
>As a quiet reader, I have been totally disgusted by your repeated
>accusations of mainlanders chauvinisms. Look in the mirror at you
>yourself. To me, you are simply a pitiful, selfish, obnoxous snob.
>You think you its right to look down at poorer people. By the way,
>I think people in Taiwan are not yet wealthy by any standards:
>They only appear to be rich in mainland. They pay too much for daily
>necessities in Taiwan. They don't yet have all the nice public works
>like Libraries, Clean air and other infrastructures. The industry
>is merely copies from US or Japan when they dumped. That's why the
>Taiwan government is in a six-year infrastructure campaign. Taiwan
>is totally at mercy of big countries like US. It is merely a card to
>play by the US. Now do you feel better?
>Regards!
>

I do not think in Alan's posting, he has ever looked down any poor
people at all.  All he was talking is to say "Don't force Taiwan to be
part of Communist China, and let Taiwan has the weapon to defence
herself".  I don't see that has anything to do with "pitiful, selfish,
obnoxous snob".  You will be surprised to hear what you said.

I am not sure what your standard is for "wealthy".  But, I have to say
one thing for the "libraries" you mentioned.  The number of libraries in
Taiwan is quite sufficient.  One can go to any libraries in any
universities(there are many universities in such a relatively small
island), any county libraries, city libraries, national libraries and
private libraries.  More then 80% of the people read newspaper everyday.  
More than 60% of the families have computers at home.  Alomost all the
offices in Taiwan use computers to do wordprocessing and accounting.
There are so many book publishers, at least more than 1000 if you look
at the yellow page, in Taiwan.  There are so many books everywhere you
can find.

I do agree that the environment is getting very polluted and needs to be
cleaned up.  However, people have noticed the problem.

I am not sure if Taiwan is relying on the big mercy of USA, but I know
that Japan is growing under the USA protection.  And, certainly you guys
from China are currently willing to be protected by the USA government.
From: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Date: 16 Sep 1992 00:10:31 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Reply-To: yjhbhc@dante.lbl.gov (Joe Huang)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.106

In article <79816@ut-emx.uucp> bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:

>Some background: The old Guoyeu Romatzyh system,
>which was published in the 1920s, coded the tones
>as spelling variations. Thus, fen1, fen2, fen3, 
>fen4 were written fen, fern, feen, fenn. Doubling
>of the vowel indicated 3rd tone. Since (on maps
>and such) Hanyu Pinyin frequently dispenses with
>tone markings, problems arise because then (for
>example) Shanxi and Shaanxi would be spelled alike and
>no tone mark would distinguish them. It is virtually
>certain that the form Shaanxi was adopted from Guoyeu
>Romatzyh.

I thought that Prof. Chao Yuanren came up with the idea
of embedding tones into the romanization, but apparently
it predates him.  What do people think of modifying
pinyin in such a way? It seems quite simple to do,
for example, Beijing would then be "Beeijing" and
background would be "beiijiing".

Joe Huang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 04:06:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Sep13.231922.9018@tamsun.tamu.edu> x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang) writes:
>>
>>Not necessarily.  I believe the Netherlands also have a high GNP percentage
>>from trade, but it is hardly dependent on a big foreign power.  Same for
>>Switzerland.
>But they belong to EC which is a de factor country of several states.

I don't believe Switzerland belongs in the EEC.

Luc B



Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:25428 soc.culture.taiwan:13253
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (sundaram)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: To those pro Shen Tong guys
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:31:15 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.china
Organization: AztecaCS

In article <92251.174538YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu>, YXZ100@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
> 
> ========================================================================= In
> the article <1992Sep7.193609.27898@athena.mit.edu>, the writer says:
> "Courage?  what courage is that?  Backed up by Uncle Sam to show down in
> Beijingneed NO courage.  He know he is OK anyway.  If he were really
> couragous:
> 
> 1.staying Beijing after 6.4 or 2.  go back to China without any foreign
> power interference." Date: 7 September 1992, 17:00:13 EDT From: YXZ100 at
> 
> 
> PSUVM To: zhuh at athena.mit.edu Subject: Re: To those pro-Shen Tong guys
> 
> Where were you after 6.4, Sir?  Do you mean that you even had more courage
> to go back at that time or that only return to China three years ago rather
> than now is a courageous behavior?  Please don't try to criticize others by
> the standard which you don't even live with.  Try to understand others based
> on what you know about youself and real people.  At least this is one thing
> that you should have learnt in U.S..
Well said...Mister, cut the crap and beat the their arses..all those
goddamn
self-righteous morons. US and D-fighters suck!
From: yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Economical Statistics about Taiwan, S. Korea, China
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:41:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

bbs@medsys.rn.com (Public BBS System) writes:
>In article <65500084@acf3.NYU.EDU> yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>>
>>Does taiwan deserve too much pride on the economic development?
>>The USA feeded them up.
>>

>Would you please show some numbers to back up your claim? Thanks.

>Chou1

I have too many numbers, I don't know which one you want, only say
trade surplus, when the trade suplus of mainland reaches 
a few dozens of billions, the USA pays a lot of attention to 
it, but actually China is large country, that amount of money won't 
help China much, while it can help Taiwan a lot.
In the cold war the USA helped Taiwan alot, also the USA has
less control in exporting techenology (for example the integrated
electronic techonology) to Taiwan than the mainland, I guess
there are two reasons for this: 1) Mainland is socialism 2)
China is a large country. We are a competetor of the USA.
I am not saying that Taiwan's success is a bad thing, but I
don't want to see those narrow minded people blow this here.

Ze Yang
From: yong@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Science in China 16
Date: 8 Sep 92 08:03:11 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Science in China (Part 16)

In 1221 the Chinese use bombs that produce shrapnel and cause
considerable damage, previous uses of gunpowder relied more on the
frightening power of loud explosions.

In 1245 a Chinese Ch'in Chiu-Shao's Mathematical treatise in nine
sections treats equations of a degree higher than third.

Nicolo and Maffeo Polo travel to China in 1260 and return in 1269.

In 1276 Chinese astronomer Zhou Kung sets up a 12-meter (40 ft) gnomon
for measuring the sun's shadow.

Between 1270 and 1279, a Chinese Kuo Shou-Ching builds the "simplified
instrument", the first known astronomical device to use an equatorial
mounting, it is a torquetum.

The first known gun is made in China in 1288, a small cannon, it
probably has predecessors that go back 10 years or more.

Marco Polo's 1298 book of his travels (to China?) correctly describes
such substances as coal and asbestos for the first time in Europe.

The first record of Pascal's Triangle is published in 1303 by the great
Chinese algebraist Chu Shih-Chieh.

Between 1310 and 1319, the first mechanical clocks appear in Europe, 
appearently in response to stories about the existence of mechanical 
clocks in China.
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: F-16,pilots.
Organization: MITRE
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:22:16 GMT


> >>One of my Tawanese friends tald me the quality of Tawanese pilot and said
> >>" If the way break someday, most of F-16 pilot will dispear or be called
> >>back to there home by there parents or wife."
> >>I am wonding is it that bad? Welcome your answers.
> 
> >I think your friend was making a joke or something.  Pilots are treated
> >differently in Taiwanese Air Force, much better life.  This is mainly to
> >encourage quality system and more confidence.  I was in the air force. 
> >Don't worry !  
> 
> From what I read in this "Top Gun" book, the ROC pilots are considered some of 
> the best in the world...  All the ROC pilots who were trained there in Mirmar
> received exceptionally good "grades".  Dunno how many were there tho...
> Maybe only a few.
> 
> 
I know that ROC pilots were some of the best in the world in 60's.  Maybe
you still remember the glory of Thunder Tiger Team.  But, now, it is hard
to say.  I really don't have much confidence.  My cousin was a F-5 pilot. 
After a minor accident (his plane slided and turned-over into rice field),
my aunt forced him to quit his pilot life, and he did. To be a pilot is no
easy job especially for those who in ROC.  You probably know the nick name
for F-104 in U.S. - "A rocket with a man in it."  Do you know F-104 also
has a nick name in Taiwan - "Widow Maker."  I don't know how many sad
stories behind this nick name....
From: john@jho.com (John Ho)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: anonymous posting - just a test
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:12:26 GMT
Organization: Software Programming, Inc., Dallas, Texas USA

abc@x.y.z writes:

>Hi, guys,
>I know you can track me down.  Could you send me e-mail?

One thing that REALLY bother me in SCC is the vast amount of so call
"annoymous" posting. Yes, you can post annoymously and so what? Do you
just want to show off what you know? I think these annoymous posters
are a whole bunch of cowards who are afraid to stand up by themselves.
These posters are a bunch of incompetent, insecure and little confidence 
individuals who cannot stand behind what they say. If you mean it, you
say it and put your signature down there. 

Say "No" to annoymous posting.
-- 
John Ho from Dallas, Texas USA. (john@jho.com)           - No news is bad news.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: chyang@sussex.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:27:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: chyang@sussex.engin.umich.edu


In article <10SEP199215495996@deimos.ucc.umass.edu>, s9874194@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (s9874194) writes:
> In article <BuCEr5.JB9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes...
> >It takes at least five years to deliver all 150 F-16s.
> >With 150 F-16s, Taiwanese is still not strong enough to
> >attack mainland people. Without F-16s, if Taiwanese want
> >independence, would mainland resort to millitary action?
> >I think not. Why should mainland risk so much for this
> >island? Mainland people will not live better with the
> >"liberation" of Taiwan. After five years, these plans
> >may be nothing but toys. After all, the American are not
> >selling technology to build the plans. Also these plans
> >are not the first grade fighters (F-16 C/D is more advanced).
> > 
> >These Taiwanese are rich. You cannot prevent them from
> >spending the 4 billion dollars. I guess if mainland had
> >such money and mainland were not communist country, American
                  -----------------------------------

	If the mainland were not communist, we would not have
any of this problem that we are having now, would we?!  

	If the mainland were not communist, we wouldn't have 
"Two China's and a TI".  We'd have one country.  Heck!  We'd
be making our own fighters.  Other nations would probably be
buying them from us.

	But too bad, the mainland is communist, that is why we
are in the mess we are in today.  Just my comment for the moment.

- Yang

  
> >would be willing to sell F-16 to mainland more eagerly
> >than to Taiwan. In that case I would still prefer to use
> >the 4 billion for something else instead of buying these
> >toys for a few pilots.
> > 
> >I think the Chinese government is over worried and the
> >Taiwanese is over joyed. What a big deal!
> > 
> >Xiao Li
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: F-16's fear?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:17:55 GMT

In article <3531@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> yshuang@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Yongshan Huang) writes:
>
>Why fear F-16 ? One hundred and fifty F-16 surely can not 
>defend Taiwan. And Taiwanese do not like war.  But I just 
>don't understand why the govenment in Taiwan want to spend
>so much money to help Bush's election. So stupit !
>
>I think these F-16 can only invoke counter effect to the 
>piece of the world. We will see.
> 

Do you imply that a small and weak country should stay weaker and a
strong country should become stronger, so that the world peace can be
maintained because the strong country can do whatever it wants to do and no
other countries can stand to against it.

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:30:28 GMT

>>It takes at least five years to deliver all 150 F-16s.
>>With 150 F-16s, Taiwanese is still not strong enough to
>>attack mainland people. Without F-16s, if Taiwanese want
>
>I really don't think Taiwan will attack mainland.
>
Don't count on KMT. KMT always and still claim that mainland China belong
to KMT and want to take it back badly. However, TIers only want to
independent from China. So, its a simple logic to figure out who is more
danger to China. The one who want to attack you or the one who want to walk
away from you ?

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Re: Chinese culture
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:22:10 GMT

lix@murray.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) writes:

>In article <1992Sep13.223119.5922@tamsun.tamu.edu> x0y3510@tamuts.tamu.edu (Xuejun Yang) writes:
>>(deleted)
>>get real, be realistic and objective. Don't apply rich people's 
>>way of thinking on poor people, that's so-called Chinese reality but
>>I doubt if poor is equal to bad culture.      

>Not equal, but being poor itself suggests something wrong in Chinese
                                                              ^^^^^^^?
>culture. We, especially young people, are responsible to learn from
>western cultures, and find out exactly what is wrong in Chinese one.

I like to point out that it has to do with the economic system, NOT
the Chinese culture.

Take a look at HKG, Taiwan, Singapore, and parts of California, and
try to tell me Chinese Culture makes people poor!

Many people (from the West) have suggested that Chinese Culture actually
makes people rich!  What made Mainland poor has a lot to do with the
"cultural" revolution that happened.  Sometimes, I wonder if Mainland
Culture is Chinese Culture, and that REAL Chinese Culture can only
be found in HKG or Taiwan.

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : 5 Dynasties and 10 Kingdoms Period
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:39:03 GMT

**Period:

907 -> 979 A.D. Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period

**Dynasty:

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period

The period is also a mass, like North/South Period.

(sorry, couldn't be bothered typing in all the dates.  :-) )

**Area under Central Control:

Tibet took control over most parts of the Mongolian area,
and was bigger than what was left over from Tang.
Beijing area was lost, so was Inner Mongolia.
Vietnam area is lost.

**Area under Central Influence:

none.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Tibet was the BIGGEST threat as Tibet invaded Tang's
two western Provinces, as well as taken over majority of
Mongolia and Manchuria, and into Siberia, and reached
modern Japan Sea.

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan