HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fs@cs.scarolina.edu (Faisal Siddiqi)
Subject: Animation in hypertext
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Distribution: alt
Date: 21 Jul 92 03:25:36 GMT


I'm interested in learning about what work has been done in the area of
animation in hypertext. It seems to me that an animation sequence, taken
as a node of a hypermedia session would be an effective form of
instruction.

Considering that animation could be said to consist of interaction between
objects, perhaps this *interaction* could be considered a hypertext node
by itself. 
Does this make any sense? I would be very interested in ANY
responses/ideas that anyone may have to offer about this.

Thanks - faisal

fs@cs.scarolina.edu
From: vivek@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Vivek M. Sawant )
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: HELP RQRD! Hypertext and Graph Theory.
Keywords: Hypertext, Graphs, Implementation
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:43:31 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana


Dear Netters,

I am currently working on a project which deals
with graph theory. The project, named G-Net, is aimed at 
developing a fairly portable system which is useful for graph 
theory study and research.  The system is proposed to provide 
following features:

* Access to Introductory Graph Theory Knowledge
* Facility to Edit Graphs
* Facility to Execute Various Graph Algorithms

I feel that the hypertext approach will be suitable for
this system.

I have done some reading on hypertext over past few months.
This effort had lead me to some basic questions concerning the 
design of a hypertext system and choice of hypertext approach 
for G-Net. 

I would like to know if some kind soul can spare some time to 
answer my queries regarding this subject. I would prefer this
communication to be on email so that I don't bother other netters.
(Interested people can get in touch with me for knowing more about
 the developments).

              ..........................
I would also like to know if there is some existing public
domain software (source) available on NET for implementing
a hypertext system.
              ..........................

Thanks for reading the long message.


_vivek

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           VIVEK SAWANT                   
Department of Computer Science.        Inet : vivek@bsu-cs.bsu.edu 
Ball State University, Muncie,         Bitnet : 00VMSAWANT@BSUVAX1.BITNET
 IN 47306.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
From: lubich@bernina.ethz.ch (Hannes Lubich)
Subject: Are there any multiuser hypermedia tools fro SUN or Mac?
Keywords: Hypermedia multiuser tool wanted
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:42:31 GMT

Hi all,
I've already posted this question to comp.groupware, with almost no results.
Perhaps somebody in this group can help me.

We're planning a CSCW seminar, in which participants should be able to 
contribute to a hypermedia document, that reflects the current state of
the seminar, and its common knowledge.
We are thus looking for products that allow simultaneous access to a
shared hypermedia document and runs on Suns (preferred) under X-Windows
or networked Macintoshes (under System 7 and Ethernet or Appletalk).
We don't need very fancy functionality, text, bitmaps and line graphics
should be sufficient (plus the ability for arbitrary links, and browsing).

Does anybody have information about such products, that we could use?
We would be even willing to buy it :-))

Thanks a lot in advance
	--HaL (lubich@komsys.tik.ethz.ch)

-- 
~ RFC-822  : lubich@komsys.tik.ethz.ch
~ BBN/Slate: lubich@ktik5.comm.tik.ethz.ch
~ X.400    : C=ch; A=arcom; P=switch; O=ethz; OU=tik; OU=komsys; S=lubich
~ The usual disclaimer : No, it wasn't me, somebody must have used my account.
From: bt16+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bill Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: Where is FAQ for this group?
Date: 29 Jul 92 13:00:38 GMT
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administr., Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I repeat: "Where is the FAQ list for this group?
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:15:51 GMT

In article <graham.711862019@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>>(Stephen James) writes:
>>>>> book "The Blind Watchmaker" (I think that is the title). This book
>>>>> discusses this design argument and indicats how long a time these
>>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> things take, such that complexity can be derived from natural 
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I still don't get what you mean by this. Please explain - I have a
>feeling there is an interesting discussion in this.
>

The above passage seems to advocate evolution.  The meaning I got
is that man reached the current level of complexity naturally (by evolution)
over a very very long time.  I argue that there is no proof
of this.

>graham
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:44:07 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Jul27.235350.1065@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>>Or take the Mandelbrot set.  Based on a simple mathematical formula, it
>>produces a fractal of amazing beauty.  And what's more, quite a few
>>other things drop out of this set.
>>The point being that it doesn't take divine design to produce things of
>>such sublime complexity.  Many very simple systems can do very nicely.
>How do those things compare with the human brain, created by God,
>which invented these things in the first place?

The human brain _didn't_ invent these things.  They're inherent in simple
mathematical concepts, and these mathematical concepts are true whether or
not there are any brains around.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: free will
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 10:59:59 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> khan@davidsys.com writes:
> [preaching deleted]
> 
> Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?

I think maybe Graham hasn't had his morning coffee yet...


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Subject: Re: Extent of omniscience
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:48:03 GMT

In article <willimsa.712329154@unix1.tcd.ie> willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
>From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
>Subject: Re: Extent of omniscience
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:12:34 GMT

>(Brian Cash) writes:
>>(Ekrem Saban) writes:
>>|>>(dave budd) writes:
>>|>
>>|>God, however, is neither of matter (as the reason of His existence is
>>|>He Himself, and as matter is created by Him), nor does He obey to any
>>|>law: He is the Exalted in Power, the Irresistable, the Supreme. So,
>>|>His power can't be cut by laws or anything else, and He needs nothing
>>|>but Himself.  

>I've got to say that the above paragraph loses it!  It's not an explanation,
>it's an evasion!!!!
ditto
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bell                                    Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc                   You can force any entertainment
P.O. Box 833875                                 on a people except the consistent
Richardson, TX 75083-3875                       pursuit of a topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Hello?
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:44:57 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <TD99NB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>Are my articles not getting out, or is everyone studiously ignoring me?


>mathew

Your articles are so perfect there are no replies required.

+--Great Quotes of our Time-------------------------------------------+
|        You should never have a hobby that eats                      |
+--------------------------------------Amarillo Slim Preston----------+          
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England  (44)061-275-6033   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: atheism
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:37:51 GMT
Reply-To: ss@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Scott Stuart)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

Sorry, can't post this to a.a.moderated, as it doesn't yet exist here.

In article <sbuckley.712441699@sfu.ca> sbuckley@sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>of inconsistency bothers everyone, but is it right to abandon a spirituality
>based on the inconsistencies and inadequacies of its members?


No, but it is right to seriously question whether a religion which claims
to be one of love, justice, and mercy has any meaning or justification when
the actions of many/some of its members, past or present, persist in
violating the basic principles of the religion in the name of the religion.

scott
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi)
Subject: Re: Inquisition (was: Crusades (Re: RELIGIOUS CONCEIT))
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:48:43 GMT

In article <13201@pogo.wv.tek.com> daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:
>
>Now I would strongly agree with Tim that there were several inquisitions.  For
>example there were the Spanish, Roman, Medieval, and Dominican among others

Since I am practically ignorant about this subject, could you tell me/us
more about the Spanish inquisition as I am interested in it more.

- Ridha

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: allison@math.orst.edu (Allison Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Sneezing
Summary: complexity of birds....
Keywords: birds, planes, silliness
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:43:43 GMT

>>>Graham:
>>>
>>>A bird has higher complexity than an airplane?

[stuff deleted] Bob:
>  Indeed?  A jumbo jet can carry more payload faster and at a
>  greater altitude than a bird.  When was the last time a jet
>  was sucked into a bird engine intake?  And I certainly don't
>  recall ever having a jet bounce off the windshield of my car.
>
>  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Man has no need to create a
>  bird, since they serve no invaluable purpose and it's been done
>  before.  In fact, the patent probably hasn't even expired on the
>  original design.

I'm not a biologist,but as far as I know, no bird has ever been entirely 
understood and explained by humans, while I think airplanes have.

Just because jumbo jets are larger than birds doesn't necessarily mean they 
are more complex.  I could probably smesh a person's head open with a 
sledgehammer, but would you say that a sledgehammer is therefore more complex
than a person?  Also, as far as your comments go, I think they are more a 
reflection on the pilots of the jets rather than the jets themselves...

Allison (yes, I'm still here, but not for long...)
amitchell@macalstr.edu
allison@math.orst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: matthew's and Jim's views of free will
From: agray@StarConn.com (Andrew J. Gray)
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:13:19 GMT
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133

>>If Jim's right, then our path through life is a one way single lane road 
>>with no junctions, and whether or not we enjoy the scenery or hate it is 
>>also totally predetermined.  In fact, this posting was already predicted by 
>>the configuration of the Big Bang.  We're reduced to a spark of 
>>consciousness trapped in a vehicle we can't control.  Even leaving by 
>>suicide wouldn't actually be our own choice.
>

The solution to this dilemma (well, it works for me anyway), is this:

Just as Descartes found that he could doubt *everything*, and as I'm
told, had a real problem once he decided that he couldn't prove anything
existed -- the way out of Descartes' trap is the realization that you
will never know the difference -- if all experience is illusion, then
illusion is all you have.  So, you may as well just assume that your
experiences are real.
 
 So, just apply this to the concept of free will...  Whether or not your
 actions are predetermined by the configuration of the Big Bang, you
 will never know -- *cannot* ever know -- the difference.  It is
 therefore safe to assume that your will is your own, guided by no one
 and no thing.

 Andrew Gray
 agray@starconn.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 07:03:26 GMT

Graham:
>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
>Why did [assumed God] just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>1992 directly? [...] Whats more it has nothing to do with agnosticism.
Jarek:
>What IS the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?

It is the state of the world and all its parts at that time.
Now before you say something like "how do you know this state
exists" remember that I am replying to another article in which
the assumptions are that :-

a) God exists
b) God made the world

and hence the world exists.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
From: mitchell@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (DeWayne Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:04:03 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <graham.712134206@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
>Graham:
>>Why [didn't God] make everything as it is now?
>>Why did [assumed God] just not build the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July
>>1992 directly? [...] Whats more it has nothing to do with agnosticism.
>Jarek:
>>What IS the world of 15:34 Sunday 26 July 1992?
>
>It is the state of the world and all its parts at that time.
>Now before you say something like "how do you know this state
>exists" remember that I am replying to another article in which
>the assumptions are that :-
>
>a) God exists
    ^^^^^^^^^^
>b) God made the world
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and hence the world exists.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 I agree whole heartedly.


>
>graham
>
>--

 DeWayne
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ehamrick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric N Hamrick)
Subject: Another Free Will Question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:03:14 GMT

     I am curious, if free will is our gift on Earth, is it taken away
   when we get to heaven.  If not, then sin is most certainly present in
   Heaven if the souls are allowed to make their own decisions.  I'd
   appreciate any comments.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Existence of a god.
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:49:52 GMT

Jim
>Because it is self-evident that there is One.  :)
>Regards,
>Jim
>(Actually, it's not obvious that there isn't One.)

Nor is it obvious that there is one.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: 02/alt.atheism fre <cont>
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:02:07 GMT

Someone:
>>What's really relevant here is that QM describes behaviour which is
>>totally alien to the normal human experience. 
(Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>But quantum mechanics still obeys the conservation laws of classical
>physics. 

I don't think it does Lawrence.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14540 soc.culture.pakistan:12873 soc.culture.arabic:2920
From: frazier@maxwell (Greg Frazier)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Words Feminists find Demeaning!
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:02:30 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bes@cco.caltech.edu (Behnam Sadeghi) writes:
: 
: The idea of "one true belief" bothers Mr. Selim Guncer.  However,
: from the firm and confident tone of his article it seemed that
: he believed what he wrote to be one true belief.

And yet, your complete re-interpretation of what he wrote proves
his point.  Well done.

--


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Short, shameful confession
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:02:32 GMT

In article <ZamyNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>When I heard that the Pope was ill, my first thought was "Wouldn't it be
>funny if it turned out that he had caught AIDS through a brief unsafe sexual
>encounter with a prostitute?"

The sad thing is that this would probably save 10's of millions of lives,
since the catholic church might have to reconsider its position on condom 
usage.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14232 sci.skeptic:13138
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Praying to Mecca?... and Evangelists
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:56:52 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <geBwNB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>Obviously *real* laws of nature are completely unlike Islam.  Islam is more
>like "55 mph speed limit" -- it's a law that only has strength if there's
>someone to punish you if you break it.

Reminds me of a T-shirt I saw in a catalog, saying "186,000 miles/sec,
it's not just a good idea - it's the law!" with a drawing of Albert
Einstein wearing a cop's uniform.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     RELATIVES!!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14080 sci.skeptic:12985
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: 14 Jul 92 09:30:31 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> There's something wrong here, unless my memory is very badly off.  Unless I'm
> very badly mistaken, George Bush was elected to the Presidency in November of
> 1988, and inaugurated in January of 1989, yet this entry in the FAQ quotes
> Robert Sherman as addressing Bush as "Mr. President" in the interview.

Someone's already pointed it out.  Personally I suspect that the interview
was transcribed from a TV report, and that the greeting was indistinct enough
that the transcriber had to guess at what it was...

Until someone has a better suggestion, I plan to delete those two words and
leave the rest as is.


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 02:57:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.095324.30390@davidsys.com> khan@davidsys.com writes:
[stuff that assumes the existances of god deleted]
>You are just a creature of God.

First show that there is a god.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: allison@math.orst.edu (Allison Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Decision '92
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:12:31 GMT

In article <92200.011705U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> <U55870@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.220406.28027@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob
>Strom) says:
>>|> The Bush Meister feels that atheists should not be considered citizens.
>
>  Indeed he does.  I hope he does not get back into office and put these
>beliefs into effect..
>
>>|>
>>|> The Clintonizer, during his acceptance speech, started a paragraph with,
>>|> "One nation, UNDER GOD.  Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>>|> That is what [Clinton's] new covenant is all about."
>
>  I missed the speech, so I can't comment on this.....

I also missed the speech, but somehow I think, considering other statements 
of his, that he would not be anywhere near as twisted as Bush is on the 
issue.  I think I can find a copy of it on the Dan Quayle or Clinton group,
though.  I'll look for it, then see what I can say about the speech.

Allison (I'm still here, but not for long...)
amitchell@macalstr.edu
allison@math.orst.edu



Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:36:08 GMT

 (John Dunkelberg) writes:
> (Graham Matthews) writes:
>>Khan:
>>>You are just a creature of God.
>>Graham:
>>>Do you know what the words "fuck off" mean Khan?
>>Jarek:
>>>That Khan said something Graham didn't like and that Graham is vulgar.
>>Graham:
>>Think again Jarek. In fact think. It may be a new experience.
 
John 
>Graham, you insult Khan for presenting information from his belief,
>shouting about how he is out of line in posting to alt.atheist.
>Yet you make these insults on the net, cluttering the net... and
>contradicting your own implied policy.

I beg to differ, John.  In this particular case, I believe Graham's
actions were entirely justified.  First of all, I believe that,...
>>Khan:
>>>You are just a creature of God.

Is an *extremely* offensive and demeaning thing to say to anyone, let 
alone an athiest who places no credit or blame for his own actions upon
anything other than himself.  (A policy, BTW, with which I heartily
concur).

Second, Khan has repeatedly strays from exposition of belief to 
prosletysing here in alt.ATHEISM, and the gentle hints Graham and others,
(myself included), have given seem to have had no appreciable affect.
Perhaps a more direct approach might be more successful.


[comments about less flame and more thought removed]

Hear hear to the last part.


Gavin --
From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Correction to: "Crusades?  Again??"
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:03:29 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 7402
Subject: Crusades?  Again??  was Re: Why do I post here?
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:58:07 MST

Corrections to my original post, subject above, appear below in { }.
I apologize for any confusion the original post may have caused. -Jim
========================================================================

Before I comment, first a correction.  In your second sentence I'm sure
you meant to quote me as saying "that [it] was NOT real Christians doing
all those horrible things".  You{r} quote does {not} make sense in the
context, nor did I ever hold that the Crusaders were anything but 
tragically misguided.

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:14501 sci.skeptic:13338