HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olga@csiatl.Gwinnett.COM (olga from the volga)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.ad
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:06:36 GMT

leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
> > Frankly I don't have any idea what the laws on encryption are, and I'm not
> > sure I believe your dire predictions about lack of due process, and I think
> > its ridiculous for the NSA or anyone else to think that amateurs would
> > be familiar with such legal esoterica.   
> 
> Ever hear the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? It quite literally
> DOES NOT MATTER that you don't know about the existence of a law. If you
> are found in violation of it, you are subject to to the full penalties if
> they choose to impose them. 
> 
> Nailing folks for violating obscure laws is a favorite harassing tactic.
> 
> -- 
> Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
> CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
> FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
> (The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)

Ever hear about intent?  

olga@csiatl.gwinnett
YOW!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:39:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.145532.1027@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
> >From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
> >Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
> >Message-ID: <33rnkq.adamsr@netcom.com>
> >Date: 8 Sep 92 21:54:32 GMT
[...]
> >		AMENDMENT II:
> >	A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> >State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> >infringed.
> >
> >		REALITY II:
> >	This right exists.

You haven't tried to buy a sub-machinegun lately, have you?

How about a 10" shotgun?

This right partially exists for some of the people.

[...]
> >		AMENDMENT VII:
> >	In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
> >twenty dolars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
> >tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United
> >States than according to the rules of common law.
> >
> >		REALITY VII:
> >	Still effectively exists.

Been to tax court lately?  How about traffic court?
Under the Constitution, every person had a right to trial by
jury for anything.  Politicians have created the administrative
court (a clever name for a civil court where the government is 
always the plaintiff OR, if you wish, a criminal court where the
penalty is measured in dollars only).  In either case, the right
to trial by jury has been circumvented by the creation of an
administrative court system.


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,news.admin.policy
From: res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: Little to None
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:21:57 GMT

>However, in the USA it is _illegal_ to send encrypted messages to destinations
>outside the USA ...

Can someone cite a reference to a ruling making it illegal to do this.  I know
exporting encryption technology without authorization is illegal, and I
suspect it may be illegal to use encryption internationally in the commission
of a crime, but I have never heard that it is illegal merely to attempt to
protect your private correspondence from prying eyes.
-- 
Rob Stampfli  rob@colnet.cmhnet.org      The neat thing about standards:
614-864-9377  HAM RADIO: kd8wk@n8jyv.oh  There are so many to choose from.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kenk@sdc.com (Ken Konecki)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:09:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.151948.26335@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> russo@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Thomas Russo) writes:
>          It is currently illegal to import, or assemble from imported
>parts any weapon that a handfull of unelected officials deem to have
>"no legitimate sporting purpose".

It's also illegal to sell fissionable plutonium, so what's your point?

>         Washington DC forbids private ownership of handguns.
>         Residents of Morton Grove, Ill. are forbidden to own
>handguns.

Since the Constitution limits federal powers, Wasington DC and other
cities are acting quite constitutionally by banning guns.

>The RKBA barely exists today, and it is likely it will not exist at
>all in a couple of years, if the gun owners of this country keep
>sitting back and taking the abuse.

Seeing as how the 2nd amendment has failed in its purpose, it should be
left to die a slow, lingering death.

Cheers,
    -Ken K
-- 
Ken Konecki
e-mail:kenk@sdc.com    -or-    ...!uunet!tellab5!sdc!kenk
"I just found out that the brain is like a computer.  If that's true,
then there really aren't any stupid people.  Just people running DOS."
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today (was alt.activism et al: Who's free'er)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.134830.12976@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>>Register as a Libertarian and vote Libertarian    Many states require a 
>>    new party to have x% of the registered voters registered in that 
>>    party to be automatically on the ballot for the next election.  
>>    REGISTER LIBERTARIAN NOW.

>How about people who don't like the Libertartian party's stand on
>property/economic issues?

If you mean, who supports most of the Bill of Rights, but is willing
(even eager) to trample over an individual's property rights? I think
the Democratic party fits this description. (If you also oppose
"big government", then I've afraid you are stuck: Massive and active
government involvement seems to go hand in hand with violating property
rights.)

I hope I misunderstood you, and if so I appologize. But there is something
repugnant to me about supporting only those rights _you_ benifit from.
There is alot to be said for the indivisibility of liberty: In the 
long run, I don't believe it is possible to retain _some_ of your basic
rights, only all or none.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances        
Cc: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:59:25 +0000

Ayn Rand!  What next, L. Ron Hubbard?

Don't say I didn't warn you.  8->

Roger
From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances
Date: 7 Sep 1992 21:57:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: starflight.corp.sun.com

In article 24743@midway.uchicago.edu, tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli) writes:
>	In regards to what language that has already been developed for use
>as a unified human tongue, I assume that you are thinking of Esperanto, which
>is, I can personally vouch, vary easy to learn, very expandable, and very
>flexible.

The reality of trying to introduce a new language and get people to use it is 
that no artificial language like Esperanto or Loglan is going to prevail. The
world language now is English, like it or not, and it would go on to become
true even if the U.S. were to disappear tomorrow.

That doesn't mean we can't change English into something more suitable. We could
still adopt a phonetic alphabet, like Unifon, and start spelling words
phonetically. We could introduce additional words, such as common-gender pronouns,
and rationalize inflections and grammar. But the transition would have to be
gradual and incremental, adding or changing a few things at a time, and allowing
them to become a natural part of the living language.

The opportunity for language reforms lies in the fact that the U.S. and Britain
don't own the language anymore. People everywhere will be contributing changes
to it, which will eventually propagate worldwide. They can push in the direction
of better design.



---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141

Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances        
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 05:26:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead) writes:
: Sorry, Mary.  Didn't mean to sneer.

No problem...I think I came off sharper than I should have...Sorry
: 
: Yes, she can be spellbinding but I don't think she offers answers to real
: problems.

I agree that she doesn't present solutions for many of the problems
that we have today, like pollution for example. I saw her books
on more of a personal level. By working on making myself less
of a leach, and attempting to steer away from people/companies
that practice the leach mentality, I think that I have achieved
quite a bit.

I would say the things that she advocates do supply solutions
for some of the social conditions.

For example, she endows or develops self-confidence in her 
protagonists. This is one thing that is being touted as a
significant step for getting teenagers away from negative and 
destructive peer groups. 
She also advocates thinking for yourself....
: 

--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:22:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead) writes:
: Ayn Rand!  What next, L. Ron Hubbard?
: 
I like Ayn Rand. I'm not sure how she would apply to the future,
although she did predict the current bueracratic mess.
--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances        
Cc: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:31:22 +0000

What an alarming prospect. I think we would be better off finding ways to
resist unnecessary change.  The throw-away culture, as well as being
symptomatic of internal unease, accounts for huge amounts of waste and
pollution. Moreover, it is something imaginable or sustainable (for a while)
only in the richest economies.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances        
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 18:38:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead) writes:
: 
:        I've been married only once (in 22 yrs),
:        have had only one child (who's 14 yrs old),
:        my cars are 3 and 6 yrs old, respectively,
:        my house is 80 yrs old (and I've lived in it 17 yrs)
:        my computers are both 3 yrs old,
:        and I haven't owned a motorbike for 30 yrs.
: 
: Are you saying I can/should change or add to any of those yearly?  8->
No, but there are alot of people that subscribe to the throw away
culture. The more you enjoy change, the more you will find it in
your life. Since changes are happening so rapidly I think that 
a method of adapting to chang would be a good future
advance.

On a related topic, broadcatch, receiving lots of info and having
something sift through it for you would be good. Wouldn't it be
nice to have something screen and prioritize your "news" so you
don't need to spend 1+ hours a day doing this. I think that they 
are working on this at MIT and other places.
: 

--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
From: v187ef4y@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Patrick J Crowe)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Something different from the rest
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>JAL137@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
> For instance "Star Trek" and the civilization it represented was one in which
> humans suddenly became enlightened and rid themselves of sure nuclear threat.
> 
Evidently, this poster hasn't seen some of the episodes in the two series.  It
is mentioned in these that there had been a massive war in our near future (but
their past).  Further on, the poster states that a truly damaging nuclear war
couldn't happen.  The major powers could be trusted not to fight each other in
a big way, and any lesser power would be bombed back to the stone age.  However,
a large-scale retaliation would send massive amounts of radioactive dust into 
the air, raining fallout on the entire hemisphere.  Thus, such a retaliation
would backfire.  It's still a dangerous world we live in.

-Pat Crowe
_Spreading Evil, Pat Crowe's Autobiography_  New York (1927)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances        
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 17:18:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead) writes:
: What an alarming prospect. I think we would be better off finding ways to
: resist unnecessary change.  The throw-away culture, as well as being
: symptomatic of internal unease, accounts for huge amounts of waste and
: pollution. Moreover, it is something imaginable or sustainable (for a while)
: only in the richest economies.
: 
I didn't say that the throw away culture was a good part of 
accelerated change. Sweat shops probably provided work, but weren't
a good result of the factory advance.

But accelerating change IMHO is good, just hard to deal with.
--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Something different from the rest
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 17:24:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

JAL137@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
: For instance "Star Trek" and the civilization it represented was one in which
: humans suddenly became enlightened and rid themselves of sure nuclear threat.

On an aside here... did you ever notice that the people on Star Trek
have a very bland language? No slang. I hope that the color of
our language doesn't go away with enlightenment. I am talking here about 
a diverse set of slang not just sh*t and f**k, more like Hacker's
Dictionary for the teckies.


--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Xref: sparky alt.society.futures:264 rec.arts.startrek.misc:9007
From: jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: Something different from the rest
Followup-To: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Date: 8 Sep 1992 01:54:09 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ozona.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: The world of Star Trek 2400 AD went through its birthing pains..
Keywords: Trek Trekker Trekkie To Trek

Pat Crowe, in message <Bu7t6L.7E2@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:

| > JAL137@psuvm.psu.edu () writes:
|
| > For instance "Star Trek" and the civilization it represented was one
| > in which humans suddenly became enlightened and rid themselves of sure
| > nuclear threat.
|
| Evidently, this poster hasn't seen some of the episodes in the two
| series.  It is mentioned in these that there had been a massive war in
| our near future (but their past). 
|
| [...]
|
|  -Pat Crowe
|  _Spreading Evil, Pat Crowe's Autobiography_  New York (1927)

In fact, according to Star Trek mythology, the Earth went through a
war so intense that it took around 200 years for civilization to
return to pre-war technological and general living standards.  The
conflict was called the Eugenics wars.  Apparently, it had gotten to
the point where one part of the human race was being granted
tremendous powers and advantages through bio-engineering, and the rest
of the world was mired in the same over-populated, under-democratized,
under-producing muck that we see today.  Things blew up.

Or some such.  In any case, Star Trek has always been utopian, but it
has made the appropriate genuflections in the direction of those who
feel a global conflict is much more likely than a peaceful and enlightened
world state.  I suppose I personally feel that after the dust cleared
we would have been back to the roaming bands of barbarians and the
feudal fiefdoms, and all that.

I rather think that the most interesting Star Trek story to be told would
be that of the Eugenics wars, how they came about, and how the rebuilding
took place.  Unfortunately, I don't think such an epic work would fit well
into the framework of novel-of-the-week and episode-of-the-week and
three-hour-movie-of-the-biennum that Star Trek has been operating under.

Anyway, I'm really a igno-StarTrek-weenie, so all of this is probably
quite garbled with reference to the show.

Follow-ups to rec.arts.startrek.misc..
-- 
Jonathan Abbey                                 jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu
the university of texas at austin             "He's cleaning up his systems
computer science/math/psychology               to keep his nature pure" - Rush
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Future Civilization advances
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:54:20 GMT

In article <lacgvpINNf52@spim.mips.com> jackc@vermont.mips.com (Jack Choquette) writes:
>In article <memo.607582@cix.compulink.co.uk>, rwhitehead@cix.compulink.co.uk (Roger Whitehead) writes:

>A new structured unifying language may be one advance.  It would allow
>everyone in the world to communicate through an easy to learn yet very
>versatile and powerful language.  I don't mean english.  There is one
>language that has been developed but I can't remember its name.

The language you are thinking of is Esperanto, but I think it's chances
of catching on as you have described is about as close to zero as you can 
get.  Why do you discount the use on English in this way?  It is already
as close to a universal language as exists, and considering the inertia 
involved in getting people to learn a new language (and translating the
billions of books etc. in existence).  What do you have against English?
 
>|> Then again, you may need to define your terms.  There is some merit in the
>|> line taken by Mohandas K. Gandhi.  When asked his opinion of Western
>|> civilisation, he said he was in favour of it.

>I should define my terms.  A civilization advance can actually be a step
>back for civilization.  Some would argue that the industrial revolution
>was such an "advance" because it caused us to loose touch with living
>with nature.

You obviously know nothing about what "living with nature" is like.
You sound like someone whose only contact with "nature" has been a few
days of vacation.  Believe me, living without the benefits of the
industrial revolution is NOT a vacation (think of it...no good medicines,
no good transportation, one set of stinking clothes for most people, little
reading material beyond the Bible, and so on...it is poverty beyond anything
that exists today.

Given a choice between abject poverty of the kind that existed before the 
industrial revolution and having to drive a few miles to see trees and
birds, would you REALLY have a hard time choosing?

>A civilization "advance" is anything that dramatically changes human 
>civilization.

What an odd definition of "advance"...I suppose you think that WWII was
an "advance" then?
 
>I am asking for references to find the small handful of good SF books, or
>other books, out there that may fit my needs; and I know they are out there.

It sounds like you ought to read Ayn Rand's "Anthem" (and for that matter,
"Atlas Shrugged").

--Brian