HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409)
Subject: Re: One good thing about the EFF mess
Organization: Nowhere, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:20:33 GMT

Anne Harwell (harwell@bandw.panam.edu) wrote:
: The best thing that has come of all this is that it has forced people
: within EFF who ordinarily don't spend too much time on the net to realize
: that there are real people on the other end of the wire. Whether this
: realization will soak through to Berman & Co. as they take up digs in the
: Seat of Power remains to be seen. I am not holding my breath.

: -abh


I couldn't agree more!!!!

Wes
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:12:54 GMT

Here is a brief sketch of what the State of Iowa is currently doing.

The Iowa Communications Network is a network of fiber being laid
to a `point of presence' in each of Iowa's 99 (rather smallish)
counties.  From there, connections will be made to each of the
3 State Universities, the dozen or so Community colleges, and other
interested private colleges.  Then connections are envisioned to
all (~500) public school systems.  Then connections to the state's
public libraries (roughly another 500).  Also connecting will be
various state agencies and interested companies.

While this is an ambitious project for a small (~2M) rural state,
it is, in my opinion, the correct way to bring electronic services
to the people.  The way to build demand in adults for these kinds
of services is through children (both through influencing their
parents and as future adults themselves).  I think the success
of recycling programs is an excellent example of this methodology,
for example.

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson)
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no! 
Distribution: world
Organization: Not much.
Reply-To: tony@morgan.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.18)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:08:00 +0000


In article <palmer.728056910@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov writes:

>tony@morgan.demon.co.uk (Tony Kidson) writes:
>
>>Actually, if you've got to have taxes, VAT is a far better tax than income
>>tax.
>
>Maybe so, but if you noticed, nobody said anything about getting rid of the
>income tax.  In fact, it's going to go up for everyone, and even get more
>"progressive" (i.e., the more wealth you create and the more you contribute
>to society in general, the more the government is going to take what you've
>got).
>

In which case, surely you're firing at the wrong target. Campain for the 
abolition of income tax. I'd be right behind you.

Tony

+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |`morgan' is an 8MB  486/33 Cat-| Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |Warmer with a 670 MB Hard Disk.| E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |It  resides at Morgan Towers in| tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |Beautiful  Down Town  Bromley. | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100  ==*==  DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+=================+===============================+==========================+
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:45:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.172951.602@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>To the contrary, the Cable TV issue proves my point. It is a natural
>monopoly, and through lobbying heretofore they have gotten the regulators to
>accept their argument that they aren't, and thus avoid rate regulation.
>
>Their silly claim is based on that they compete with movies, network TV,
>etc. Just when is the last time you got the latest movie, or CNN, in your
>home via the local Bijou or NBC?


Not yet, but many are planning that, from DBS to the new direct video to
the home venture that AT&T has announced.


-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!
From: david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler) 
Date: 20 Jan 93 13:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.chessler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (David Chessler) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

On 01-18-93 (20:40), Bob Snyder, in a message to All
about: "Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!", stated the following:

BS>David> Those of us who read it on BBSs would appreciate it if individual
  >David> messages could be kept under 100 lines (that is, break up longer
  >David> ones).  Some of the most popular software for reading messages
  >David> offline has a 100 or 150 line limit.

BS>Then complain to the software writer and get it changed?  Offline mail

Who has stopped supporting this software.

  >readers limiting messages to under x number of lines seems a bit inane

Most E-mail is relatively short.  The 150 line limit is not
normally a problem.  I ask my QWK-reader to do a lot of things,
particularly in permitting me to archive certain messages.  Most
readers do not support the way I operate.

I constantly look into updates, but so far have not found any
that works better for my purposes.  And the offline reader I use
is the most popular by a long shot.  Look at the Taglines on BBS
messages.

  >to me; why should the software care how long the message is, once it's
  >on your machine?

You don't write software?  You design software for the expected
use.  At the time RelayMail (one BBS network technology) had a
100 line limit. FIDO (the other technology) has a nominal 32K
limit but some networking software can't actually handle messages
that long, leaving the actual limit indeterminate.

BS>My QWK offline reader seems to handle long messages reasonably
  >well.  Splitti   >messages up is a major pain for those of us
  >who read via Usenet or email.

The messages in question are even now split, usually at about 160
lines (vice 150).  So far, I shell to DOS and capture the end of
the message.  This is most often about 10 lines (on Christopher
Davis or Rita Rouvalis's messages), although it was about 50
lines on one of Marc Rothenburg's messages (which was also
split).  So a bit of attention to message lengths would be no
hardship to those of you on big iron, and a significant
convenience to those of us on itty-bitty machines.

           ...     ..
           ....... ..h.ss...

 * SLMR 2.1b * R/O or Netmail:  Route to ->NETEAST (#132) or 1:109/459
---
 . KMail 2.94  NETWORK East
 * NETWORK East . Rockville, Maryland . 301-738-0000
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  NETEAST (#132) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards
From: md@sco.COM (Michael Davidson)
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:24:09 GMT


jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:

>>From my view what UCB, Joltz, BSDI and others have done has neither
>>advanced the art nor been in the UNIX industries best interest.

>You don't think that UCB has advanced the state of the art of Unix?
>I'm not going to even comment on this, because I can't imagine that
>there's a single other reader of these newsgroups who would agree
>with you.

*cough*

Then I'm afraid you don't have much imagination .... (and perhaps you also
don't read very carefully).

What John *said* was that the parties in question "had not advanced the
art" and what you countered with was the assertion that UCB had "advanced
the state of the art of UNIX". I took John's comment to be referring to
the state of the art of software engineering as a whole, not just to
UNIX (although I think that a case could be made for that point of view
even if the domain under consideration *was* restricted to UNIX).
The fact that you *assumed* that he was just referring to UNIX is,
I suspect, a symptom of the very problem to which he was referring.

(oh, and by the way, I do tend to agree with him on this particular point)

UNIX was and is a great operating system - that's one of the reasons
why it has lasted so long, but it's days are (or should be) numbered
if we are going to amke any real progress. Ironically I believe that
the original designers of UNIX are far more aware of this than some of
it's more recent disciples. There used to be an adage that "real" UNIX
was what ran on Dennis Ritchie's machine - perhaps that's still true ;-)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:04:26 +0000

:From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
:   Anyway, we don't have a *problem*. We *have* free access and
:commercial alternatives and there doesn't seem to be any threat to it.
:NEARnet just went to T3 connectivity and everyone is happy...
:   Unlike the BBS world where civil rights are being threatened left and
:right, and unlike the losses of civil rights internal to various
:organizations.

:  If you are lobbying for university rights, there should be
:university involvement. If you are lobbying for small business rights,
:I don't think what you are working on is a high priority for small
:businesses. If you are lobbying for individual access to the net,
:well, the past few years have seen an explosion of individuals able to
:access the net, and again, high-bandwidth access isn't an issue yet. 

Agreed.  My point about demon's object lesson in what EFF should
be aiming for exactly.

:  I think that what you are doing is only going to benefit a few
:entrepeneurs who are planning to develop high-bandwidth services.
:Entrepeneurs like Mitch Kapor, who says openly "I am trying to make
:the world a better place for other Mitch Kapor's"

:  It may be worth doing but it is NOT A CIVIL LIBERTIES ISSUE and you
:all started the EFF to be a CIVIL LIBERTIES organization. You want to
:play a new game, you really should disband EFF and start a new
:organization.

Summed up beautifully, thanks Betsy.  I'll leave the last word with you
and shut up now unless anything is directed at me personally. I think
I've put all my points and don't think further reiteration will help
until EFF have a long think about their direction.

G
PS What shall we call it?  Electronic Civil Liberties Union?
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: What the State of Iowa is doing while EFF does the D.C. shuffle
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:32:29 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <C1E1xH.Cu@news.iastate.edu>, john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
> It seems to have been not terribbly unwise to have (essentially) all the
> roads owned by the government -- what leads you to believe networks are
> different?  In any event, there hasn't exactly been a flood of companies
> taking the lead...

The funny thing about the Internet even though it owes much of its existance
to the government, it also proves the problems of government planning.
Remember the "official" government networking protocol is OSI.  If you aren't
reading this message via your favorite seven-layer model, and X.400/X.500,
etc you are the proof that the government doesn't always make the best choices.

But the U.S. was able to support multiple different network experiments.  These
range from guerilla networking like UUCP, to the network of big business SNA.
Yes, even the mistakes teach us something.  What makes the Internet work
isn't that the people who created it were that smart, but they knew a good
idea when they saw it and used it.   Even then, government planning didn't
work that well.  As far as I can tell, the government funded planning has
been lousy at predicting how the network is going to be used.  Heck, they
didn't even see the potential of e-mail when the ARPAnet was first funded.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Reply-To: John Perry Barlow <barlow@icecube.pinedale.wy.us>
Organization: Annuit Coeptis
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:26:36 GMT

In article <1jmsoeINN3ft@NYAYA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU> reinitz-john@cs.yale.edu  
(John Reinitz) writes:
> 
> Graham speaks for me as well. John Perry Barlow criticized me
> for forming an opinion based on soundbytes, so I read the
> stuff from eff.org. I have no *clue* what you are actually recommeding
> in the way of legislative action. If I were in Congress, what would
> you lobby *me* to do? And why?

If the body of material we have on eff.org describing Open Platform doesn't  
give you some sense of specific legislative proposals it is because there were  
none at the time much of it was composed. We had to work closely with key  
members of Congress to develop them.

But just this week, during Congressional testimony which we largely directed,  
Ed Markey has adopted Open Platform as his own (see Tuesday's Washington Post).  
He was supported in this by John Sculley, representing the computer industry's  
main political action arm. 

We are now getting to the point where it will be useful to ask you lobby  
Congress on specific points. Before all we could state was the destination and  
the broad strokes of the imagined route. 

  
-- 

*********************************************************
John Perry Barlow		barlow@eff.org
253 West 73rd, #17H		NeXTmail to:
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: More Info To Come on EFF Shortly
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:20:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183004.4392@mr.med.ge.com> kranitz@sol.med.ge.com (Wesley Kranitz  x7-4409) writes:
>Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) wrote:
>: Day One. (In private business, a company may run at a loss while building
>: a market.)
>
>This is a characteristic of Japanese companies and one of the reasons
>they have taken over many American markets. It is NOT a characteristic
>of most american companies who are only concerned with how much profit
>they can make during the current quarter.

You're mistaken. I know of quite a few American startups that did not
generate a profit at first--that, in fact, generated losses that had to be
covered by venture capital, or bonded debt, or some other means.

You're confusing what I was talking about with the very different practice
of selling underpriced goods to kill competition.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: FAX Numbers Needed
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:56:51 GMT
Organization: ASCI

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Pressl <rpress@bizhost.wariat.org> writes:

Richard> Bentsen, Lloyd         TX-S 703 Hart Bldg.     Wash DC 20510  D  202-224-5922

Well, this list is somewhat out of date. :-)

Bob
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Subject: Re: Conflict of interest?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:13:04 GMT

Re: conversation about S 893 and EFF's decision not to get involved.

I've been thinking about this for a while.

I can understand EFF not wanting to get involved with the computer
intellectual property morass.  I have quite a time making up my
mind about the wisdom of such laws myself.

It seems to though that EFF may have had a proper role in lobbying
against harsh penalties for relatively minor infractions.  It's a
question of proportionality.  This new law makes just about everyone
I know into a felon.  Most of them are good people.  It seems absurd.
The law ought not be absurd.  This goes straight to the heart of
"ordered liberty" and a broad conception of civil rights, even if it
does not fit neatly into existing civil libertarian categories.

If I ever firm up these ideas, I'll let you all know.  Right now I
just have a queasy stomach about the whole thing.

EFF could have at least played a better role by publicizing the bill's
existence, without taking any stand at all.  I didn't know about this
until it was over, and I watch this stuff.

-Steve B.

-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
Nothing I say is legal advice.  It can't be.  I don't know anything.
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of UK proposal to licence BBSes?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:38:51 +0000

:Courses of action, so far suggested:

:Go along with it, let them make their list and see what it does for them.

:Write to everyone you can think of, MPs, magazine editors, software
:houses, ELSPA members, FAST, ELSPA putting your views politely.

(I was hit by gremlins twice trying to post this...)

It's not wise to be too detailed in your rebuttals of possible points your
opponents may raise, too early.  Let them put forward some concrete proposal
in writing to the Govt, *then* rip it to shreds for being too draconian etc.
If you point out their suggestions' faults too early they'll end up
proposing something which on the surface seems reasonable and is harder to
argue against, but still manages to chip away at the corners of civil
liberties.

btw, if legislation is ever enacted to oblige registration of modems, BT
and the Govt have equipment that can easily detect that a line is being used
for a modem, and the System X exchanges will show that you get many more
incoming calls than outgoing.  You won't be able to hide.  In fact, if you
do try to hide you may well find someone in blue knocking at your door...

G
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: EFF and its growing pains...
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:03:07 GMT

In article <C174oL.9DI@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>How ridiciculous and completely unrealistic.  I thought your platform
>was about computer literacy and access for everyone, not putting a
>high-speed infrastructure in place for the technological elite to play
>with better and better toys.

Graham, who talked about a "technological elite"? I am wholly uninterested
in providing high-bandwidth services to an elite. The only thing that will
satisfy me is seeing it available to everybody.

> Before you start thinking about folks
>like us finding better ways to burn bandwidth, how about thinking of
>ways to get the masses connected - old big ears and his 'electronic
>town halls' etc.

Why the "Before"? Can't we be concerned with both at the same time?

> The first big step is *years* away and you're kidding
>yourself if you think we're going to skip the text/bulletin-board-like
>environment first.

Who said anything about skipping text? As a writer, I can swear that
nothing is further from my mind than this absurd notion.

And ISDN implementation is only 3-5 years away--practically tomorrow in
infrastructure time.

>Is getting a significant percentage of the US poplation net connected
>one of your priorites?  If so, what percentage?  In how many years?
>If so, how do your current initiatives (like pushing high-bandwidth
>access, and presumably high-cost computers to make good use of it)
>fit into that picture?

Are you saying we must choose *between* promoting access and promoting
infrastructure improvement? Why must we choose between these two goals?

As for the "presumably" high-cost computers, the idea is to create market
pressures that keep connectivity-equipment costs low.

As my questions should indicate, I think you are reading a lot of
unwarranted conclusions into my prior posting.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOOK AT THIS MESS!
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:26:39 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Although it is unfortunate that some people have trouble reading long
messages, it is not practical or fair to expect that the thousands
who aren't hindered by your software's flaws (or antiquities, or
whatever) should limit their abilities to meet yours.

For example, it's unreasonable to think that if you have an old car
that can't go over 30 mph that everyone else should drive slower on
the interstate for your convenience, even if (especially if) your
car is so old/outdated that the manufacturer doesn't even support it.

If this were the case, technology would never progress since the leaders
would always have to conform to the standards of the slowest to change. 
I'm not saying "get an upgrade", but "live with the standards that most
of us can live with, in whichever way is convenient for you."

-- 
 ________________________________________________________________________
|   John      jfw@neuro.duke.edu          Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead   jfw@well.sf.ca.us           Department of Neurobiology     |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:30:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <c14gXB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

   | Right there, right where you say "the file decompresses." If something
   | is executing a program to decompress a file, on my system with no
   | marker, that something is an unwanted intruder on my system. 

   Well then, if you're running an MS-DOS system with shareware,
   you're OVERRUN with unwanted intruders.  What do you think PKLite
   and LZExe are?

They are programs which are *advertised* for the *purpose* of
compression, which I get from a trusted source, and explicitly
authorize to compress my files. These programs compress on a per-file
basis only those files explicitly specified.
   No comparison. THe point isn't whether compression programs are
useful; the point is whether compression viruses should be released.

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....