HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:00:34 GMT

In article <tarrall.724310136@qso> tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon) writes:
>>From your remarks, can I assume you support mandatory drug tests for
>>all students in public schools and colleges, or even 
>>schools that receive some government grant money? After all, you don't
>>have to attend such a school and if you are going to benefit from
>>government-funded education (by your logic) isn't it reasonable for
>>the government to require that you prove you don't use drugs?

>No, I definitely don't support such drug testing.  First, I'd want them
>to show that a positive result on a drug test means that you have
>caused someone harm (besides yourself) or endangered someone else's
>health or well-being.  A urine test shows only that you consumed the
>drug within a certain time period.

From the discussion of drunk driving, this doesn't seem necessary: All
that is required is that the majority of the voters feel the act
is harmfull. That's why driving with a BAC of 0.04 is legal while one
of 0.05 is not: The majority made an arbitrary decision about the harm done.
If the majority of the people felt drug use was harmfull (for all the
doubtfull reasons argued by the War on Drugs people), would this 
satisfy your objection? If not, how is this different from the
majoritarian decision about drunk driving and BAC levels? (Other, of course,
than logic along the lines of "repression by the majority is ok, as
long as I'm part of the majority...")

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Boulder's character (Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:18:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.030928.641@nugget.rmNUG.ORG> adam@bastille.rmnug.org writes:
>But there are still people who live and work here who are not rich and  
>cannot afford the cost of living in Boulder.   You can't ignore these  
>people because they perform a lot of important jobs - in a sense, adding  
>to the desirability of the city.  At some point the government HAS to step  
>in a level things out.

Exactly what could they do? I hope you aren't suggesting measures such
as rent controls: Having experienced such laws in Berkeley, I can
safely call them a failure. The result there has been far fewer
apartments for rent (since landlords sell out and more elsewhere
where they aren't losing money) and the remaining apartments in
vey poor condition (since the landlords can't recover maintaince
costs from rent.) 
  
>...If you ignore these problems, they don't go away,  
>you just have to pay more to fix them later - witness the current crises  
>in Somalia...

Caused by a civil war between different "governments", each trying
to gain control of the entire nation.

>...inner-city Los Angles, etc.

Cause by police brutality, an action by government agents...

From these examples, I'm not sure the government "doing something"
is such a good idea. Perhaps if we lived in a perfect world, and
the government only did the _right_ things; but we don't
live in such a world.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
Newsgroups: boulder.general
From: tarrall@Colorado.EDU (Captain Neon)
Subject: Re: Drivers here are better than average!
Keywords: under the influence, neighborhood beat cops
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:02:24 GMT

woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:

->>It's easy enough to get alternative transportation (even in Boulder)
>Ever try to catch a bus back to Louisville at 2AM?

So get a taxi.  Yes, it's expensive; so is drinking.

>I would agree with the latter part of this, but I don't think in a supposedly
>free society that you can be "too concerned" about basic civil rights.
> Is it time to drag out Hitler and the Nazis yet? :-)

Sure, let's do that.  Nazis seem to come up whenever anyone in the US
feels that his/her rights are being violated.  Unlike the Nazis, I'm
interested in prosecuting a group of people that are clearly endangering
our lives.  We have scientific proof that alcohol impairs your abilities,
and this is backed up by statistical evidence.  You do not have the *right*
to operate a vehicle on a public road in the state of Colorado without
being subject to sobriety checks.  I'm not trying to take away your rights
here; you never had that right.
Let's look at the two types of sobriety checks that occur:

1) Sobriety checks when you are pulled over for a traffic violation.
You've already violated a law.  There's no reason why the officer shouldn't
suspect alcohol as a (partial or complete) reason for your violation,
and there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to test that suspicion.

2) "Random" roadside sobriety checks.  These seem to be what's really
upsetting you; you're likening these to the police forcing their way
into your house and searching it without a warrant or probable cause
(forced search and seizure, yes?)  However, as you're operating your 
vehicle on a public road, this is a weak analogy.  The officers do not 
(unless you appear to be impaired) ask you to get out of your car, or 
submit to anything more painful than a few minutes of conversation.   
You're worried about losing your right to privacy... but you never did
have the right to privacy on a public road.  You're taking thousands
of people's lives into your hands every time you drive that car.
I'd liken random roadside checks more to a police officer stopping you
on the street and asking you if you have a permit for that shotgun
you're waving around.
						-Robert.-
From: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: This Whole Project
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu
Distribution: austin

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of people making wild guesses  
(and sometimes acusations) about what we (Austin Public Net, Inc) plan on  
doing/not doing.  First thing people should do is READ the proposal, and then  
you can begin to comment on it.  It's absurd to make statements that fly in  
the face of everything that those of us that can speak "officially" for the  
project have specifically denied as being goals. For example:

1. We've never said that it will necessarily be FREE SPIP/PPP, in fact I  
think that would be a "bad thing," as there is much cost associated with  
providing the network links.  I do think however that we can do it for  
substantially less than a commercial service because we only have to survive,  
and we only have to break even.  Even $50-100/month is a LOT less than you  
can get unlimited V.32bis SLIP links for from anyone.  Seems to me that  
people that seem to "need" SLIP to their homes should be willing to help  
invest in the equipment and network services necessary to provide this.

2. I believe I speak for several of us in that we don't see SLIP/PPP as "THE  
SOLUTION" to everyone's problems.  In fact, it's just another solution to  
another problem, and doesn't address the issue of resources and REAL  
connections.  As I've tried to say MANY times, we're trying to connect  
PEOPLE, not machines.  SLIP connects machines, not people.  If those people  
don't talk, then APN isn't doing it's "job" very well.

3.  I believe some service has to be free, but I don't think it's right for  
everyone to expect the they should be handed a silver platter with everything  
they've ever wished for on it.  I would like to propose the following "rate"  
structure to everyone (this is MY proposal, and is not an official statement  
of APN):

	E-mail/UseNet/Gopher/FTP		Free
	Telnet					$5/month
	Shell Account				$10/month
	SLIP Link (V.32bis) non-dedicated	$50/month *
	SLIP Link (V.32bis) dedicated		$100/month **

* This means that usage would be somewhat limited and 24/hr 7/day  
connnections wouldn't be allowed.

** This is a dedicated SLIP link, and the user would have to provide a modem  
to APN for use on our end.  This would cover administrative and phone costs  
of the line.

This is just my comments on a complex issue... comments to me, flames to  
/dev/nul.

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli
| petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu, petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| All opinions are my own, if they even belong to anyone.
From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: January Meeting sign-up
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:42:09 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: austin
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness


	I'm in the process of lining up the location for the Austin Public
Net meeting.  It'll take place sometime from mid- to late-January.
	If you plan on attending, please send an email reply.
Thanks!

Bob
-- 
 == Family values?  Sure, I've got them.  $200 and my family mows your lawn. ==
 ==============================================================================
           HOME: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us  WORK: bobi@vswr.sps.mot.com
 ==============================================================================
From: fmayhar@altair.mpd.tandem.com (Frank Mayhar)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: AUP followup
Date: 10 Dec 92 16:33:18 GMT
Reply-To: fmayhar@mpd.tandem.com
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding here.  Acceptable-use policies on
any network should not be an issue at all.  The Austin Public Net (or whatever
it comes to be called) is a strictly not-for-profit way for a large number of
individuals to connect to the Internet.  These individuals either have no
current access to the net, or they want better access than they get at work (my
case, in fact), nor do they have the $1000/month (or however much) to buy a
decent SLIP/PPP connection from one of the commercial nets.

Get it?  _Individuals_, not businesses.  A business that wants to connect to
the Internet can pay its own way, in my opinion, and subscribe to one of the
commercial providers.  Unfortunately, this is not really an option for the
overwhelming majority of people (in Austin, or anywhere else, for that matter),
since it simply costs too much.

The Austin Public Net, therefore, would be a strictly noncommercial, nonprofit
way for individuals to connect to a resource previously only accessible by
those at large corporations, research labs and educational institutions, at
little or no cost[*].  I certainly think it would be feasible for APN to
explicitly disallow for-profit activities, or in other words, write an
acceptable-use policy to which subscribers must agree prior to connecting.

I urge you, Steve, to reconsider your position, in light of the above.  I'm
sure that if I've gotten anything wrong, Max will correct me, but I don't think
I have.  We are early enough in the planning stages that if this is what we
have to do to get a free/cheap connection, we can do it.

I will forward a copy of this to Catherine Fouls; I don't have Steve's email
address, so I hope he sees this in austin.public-net.



[*] In my opinion, a cost of up to $100+/month for an unlimited, 14.4 Kbps
SLIP/PPP connection would not be unreasonable.  We have discussed staged fees
for various levels of service, with that being the most, and the least service
(a simple login on our host) being free.  Fees would be collected to defray the
cost of providing the service.  I imagine that any excess would be disposed of
by obtaining new hardware or by refunds.  Of course, if everything is provided
by a corporate sponsor and/or by public funds, the service would be entirely
free.  This is the goal of APN, actually, but it may not be entirely realistic
at this time.
-- 
Frank Mayhar  fmayhar@mpd.tandem.com
              Tandem Computers, Inc.  Micro Products Division
              14231 Tandem Blvd., Austin, TX  78728    Phone:  (512) 244-8969
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: AUP followup
Organization: The Fortress of Ultimate Dorkiness
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:32:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.161712.2648@tic.com> jsq@tic.com (John Quarterman) writes:

# So one could view it as marketing for the IP connectivity provider.

This is most disheartening.  Just about the last thought in our minds is to
provide Internet access for nothing (or next to nothing) as an introduction to
much more expensive commercial services.  Instead, I hope that others will see
the model, as we did, and bring about so many low or no cost offerings that
people have a hard time choosing how not to spend their money.  :-)

Bob
-- 
 == Family values?  Sure, I've got them.  $200 and my family mows your lawn. ==
 ==============================================================================
           HOME: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us  WORK: bobi@vswr.sps.mot.com
 ==============================================================================
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
From: jsq@tic.com (John Quarterman)
Subject: Re: AUP followup
Organization: Texas Internet Consulting, Austin
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:01:23 GMT

In article <1gb1rjINNpu8@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
>John Quarterman (jsq@tic.com) wrote:
>
>: However, the Austin Public Net people seem to be talking about a single
>: machine, with users being people who wouldn't pay for their own link anyway.
>: Some of them might later, once they get used to network access.  So one
>: could view it as marketing for the IP connectivity provider.
>
>There is going to be money changing hands somewhere, John - connections
>do cost something

Surely you don't think you're arguing with me about that, Ed.

>: The World is connected through AlterNet.  Cleveland Freenet seems to
>: be connected through OARNET, and the WELL was connected through BARRNet
>: last time I looked.  OARNET and BARRNet are NSFNET regionals.  BARRNet
>: and AlterNet are CIX members.
>
>The World is not just connected through Alternet - it's the local Alternet
>hub site in Boston, and gets some non-zero funding from Alternet activities.
>Not a good example, unless you were looking to construct the "Austin Public
>Net" as a spin-off or affiliate of Sesquinet.

I wasn't looking to do anything.  I'm not directly involved in the
Austin Public Net project.  I'm just kibitzing, like you.

As to what the above are examples of, that's an exercise for the reader.
My point in mentioning them was that this kind of thing has been done
before elsewhere, by various methods.  Seems to have worked.  Prompted
you to post details.  :-)

Thanks,
John

John S. Quarterman
Texas Internet Consulting (TIC)
jsq@tic.com
+1-512-451-6176
fax: +1-512-450-1436
1106 Clayton Lane, Suite 500W
Austin, TX 78723
U.S.A.
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: AUP followup
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:39:49 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

John Quarterman (jsq@tic.com) wrote:

: However, the Austin Public Net people seem to be talking about a single
: machine, with users being people who wouldn't pay for their own link anyway.
: Some of them might later, once they get used to network access.  So one
: could view it as marketing for the IP connectivity provider.

There is going to be money changing hands somewhere, John - connections
do cost something even if it is as little as $1/mo/user (the budget for
running the entire system on 'grex.ann-arbor.mi.us', a local public access
unix system).  What I am hoping will happen in Ann Arbor is that the
grex folks and the other public access conferencing systems in town will
put together enough of a formal structure and enough of a budget for them
to buy an Msen link and hook themselves up.  If you are clever enough
and persistent enough you can get a lot of value out of not too many dollars
worth of gear.

Your IP network provider will either think of you as a source of trouble
or as a valuable asset.  But in any case they will probably want to have
an arm's-length relationship with you as you get started so that your
beginning hassles will not affect their ability to support their existing
paying customers.

: The World is connected through AlterNet.  Cleveland Freenet seems to
: be connected through OARNET, and the WELL was connected through BARRNet
: last time I looked.  OARNET and BARRNet are NSFNET regionals.  BARRNet
: and AlterNet are CIX members.

The World is not just connected through Alternet - it's the local Alternet
hub site in Boston, and gets some non-zero funding from Alternet activities.
Not a good example, unless you were looking to construct the "Austin Public
Net" as a spin-off or affiliate of Sesquinet.

Cleveland Freenet is a Freenet, they are funded by Case Western - tho it's
free to users, there is a sizable pile of public funds that indirectly
subsidized the effort.  Most freenets are under the wing of some university.

The Well has been around for a long time.  Its contract with BARRNet has some
weird clauses in it that force them to put in authorization hooks to every
piece of software that goes out over the BARRnet wire, which has slowed them
down considerably in offering stuff that most "public access internet" sites
think of as normal.  Besides that they have a 6000+ user existing base to
play with and > $200/yr in user fees.

I would think that the reasonable sorts of organizations to look at for 
models or to avoid their mistakes would be RAIN in Oregon, the 'Individual
Net' stuff in Germany, some combination of what's happened in Ann Arbor to
date, what Panix does, what digex does, or perhaps (if you are in the 
loop on public funding) the Colorado Supernet.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 GLOB
From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: Funding a Public Net
Date: 12 Dec 1992 04:53:37 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu


	and given that I never use the bus - hardly contribute to air
	pollution at all, actually, I would like to see one less city bus
	bought, with the money going into electronic commuting instead !!

	just another thought from a memberm of the lunatic fringe.. ;-)
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
From: cat@wixer.cactus.org (Dr. Cat)
Subject: Re: New Service
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:20:01 GMT


   Well, I just logged onto Delphi and telnetted to a MUD in Oklahoma.  Yes,
you can access the service with a local call from Austin.  No, they don't
offer 9600 baud or higher speed access.  It's only 2400.  But at least
there's error correction, if your modem supports it...
From: jc@underg.ucf.org (Mike Herman)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: This Whole Project
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:13:30 CST
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation

I just moved here from Cleveland, OH 
We have the Cleveland freenet and so I find this intresting

I have very little idea HOW the freenet was set  up
but I do know its based at a private college in cleveland
and somehow ANYONE can get an account.

It provides free usenet and internet mail with connections
to many other computers, NOT  telnet,    you can only 
connect to the ones they let you use..
Howevr they are adding more all the time..

I would suggest that the people in charge of this 
austin public net thing get in touch with the 
freenet people and see what can be done.
There are other freenets in other towns that 
were put up with help from the big one....

To find out how to access the freenet via telnet
mail me.....  The acount application process is 
completly online.
YOu also do not need an account to use it, guest logins
are allowed and can read anything.  Accouts are requited
for mail and chat and some other stuff.

I will be glad to answer anymore questions about freenet

JC

reply to the above address or also:
cd374@cleveland.freenet.edu

BTW where can I get a copy of the proposal??
meetings and so forth?

--
jc@underg.ucf.org (Mike Herman)
From: peery@gluttony.tamu.edu (Alan Peery)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: GTE announcement
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:58:15
Organization: /gluttony0/isc/peery/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: gluttony.tamu.edu


Hello all,

    I my most recent telephone bill from GTE I found two fliers that 
might be of interest to austin.public-net.  I haven't called GTE for 
details yet, but GTE seems to be planning modifications of its 
data services.  The terms used were "DS1/DDS" and "Switched Data Service".

    Does anyone know if these line up with the T1 and ISDN?

Alan Peery
peery@gluttony.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: austin.eff
From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Subject: Re:  Chapter Confederation Conference
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:16:18 GMT

 bladex@wixer.cactus.org (David Smith) writes:
||PS: soooo...  is there a public forum where the pros-and-cons for the
||    sites under consideration are (were?) discussed?
|
>There is no public forum o to discuss the Chapters Conference.

	well, I guess in that case it is just as well that the discussion
	take place in this forum then ...

>Jon Lebkowsky is our representative on the steering committee.

	ah!  then Jon might be willing to inform us here about the "official"
	goings on?


||    All "meetings" of "public organizations" ought to be held "in public".
||    [Except] EXTRAORDINARY circumstances [ONLY]
|
> EFF-Austin is not sponsoring the Chapters Conference.  We were invited to
> participate.  If you have a complaint about the way the Chapters Conference
> is being handled, then I suggest that you contact Cliff Figallo (fig@eff.org)

	I don't have "a complaint"; I raised a question and made a statement of
	principle.  I know only rumours about things supposedly bending some
	people out of shape ...


> I don't believe that I've met you, Werner.  Are you a member of EFF-Austin?

	what does that have to do with anything?


> Either way, it's unimportant, but I just realized that you could also ask
> questions about the Chapters Conference (and EFF-Austin) at the Cyberdawg
> next Sunday at Europa books.  That is another option you have.

	and here, I hope.

> Thanks.

	thank you for responding, David.
-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"


Newsgroups: austin.eff
From: jonl@tic.com (Jon Lebkowsky)
Subject: Other Reps
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:56:59 GMT

Two of the potential EFF Chapters have chose representatives for the
Chapters Conference in Atlanta:

this!group (Bay Area): Judi Clarke and Glenn Tenney
NTE (New York): Simona Nass and Alexis Rosen

EFF-Austin has not selected representatives yet. Since there is
no general meeting between now and the Chapters Conference (which
is January 23-24), we encourage EFF-Austin members to use this
newsgroup for discussion. I will take time asap to review some
of the discussions which have taken place between the various
individuals involved in coordinating the meeting and discussing
the issues beforehand.

If there is strong feeling that Directors and Members should have
a face-to-face meeting before the conference, I will discuss the
possibility with the directors of putting something together.
Please make your feelings known here.

Thanks,
Jon Lebkowsky


Newsgroups: austin.eff